2024 Presidential Election thread

[CMRivdogs]

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

We’re talking hypotheticals because if SCOTUS upholds this MAGA members in red states are going to claim this as evidence against Biden and get him removed.  In no way and I trying to make an equivalency in the argument, but if Alabama says democrats were responsible for BLM, it’s over for Biden too

But Biden is President so theoretically he can pardon himself 

[Tiger337]

Another small sample size, but another great poll for Haley in NH:

https://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2024/rep/nhrep.html  

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

Another small sample size, but another great poll for Haley in NH:

https://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2024/rep/nhrep.html  

If Trump loses NH the following week will the most fun we've had in US politics for a long time. 

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Another small sample size, but another great poll for Haley in NH:

https://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2024/rep/nhrep.html  

And terrible news for DeSantis. I'm so broken up.....

WaPo reporting that the big DeSantis super pac is pulling ad buys in IA and NH. LOL - the excuse is to 'laser focus on the 'ground game' ." 

It Ross Perot were still around he'd say that giant sucking sound you hear is the DeSantis campaign swirling into the void.

[Sports_Freak]

7 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

If Trump loses NH the following week will the most fun we've had in US politics for a long time. 

If Trump ever loses at anything, it's because it was rigged and was election interference.

[Edman85]

Visiting family in Detroit area and they had the Channel 4 news on. The weekend weatherman sounds like DeSantis.

[pfife]

On 12/22/2023 at 6:38 PM, CMRivdogs said:

But Biden is President so theoretically he can pardon himself 

if he's president he has presidential immunity 

[oblong]

4 hours ago, Edman85 said:

Visiting family in Detroit area and they had the Channel 4 news on. The weekend weatherman sounds like DeSantis.

For local Fox 2 is the place to go.  Stephanie and Kelly Rowe. 

[chasfh]

On 12/22/2023 at 3:46 PM, Sports_Freak said:

So, indict Joe Biden. We’ll see how far it gets with zero evidence. And in the meantime, Trump is doing everything in his power to delay his trials, hoping he wins so he can pardon himself. He's not so much running to be POTUS, he's running to stay outta prison.

This sounds good on paper, but remember, they’re not counting on a conviction as much as they are the presumption of guilt in the court of public opinion that would happen with an indictment.

[Tiger337]

9 hours ago, chasfh said:

This sounds good on paper, but remember, they’re not counting on a conviction as much as they are the presumption of guilt in the court of public opinion that would happen with an indictment.

A Biden indictment will influence the same number of people as the Trump indictment.  A very small number.  

[ewsieg]

On 12/22/2023 at 4:46 PM, Sports_Freak said:

So, indict Joe Biden. Well see how far it gets with zero evidence. And in the meantime, Trump is doing everything in his power to delay his trials, hoping he wins so he can pardon himself. He's not so much running to be POTUS, he's running to stay outta prison.

Alabama doesn’t need evidence that you believe in, just evidence they chose to believe, assuming Colorado can decide on Trump.

On 12/22/2023 at 6:38 PM, CMRivdogs said:

But Biden is President so theoretically he can pardon himself 

He can pardon himself, but if Alabama says he can’t be in the ballot and/or be president, he can’t be president again if SCOTUS says states can determine who was is eligible to run in This Colorado ruling.

[Sports_Freak]

5 hours ago, ewsieg said:

Alabama doesn’t need evidence that you believe in, just evidence they chose to believe, assuming Colorado can decide on Trump.

Colorado is just the test case. Many states sure to follow.

He can pardon himself, but if Alabama says he can’t be in the ballot and/or be president, he can’t be president again if SCOTUS says states can determine who was is eligible to run in This Colorado ruling.

SCOTUS is ruling on whether Trump is ineligible because of the 14th amendment. MAGA would have to have a valid reason to exclude Biden or SCOTUS would rule against them. Or any other MAGA run state.

 

[ewsieg]

No, SCOTUS is ruling of Colorado can determine if Trump is ineligible because of the 14th. If they can, Alabama has just as much of a right as well.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

No, SCOTUS is ruling of Colorado can determine if Trump is ineligible because of the 14th. If they can, Alabama has just as much of a right as well.

I actually don't have a problem with a candidate being taken of the ballot by a state per se. To me the important question is not whether the action is taken by a state or feds, but what the process is to come to that decision - is it actually a fair one? In a federal system there is no reason a priori to assume that state adjudication should be less valid that the Federal. For example most death sentences in the history of the country have been handed down by state courts - so it's not like they are not empowered to make serious decisions. The right of Federal review is there, but the finding of fact is a state process. So I don't take it as just per se  that Colorado should be overruled *just* because it would empower Alabama. I think the question merits a deeper examination than just that aspect.

[CMRivdogs]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

No, SCOTUS is ruling of Colorado can determine if Trump is ineligible because of the 14th. If they can, Alabama has just as much of a right as well.

Using your theory let's save time and only hold elections in swing states. I propose elections only in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Georgia can be the tie breaker if needed. 
 

The other 45 states be damned because we probably already the outcome

[Sports_Freak]

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

No, SCOTUS is ruling of Colorado can determine if Trump is ineligible because of the 14th. If they can, Alabama has just as much of a right as well.

