314

Colorado GOP Threatens to Go Rogue If Trump Decision Stands (www.thedailybeast.com)

submitted 6 months ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/politics@lemmy.world

137 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Colorado Department of State warned that it would be “a matter for the Courts” if the state’s Republican party withdrew from or ignored the results of the primary.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] orclev@lemmy.world 168 points 6 months ago

They seem to be rather missing the point. It wouldn't matter if they switch to a caucus, he's banned from running in the state so all they would do is exclude Republicans from having a candidate for president in the general election. This is very much in the "don't threaten me with a good time" territory.

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 36 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

They wouldn't win the state anyway so being removed from the ballot is good for them - it makes challenging the nationwide legitimacy of the election easier.

If Trump loses, it will help him to have Fox News (truthfully!) say that millions of people who wanted to vote for him were prevented from doing so.

[-] protist@mander.xyz 43 points 6 months ago

I bet if Trump isn't on the ballot in CO, there is a significant subset of his voters who would just not vote, with serious implications for down ballot races, especially in the House of Representatives. Think about how that would affect Lauren Boebert

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

Boebert is a lost cause. She only won by 500-odd votes, had almost conceded the race that night. After the latest scandal, she's done.

Might be another Republican, but it ain't going to be Traitor Barbie.

[-] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

I wish that was how elections worked for regressives, or politicians in general. It isn't.

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 28 points 6 months ago

So what. They don't play by the rules. They will lie, cheat, steal, and incite insurrection no matter what rules are or aren't followed.

Trying to pander to these psychos is like trying to play a friendly game of chess with a chimp. You follow the rules, even let the chimp win but no matter what you do the chimp is just gonna throw the board across the room, throw shit at you, and then bite your face off.

Anyway, the court ruled. Just like they did in FL during the Bush v Gore election. Let's let SCOTUS do whatever they're gonna do and go from there.

If the GOP doesn't like it, they can get fucked. Or let them start their CivIL WaR and let's see how it turns out for 'em.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] v1605@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago

The greater concern to Republicans is that there are other issues people vote on when casting their ballot, not the just President. If their voters stay home, they could lose more than just the Presidency.

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

And?

He’d say that when if he lost and the viewers would still believe him.

load more comments (13 replies)

[-] uphillbothways@kbin.social 111 points 6 months ago

Remember when people who employed fascist rhetoric, incited riots at Capitols, tried to destroy democracy and kill a sitting Vice President were considered terrorists by everyone and weren't to be negotiated with?
Pepperidge Farms does.

[-] Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 64 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The comments in conservative communities are saying “democrats” are fascists and blaming them for shit conservatives did in the past prior to the voting rights act.

Basically flaunting their ignorance of history and the southern strategy while intentionally muddying the waters with projection. It’s gross

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 14 points 6 months ago

Pepperidge Farms does.

Doubtful. They're probably back to donating money to fascists for a 1% lower tax rate.

[-] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 64 points 6 months ago

What does that mean, they’ll have their own election with blackjack and hookers?

[-] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

Don't say black in the presence of GOPers.

[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

This has nothing to do with Melanie trump.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] yuki2501@lemmy.world 62 points 6 months ago

Plot Twist: They've already gone rogue. Right now they're just bullying to get what they want.

They can just go fuck themselves. 🖕

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] FoundTheVegan@kbin.social 52 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Dave Williams, the chairman of the state party, reaffirmed the plan. “I’m not going to let these sons of bitches dictate who we’re going to nominate,”

Where was Dave on January 6th?

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 28 points 6 months ago

Pretty sure anyone giving comfort to Trump on this matter now is giving comfort to an insurrectionist. Time to clean house.

[-] Fades@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

The goddamn constitution is the one dictating

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 45 points 6 months ago

do it then. no one's afraid of you. y'all threaten a civil war every time the waiter forgets your ranch. we're done capitulating to threats. do it or shut the fuck up.

[-] AshMan85@lemmy.world 45 points 6 months ago

sounds like threats from terrorists

load more comments (17 replies)

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 41 points 6 months ago

Dave Williams, the chairman of the state party, reaffirmed the plan. “I’m not going to let these sons of bitches dictate who we’re going to nominate,” he said

So eloquently put by the chairman of the party of Christian family values.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago

Well, they can do their caucus thing as they like. As long as Trump will not appear on the ballot, I'm fine with it.

The courts decision is a bit wonky, though. I don't consider "being the candidate for party X" an "office, civil or military, of the United States", so banning him from the primaries is (IMHO) unwarranted. On the other hand, the court admits that Trumps actions are valid reasons to invoke A14, so removing him from the ballot papers for November would be justified. And that is the only place that counts.

[-] lingh0e@sh.itjust.works 49 points 6 months ago

Luckily for you, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch already ruled on that precise topic when he was a Colorado judge. A foreign born man who had become a US citizen, a person who is ineligible by default, still insisted he should have the right to run for president even if he can't take office.

Gorsuch ruled that the state had a responsibility to prevent anyone who is ineligible for office from even being allowed on the ballot.

His decision was even cited in Trumps ruling.

[-] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

And that makes sense. If a person can't legally hold the office, it's letting people waste their votes by allowing that person to remain on the ballot.

You might argue that people should know all about who they're voting for, but we all know that's not the case.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Fades@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago

If by the 14th he is not eligible for the presidency outside of 2/3rds of Congress voting to waive that, then why the fuck should he be on the ballot? It’s pointless.

That’s like saying I’m banned from a venue but keeping me from getting in line to enter is unfair and unwarranted.

Do you hear yourself? I guess you think you know better than the high courts lmao

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] BoastfulDaedra@lemmynsfw.com 23 points 6 months ago

Remember Jan 6th? That was their attempt at a civil war. We believe them, we just don't give a damn because they're like that anyway.

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 22 points 6 months ago

I love that instead of doing any type of introspection about letting someone that has been channeling Hitler in his campaign rails, and tried to overthrow the US government to remain in power represent your political party, they just want to change the rules basically making the choice for the voters that might want a real candidate.

load more comments (7 replies)

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago

Good luck? He's still not going to be on the ballot or eligible for a write in campaign.

load more comments (18 replies)

[-] jimbo@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago

Go ahead, lol. Vote for someone who can't be president.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023

314 points (96.2% liked)

politics

18065 readers

4342 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News