Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

The Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court Hold the Record as the World's Most Expensive Whores...
Crime by Ponderer     February 29, 2024 10:35 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (36 comments) [322 views]


Rep. Lauren Boebert's son Tyler allegedly made a sex tape with co-defendant
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 11:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (11 comments) [171 views]


James Comer is not sure an impeachment of Biden is warranted
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 4:25 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (9 comments) [74 views]


Ex-Jim Biden business partner disputes loan testimony before Congress
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 3:07 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [18 views]


Bad news for the Doddering Old Fool: Polls stagnant since the Hur Report
President by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 4:57 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [24 views]


James Comer has been big on promises, short on delivery. MAGA is feeling let down.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 1:28 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (5 comments) [64 views]


So, Curt, can you still say that there's "NO EVIDENCE" that Joe was involved in the Crime Family?
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:33 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (15 comments) [113 views]


Oversight and Judiciary Committees Release Hunter Biden Transcript
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 5:51 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (13 comments) [99 views]


Is Trump going broke? Is he bringing the GOP down with him?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 5:46 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [114 views]


RFK Jr. Backs Sen. Rand Paul to Succeed McConnell...
Politics by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:15 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [12 views]


Government selectors, pages, etc.
NEWSWEEK: GOPs Threaten to Take Joe Biden Off Ballot in States They Control
By HatetheSwamp
December 21, 2023 4:36 am
Category: Government

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, has denied all wrongdoing and has not been charged with insurrection. He has argued that courts do not have the authority to bar candidates from the ballot under the constitutional provision.

Now, some Republicans have said Biden, too, should be removed from state ballots, though it is not clear on what constitutional grounds.


*****

FYI, the constitutional ground is that he enabled an insurrection by refusing to enforce immigration law passed by Congress.

For po. And others.

Questions: Why should a blue state be able to do this to Trump and red states not do it to the Doddering Old Fool?

Afterall...

Trump has not been convicted in court of insurrection.

Heck, he hasn't even been EFFINcharged with it.

Double EFFINheck! Trump was acquitted of insurrection by the US Senate!

So, by what logic can't GOP states do what Colorado has done?

And, how can this be an EFFINdemocracy if what Colorado did is allowed to stand?


Cited and related links:

  1. newsweek.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "NEWSWEEK: GOPs Threaten to Take Joe Biden Off Ballot in States They Control":

  1. by oldedude on December 21, 2023 11:13 am
    I just told Isle this and didn't know this was going on. I feel about it the same way as I do trumpster. It's pretty easy because I don't like either one of them equally. And the law stands in both their ways.


  2. by Indy! on December 21, 2023 11:13 am

    More proof the GOP really doesn't believe in the concept of America at all.


  3. by Ponderer on December 21, 2023 11:48 am

    "More proof the GOP really doesn't believe in the concept of America at all."<.b? -Indy!

    Indy!, not only don't they believe in it, they don't even understand it or our Constitution at all either.

    This blithering stupidity is a case in point. What statute of the Constitution were they planning to use, I wonder, to keep Biden off the ballot? What insurrectionist or rebellious acts did he engage in or give aid and comfort to I wonder?



  4. by HatetheSwamp on December 21, 2023 12:05 pm

    Let me splain, po.

    They'll argue...before their own stacked state court...that "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" enabled an insurrection by refusing to fulfill his Oath as President to enforce immigration law resulting in, what, 8,000,000 illegals into the US...and how many EFFINtons of fentanyl?, etc..

    The idea is that the red state court would produce a finding that the Flatulent Fool did, in fact, lead an insurrection. Then, order that the Former Trucker Driver's name not appear on the November 024 election ballot, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment...

    ...exactly in the same way Trump'd be taken off of the ballot.

    Simple. Very, very simple.

    Goes around, comes around. Keehee.


  5. by islander on December 21, 2023 1:24 pm

    It's up to the each state's legislators, not the GOP, to determine who's name is printed on their state's ballot. If a particular state's legislators, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, determine that they don't want Biden's or Trump's name printed on their ballots, under the law, that's their choice.

    However, like I said on Curt's thread in post # 24; "Iím in favor of state's rights for matters pertaining to state politics and polices but Federal elections which affect all of us should, in my opinion, be uniform across the country."

    And...I also said that puts the state's rights crowd in a tither because if they want the Federal government through SCOTUS to deny Colorado that right, they will be supporting the Federal government stepping in and usurping a state's right.



  6. by HatetheSwamp on December 21, 2023 1:36 pm

    It's up to the each state's legislators, not the GOP, to determine who's name is printed on their state's ballot.

    We agree, then, that state COURTS don't have that prerogative. Right?