Alabama has a right to what? Make it make sense. Has Joe Biden been indicted for anything? Or is it just a case of being vindictive? Donald Trump is the most corrupt president in U.S. history. How many people in his administration got charged with crimes or had to get a pardon from the corrupt POTUS? 

[The Ronz]

Alabama left Abraham Lincon off the ballot in 1860, Harry Truman off the ballot in 1948 and LBJ off the ballot in 1964.

To my knowledge, they were left off the ballot and that was it.

None of the case were appealed to the Supreme Court.

What makes Trump special every single time?

 

[Edman85]

There would obviously be unintended down ballot effects if states went too far with this.

[Sports_Freak]

2 hours ago, Edman85 said:

There would obviously be unintended down ballot effects if states went too far with this.

Very true. Just like the democrats benefit when abortion is on the ballot. And I hear several states have abortion elections on their '24 ballot?

[ewsieg]

13 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

Using your theory let's save time and only hold elections in swing states. I propose elections only in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Georgia can be the tie breaker if needed. 
 

The other 45 states be damned because we probably already the outcome

I actually mentioned this already that if SCOTUS upholds Colorado, it could lead to only a handful of states determine who is running for president. You're pointing out exactly what is my concern. 

12 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

Alabama has a right to what? Make it make sense. Has Joe Biden been indicted for anything? Or is it just a case of being vindictive? Donald Trump is the most corrupt president in U.S. history. How many people in his administration got charged with crimes or had to get a pardon from the corrupt POTUS? 

You're looking at this based on the evidence you have and what you think would be right, you're not looking at it as a law issue or possible consequences.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding some of this, but the argument i've heard from the left is that Colorado is correct because Trump attempted an insurrection and therefore can not be president due to Amendment 14, section 3, thus they have every right to remove him from the ballot.  Therefore SCOTUS should uphold it.

I personally do think Trump attempted an insurrection and therefore should never be eligible to be president again.

If I was a member of SCOTUS though, i'd have to rule against my personal opinion because 1) the same amendment talks about Due Process in section 1.   Additionally if you want to use an extreme federalist view because it fits what you personally want and argue that section 3 does not specifically state Due Process for this specific scenario I'd argue the progressive view that the outcome would not be what was intended either.  And again, maybe i'm wrong, but if you say Colorado, without Due Process can determine Trump led an insurrection, he can't be named president.  Each state may need to do some legal changes to remove him from the ballot, but even if they don't or Trump gets a write in campaign, he'd still need 2/3's of congress to allow him to take the seat. 

My argument all along is if you want to take the position that Colorado, without Due Process, can determine if Trump can not be president, why can't Alabama do the same to Biden as they don't need to prove Biden did it, as they simply need to accuse him of it.

 

 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

that Colorado, without Due Process,

Colorado had a process  - I guess whether it constituted 'due process' is exactly the question?

[Sports_Freak]

6 hours ago, ewsieg said:

 

My argument all along is if you want to take the position that Colorado, without Due Process, can determine if Trump can not be president, why can't Alabama do the same to Biden as they don't need to prove Biden did it, as they simply need to accuse him of it.

 

 

Same question....Biden did what?

[CMRivdogs]

2 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

Same question....Biden did what?

Had a son that may have misplaced a laptop and allegedly traded on the family name.

 

Not at all like making a $2 Billion plus deal with the Saudi's based on Daddy in laws temporary job.

Edited December 26, 2023 by CMRivdogs

[ewsieg]

8 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Colorado had a process  - I guess whether it constituted 'due process' is exactly the question?

They had a process they used to move forward with this, but in no way would it constitute due process in the eyes of the law.  Even if they did follow due process in a traditional way and put Trump on trial and found him guilty, I'm not even sure if legally they have the authority to do so.  I'm not saying they don't, just wonder if that would be more of a federal role for that, which is what I hope we eventually see with Jack Smith.

3 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

Same question....Biden did what?

You keep coming back to this like it matters if he did something illegal or not.   I'm not sure if it's from a movie or what, but have you ever heard the phrase that a D.A. could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wanted too?  

I know it's slippery slope stuff, but all my argument is is that if SCOTUS says Colorado has the right to determine Trump violated the 14th, especially without even putting him on trial and convicting him, that even if every other state allows him to remain on the ballot and he wins them all, I don't think he could be named president due to the 14th amendment.   Additionally, all Alabama would need to say is they followed their own process to determine Biden violated the 14th to do the same thing.  They don't need to prove it to you or anyone else if they don't have to follow traditional due process.

Several of you seem to think I'm trying to compare Trump and Biden and any possible illegal activity from them, I'm not. 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

 Additionally, all Alabama would need to say is they followed their own process to determine Biden violated the 14th to do the same thing. 

I'm certainly not saying a state process isn't subject to review at the federal level. But you seem to be saying the state can't possibly have the authority even if their process passes a review standard. I think that is a much more open question. The federal court give states wide leeway in running elections - look at the their reticence to take on the gerrymander issue. Which as an aside, makes me wonder were the western district in MI thinks they are going by throwing out the commission redistricting.......

As a practical matter, one outcome of this case would be that the court tosses what CO has done based on process defects without taking on the question of whether the state might have the authority or not.