Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Corvus]

Doesn't the relevant act say you don't have to be convicted for it to apply though?

[gondrin]

There are several ways the SCOTUS fight will go. I predict they'll put all their eggs in the "he hasn't been convicted" basket, because otherwise, they'll have to say that leading an insurrection isn't bad enough, or worse, that the office of the President is not obligated to uphold the Constitution. And I don't think even Trump's judges are ready to say that part out loud.

On that note, here is a bill being put forth stating that if an official nominee of a major political party is not allowed to be on a ballot, then that state would not be counted in the election.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...163fef8a6&ei=9

New Bill Announced Following Colorado Ruling: ‘Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes’

U.S. Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) introduced the “Presidential Ballot Integrity Act,” aiming to bar electors from states that remove a major party’s candidate from the presidential ballot.

This bill would amend the Electoral Count Act of 1887, stating that the vote of an elector from a state shall not be counted if the state did not include the major party’s nominee for president on the ballot.

“New law… If any state in our Union blocks the official nominee of a major political party from the Presidential ballot, their electoral slate will not be counted by Congress on the following January 6th,” Higgins wrote.

“Play stupid games, win stupid prizes,” he said. “Have a very MAGA Christmas.”

The bill was a response to the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot.

Other Republican lawmakers have also taken action in response to this ruling.

[unfilteredJW]

On that note, here is a bill being put forth stating that if an official nominee of a major political party is not allowed to be on a ballot, then that state would not be counted in the election.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...163fef8a6&ei=9

State's Rights! State's Rights!

[Edge-]

On that note, here is a bill being put forth stating that if an official nominee of a major political party is not allowed to be on a ballot, then that state would not be counted in the election.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...163fef8a6&ei=9

This is stupid on two fronts.

The more obvious, surface-level front: Cool, he introduced a bill. That's pretty exciting stuff and it's also exciting that even if Speaker Johnson brings it up for a vote and it passes the house, the Senate won't touch it.

The more central issue: Republicans have no actual beliefs beyond power. Here you have Rep. Clay Higgins, a "MAGA Patriot", one of the many arguing against legal challenges for states limiting mail-in ballots during covid because the Constitution grants states broad leeway and authority in how they administer their elections. This was because they could and did enact policies that they thought would boost Republican political chances in their respective states by making mail-in voting and dropboxes less accessible in "urban" areas etc. Now though, states using similar authority to administer elections is a serious problem and requires federal legislation!

Amusingly: He pointlessly adds "political" to "major political party" if he's citing the 1986 IRS code - https://www.taxnotes.com/research/federal/usc26/9002

https://twitter.com/RepClayHiggins/s...89129782116789

Again though, it's a pointless amendment that will go nowhere because it's fundamentally unserious in nature. I'm honestly impressed Clay actually like...did anything, even if it's to propose a hilariously pointless one and a half page piece of virtue signaling legislation.

[Breccia]

On that note, here is a bill being put forth stating that--

Yeah, no, anything that prevents a state from voting will require a Constitutional Amendment. States didn't sign up to have their votes discarded.

"But they're throwing out candidates!"

First, that's in the Constituation, they're supposed to. Second, parties aren't in the Constitution. The Republican Party is not Constitutionally required to have a candidate.

[gondrin]

Yeah, no, anything that prevents a state from voting will require a Constitutional Amendment. States didn't sign up to have their votes discarded.

"But they're throwing out candidates!"

First, that's in the Constituation, they're supposed to. Second, parties aren't in the Constitution. The Republican Party is not Constitutionally required to have a candidate.

That is the part that gets me. They can run another person on that ballot in those states. They are just choosing not to do so. Republicans aren't being banned from the ballots, only Mr. Smelly Orange Pants is.

[Canpinter]

Sounds like a great idea for Democrats, all they need to do is charge their party rules to not allow different candidates in different states then is just nominate a 17 year old in every state but California.

[s_bushido]

Sounds like a great idea for Democrats, all they need to do is charge their party rules to not allow different candidates in different states then is just nominate a 17 year old in every state but California.

...what is that even supposed to mean?

[Canpinter]

...what is that even supposed to mean?

The 17 year old gets kicked off the ballot in every state because they can't legally run. Then only California could be counted and the Dems real candidate wins there.

[Twdft]

The 17 year old gets kicked off the ballot in every state because they can't legally run. Then only California could be counted and the Dems real candidate wins there.

Will be a bit tricky to get 270 electoral votes out of California alone.

[Canpinter]

Will be a bit tricky to get 270 electoral votes out of California alone.

Unless I'm mistaken you don't actually need 270, you need a majority of the electoral votes, so if a bunch of states are disqualified that threshold goes way down.

Mind you this bill is ludicrously unconstitutional I'm just point out another reason it would be stupid.

[Breccia]

Will be a bit tricky to get 270 electoral votes out of California alone.

The point of the proposed stupid stupid bill cited here

U.S. Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) introduced the “Presidential Ballot Integrity Act,” aiming to bar electors from states that remove a major party’s candidate from the presidential ballot.

is based on the 1887 act shown here and amended many many times, yes including the "Mike Pence was right" clause. But it was designed due to the 1876 election, possibly the worst in our country's history. Like many things written by a committee over 150 years, it is not consistent. An inconsistently written document people follow as law is dangerous, just ask 2A Bible thumpers.

