There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Republican secretary of state threatens to kick Biden off the ballot as Trump payback

Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft said that while he didn’t want to do it, he had to remind people of how “severe” the situation is.

A top Republican official in Missouri is threatening to remove President Joe Biden from appearing on the ballot as retaliation for the determination in two other states that Donald Trump doesn’t qualify because he “engaged in insurrection.”

“What has happened in Colorado & Maine is disgraceful & undermines our republic,” Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft wrote on the social media site X on Friday. “While I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this, if not, Secretaries of State will step in & ensure the new legal standard for @realDonaldTrump applies equally to @JoeBiden!”

Ashcroft’s post came shortly after the Supreme Court agreed to review a decision by Colorado’s high court that found Trump could be barred from the state’s primary ballot because of his actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

BigMacHole ,

Is payback Law And Order?

papertowels ,

Don’t forget that trump wished for his political enemies to “rot in hell” as part of his Merry Christmas message, , and he also shared a word cloud that prominently featured “revenge” and “dictatorship” with no context.

People who say “I’m not Trump” is not good enough of a reason to vote for a candidate are being petulant children. Trump has said he’d pardon all January 6th convicts if elected day 1. This will embolden political violence like none other, because if “your guy” gets in, you will face no consequences, so the amount of lying, cheating, and stealing when it comes to elections will go through the goddamn roof.

This man is on a hateful warpath. He will abuse the hell out of the office because of his ego. And people like the state secretary mentioned here will be in power while cheering him on.

OldWoodFrame ,

Secretaries of State will step in & ensure the new legal standard for @realDonaldTrump applies equally to @JoeBiden!"

It does. The legal standard does apply equally to everyone. And in fact the same standard has applied for 155 years.

bigMouthCommie ,
@bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social avatar

>The legal standard does apply equally to everyone. And in fact the same standard has applied for 155 years.

under the law, in it's fairness, it is just as illegal for the billionaire to sleep under a bridge as it is for the homeless

fuck laws

also, fuck politicians.

MonkderZweite ,

A wild troglodite appeared.

ipkpjersi ,

Neat, I didn’t know Biden also engaged in insurrection. This guy seems very wise!

Rinox ,

You don’t, but they are certain of it. It’s clearly been an insurrection all these years, since when the democrats colluded with the lizard people to administer the vaccine and steal the elections. It’s obvious if you think about it.

ReallyActuallyFrankenstein ,

[solemn serious face] My god, how did we not see it before.

sukhmel ,

This is pretty much how I imagined it

a reaction face featuring a man striking a typical thinking pose with both hands, while holding a tea cup with his left foot

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

Insurrection doesn’t seem to be very strongly defined.

Maybe simply running against an incumbent president is insurrectionalist.

FaeDrifter ,

That’s like if you assaulted someone, and then claiming you didn’t assault them because you think assault isn’t strongly defined.

It’s just a very stupid and slimy way of saying you think laws shouldn’t apply to you.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

No, assault is strongly defined with a large amount of case law to back it up. It is also obvious who committed it.

Violent storming of the Capitol is insurrectionalist and obvious (like assault)

Incitement to insurrection is lacking in case law, and open to interpretation.

I don’t know why you think this law is applicable to me personally.

FaeDrifter ,

Violent storming of the Capitol is insurrectionalist and obvious (like assault)

That was not your original statement but it’s a lot more correct now, and if we can agree that an obvious insurrection is an insurrection, that’s a very good start.

We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore

I don’t see any honest case to be made that this isn’t incitement of insurrection.

Additionally, the 14th Amendment does not require you to prove it was an incitement, it’s enough to provide aid or comfort to the insurrectionists. Of which there are numerous examples, including Trump repeatedly offering to pardon the insurrectionists.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

I don’t see any honest case to be made that this isn’t incitement of insurrection.

Trump also said “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

The phrase “fight like hell” can be used non violently.

Although it sounds like I’m defending Trump, I’m actually attacking future fascist, because…

the 14th Amendment does not require you to prove it was an incitement, it’s enough to provide aid or comfort to the insurrectionists.

This can be read in such a way that almost anyone can be struck off the ballot.

I’ll give an hyperbolic example. “Instagram star breaks DC window” = followers are insurrectionists. Anyone liking a post is barred from the ballot.

