602

Trump blocked from Maine presidential ballot in 2024 (www.bbc.co.uk)

submitted 6 months ago by phoneymouse@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 79 points 6 months ago

"I'm mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on section three of the 14th Amendment. But I'm also mindful that no presidential candidate has, ever before, engaged in insurrection."

I like how Trumpers always seem to forget about that 2nd sentence.

[-] ButtermilkBiscuit@lemmy.world 72 points 6 months ago

O'l smelly they used ta call him. He had tiny hands and giant tits, which was the style at the time.

[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 70 points 6 months ago

The more states that block him, the better the argument that the Supreme Court should decline to intervene and let the state decisions stand.

[-] Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug@lemmy.world 56 points 6 months ago

Perfect time to use the "states rights" catch to make their heads spin

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 54 points 6 months ago

Oh, but it's only about states' rights when it is convenient for conservative arguments. Otherwise it's just federal power all the way down.

[-] LucasWaffyWaf@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

They can only be called the Party of Responsibility if it's within the America region. Otherwise it's legally required to be called Sparkling Hypocrisy.

[-] Sculptor9157@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago

load more comments (21 replies)

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Honestly do you think that will matter? What's to stop the Supreme Court from saying we are the final say and no one can block him?

[-] Chocrates@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Nothing, I think they will do it.

But the GOP likes to pretend it is about states rights and Neil Gorsuch ostensibly has a lower court ruling related to this that would seem to favour blocking Trump. I have read the opinion And I didn't think it applied, but I'm an idiot on my couch with no legal training.

[-] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

I'm not sure it matters yet. Are the parties even required to have primaries? What keeps them from just choosing at the convention?

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

No.

The people.

Both parties used to have a much more closed process that didn't announce a winner until their convention. The public primaries weren't anything more than a preference poll. Voters punished them both for it so severely that they changed.

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

When some states allow him and some block him, that's the argument for the Court to step in.

[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

Normally, I’d agree that a split encourages them to take the case, but political questions are extremely thorny. The fact that all these states are using their own processes to decide how to regulate their own elections tilts toward the system working the way it’s supposed to IMO.

[-] whenigrowup356@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

Both of these arguments presuppose that principles and precedent are important factors for the current conservative majority to consider. Evidence says otherwise.

[-] zenitsu@sh.itjust.works 42 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

When you're such a bitchass corrupt sore loser that legal experts need to clear the dusty cobwebs off ancient scrolls and navigate new legal waters because you decided to be the first brainlet to violate laws that no one before you was stupid and unpatriotic enough to even consider attempting.

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

Amendment, not law. And it was written in the aftermath of the Civil War, this is exactly what it was for.

[-] sighofannoyance@lemmy.world 33 points 6 months ago

The real issue at the heart of all this is that the popular vote doesn't win the presidency.

[-] kelargo@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Seriously. Didn't Biden only win by like 43,000 votes in the electoral college?

[-] woodenskewer@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

There's only 538 votes total in the electoral college. It was 306/232. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're referring to, then, apologies.

[-] Estiar@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

In competitive states, he won by only 43k votes as opposed to the many more votes he won by in the popular vote. In other words, had those votes been cast differently, the electoral college would be very different

[-] kelargo@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

This. And it was too close for those competitive electoral votes.

[-] stringere@reddthat.com 2 points 6 months ago

Republicans have not won the popular vote for a president since HW Bush.

[-] kelargo@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Doesn't matter. The electoral college is the only thing that counts.

[-] maxy@lemmy.world 31 points 6 months ago

Keep it going!

[-] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago

Any real impact from blue states barring Trump, or are we just hoping to set enough of a precedent for a red state to actually grow a pair and kick him too?

[-] Phegan@lemmy.world 37 points 6 months ago

He is blocked from the primary. Blue states still vote in the Republican primary, this means Maine and Colorado will be won by someone else. There is a chance if enough states do it, won't have enough votes to be the nominee

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

If that happens the pay will just change the rules and select him at the convention.

They're all-in with this doomsday cult.

[-] Aztechnology@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Isn't Maine not all of nothing for electoral college votes? So while minor if trump did run he would lose some amount?

[-] thal3s@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 months ago

Yep, he won a single electoral vote in 2020.

[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

That's fine, right now it's the momentum that counts. Hopefully other states will follow. I don't know how this process works but I'm hoping he's spread thin enough while fighting them all at once. Maybe that'll do something to his pockets and stress him tf out, idk,

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

No impact because the Supreme Court is going to overturn their interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 11 points 6 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Maine's top election official has ruled that Donald Trump cannot run for president next year in the state, citing a constitutional insurrection clause.

Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said Mr Trump was not eligible because of his actions leading up to the US Capitol riot in 2021.

Maine now joins Colorado as the two states to ban Mr Trump from the ballot.

The 34-page ruling says that Mr Trump must be removed from the ballot because he "engaged in insurrection or rebellion".

In her order, Mrs Bellows says that Mr Trump "over the course of several months and culminating on January 6, 2021, used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them to the Capitol".

She added that his "occasional requests that rioters be peaceful and support law enforcement do not immunize his actions".

The original article contains 148 words, the summary contains 139 words. Saved 6%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 months ago

saved 6% wow well done bot

[-] wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

Wake me up when a state that matters (as in, a state that will have an impact on the likelihood of Trump getting to and winning the general election) does it.

I'm not convinced a red state would dare put their metaphorical balls on the chopping block like that.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023

602 points (98.5% liked)

politics

18059 readers

2555 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