But it includes the following:

If the number of electors lawfully appointed by any State pursuant to a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors that is issued under section 5 is fewer than the number of electors to which the State is entitled under section 3, or if an objection the grounds for which are described in subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii)(I) has been sustained, the total number of electors appointed for the purpose of determining a majority of the whole number of electors appointed as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution shall be reduced by the number of electors whom the State has failed to appoint or as to whom the objection was sustained.

You could make the argument that, if you so chose, that means the 270 drops for each state yoinked off the rolls. Basically, @Canpinter has a point that could be read into the law's chaotic existence.

Again, a moot point -- there is no chance any law would be allowed to kick a state off the list just because they were following the Constitution. Any serious scholar would look at this proposal, look at the existing rules about the Senate objecting, and say "there is already a tool in place for that problem" and ditch Higgin's work as a PR stunt. At best, the existing cases should be called fraud and handled with the law as it already exists. If the governors of Texas and Illinois throw someone off the ballot because they just don't like them, that's illegal already. Trump is facing charges for leading an insurrection and did so in public. The 14th is not fraud, it's the law of the land. Trump can challenge it, he will challenge it, but the removal is not only not fraud, it's not inherently illegal, just challengable.

You know, part of me wants that challenge to succeed. I want Trump to see how badly he loses, even with every state counted. He keeps screaming "I got so many votes, I got more votes than before" and when he loses 2024, preferably in prison, I want to see what his excuse is this time. But I'll take any fair and legal loss he gets. Any win by him is a tragedy the country might not survive -- he will crown himself dictator by his own admission.

[zEmini]

We just need the popular vote. Then this would all go away.

[Kaleredar]

We just need the popular vote. Then this would all go away.

Yes.

Unfortunately, the GOP would never sign off on such a thing, as the electoral college superseding the popular vote is the only hope they have to win the presidency.

[Benggaul]

We just need the popular vote. Then this would all go away.

Not necessarily. Reagan won the popular vote both times and he was basically proto-Trump.

[Malkiah]

Not necessarily. Reagan won the popular vote both times and he was basically proto-Trump.

I know doing so is pointless but I feel compelled to post this in order to correct this statement.

Reagan was a jar full of anthrax being opened in every shopping mall in the US the weekend before christmas.
Trump is a clown car full of spilled anal lube.

Most people would find the latter more disgusting and react more strongly to it, but the former will kill everyone and everything you ever loved or held dear.
They are not the same.

[Elegiac]

Not necessarily. Reagan won the popular vote both times and he was basically proto-Trump.

You're correct in that a popular vote wouldn't preclude figures like Trump from coming to office; and it isn't the point anyway since the reason for a popular vote is one of fairness rather than making liberalism undefeatable or whatever.

But I don't agree with calling Reagan a proto-Trump for similar reasons that Malkiah points out - while many of the changes leading to America's present state of political and economic paralysis occurred during his presidency, his conduct while in office was within the 'normal' bounds for American federal policy. The proto-Trump in the sense of a deeply unpleasant and highly corrupt individual that lies and cheats their way to success was actually Nixon.

Indeed, I'd argue Nixon's legacy is just as damaging as the specter of fascism Trump raised because Watergate was one of the key points in the 1970s that helped destroy America's trust in its public institutions and facilitate the privatization of its civil society.

[Gestopft]

Doesn't the relevant act say you don't have to be convicted for it to apply though?

It says "...shall have engaged in insurrection..."

So it doesn't specify a conviction, but it's not unreasonable to assert that a conviction or some other very high standard of proof would be necessary to prove that the disqualified engaged in said activity

[ringpriest]

It says "...shall have engaged in insurrection..."

So it doesn't specify a conviction, but it's not unreasonable to assert that a conviction or some other very high standard of proof would be necessary to prove that the disqualified engaged in said activity

The Congress and President President Biden labeled it an insurrection back in 2021, and a Congressional Report (among many other things) directly linked to Donald Trump to the planning of said insurrection. The United States government, and all its subsidiary sub-entities take far more aggressive actions on far less evidence every day without a peep from the GOP (or most of the public in general).

The only reasons kicking Trump off the ballot is controversial is that Republicans hate being held to account for their actions (it's the core of their whole political philosophy, insofar as they have one), and because those same Republicans are done with the Constitution, the law, and elections. The only thing that keeps them even pretending to play along is that they're all cowards, and they're afraid that a coup won't succeed.

[Poopymonster]

The Congress and President President Biden labeled it an insurrection back in 2021, and a Congressional Report (among many other things) directly linked to Donald Trump to the planning of said insurrection. The United States government, and all its subsidiary sub-entities take far more aggressive actions on far less evidence every day without a peep from the GOP (or most of the public in general).

The only reasons kicking Trump off the ballot is controversial is that Republicans hate being held to account for their actions (it's the core of their whole political philosophy, insofar as they have one), and because those same Republicans are done with the Constitution, the law, and elections. The only thing that keeps them even pretending to play along is that they're all cowards, and they're afraid that a coup won't succeed.

I can see a reply already.
It's there in the distance.
It's a straw man walking a red herring up a slipper slope.