FaeDrifter ,

Trump also said “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

If you shake someone’s hand and also punch them, does the handshake cancel out the punch?

You’re being slimy and dishonest again. Trump is a politician, he talks out both sides of his mouth. Talking out both sides of your mouth does not cancel out.

I’ll give an hyperbolic example. “Instagram star breaks DC window” = followers are insurrectionists. Anyone liking a post is barred from the ballot.

You can’t tell the difference between double tapping an Instagram post and offering a presidential pardon?

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

You’re being slimy and dishonest again.

I’m playing devil’s advocate.

You can’t tell the difference between double tapping an Instagram post and offering a presidential pardon?

I can, but maybe a good lawyer can equate them. Is the law well defined enough to tell the difference?

FaeDrifter ,

maybe a good lawyer can equate them

It’s interesting that you consider a swampy dishonest lawyer to be a “good” lawyer.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

OK, a lawyer with great arguments, low morals and a love for money. Happier?

abraxas ,

The current SCOTUS claims to be using the “common meaning of words” as their interpretation mechanism for the Constitution.

Assuming they have any bit of consistency whatsoever, the common meaning of words gives at least prima facie argument against Trump being able to run with zero argument against Biden being able to run.

And lucky us, the current SCOTUS has not really shown loyalty to Trump as a person. Here’s hoping that sticks around.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

the current SCOTUS has not really shown loyalty to Trump as a person

I’m more worried about future legitimate candidates being excluded. I’m not defending Trump in particular.

FaeDrifter ,

You should actually be more worried that violent insurrection becomes the norm.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

Historically, if take away someone’s democratic option to express themselves then they become more likely to turn to violence.

abraxas ,

Actually, the far right are more likely to turn to violence every time they lose, period. That’s always been the way of things. You’re conflating the Left’s values with the Right. The Right do not care about Democracy. Have you never sat through one of those fascist fucks “we’re not a Democracy, we’re a Republic” defense of minority tyranny? They care about winning at all costs. They’re as likely to turn violent is they lose 90/10 as if they lose because their leader was convicted of a felony or taken off a ballot for legitimate reasons.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

If fascist win after having Trump removed from the ballot then it makes it even harder to legitimately argue that a particular candidate should stay on a future ballot.

abraxas ,

If fascists take over the US, there will never be another legitimate election whether or not we take the correct legal action prior to that point.

But we’re talking Beer Hall Putsch leniency on Trump, and all that does is empower the actual fascists to take more extreme action knowing they will never face consequences. People are terrified that if they don’t give in to fascists, fascists won’t play fair.

Guess what? Fascists already won’t play fair.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

But when the good guys don’t play fair they can become fascists.

abraxas ,

Sure. Show me proof the good guys aren’t playing fair taking an insurrectionist off the Ballot because the Constitution demands it.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

See the conclusions of 2 states and the Senate.

abraxas ,

Preponderance of evidence. The first state concluded the opposite. And the court system seems the right place to challenge.

Or are you suggesting all 50 states need to unanimously agree or he gets off? Because that goes to being a higher burden of proof instead of a lower one.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

I’m suggesting the Senate decides on impeachment for insurrection and all 50 states abide by that decision.

abraxas ,

Why? Congress is only a law enforcement body in exactly one scenario. That’s not what congress was made for.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

Congress, the Senate and the presidency were made together, each checking and balancing the other.

Of course they are the ones who rule on eligibility.

abraxas ,

Congress, the Senate and the presidency were made together, each checking and balancing the other.

The 14th Amendment didn’t exist when the country was founded. When the 14th Amendment did exist, its authors recognized the real risk of Congress being complicit in treason. In fact, Trump’s initial defense is that “President” isn’t an officer and that this only involved Congress.

Are you telling me that the authors of the 14th Amendment thought “if the traitors manage to get a majority in congress, then we don’t remove them for treason anymore”?

…it sounds like you’re following this idealistic and oversimplified view of government. The dissenting judges in the Colorado case brought up a few reasonable arguments, but the ones you’re citing aren’t them. Nowhere in the Constitution does Congress get the right to prevent a candidate from running for president. In fact, THAT is intentional because Congress is a political body.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

The 14th Amendment didn’t exist when the country was founded.

Yeah. The clue is in the name.

