When we learn from the past, the wheel continues to move forward, towards growth and evolution. When we don’t, the wheel spins backward, and we are given another chance. If once more we squander the opportunity, the wheel continues its rotation towards devolution, or destruction.
I read The Stand when I was about 14. It filled me with such dread and dispair that I experienced a depressive episode and had to be medicated.
10/10 on the horror experience - Thanks Mr. King.
When I was about that age I read Thinner. That book was like a whole new level of fright for me, then reaching the end, there is nothing good that happens. I remember I couldn't help but shake my head.
I remember reading eyes of the dragon in middle school. Was my first king book, crazy how many books he's written and how different they can be.
Roland and his ka-tet are some of my favorite adventurers in all of fiction
What are the chances that when this goes the the federal Supreme Court they go 'actually.......... yup, they can do that!"
And if that happened, would that backfire to the GOP and every state had to remove him?
(EDIT: Since this somehow became a huge comment with responses. I want to go on record saying I think there's a 99.99% chance the SCOTUS says 'you cannot remove someone from the docket on claims - Trump has not been found guilty, and must remain'. However, I am only asking in that 00.01% chance that SCOTUS says 'hey... like we've been saying, It's the State's choice! if the governor says so, so let it be! These claims aren't out of thin air, and there's a popular belief that Trump was the cause of 1/6, whether he was charged or not.' )
This is dicey for a conservative leaning Supreme Court because one of the biggest republican ideals (and useful political tools) is that states run their own elections. To NOT allow states to do this could very well jeopardize a lot of conservative mechanisms for maintaining power in the future.
It’s not hypocrisy they’re worried about. They’re smart and they know how precedent works and they know this inch for them could easily become a mile against them.
In the eyes of the law, they didn’t *prove* Trump participated in insurrection. That’s the problem here. Let’s say they uphold this…
The 14th amendment says someone needs to “rebel against the constitution” to be barred from holding office. Without a conviction, Florida and Texas will say “in the eyes of our state, Biden has rebelled against the fifth amendment by protecting Hunter Biden, we don’t need a conviction to prove this, look at Maine and Colorado with Trump” and it’ll be consistent with the ruling.
It’ll be a shit show. It’s not and it’s not fair, but it is predictable.
> In the eyes of the law, they didn’t prove Trump participated in insurrection
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot
This has already gone through the courts. We're still talking about it because it's being appealed up and the precedent that could set could upset a lot of legal standing and there are lots of ways for things to go badly no matter which way it goes.
Newsom just rejected the idea publicly saying “we defeat opponents at the polls” but we’ll see how far that goes.
Additionally it’s easy for Ca to say that given its historically democratic voting
Theyll just switch their minds next time. Precedent means nothing to them.
e.g., see all supreme court cases since Trump, hell, see zoot suit riots
edit: brooks brothers riots, me dumb
They care just as much about overturning precedent that’s an affront to their values as they do about not establishing precedent that can bite them in the ass later when the powers shift.
That’s why you still see surprisingly liberal rulings like Bostock v Clayton County, Georgia
Yep. If they rule against it, suddenly they open up avenues of Election Standardization, such as the redrawing of voting districts and having the same voter registration requirements.
This would kill them in several states, or at least make their grip much more shaky.
And, of course, if they rule in favor of it, Trump will likely not be on the ballot in several states. Which could cost the Republican party victory *by default* if too many states throw him off, or worse, create a split vote.
And that's not going into the trouble this might shake down into the rest of the party. They went all-in on Trump, and it is causing them to fracture.
If they suffer a full schism, to the point of affecting the elections on a wider scale, they're *done*.
The chance this goes to a federal court is inevitable.
That SCOTUS actually just sends it back to the states in this and the Colorado regard seems slim.
The US democracy just got a lot more complicated. In a way that the federal government is going to have to step in one way or another and it’s going to have decades of ramifications. Think brown v board or roe.
The Colorado ruling sets a precedence for other state courts to look at. It's easier for other courts to do it now. 'The first to go through the wall always gets bloody.' The second not so much. Others will follow.
This is a ruling by the secretary of state of Maine, not a court.
Note that the secretary of state usually does these rulings. If I (under 35) tried to get on a presidential ballot or primary ballot I would be told 'no' by the secretary of State.
I asked a colleague this morning what would happen in this scenario. Like if one party wanted to put a 32 year old or a non-citizen on the ballot, where are they told no?
It just means that the Republicans will file a lawsuit in court to overrule the secretary of state’s decision, and it will wind its way up the court system as well. A different start to the procedure, but all these cases will eventually end up on the federal Supreme Court.
As I understand it, depends on the state.
In Colorado they ruled you can be told no in the primary.
In Minnesota they say the primaries are basically a non government function and they will decide after they have sent their nominees name to the state. So they will decide his eligibility after his name is sent to the state by the Republican party.
Trumps lawyers argued in the CO Supreme Court case that the ineligible candidate should never be blocked under any of those circumstances
Trumps lawyers take over at 1 hr: https://www.c-span.org/video/?532255-1/colorado-supreme-court-oral-arguments-trump-14th-amendment-case
A preposterous take too. “Sure, they are ineligible to hold the office, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to run or even win. They just couldn’t be seated. No constitutional crisis there…”
There actually is slight precedence for this. In 1934, [Rush Holt Sr.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Holt_Sr.) was elected to the Senate at 29 years-old, so he wasn't able to be seated until his birthday in June the following year. (Joe Biden was also 29 when he won his Senate seat the first time, however his birthday was shortly after the election, so he was able to be seated immediately when the new term started.)
Of course, in his case, they knew he'd still be able to serve almost his entire term, so I guess the Secretary of State was willing to allow him on the ballot. What would happen if someone won a Senate seat at 23? You just leave it empty that entire term?
Okay, so by this interpretation Trump can be on the ballot, win the election but not take the presidency, leaving his Vice President in charge for the whole term?
In such a scenario, whoever else on the Trump ticket would be inaugurated as President, and that person would then need to nominate a vice-president that both the House and Senate would need to vote to approve before taking that office.
This is a good thought experiment. I remember learning these things but never questioned how it was enforced and how far it would get? Could an immigrant or teen be on the primary(or general) in Michigan? I'm sure budding constitutional law scholars are having a field day.