    But, I disagree that a state legislature can tell a party who to place on its Primary ballot. Can, say, the Maine legislature require the GOPs to include, I dunno, Tucker Carlson on its 024 ballot? No, I think a Primary is the party's property.

    But, as I say, I'm not po. I didn't clerk for a Supreme Court Justice. I don't teach in an Ivy League law school.


  7. by Ponderer on December 21, 2023 1:59 pm

    Isle, do you think that states are, or should be, legally compelled to put someone's name on a ballot who doesn't meet the qualifications to hold the federal office? Someone who Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution specifically bars from it?



  8. by HatetheSwamp on December 21, 2023 2:04 pm

    I know you didn't ask pb, po, but consider this:

    If a Primary Election is the property of the party holding it, if the party chooses to run a candidate whom the US Supreme Court will bar from taking the Oath of Office, doesn't that party possess the liberty in America to act foolishly?


  9. by islander on December 21, 2023 2:38 pm

    Pondy, No, I don't think they should be. I do however think "Federal" elections should be controlled by the Federal government not the states. But as with any officials we elect to represent us whether federal or state, all we can do is hope they will do the right thing. I believe we should ALL have an EQUAL say in Federal elections even if it means the federal government limiting or usurping some of the rights states that they might have now with regard to Federal elections. This is why I'm also against the electoral collage. The electoral collage insures that we don't ALL have an equal say in how we are governed.

    Ive been actually arguing to "demonstrate" the bad side of giving any individual states the power to influence the outcome of an election other than by the votes of the people. I hope I didn't sound too much like I was arguing for states rights in this debate by using the state's rights own argument against them !! LoL

    This pits me against the state's rights side. The way it is now we can run into problems just like what we are seeing.


  10. by HatetheSwamp on December 21, 2023 3:57 pm

    I believe we should ALL have an EQUAL say in Federal elections even if it means the federal government limiting or usurping some of the rights states that they might have now with regard to Federal elections.


    Gang,

    Don't EVER believe isle when he claims to be for EFFINdemocracy!

    He thinks state courts should foist limitations on whose names can be placed on the ballot in a party's primary election...

    ...NOW we find out he's open to the feds limiting the rights of states have in joining in national elections!

    Oy FREAKIN vey!

    Tenth Amendment, BABY!


  11. by oldedude on December 21, 2023 5:25 pm
    Isle, do you think that states are, or should be, legally compelled to put someone's name on a ballot who doesn't meet the qualifications to hold the federal office?
    Inane question. Someone running for federal office must pass the federal law to run for the office just as they do for state and local elections. I do agree, they're specifically loose, but those are the requirements nonetheless.

    To become the president of the United States, candidates must be at least 35 years old, a natural born US citizen and have been a resident of the US for at least 14 years. These requirements are laid out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
    cv-nation.com


  12. by Ponderer on December 21, 2023 6:21 pm

    "Pondy, No, I don't think they should be. I do however think "Federal" elections should be controlled by the Federal government not the states." -Isle

    I basically agree. But I think states can still run federal elections along with those for their state offices like they always have been.

    But if there are federal positions being voted on an election ballot, there needs to be a uniform federal standard that all states must adhere to. They can run their own state position elections however the heck they want. But if we're talking Congress members or anything higher? Federal compliance guidelines need to be in place and enforced. If it costs more for the states somehow, the feds can reimburse them for it or provide grants before elections.





  13. by Ponderer on December 21, 2023 6:27 pm

    "Someone running for federal office must pass the federal law to run for the office just as they do for state and local elections." -olde dude

    But then in that case Trump is blatantly disqualified. He engaged in vast and organized insurrectionist activities and gave aid and comfort to others in their engagement in insurrectionist activities. The 14th Amendment requires that someone who engaged in such things is disqualified from public office.





  14. by oldedude on December 21, 2023 7:51 pm
    But if there are federal positions being voted on an election ballot, there needs to be a uniform federal standard that all states must adhere to. They can run their own state position elections however the heck they want. But if we're talking Congress members or anything higher? Federal compliance guidelines need to be in place and enforced. If it costs more for the states somehow, the feds can reimburse them for it or provide grants before elections.
    There are. See cite #1. OMFG.

    But then in that case Trump is blatantly disqualified. He engaged in vast and organized insurrectionist activities and gave aid and comfort to others in their engagement in insurrectionist activities. The 14th Amendment requires that someone who engaged in such things is disqualified from public office.
    🙄Again, the 14th Amendment REQUIRES DUE PROCESS.
    The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

    The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this article concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses that these words have had in American constitutional law.


    CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

    usa.gov
    law.cornell.edu


  15. by Ponderer on December 21, 2023 7:58 pm

    Trump will be deprived of neither life, liberty or property by being taken off the Colorado ballot. He is simply not qualified to hold the office by virtue of his flagrant and well established violations of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.