“if the traitors manage to get a majority in congress, then we don’t remove them for treason anymore”?

If traitors become the majority, are they still traitors?

Nowhere in the Constitution does Congress get the right to prevent a candidate from running for president.

But the Senate did have that opportunity, and didn’t reach majority.

FaeDrifter ,

Whose democratic options to express themselves is being taken away?

Statistically it is non-white people, so why is it white people who are turning to violence?

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

Whose democratic options to express themselves is being taken away?

MAGA voters.

why is it white people who are turning to violence

Because they are MAGA voters?

FaeDrifter ,

How are MAGA voters losing the democratic options to express themselves?

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

? Not being able to vote for their preferred candidate.

FaeDrifter ,
  1. Are you aware the Constitution sets out requirements for eligibility for president? Just because your feelings say you really want a particular person, it doesn’t mean you have a constitutional right to vote for them. For example, maybe I really want Arnold Schwarzenegger for president. Just because I prefer Arnold that does not mean he can be president.
  2. Trumpers could vote for Trump in 2020 and they still staged a violent insurrection. So your point is both stupid and moot.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

Are you aware the Constitution sets out requirements for eligibility for president?

Yes. Trump was impeached for incitement of insurrection but acquitted in the Senate. That’s the constitutional rules being followed.

Just because your feelings say you really don’t want a particular person, it doesn’t mean you have a constitutional right to exclude them.

Trumpers could vote for Trump in 2020 and they still staged a violent insurrection.

Consider how violent Trumpers could get if they couldn’t vote.

FaeDrifter ,

acquitted in the Senate

Factually incorrect, either you don’t know what is going on, or you’re lying. The Senate failed to remove him as president, that is all. There is an ongoing criminal case during which Trump was indicted this past year. There has been no acquittal, contrary to your claim.

Just because your feelings say you really don’t want a particular person, it doesn’t mean you have a constitutional right to exclude them.

I agree 100%. I don’t want Biden or any of the other GOP candidates either. And yet, none of them have so far staged and supported an insurrection. I only think candidates should be discluded based on law.

I’m logically consistent, which is something you are not capable of understanding.

Consider how violent Trumpers could get if they couldn’t vote.

Well, Trumpers are extremely delusional and very stupid. So, they will get very violent, even though Trumpers have the most to lose and least to gain from an actual Civil War 2.

One massive trumper delusion is that they are the only ones with guns. In reality, leftists, anarchists, anti-fascists, and communists have a ridiculous amount of firepower stored.

The big difference is that Trumpers paint a big target on themselves and their homes, flying Trump flags and wearing trump merch. Trumpers are not ready to fight a war against an enemy they can’t find. They’re like the Redcoats of the American Revolution, they are big loud and meant to intimidate, they are not ready to fight an actual bloody war of attrition against an enemy they cannot see.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

The Senate failed to remove him as president, that is all.

The charges of insurrection were not upheld.

There is an ongoing criminal case

So not yet found guilty.

I agree 100%. I don’t want Biden or any of the other GOP candidates either.

It is very wrong that unaccountable corporations are gatekeepers of the presidency.

I only think candidates should be discluded based on law.

Hard agree. This is my whole argument. Insurrection needs to be strongly defined to avoid future manipulation. We cannot (yet) conclude that Trump was involved in insurrection.

I’m logically consistent,

Me too.

Trumpers are extremely delusional and very stupid. So, they will get very violent …

Agree with this and all you wrote following.

cheesebag ,

Unfortunately, Republicans don’t need Democrats to invent ways for them to be fascist, they’re quite capable of finding opportunities on their own

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

Let’s not make it even easier for them in the future.

abraxas ,

It won’t. It’s a trick we’ve fallen for. We withhold Justice from the corrupt out of fear they use our justice against us illegitimately. Yet what we miss is that it only works if they have the ammo to do the same without using our justice against us. It’s a game to them to wrap their horrors in our good deeds, but they can’t actually commit more horrors because we do good.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

We withhold Justice from the corrupt out of fear they use our justice against us illegitimately.

And if we incorrectly apply false justice then it’s likely to come back and bite us in the ass.

The case against Trump must be watertight. The Senate and courts in two states don’t believe this is the case.

abraxas ,

And if we incorrectly apply false justice then it’s likely to come back and bite us in the ass.