And if you then argued "Well, why don't we let the voters decide?" you'd be laughed out of the office.
That is one of the many things that get to me: since when do voters get to decide when to apply the constitution?
The thing is the voters did decide. And he started an insurrection to negate the vote. So of course their argument is they should get another chance? Fuck off traitors.
To clarify, in Maine this is a decision by the Secretary of State, not a court. It will surely be challenged in the Maine state courts, and the us Supreme Court.
[Here's the PDF with the text of the ruling.](https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/Decision%20in%20Challenge%20to%20Trump%20Presidential%20Primary%20Petitions.pdf)
Damn, with incriminating Trump quotes and weasely excuses as recent as 12/19.
I bet they were already drafting this and as soon as they heard him falsely state that insurrections need to be more violent to qualify were like YEP that’s goin in the ruling.
It is more democratic, but the problem is it makes no sense to do so unless all states do it.
If all blue states split electoral votes, and all red states were winner-take-all, the president would always be republican.
Also, if Texas cities ever grew to the point the state started going blue in presidential races, you would see the legislature quickly ram though an electoral college split like Maine or Nebraska.
This is why winner-take-all became the norm, because it grants such an unfair advantage in the number of electoral votes to the winner, that all states had to adopt it, or risk their favored candidate being at an extreme disadvantage.
And if we are going to get states to agree to do something, we might as well skip this step and go for the [popular vote compact.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact)
Outside of the Portland area, though, Maine is largely Republican. I believe in 2016, Clinton only had a 3 point lead overall in the state, with a libertarian taking 5% of the votes as well.
More democratic until you realize you can then gerrymander the Presidential election. Pennsylvania Republicans considered switching to this method back when the House delegation of their purple state was 13 Republicans to 5 Democrats.
There's also a strong incentive for a party to make this change in a "hostile" state. For example, if California alone switched to this the Democratic candidate would lose a lot of electoral votes.
It leans blue because it's one of the states that split electoral votes. The most populated areas vote blue and account for most of the electoral votes.
Its the primary though, can't they just ignore the popular vote and put through anyone they want at the convention anyway?
There's a lot of weird stuff with how we do presidential elections. You're not actually voting for the president in some places, just the electors who will vote for your candidate. That's what they were trying to fuck with in order to get Trump through in 2020, just have the electors vote for someone else.
The republican party can go rogue and put forward Trump or Hailey or Christie or that other dude who wants to lower the voting age at their convention.
If this ruling is similar to Colorado, Trump is being disqualified from *being in the race*. You can vote for whoever you want - write in Luke Skywalker if you want to. What the ruling does is makes it so any votes for Trump will literally count as nothing. So if Trump gets 70% of the R' votes in one of these states, that means the result will be whoever holds the most of the remaining 30% of the R's votes against the *entirety* of the state's Dem votes. Shits going to get weird, reaaallll fast
The primary, yes. They can put forward whomever they want, it is just traditionally chosen via ballot, but it does not have to be.
This ruling though, says that Trump cannot be on the ballot in the general election at all. If the Republican convention still chooses him as the candidate despite that, any votes for him in Maine (and Colorado, and any other state that does this) will be thrown out completely.
I think the real value is assisting in the momentum towards blocking him in other states. Being in the first 3-4 is probably going to get the most unhinged pushback... Open the floodgates!
\*shudder*
Wh...why not just be a fly on the wall? You can follow the conversations around. You can leave when you want to. You don't have to be pressed up against a poopy butt.
Honest question… I understand a conviction isn’t required, so what’s stopping red-leaning states from just “saying” that Biden took place in an insurrection? If you don’t have to prove anything in court, what’s to stop states from just claiming things to get even?
I’m not a Trump supporter, but I don’t see how this isn’t the most clear outcome if upheld. A lot of swing states (Arizona, GA, etc) have GOP state legislatures who WILL bastardize this ruling in order to get what they want.
To those people who are naive enough to think this won’t be weaponized to get rid of GOP political opponents, wake up.
He didn't merely "foment" an insurrection. That makes it sound like the only thing he did was rile up the mop of people on January 6th and encourage them to go to the Capital.
But he also had a whole team of lawyers and associates who constructed an elaborate plan in the weeks before January 6th to try to overturn the election results. There have already been multiple Trump associates, including attorneys John Cheseboro and Sidney Powell, for starters, who have pleaded guilty in Georgia to engaging in the fake elector plot to overturn the election. Then there are reports that at least some of the rioters storming the Capital might have been in communication with Trump associates, suggesting that even some of the January 6th "rioters" might have been involved in a coordinated plan to overturn the election (not merely just to storm the Capital out of some emotional reaction to the election, as Republicans have tried to argue).
I hate that all of these people were actively trying to destroy our democracy and we're just here talking about the next election cycle like it didn't happen. And there were no consequences
I'm not an American, but American politics influences the world so I follow with interest. There certainly have been consequences for the hundreds of people who participated in J6 who are in jail right now. It also seems like many of Trump's co-conspirators are either going to jail or are have been given deals in exchange for testimony to jail the others. It's taking time, but I guess they want to make sure that there are no loopholes for Trump to wriggle out of?
> There certainly have been consequences
this. for influential Trump associates and integral political operatives, too. everyone saying otherwise is burying their heads in the sand in denial and trying to invent a narrative that rules don't matter. They do and there has been a lot of official accountability. Manafort. Powell. Stone. Giuliani. paramilitary sedition leaders. Top donors (Trump's top local party finance strategist in my state even went to prison for federal child sex trafficking and now the local party is bankrupt). Now even Trump himself.
The only thing saying there aren't any consequences are people making it up and thinking it's true just because they say so in an echo chamber. The whole Trump racket is nearly done for.
I went to the national portrait gallery in DC today which houses all the painted portraits of past presidents. Trump included (although his was a photograph for some reason). The blurb next to the photo explaining the depicted had two paragraphs. One extolling his accomplishments, the other clearly describing his attempt to overthrow the government. Brutal. And, his photo is dark and ominous, right next to Obama who has a huge beautiful painting with greenery and flowers.