  16. by oldedude on December 22, 2023 2:12 am
    I'm not personally disagreeing with you. I just stating the facts of the constitution and the law (which you demanded I do). He fulfills all the requirements set forth by the Constitution. He also hasn't legally been found guilty of the crime. I know that's hard for you to understand. Your "definition" and "feelings" are not legal arguments. And won't stand up in court. Nor in the case when it goes to SCOTUS.

    The dims should have started this earlier. Had they convicted already, you'd have standing in the courts and my bet is that they wouldn't let him run. You (dims and sheeple) have no standing right now. I'm sorry if that makes you angry.

    You (personally) should have started that process two years ago charging him in the courts. If you had the evidence from the congressional "hearings," you (personally) should have hired lawyers and charged him. It would be done now and so would he. Life would be good.


  17. by HatetheSwamp on December 22, 2023 4:24 am

    Trump will be deprived of neither life, liberty or property by being taken off the Colorado ballot. He is simply not qualified to hold the office by virtue of his flagrant and well established violations of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.


    po: Prosecutor, Judge, Jury, and...most especially...EXECUTIONER!!!!! Keehee ha!


  18. by Ponderer on December 22, 2023 6:18 am

    "I'm not personally disagreeing with you. I just stating the facts of the constitution and the law (which you demanded I do). He fulfills all the requirements set forth by the Constitution. He also hasn't legally been found guilty of the crime." -olde dude

    I know you've tried to explain this, od. But I still can't see that has been found legally guilty of committing a crime part in there. If tens of millions of people witnessed someone engaging in insurrectionist acts and were presented over months with a plethora of undeniable evidence and sworn testimonies in official government hearings, that person engaged in those acts just as assuredly as if they were later tried for them. Regardless of the verdict. They engaged in the acts.

    Simple reality does not require a court trial to see it for what it is.

    But I understand your position. As I said before, I am sure that you'll feel better about this once he's been found legally guilty of doing what he did.


    "The dims should have started this earlier." -olde dude

    Started what earlier? The Democrats are not in control of the justice system, od. Much as you'd love to believe that they are. The thing about Democrats is... they aren't Republicans.


  19. by Ponderer on December 22, 2023 6:30 am

    And you know what? Does the fact that Donald Trump has never for a second presented a single piece of actual defense that denies he did what he did mean anything to you people?

    His entire defense, besides stalling, is asserting that the crimes he is charged with aren't crimes. That what he did he was immune from prosecution for even if they were illegal. That he didn't do anything wrong. Nowhere in his defense have his lawyers ever asserted that he did not do what he did. He has no defense. Exactly like a supremely guilty person wouldn't. None of his "defenses" have gotten a millimeter of legal traction and are ludicrous on their face.

    He knows he did it. His lawyers know he did it. Everyone, even you deep down know he did it. He literally has no defense. All he can do is try to stall until he is reelected and can pardon himself or hope for some loophole to exploit. Or at least that a Republican other than him wins so that they can obsequiously pardon him.

    Republican presidents have a way of doing that for Republican criminals.



  20. by HatetheSwamp on December 23, 2023 8:01 am

    And you know what? Does the fact that Donald Trump has never for a second presented a single piece of actual defense that denies he did what he did mean anything to you people?


    po,

    OD and pb often speculate about what it must be like to have Trump live in our brains as he does in yours...and Curt's. It must be puuuuuuure torture.

    The answer to your question is that the universe that your subjectivity centers exists only inside you. I can't imagine what it would be like for Trump to even be aware that the universe your imagination centers exists.


  21. by oldedude on December 23, 2023 9:58 am
    Started what earlier? The Democrats are not in control of the justice system, od. Much as you'd love to believe that they are. The thing about Democrats is... they aren't Republicans.

    They should have collected enough evidence to criminally convict him in a court of law, and not just the BS that barely got him "impeached."

    They should have been able to hand over evidence of all this wrongdoing to the Justice Dept and started the court proceedings the day after he left office.

    J6? You and the rest of the dims "say" there is actual evidence that he is guilty. Why can't they get that into court? Why is it they had to still "investigate" this? Didn't they have the "evidence" YOU say is "evident" to convict him?

    But I still can't see that has been found legally guilty of committing a crime part in there.
    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Simple reality does not require a court trial to see it for what it is.
    Legally it does.🙄 Of course, it doesn't preclude "ass suming" anything you want. If you are going to deny him the right to run for president, then you need to prove it in court. It really is that easy. Otherwise we should impeach and criminally charge your creepy hero, pedojoe. That's using the same logic.



Go To Top

Comment on: "NEWSWEEK: GOPs Threaten to Take Joe Biden Off Ballot in States They Control"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page