osarusan,
osarusan avatar

Why the fuck do people let Trump get away with shit that no ordinary person would get away with.

Imagine if we used this same bullshit logic for ordinary people.

"Murderers shouldn't be stopped by police. We should defeat them in polls."

"Car thieves shouldn't be arrested. We should let the American people choose."

Fucking dumb.

And incidentally, we already did that, in 1868 when the 14th amendment was passed. So leaving it up to the polls is ignoring both the law and the will of the people.

AfricanExpansionist,

Democrats don’t actually care if they win elections. Thanks to the duopoly control of elections, they will never go away

Avg,

Gavin Newsom is preparing for a presidential run in 4 years, he is trying to not seem so scary to independents.

osarusan,
osarusan avatar

Politically I get it. But ethically/legally I hate it.

pinkdrunkenelephants,

Because holding famous, rich important people accountable for their actions would jeopardize the system. It needs that lack of accountability to function.

oakey66,

He’s doing this for the same foolish reason that Hillary did. He’s got one thing going for him that Hillary didn’t. He’s not hated as much or more than Trump.

pelespirit,
@pelespirit@sh.itjust.works avatar

Hillary won the popular vote by 2 million votes for reference.

NewPerspective,

I mean… Yeah, if you want to ignore the Constitution.

Pratai,

A twice impeached seditionist-rapist shouldn’t be defeated at the polls. They should be defeated by slipping and falling on a shiv in a prison shower.

littlebluespark,
@littlebluespark@lemmy.world avatar

After taking a swan dive down several flights of metal grate stairs and creatively perforating their small intestine with a rusty pineapple, but yeah, the shop & fall would be the clincher for sure

Hismama,

I don’t see the Supreme Court upholding even Colorado’s ruling. Trump has gained more political steam with this. He has his angle that the “Dems are actively not being democratic”. Not that I agree with any of that message.

There’s no way he’d win in California regardless. Makes no sense to attempt it there.

LegendofDragoon,
LegendofDragoon avatar

I mean that's the message he'll spin for sure, but the Colorado suit was brought to the courts by Republicans trying to remove Trump from the ballot.

NotMyOldRedditName,

He’ll just say theyre RINOs that are agents of the democrats.

Kalysta,

No way this supreme court upholds that ruling. Which pisses me off even more that Biden refused to stack the court when he had the chance

Ensign_Crab,

It would take an act of Congress to alter the Judicial Act of 1969, which sets the current size of the Supreme Court.

Democrats consider the preservation of the filibuster to be more important.

Hismama,

Yes I fear it is just misleading hope. Another thread is hoping Dean Phillips can upset a repeat of 2020 Biden v Trump. Who knows, we’ll see.

At least Breyer was replaced by Jackson. The Senate is as much to blame as well.

ganksy,
@ganksy@lemmy.world avatar

Why would supreme Court weigh in on states rights to run their elections?

Telodzrum, (edited )

Because the Colorado ruling was based on an analysis and interpretation of the US Constitution. SCOTUS is the court of last resort in such matters.

charonn0,
@charonn0@startrek.website avatar

I can halfway agree with this. It’s not like Trump was going to win in California, so it might make sense to focus efforts on other states.

Still, I’d like to see CA at least try.

pingveno,

There's certainly no need to tussle over it in California. Trump wouldn't win in California anyway and it would just feed into the persecution narrative among his fan base.

meco03211,

There’s still red districts that might see a drop in Republicans voting if trump wasn’t an option.

pingveno,

Eeeeehhhhh, maybe. I think it could well have the opposite effect, that the conservative persecution complex drives people to the polls. Even some never Trumpers aren't comfortable with kicking him off the ballot.

ganksy,
@ganksy@lemmy.world avatar

True. Down ballot it would make a difference. Local govts could see substantial improvements.

blazera,
blazera avatar

Dis shits gonna streissand effect in Trump's favor.

TheDankHold,

If it does then that means political accountability is impossible.

PsychedSy,

I think he’s avoiding more Streisand this way, but it’s prolly arguable.

TWeaK,

Pussy.

RunningInRVA,

“There is no doubt that Donald Trump is a threat to our liberties and even to our democracy,” Mr Newsom said on 22 December. “But in California, we defeat candidates at the polls. Everything else is a political distraction.”

I’m so sick of this shit. We had a choice of Trump or Biden in 2020 and we decided. Then Trump attempted to overthrow the government. We don’t need to decide again at the polls.

Gargleblaster,
Gargleblaster avatar

Translation: I would rather take this opportunity to self-promote.

Caradoc879,

Newsom’s about face on policies this last year as he ramps up his run for presidency is fucking disgusting. Between him and fetterman we’re learning that even ‘the good ones’ will throw their constituents to the wolves when power and money are involved.

Jax,

If you’ve been paying attention to his decisions and the state of California, like at all, you’d know Newsom was never one of the good ones. He just puts on the face like he is.

ZombieTheZombieCat,

California is doing a hell of a lot better than any other state. That’s why it’s always people who don’t live here who want to say shit like this.

No state is perfect. This is the US after all. But major California cities are the best you’re going to get in terms of anything even resembling progressivism. If people who don’t live here or have never been here want to make the choice to believe conservative propaganda about homelessness when it’s a nationwide problem, or about crime when it’s decreased nationwide, then that’s their own problem.