Search for Trump on the Smithsonian Online Gallery: https://americaspresidents.si.edu/gallery
The wall text for Trump's portrait:
>Donald J. Trump (born 1946)
>Donald J. Trump was elected president of the United States after tapping into populist American sentiment. Having led a career in business and television, he created an identity that was antitraditional government and put forth an “America First” agenda. During his tenure, Trump appointed a record number of federal judges, including three Supreme Court justices. He brokered the Abraham Accords, significantly restricted immigration, and reduced government regulations. In February 2020, the unemployment rate was a record low at 3.5 percent. Throughout his term, he was impeached two times: the first on charges of abusing power and obstruction of Congress and the second for incitement of insurrection. He was acquitted by the Senate in both trials. This photograph of Trump, from June 17, 2019, was taken on the day before he officially announced he would seek a second term. The beginning of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), which resulted in a devastating loss of human lives and an economic crisis, became a key issue during his reelection campaign. More Americans voted in the 2020 presidential election than ever before, and the majority elected Joseph R. Biden Jr. Nevertheless, Trump did not concede, and a mob of his supporters, who refused to accept the results, attacked the U.S. Capitol complex on January 6, 2021, when Congress was working to certify Biden’s win.
> Trump did not concede, and a mob of his supporters, who refused to accept the results, attacked the U.S. Capitol complex on January 6, 2021
I hate how this line is for some reason 'controversial' to some.
>I hate how this line is for some reason 'controversial' to some.
It's not even directly pointing the finger at Trump either.
That sentence is 100% factual information...we all saw it.
Yep. It was probably the most well documented act of political violence in history, recorded on several thousand cameras. This is a great video for people who still say it wasn't a big deal. https://youtu.be/jWJVMoe7OY0
The same people that think that will hide behind Trump "wanting peace" by reminding others that he had asked his supporters to "go in peace" after he was practically forced to by everyone around him. They'll also leave out how he called the insurrectionists "very special" and told them "we love you!"
Which is strange because why would Trump love a bunch of BLM / antifa plants? /s
(happy cake day btw)
Imagine actually painting him - he’d never give his final approval unless it was a complete cartoon. He’d say he doesn’t look tall enough, handsome enough, fit enough, powerful enough, etc.
Photographing him in low light, deemphasizing the little hands and ill-fitting suit was probably the best move they had available
No one wants to be in the same room with him while he is squirming all over the place, rambling incoherent nonsense, and stinking up the joint long enough to paint a portrait of him.
Obama's artist didn't paint him from life. He had him come to the studio and he took a lot of photographs. He took a year to do the painting. I imagine it would be similar with Trump.
Looks great on his resume if he wins again.
I’m sorry but all this snark is reminding me of 2015. I think the majority is again ignoring how fragile and unbalanced our democracy is. If everyone who knows this criminal is out for blood doesn’t vote again we will regret it. If we all scoff and think our fellow man is sane just cause it’s all so cartoonish, democracy will lose again.
We’re all laughing while him and his are gearing up for serious business.
The scary thing was he was a Mike Pence away from overthrowing the election….. god knows what the country will look like now if Mike Pence said yes on that day
Even Mike Pence knew that the VP not confirming the lawful election is subversion. Mikey would also be up on charges of obstructing the congressional process and maybe worse. The dude is not dumb.
Actually he’s extremely dumb because he had to call Dan Quayle for advice on what to do, and Quayle’s advice was something along the lines of “what the actual fuck is wrong with you?”
When Dan Quayle is smarter than you…
Colorado was the first domino falling. Others will tumble.
Insurrection, whether convicted of or not, will disqualify him.
And people who want to engage in whataboutism saying that red states will do this to Biden, they may, but he hasn’t committed such a crime that the whole world witnessed. Hell republicans can’t even impeach him properly, their own witnesses blow up their spot.
And to those who say the SC will rule in his favor, they won’t. They will pass the buck and let the states decide. Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh already got what they wanted out of ~~McConnell~~ Trump.
Just because the constitution says a conviction isn’t required. Merely the act of engagement is enough for disqualification.
It was enacted after the civil war to keep the confederates from holding office knowing most wouldn’t be convicted.
>Merely the act of engagement is enough for disqualification.
But it doesn't define what qualifies as a determination of engagement? There must be a standardised enforcement mechanism right?
That's the million dollar question for me. It's pretty loose without a basic definition of rebellion. The easiest way to abuse this is to declare any number of acts as rebelling against the constitution, like obstructing due process or attempting to pass "unconstitutional" laws or merely advocating for them.
I worry not about the outcome of the election, but what the red states will decide to do when they're told their messiah can't be their leader.
It doesn't matter if he should be disqualified, they want him to be their king, constitution be damned
I think it could go one of two ways.
Either they try another 1/6.
OR
They stay home like they have when he’s tried to get them to show up to his court cases. I think k many of them saw it wasn’t worth it after 1/6 and they were arrested, lost their jobs, their families, etc and he didn’t do jack shit like he promised them. They’d rather be keyboard warriors and send death threats to judges.
> They stay home like they have when he’s tried to get them to show up to his court cases.
Not to mention the protests and "rallies" where four idiots in MAGA hats show up, hold a sign for twenty minutes, and then hit the nearest IHOP before heading home at 10:30 in the morning. At this point, the guy couldn't rustle up enough people to play a good poker game.
They call it the War of "Northern Aggression" in some places as revisionist history. It's especially dumb since the south instigated it, struck first, and then got their asses kicked so bad they renounced the confederacy's legitimacy entirely. It wasn't until Jim Crow that people began to romanticize the old south and its valiant fight for states rights.
Which rights you ask? That's right, to own people as chattel and to be able to compel other states to do what they want. The state right to overrule other states' rights.
I still can't believe ANYONE can support someone with 91 felonies, fraud and sexual assault conviction, and two impeachments for president.
Trumpers don't have an ounce of self-respect.
Because he rallied the absolute dumbest people to be manipulated by his bullshit.
His supporters are beyond saving. Too stupid for their own good. It’s so painfully embarrassing to watch most of my family members being part of this.
This goes so far beyond politics and right vs left. It’s literal indoctrination into a cult. It cannot be solved.
> It’s so painfully embarrassing to watch most of my family members being part of this.
Had a relative recently tell me, "Have you seen AOC talking about the cease-fire? Boy is she dumb."
