politics
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The Colorado situation was always going to be an uphill battle. How do you envision this happening? Federal goons going into every swing state and forcing him onto their ballots? And then people proceeding to vote in a candidate they know shouldn't be on there?
Republicans have a primary, Trump wins overwhelmingly, some blue state sues and it goes to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says "Sure, the Constitution explicitly forbids this, but we can't just disenfranchise all those republican primary voters" and rules 5-4 that he must be allowed on the ballot.
Some blue states that wouldn't have voted for him anyway try and keep him off, and maybe succeed, but nobody really cares about those. Red states include him without a fuss, and a very well funded and organized pressure campaign to get Trump on the ballot takes place in every purple state.
If he wins, GG, if he loses, it's Jan 6th 2 Electric Boogaloo.
Bang. That’s the way it could feasibly play out.
I’m trying to think of other possible justifications that the Supreme Court could use. Could they possibly nullify or neuter the 22nd Amendment? What justification could they use based on historical precedent, which the Heritage Foundation members cling to so tightly?
Could they just delay, delay, delay until making a decision after the election, then citing said election as precedent?
I am not familiar with the majority opinion in Trump v Anderson which must have laid out the legal reasoning why the Supreme Court was able to keep Trump on the ballot. It looks like it uses a clause in the fourteenth amendment to simply devolve the decision making power which seems to be an effective dodge and deflection to political winds.
In this timeline, yea pretty much exactly that. Plus you'll have the die hard trumpers pretty much ready to riot if he isn't on the ballots.