Hazzia,

A couple of the decisions I can kinda see his reasoning as stated (such as wanting to wait to make psychadelics legal after regulations are passed) but that doesn’t change the fact that the optics are fucking horrible. And then pile decisions like this on that are just straight up the same shity pushover reasoning that allowed Trump to get to the point of trying to overthrow the government in the first place, and it starts to feel like Newsom started falling down the same alt-right rabit hole that your former-leftie college roomate did when he first started using weird logical leaps to justify dumb stances to his leftie friends before going full “enlightened tech-bro”. Can we get more politicans to grow some fucking balls please.

not_that_guy05,

Mr Newsom, you are not above the constitution. Let the dust settle and do what the constitution recommends.

FuglyDuck,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

…and do what the constitution recommends

part of the problem here is that the constitution doesn’t actually recommend removing people from ballots. we’re in uncharted waters here. Though I agree, remove trump from the ballot.

pelespirit,
@pelespirit@sh.itjust.works avatar

It does say he’s not eligible and the feds won’t do it, now it’s left up to the states.

FuglyDuck,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

the feds won’t do it because the feds don’t run elections. Every state decides whose on the ballot. It’s literally not the fed’s job to do it, and never was

Kolanaki,
@Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

Are the states not also obligated to uphold the constitution?

FuglyDuck,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

the constitution only says he’s ineligible. It doesn’t say how to deal with that. It’s left it to the states to figure that out on their own.

Kolanaki,
@Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

It should be pretty clear by the definition of “ineligible.”

cosmic_slate,
@cosmic_slate@dmv.social avatar

deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • TheDoozer,

    Interesting thought. So in any state that includes Trump on the ballot, a party should put forward a 30-year-old (legal) recent immigrant as a presidential candidate. Either they would need to put the candidate on the ballot whether they are ineligible or not, or remove Trump (or be shown for their double standard).

    pelespirit,
    @pelespirit@sh.itjust.works avatar

    Meaning SCOTUS won’t say if he’s ineligible or not.

    FuglyDuck, (edited )
    @FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

    For the primary ballot? Certainly not. It’s not their purview. And in any case they’ve only got a few days to make that determination- many states are rapidly closing in on when the ballots need to be finalized so they can be printed and distributed.

    Most likely, SCROTUS is waiting until after the regular election to see if such a ruling is even necessary.

    Ensign_Crab,

    part of the problem here is that the constitution doesn’t actually recommend removing people from ballots.

    Why would anyone keep an ineligible candidate’s name on the ballot?

    mwguy,

    Because there’s not a consensus that they’re ineligible.

    Ensign_Crab,

    That’s why we have judges.

    mwguy,

    There’s not a consensus among judges.

    Had the Dems done an actual impeachment of Trump, called witnesses and the like, and got a conviction this question would already be answered around the nation. But the half assed it and now we’re here.

    FuglyDuck,
    @FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

    Dunno.

    Because they’re idiotic sycophants?

    The point is there’s mk qualification of what is “insurrection”, etc, no process for fact finding or determining the legitimacy of the accusations and really no way to keep people from voting for the orange turnip anyhow.

    We all “know” he incited an insurrection. We all know he’s ineligible. But this is an inconceivable and utterly novel legal territory here, people are going to have wonky takes.

    Ensign_Crab,

    Because they’re idiotic sycophants?

    Is Gavin Newsom an idiotic sycophant? The article is about how he wants to keep Trump on the ballot.

    The point is there’s mk qualification of what is “insurrection”, etc, no process for fact finding or determining the legitimacy of the accusations

    Colorado begs to differ.

    FuglyDuck,
    @FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

    Colorado came to a ruling after investigation; the courts heard the case and had a finding of fact.

    that’s the process at work. I haven’t a clue what game Newsom is playing at. but honestly, I couldn’t be arsed after what he wants. It doesn’t really concern him all that much, really.

    logicbomb,

    I would argue that the constitution not only recommends Trump be removed from the ballot. It almost requires it.

    The constitution explicitly states that people like Trump who participated in an insurrection are ineligible for office. This is similar to other requirements for the office. For example, you must be a natural citizen over 35 years old, etc.

    Constitutionally, each state chooses how to run their own elections. However, that freedom does not give them the power to go against the other parts of the constitution.

    Traditionally, states will not put people on presidential ballots who do not meet the requirements to be president.

    But do they have to do that? I would argue that the case with Trump proves that, going forward, they do have to exclude ineligible candidates for president. Because Trump is the first ineligible candidate who is leading in polls.

    Every state election he might win is a constitutional crisis. Each state has the duty to follow the Constitution and ensure that Trump doesn’t win the presidency. The current method for doing this action is removing him from the ballot.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • politics@lemmy.world
  • rosin
  • cisconetworking
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • hgfsjryuu7
  • DreamBathrooms
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • PowerRangers
  • Durango
  • everett
  • kavyap
  • vwfavf
  • anitta
  • modclub
  • ethstaker
  • khanakhh
  • tacticalgear
  • ngwrru68w68
  • osvaldo12
  • mdbf
  • tester
  • cubers
  • Leos
  • GTA5RPClips
  • normalnudes
  • provamag3
  • All magazines