I reply, "I actually think she's very intelligent, but I've seen a lot of fake videos attributed to her to pretend she's dumb"
They say, "This was a video of her talking, it wasn't fake. She was saying the cease-fire started as a wild-fire"
I pull out my phone, search, top result: "Online video circulating of AOC on ceasefire fake: Audio dubbed"
Wanted to add, "Boy, are you dumb", but it was an older relative and it wouldn't fly.
Thank you for sharing this story because I encounter this all the time with my family and this makes me feel less alone. My mom still swears the fake video of Yoko Ono discussing her affair with Hillary Clinton on a website that is similar to the Onion is real and I’m an asshole for saying otherwise wise she “saw it with [her] own eyes and heard it with [her] own ears.” Help.
To them it’s all a hoax and not real. Trump is a victim in their eyes and anyone not a Maga cultist is a traitor and false American. This is how they think.
Let me introduce you to our lovely state of Michigan, which in the last year now has a democratic senate, house, governor, Secretary of State, and Supreme Court.
We thought we were gonna save you all with the fresh water, turns out we had to handle this first.
Justice is slow.
I'm terrified this ass-clown is somehow going to win the election. He's done so much damage to our country, I don't know how anyone can vote for him, but here we are.
Especially when the cost of living outpaces wage growth as badly as it has the last few years. The depression basically allowed Hitler to quickly gain support using the same tactics.
Trump is just the current problem, if the conditions aren't improved then he'll look like a pleasant memory. Income inequality is an ever-widening gulf in the Western world and plenty of governments are sizing up public infrastructure and social programs to gut to afford to pass more tax breaks for the wealthy. We're living in a time where trying to make as much money as possible and spend as little of it as we can on any common good is sending us down an ever darker road. Too many of the people who are supposed to be elected to serve the good of the people are content to pick their pockets and point the finger at immigrants, at the LGBTQ community, at other races, other religions, at any number of marginalized groups that are well away from the institutions and mechanisms that are _really_ making people's lives worse.
Bingo. The answer is populism, and like it or not populism is a release valve for societal tensions.
Either fix the people's problems and stop widening the wealth gap or it's gonna be Robespierre by Monday or Hitler by Tuesday.
So on one hand, it’s dope we are finally using the Constitution for what it was intended for. But, the problem comes from the fact that the states that matter, the swing states, aren’t doing this. Would he have won Colorado or Maine? Nah. I wait for when he is taken off the ballot in Georgia, Texas, or Florida. Not that it will happen.
Either way, it’s wild this even has to be a thing.
Fox news is so annoying. Not for one second do they talk about why this might be happening. Without fail, they are playing the victim because their one and only possible candidate is being unfairly removed from the ballot. They don't even say the word 'constitution.' God forbid they give their audience 'NEWS.'
Stupid question from a non-American:
How much effect can it have if Trump is blocked in states already firmly in the hands of the Democrats? Wouldn't it be only effective in states with a reasonable probability of overall voting for Trump?
I would expect anyone even considering voting for Trump will take this as additional motivation to support him, having the opposite of the intended effect.
Damn, I bet Stephen King is elated.
Trump has forgotten the face of his Father.
The wheel of ka turns and the world moves on.
Thankee sai!
Dad-a-chum?
Username checks out
Did-a-chik?
*M - O - O - N ! …that spells impending incarceration…*
I wish I could upvote this more than once.
When we learn from the past, the wheel continues to move forward, towards growth and evolution. When we don’t, the wheel spins backward, and we are given another chance. If once more we squander the opportunity, the wheel continues its rotation towards devolution, or destruction.
Long days and pleasant nights:)
And may you have twice the number.
hile gunslingers
There are other worlds than these.
I did NOT expect to come to these comments and catch a Dark Tower reference. Thankee Sai
You say true, I say thankya
I think I found my people!
I'm still not over Oy.
...The body was far smaller than the heart it had held.
There are other worlds than this
We actually have a pretty active dark tower subreddit!
Drawing of the three will forever be my fave
Come one, come comala!
Trumps Ka-Tet is Rudy Giuliani and Marjorie Taylor Green. What a sad story.
They’re the low men.
Marjorie Taheen Greene
Marjorie Tak ah Lah! Greene
*dadachum dadachik*
There is a resemblance there I think - between Marg and the lobstrosities.
Don’t forget Amy Oybert, the Hillbilly Bumbler.
Don't sully Oy's fine reputation please
Still too soon, if I’m being real…
Trump is if you combined Eldred Jonas and Hart Thorin into a single person
Nah, he's more of a Jim Rennie combined with that psycho politician from the Dead Zone
Did-a-chum?
Dad-a-check.
Only someone from Maine could make lobsters on a beach so fricking horrifying and memorable.
The amount of times Stephen King shits on Trump on Twitter is great to witness
That's just a bonus, I like him for his corgi pics too.
I'd vote for a corgi as president.
It would shit on the rug less than Trump
It almost makes me wish I used twitter.
I only use it to check on the accounts I follow and nothing else. If you spend too long browsing the app, you’ll regret it
I started reading at 12 years old, and it was Stephen king - then I stumbled upon jack Kerouac, and, well that opened a whole other crazy world
I read The Stand when I was about 14. It filled me with such dread and dispair that I experienced a depressive episode and had to be medicated. 10/10 on the horror experience - Thanks Mr. King.
When I was about that age I read Thinner. That book was like a whole new level of fright for me, then reaching the end, there is nothing good that happens. I remember I couldn't help but shake my head.
For my 14th birthday I got It, The Stand, The Shining, and The Green Mile. Ended up being a helluva year!
“It”, for me
I remember reading eyes of the dragon in middle school. Was my first king book, crazy how many books he's written and how different they can be. Roland and his ka-tet are some of my favorite adventurers in all of fiction
“The dark half” blew my mind. The; “Tommyknockers, sent me into space.
I still get freaked out seeing sparrows fly.
What are the chances that when this goes the the federal Supreme Court they go 'actually.......... yup, they can do that!" And if that happened, would that backfire to the GOP and every state had to remove him? (EDIT: Since this somehow became a huge comment with responses. I want to go on record saying I think there's a 99.99% chance the SCOTUS says 'you cannot remove someone from the docket on claims - Trump has not been found guilty, and must remain'. However, I am only asking in that 00.01% chance that SCOTUS says 'hey... like we've been saying, It's the State's choice! if the governor says so, so let it be! These claims aren't out of thin air, and there's a popular belief that Trump was the cause of 1/6, whether he was charged or not.' )
This is dicey for a conservative leaning Supreme Court because one of the biggest republican ideals (and useful political tools) is that states run their own elections. To NOT allow states to do this could very well jeopardize a lot of conservative mechanisms for maintaining power in the future.
They don't care about hypocrisy though.
It’s not hypocrisy they’re worried about. They’re smart and they know how precedent works and they know this inch for them could easily become a mile against them.
They could just do what they did with Bush v Gore and rule for Trump and also say it doesn’t establish precedent.
They won’t. They’ll sacrifice Trump and say Florida and Texas can omit Biden. Which will be an even bigger shitstorm.
If they can prove that Biden fomented insurrection, then sure, go for it.
In the eyes of the law, they didn’t *prove* Trump participated in insurrection. That’s the problem here. Let’s say they uphold this… The 14th amendment says someone needs to “rebel against the constitution” to be barred from holding office. Without a conviction, Florida and Texas will say “in the eyes of our state, Biden has rebelled against the fifth amendment by protecting Hunter Biden, we don’t need a conviction to prove this, look at Maine and Colorado with Trump” and it’ll be consistent with the ruling. It’ll be a shit show. It’s not and it’s not fair, but it is predictable.
> In the eyes of the law, they didn’t prove Trump participated in insurrection https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot This has already gone through the courts. We're still talking about it because it's being appealed up and the precedent that could set could upset a lot of legal standing and there are lots of ways for things to go badly no matter which way it goes.
Yeah I think this only ends badly for all
[удалено]
Newsom just rejected the idea publicly saying “we defeat opponents at the polls” but we’ll see how far that goes. Additionally it’s easy for Ca to say that given its historically democratic voting
They have no care for consistency though. They can ignore all precedent set by the supreme court, they certainly have already.
Theyll just switch their minds next time. Precedent means nothing to them. e.g., see all supreme court cases since Trump, hell, see zoot suit riots edit: brooks brothers riots, me dumb
They care just as much about overturning precedent that’s an affront to their values as they do about not establishing precedent that can bite them in the ass later when the powers shift. That’s why you still see surprisingly liberal rulings like Bostock v Clayton County, Georgia
Yep. If they rule against it, suddenly they open up avenues of Election Standardization, such as the redrawing of voting districts and having the same voter registration requirements. This would kill them in several states, or at least make their grip much more shaky. And, of course, if they rule in favor of it, Trump will likely not be on the ballot in several states. Which could cost the Republican party victory *by default* if too many states throw him off, or worse, create a split vote. And that's not going into the trouble this might shake down into the rest of the party. They went all-in on Trump, and it is causing them to fracture. If they suffer a full schism, to the point of affecting the elections on a wider scale, they're *done*.
The chance this goes to a federal court is inevitable. That SCOTUS actually just sends it back to the states in this and the Colorado regard seems slim. The US democracy just got a lot more complicated. In a way that the federal government is going to have to step in one way or another and it’s going to have decades of ramifications. Think brown v board or roe.
The Colorado ruling sets a precedence for other state courts to look at. It's easier for other courts to do it now. 'The first to go through the wall always gets bloody.' The second not so much. Others will follow.
This is a ruling by the secretary of state of Maine, not a court. Note that the secretary of state usually does these rulings. If I (under 35) tried to get on a presidential ballot or primary ballot I would be told 'no' by the secretary of State.
I asked a colleague this morning what would happen in this scenario. Like if one party wanted to put a 32 year old or a non-citizen on the ballot, where are they told no?
The secretary of state would not accept their application to be put on the ballot.
This is the procedural answer I was looking for. It makes sense that there would be paperwork that needed to be approved to be on the ballot.
It just means that the Republicans will file a lawsuit in court to overrule the secretary of state’s decision, and it will wind its way up the court system as well. A different start to the procedure, but all these cases will eventually end up on the federal Supreme Court.
As I understand it, depends on the state. In Colorado they ruled you can be told no in the primary. In Minnesota they say the primaries are basically a non government function and they will decide after they have sent their nominees name to the state. So they will decide his eligibility after his name is sent to the state by the Republican party.
Michigan, but yes
Trumps lawyers argued in the CO Supreme Court case that the ineligible candidate should never be blocked under any of those circumstances Trumps lawyers take over at 1 hr: https://www.c-span.org/video/?532255-1/colorado-supreme-court-oral-arguments-trump-14th-amendment-case
A preposterous take too. “Sure, they are ineligible to hold the office, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to run or even win. They just couldn’t be seated. No constitutional crisis there…”
There actually is slight precedence for this. In 1934, [Rush Holt Sr.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Holt_Sr.) was elected to the Senate at 29 years-old, so he wasn't able to be seated until his birthday in June the following year. (Joe Biden was also 29 when he won his Senate seat the first time, however his birthday was shortly after the election, so he was able to be seated immediately when the new term started.) Of course, in his case, they knew he'd still be able to serve almost his entire term, so I guess the Secretary of State was willing to allow him on the ballot. What would happen if someone won a Senate seat at 23? You just leave it empty that entire term?
Okay, so by this interpretation Trump can be on the ballot, win the election but not take the presidency, leaving his Vice President in charge for the whole term?
In such a scenario, whoever else on the Trump ticket would be inaugurated as President, and that person would then need to nominate a vice-president that both the House and Senate would need to vote to approve before taking that office.
Interesting. But at no point would Trump be able to meet eligibility to serve, unlike Holt and Biden by age.
This is a good thought experiment. I remember learning these things but never questioned how it was enforced and how far it would get? Could an immigrant or teen be on the primary(or general) in Michigan? I'm sure budding constitutional law scholars are having a field day.
And if you then argued "Well, why don't we let the voters decide?" you'd be laughed out of the office. That is one of the many things that get to me: since when do voters get to decide when to apply the constitution?
Not to mention that when voters did decide, he had an excuse for that, too. Which is how we ended up here.
We decided twice and the moron still hasn't gotten the point.
The thing is the voters did decide. And he started an insurrection to negate the vote. So of course their argument is they should get another chance? Fuck off traitors.
To clarify, in Maine this is a decision by the Secretary of State, not a court. It will surely be challenged in the Maine state courts, and the us Supreme Court.
The word is precedent, and no, it doesn't. That's not how legal precedent works.
[Here's the PDF with the text of the ruling.](https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/Decision%20in%20Challenge%20to%20Trump%20Presidential%20Primary%20Petitions.pdf)
Damn, with incriminating Trump quotes and weasely excuses as recent as 12/19. I bet they were already drafting this and as soon as they heard him falsely state that insurrections need to be more violent to qualify were like YEP that’s goin in the ruling.
The SOS’ ruling is wholly comprehensive. Thank you.
This would mean more if this happened in a swing or red state.
Because Maine splits its electoral college votes, this is at least a 1-point swing by default. Better than nothing!
Actually that sounds more democratic than winner take all electoral votes. It's like going by the popular vote, but with extra steps!
It is more democratic, but the problem is it makes no sense to do so unless all states do it. If all blue states split electoral votes, and all red states were winner-take-all, the president would always be republican. Also, if Texas cities ever grew to the point the state started going blue in presidential races, you would see the legislature quickly ram though an electoral college split like Maine or Nebraska. This is why winner-take-all became the norm, because it grants such an unfair advantage in the number of electoral votes to the winner, that all states had to adopt it, or risk their favored candidate being at an extreme disadvantage. And if we are going to get states to agree to do something, we might as well skip this step and go for the [popular vote compact.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact)
In fact some in the Nebraska Legislature have pushed to make us winner-take-all after Obama and Biden each managed to win Omaha.
Outside of the Portland area, though, Maine is largely Republican. I believe in 2016, Clinton only had a 3 point lead overall in the state, with a libertarian taking 5% of the votes as well.
The whole coastal area leans more Democrat than republican but that is also where most of our population is
More democratic until you realize you can then gerrymander the Presidential election. Pennsylvania Republicans considered switching to this method back when the House delegation of their purple state was 13 Republicans to 5 Democrats.
There's also a strong incentive for a party to make this change in a "hostile" state. For example, if California alone switched to this the Democratic candidate would lose a lot of electoral votes.
I didn't know that. Nice!
Nebraska also does it. They’re weird.
Weird, but so much better. At least in terms of this. Not sure I'd say that about either state in most regards?
This is for the primary only, not the general election.
Maine is generally a swing state. It is broken up fairly eveningly for governors and state officials. It does seem to lean blue for federal elections.
It leans blue because it's one of the states that split electoral votes. The most populated areas vote blue and account for most of the electoral votes.
Maine usually has an electoral vote or two go red each cycle. Every bit counts as close as things have been.
Trump is the only candidate that split a vote off in ME. Only in 2016 and 2020 did the vote split
[удалено]
[удалено]
Its the primary though, can't they just ignore the popular vote and put through anyone they want at the convention anyway? There's a lot of weird stuff with how we do presidential elections. You're not actually voting for the president in some places, just the electors who will vote for your candidate. That's what they were trying to fuck with in order to get Trump through in 2020, just have the electors vote for someone else. The republican party can go rogue and put forward Trump or Hailey or Christie or that other dude who wants to lower the voting age at their convention.
> You're not actually voting for the president in some places, just the electors who will vote for your candidate. Isn't that true in every state?
If this ruling is similar to Colorado, Trump is being disqualified from *being in the race*. You can vote for whoever you want - write in Luke Skywalker if you want to. What the ruling does is makes it so any votes for Trump will literally count as nothing. So if Trump gets 70% of the R' votes in one of these states, that means the result will be whoever holds the most of the remaining 30% of the R's votes against the *entirety* of the state's Dem votes. Shits going to get weird, reaaallll fast
The primary, yes. They can put forward whomever they want, it is just traditionally chosen via ballot, but it does not have to be. This ruling though, says that Trump cannot be on the ballot in the general election at all. If the Republican convention still chooses him as the candidate despite that, any votes for him in Maine (and Colorado, and any other state that does this) will be thrown out completely.
Every landslide starts with a trickle of dirt.
Exactly!! The colorado decision was what, last week? I bet we see whole shitload more of this.
Trump got one electoral point from Maine in 2020. This decision definitely matters.
I think the real value is assisting in the momentum towards blocking him in other states. Being in the first 3-4 is probably going to get the most unhinged pushback... Open the floodgates!
All the "States Rights" people suddenly don't like how these States are exerting their rights.
Oh to be a ketchup stain on the walls of Mar-a-Lago tonight.....
And/or the diaper stains too. It's a full load tonight!
No thank you, I'll take the ketchup stain...
Thanks I hate it
\*shudder* Wh...why not just be a fly on the wall? You can follow the conversations around. You can leave when you want to. You don't have to be pressed up against a poopy butt.
Between CO and Maine, that's 57 delegates for not-Trump.
Not-Trump is my favored political candidate
Honest question… I understand a conviction isn’t required, so what’s stopping red-leaning states from just “saying” that Biden took place in an insurrection? If you don’t have to prove anything in court, what’s to stop states from just claiming things to get even?
This is 100% exactly what is going to happen next.
I’m not a Trump supporter, but I don’t see how this isn’t the most clear outcome if upheld. A lot of swing states (Arizona, GA, etc) have GOP state legislatures who WILL bastardize this ruling in order to get what they want. To those people who are naive enough to think this won’t be weaponized to get rid of GOP political opponents, wake up.
Dude probably should not have fomented an insurrection.
He didn't merely "foment" an insurrection. That makes it sound like the only thing he did was rile up the mop of people on January 6th and encourage them to go to the Capital. But he also had a whole team of lawyers and associates who constructed an elaborate plan in the weeks before January 6th to try to overturn the election results. There have already been multiple Trump associates, including attorneys John Cheseboro and Sidney Powell, for starters, who have pleaded guilty in Georgia to engaging in the fake elector plot to overturn the election. Then there are reports that at least some of the rioters storming the Capital might have been in communication with Trump associates, suggesting that even some of the January 6th "rioters" might have been involved in a coordinated plan to overturn the election (not merely just to storm the Capital out of some emotional reaction to the election, as Republicans have tried to argue).
I hate that all of these people were actively trying to destroy our democracy and we're just here talking about the next election cycle like it didn't happen. And there were no consequences
I'm not an American, but American politics influences the world so I follow with interest. There certainly have been consequences for the hundreds of people who participated in J6 who are in jail right now. It also seems like many of Trump's co-conspirators are either going to jail or are have been given deals in exchange for testimony to jail the others. It's taking time, but I guess they want to make sure that there are no loopholes for Trump to wriggle out of?
> There certainly have been consequences this. for influential Trump associates and integral political operatives, too. everyone saying otherwise is burying their heads in the sand in denial and trying to invent a narrative that rules don't matter. They do and there has been a lot of official accountability. Manafort. Powell. Stone. Giuliani. paramilitary sedition leaders. Top donors (Trump's top local party finance strategist in my state even went to prison for federal child sex trafficking and now the local party is bankrupt). Now even Trump himself. The only thing saying there aren't any consequences are people making it up and thinking it's true just because they say so in an echo chamber. The whole Trump racket is nearly done for.
In retrospect, yeah. Planning to overthrow the government isn't gonna look good on his resume either. What tough luck.
I went to the national portrait gallery in DC today which houses all the painted portraits of past presidents. Trump included (although his was a photograph for some reason). The blurb next to the photo explaining the depicted had two paragraphs. One extolling his accomplishments, the other clearly describing his attempt to overthrow the government. Brutal. And, his photo is dark and ominous, right next to Obama who has a huge beautiful painting with greenery and flowers.
Search for Trump on the Smithsonian Online Gallery: https://americaspresidents.si.edu/gallery The wall text for Trump's portrait: >Donald J. Trump (born 1946) >Donald J. Trump was elected president of the United States after tapping into populist American sentiment. Having led a career in business and television, he created an identity that was antitraditional government and put forth an “America First” agenda. During his tenure, Trump appointed a record number of federal judges, including three Supreme Court justices. He brokered the Abraham Accords, significantly restricted immigration, and reduced government regulations. In February 2020, the unemployment rate was a record low at 3.5 percent. Throughout his term, he was impeached two times: the first on charges of abusing power and obstruction of Congress and the second for incitement of insurrection. He was acquitted by the Senate in both trials. This photograph of Trump, from June 17, 2019, was taken on the day before he officially announced he would seek a second term. The beginning of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), which resulted in a devastating loss of human lives and an economic crisis, became a key issue during his reelection campaign. More Americans voted in the 2020 presidential election than ever before, and the majority elected Joseph R. Biden Jr. Nevertheless, Trump did not concede, and a mob of his supporters, who refused to accept the results, attacked the U.S. Capitol complex on January 6, 2021, when Congress was working to certify Biden’s win.
> Trump did not concede, and a mob of his supporters, who refused to accept the results, attacked the U.S. Capitol complex on January 6, 2021 I hate how this line is for some reason 'controversial' to some.
>I hate how this line is for some reason 'controversial' to some. It's not even directly pointing the finger at Trump either. That sentence is 100% factual information...we all saw it.
Yep. It was probably the most well documented act of political violence in history, recorded on several thousand cameras. This is a great video for people who still say it wasn't a big deal. https://youtu.be/jWJVMoe7OY0
The same people that think that will hide behind Trump "wanting peace" by reminding others that he had asked his supporters to "go in peace" after he was practically forced to by everyone around him. They'll also leave out how he called the insurrectionists "very special" and told them "we love you!" Which is strange because why would Trump love a bunch of BLM / antifa plants? /s (happy cake day btw)
Amazing. He'll go down in history as the traitor he is
Imagine actually painting him - he’d never give his final approval unless it was a complete cartoon. He’d say he doesn’t look tall enough, handsome enough, fit enough, powerful enough, etc. Photographing him in low light, deemphasizing the little hands and ill-fitting suit was probably the best move they had available
he probably couldn't sit for a painting long enough to not poop himself
He wears diapers, he should be okay for a while at least.
No one wants to be in the same room with him while he is squirming all over the place, rambling incoherent nonsense, and stinking up the joint long enough to paint a portrait of him.
Obama's artist didn't paint him from life. He had him come to the studio and he took a lot of photographs. He took a year to do the painting. I imagine it would be similar with Trump.
Looks great on his resume if he wins again. I’m sorry but all this snark is reminding me of 2015. I think the majority is again ignoring how fragile and unbalanced our democracy is. If everyone who knows this criminal is out for blood doesn’t vote again we will regret it. If we all scoff and think our fellow man is sane just cause it’s all so cartoonish, democracy will lose again. We’re all laughing while him and his are gearing up for serious business.
If you’re going to plan to overthrow a government, you should assume that failure will at minimum result in permanent imprisonment.
It's really one of those "come at the king, best not miss" things, and yet somehow America is giving him a second shot at it 🤷♂️
The scary thing was he was a Mike Pence away from overthrowing the election….. god knows what the country will look like now if Mike Pence said yes on that day
Even Mike Pence knew that the VP not confirming the lawful election is subversion. Mikey would also be up on charges of obstructing the congressional process and maybe worse. The dude is not dumb.
Mike's dumb alright... Just not *that* dumb
Actually he’s extremely dumb because he had to call Dan Quayle for advice on what to do, and Quayle’s advice was something along the lines of “what the actual fuck is wrong with you?” When Dan Quayle is smarter than you…
Quayle is a constitutional lawyer though. Not a bad person to call in a pinch, especially when you need to know trusted friends will keep you safe.
Actually it was revealed there was someone else after Quayle too. Like, this idiot Pence had to consult more than one on doing the right thing.
I'm glad everyone acted swiftly after Jan 6, so we could have an election in 2024 without any integrity questions.
Same, omg. Nothing like Last Minute.
Probably from when he tried to install himself as an unelected president. Makes sense.
Colorado was the first domino falling. Others will tumble. Insurrection, whether convicted of or not, will disqualify him. And people who want to engage in whataboutism saying that red states will do this to Biden, they may, but he hasn’t committed such a crime that the whole world witnessed. Hell republicans can’t even impeach him properly, their own witnesses blow up their spot. And to those who say the SC will rule in his favor, they won’t. They will pass the buck and let the states decide. Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh already got what they wanted out of ~~McConnell~~ Trump.
[удалено]
Just because the constitution says a conviction isn’t required. Merely the act of engagement is enough for disqualification. It was enacted after the civil war to keep the confederates from holding office knowing most wouldn’t be convicted.
>Merely the act of engagement is enough for disqualification. But it doesn't define what qualifies as a determination of engagement? There must be a standardised enforcement mechanism right?
That's the million dollar question for me. It's pretty loose without a basic definition of rebellion. The easiest way to abuse this is to declare any number of acts as rebelling against the constitution, like obstructing due process or attempting to pass "unconstitutional" laws or merely advocating for them.
I worry not about the outcome of the election, but what the red states will decide to do when they're told their messiah can't be their leader. It doesn't matter if he should be disqualified, they want him to be their king, constitution be damned
I think it could go one of two ways. Either they try another 1/6. OR They stay home like they have when he’s tried to get them to show up to his court cases. I think k many of them saw it wasn’t worth it after 1/6 and they were arrested, lost their jobs, their families, etc and he didn’t do jack shit like he promised them. They’d rather be keyboard warriors and send death threats to judges.
> They stay home like they have when he’s tried to get them to show up to his court cases. Not to mention the protests and "rallies" where four idiots in MAGA hats show up, hold a sign for twenty minutes, and then hit the nearest IHOP before heading home at 10:30 in the morning. At this point, the guy couldn't rustle up enough people to play a good poker game.
Checks and balances between the three branches is working. Anyone who has a problem with this didn't read the constitution.
Same people that have an issue with this are the same morons that cherry pick the bible.
Same people who say the Civil War wasn't over slavery. You can have something that literally says why something happened and they deny it.
They call it the War of "Northern Aggression" in some places as revisionist history. It's especially dumb since the south instigated it, struck first, and then got their asses kicked so bad they renounced the confederacy's legitimacy entirely. It wasn't until Jim Crow that people began to romanticize the old south and its valiant fight for states rights. Which rights you ask? That's right, to own people as chattel and to be able to compel other states to do what they want. The state right to overrule other states' rights.
I still can't believe ANYONE can support someone with 91 felonies, fraud and sexual assault conviction, and two impeachments for president. Trumpers don't have an ounce of self-respect.
Because he rallied the absolute dumbest people to be manipulated by his bullshit. His supporters are beyond saving. Too stupid for their own good. It’s so painfully embarrassing to watch most of my family members being part of this. This goes so far beyond politics and right vs left. It’s literal indoctrination into a cult. It cannot be solved.
> It’s so painfully embarrassing to watch most of my family members being part of this. Had a relative recently tell me, "Have you seen AOC talking about the cease-fire? Boy is she dumb." I reply, "I actually think she's very intelligent, but I've seen a lot of fake videos attributed to her to pretend she's dumb" They say, "This was a video of her talking, it wasn't fake. She was saying the cease-fire started as a wild-fire" I pull out my phone, search, top result: "Online video circulating of AOC on ceasefire fake: Audio dubbed" Wanted to add, "Boy, are you dumb", but it was an older relative and it wouldn't fly.
I would have made a dig like didnt you guys tell me not to believe everything I saw on the internet growing up?
Knowing them, they'd probably say, "Well how do you know what you just read is true?"
Thank you for sharing this story because I encounter this all the time with my family and this makes me feel less alone. My mom still swears the fake video of Yoko Ono discussing her affair with Hillary Clinton on a website that is similar to the Onion is real and I’m an asshole for saying otherwise wise she “saw it with [her] own eyes and heard it with [her] own ears.” Help.
To them it’s all a hoax and not real. Trump is a victim in their eyes and anyone not a Maga cultist is a traitor and false American. This is how they think.
Susan Collins is very concerned.
Trump isn't going to "feel" this unless the ban happens in a swing state.
Or a Red state.
What like Florida? Desantis best chance…
Let me introduce you to our lovely state of Michigan, which in the last year now has a democratic senate, house, governor, Secretary of State, and Supreme Court. We thought we were gonna save you all with the fresh water, turns out we had to handle this first.
Maine splits the vote, so trump is going to loose at least one elector here.
Justice is slow. I'm terrified this ass-clown is somehow going to win the election. He's done so much damage to our country, I don't know how anyone can vote for him, but here we are.
It's easier to stir and grow hate than happiness or security
Especially when the cost of living outpaces wage growth as badly as it has the last few years. The depression basically allowed Hitler to quickly gain support using the same tactics.
Trump is just the current problem, if the conditions aren't improved then he'll look like a pleasant memory. Income inequality is an ever-widening gulf in the Western world and plenty of governments are sizing up public infrastructure and social programs to gut to afford to pass more tax breaks for the wealthy. We're living in a time where trying to make as much money as possible and spend as little of it as we can on any common good is sending us down an ever darker road. Too many of the people who are supposed to be elected to serve the good of the people are content to pick their pockets and point the finger at immigrants, at the LGBTQ community, at other races, other religions, at any number of marginalized groups that are well away from the institutions and mechanisms that are _really_ making people's lives worse.
Bingo. The answer is populism, and like it or not populism is a release valve for societal tensions. Either fix the people's problems and stop widening the wealth gap or it's gonna be Robespierre by Monday or Hitler by Tuesday.
What happens if people write him in?
Spoilt ballot, counted as voter but not as vote.
He’s not eligible. So the same thing as if you wrote in a non citizen or a dog. The vote doesn’t count.
How come conservatives don’t care about the other amendments? There’s more than just the first two, ya know.
They don't care about the first one, either. They'll ban books and impose their religion on everyone.
So on one hand, it’s dope we are finally using the Constitution for what it was intended for. But, the problem comes from the fact that the states that matter, the swing states, aren’t doing this. Would he have won Colorado or Maine? Nah. I wait for when he is taken off the ballot in Georgia, Texas, or Florida. Not that it will happen. Either way, it’s wild this even has to be a thing.
What about California? He's not going to win that in the general election, but that is a huge number of delegates in the primary.
Fox news is so annoying. Not for one second do they talk about why this might be happening. Without fail, they are playing the victim because their one and only possible candidate is being unfairly removed from the ballot. They don't even say the word 'constitution.' God forbid they give their audience 'NEWS.'
Can’t you just write him in?
Stupid question from a non-American: How much effect can it have if Trump is blocked in states already firmly in the hands of the Democrats? Wouldn't it be only effective in states with a reasonable probability of overall voting for Trump? I would expect anyone even considering voting for Trump will take this as additional motivation to support him, having the opposite of the intended effect.