I agree 100%

The case against Trump must be watertight. The Senate and courts in two states don’t believe this is the case.

I’m arguing elsewhere in this thread that we need to be careful to dot our I’s and cross our T’s in serving justice, but we’re talking about the Bad Faith argument here, and not whether the case against Trump was watertight. It doesn’t matter if we have a watertight case against Trump, Republicans will try to use this against us. It doesn’t matter if we took this action or not, Republicans will try to do things like this against us anyway.

But to your point (which is a real tangent), there’s no reason or precedent to apply a criminal burden of proof to a non-criminal statutory requirement, despite the fact some judges seem to want to. The Criminal burden of proof is extremely high because the consequences of criminal conviction are dramatic and possibly horrific, far worse than someone simply being left off a federal ballot. People have already been criminally convicted of collaborating with Trump to commit crimes. By even some civil burdens of proof, Trump has already been found liable for his role in the insurrection attempt.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

The Criminal burden of proof is extremely high because the consequences of criminal conviction are dramatic and possibly horrific, far worse than someone simply being left off a federal ballot

If leaving someone of the ballot is made trivial then it will be used by bad people against good people.

abraxas ,

It won’t be the good guys that make it trivial. The bad guys just get off by using real justice against us.

If Trump makes it into the General Election, whether he wins or loses, we are a fallen state whose Constitution is meaningless. And I GUARANTEE the bad people are already using the hell out of that.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

If Trump makes it into the General Election, whether he wins or loses, we are a fallen state

Nah. Hyperbole.

whose Constitution is meaningless.

The 14th ammendment may need rework, but that doesn’t burn the entire document

I GUARANTEE the bad people are already using the hell out of that.

Genuinely interested in what these bad people are doing regarding the Constitution. Can you give examples?

PrincessLeiasCat ,

They all have the thought process of a 12 year old and so that’s how democracy dies I guess.

Kolanaki ,
@Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

While I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this, if not, Secretaries of State will step in & ensure the new legal standard for @realDonaldTrump applies equally to @JoeBiden!

If it applies equally to both, Biden shouldn’t be taken off since he hasn’t been found guilty of sedition ya dipshit.

EatATaco ,

Trump hasn’t been found guilty of sedition either.

Yes, I’m prepared for the down votes from a bunch of idiots who hate reality.

Kolanaki ,
@Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

Trump hasn’t been found guilty of sedition either.

Not in a court of law; but given all the evidence you have to be willfully ignorant to believe he isn’t guilty of it and wouldn’t receive a conviction if/when there actually is a trial.

EatATaco ,

I think he’s guilty of it. But we shouldn’t be talking about guilt because it’s not part of the amendment.

Kolanaki ,
@Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

But we shouldn’t be talking about guilt because it’s not part of the amendment

That’s just being pedantic. What’s a better word to use to say “he fucking did it?”

Tbird83ii ,

Correct. Trump hasn’t been found guilty of sedition. He has been found guilty of insurrection by the Colorado supreme Court. He also hasn’t been criminally convicted of insurrection, because this isn’t a criminal case.

Sedition and insurrection are different, and parts of different laws. Criminal and civil guilt are also different mechanisms of our laws, but the 14th amendment doesn’t state someone needs to have a criminal conviction to be considered ineligible for office.

EatATaco ,

He has been found guilty of insurrection by the Colorado supreme Court.

An interesting thing I hadn’t thought about. Thanks.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Technically that is true. However, he was impeached for incitement of insurrection by the House of Representatives. The majority of the Senate then voted to remove him after impeachment, but not the 2/3s majority required.

So no, not “found guilty of sedition”. But he was impeached for inciting insurrection.

SeaJ ,

This man’s dad lost an election to a fucking corpse, he was such a piece of shit. GWB went and made that piece of shit the country’s AG. The shit apple clearly does not fall from the shit tree.

mateomaui ,

I mean, good luck, you’ll have to provide better justification than revenge to keep it from being overturned.

Lexam ,

They don’t care. It’s all about the grandstanding.

mateomaui ,

I almost want to see them try though, just to get smacked down in court.

cannibalkitteh ,

Maybe we can collectively have all the states kick both Biden and Trump off the primary?

resin85 ,

Is there an equivalent of /r/JustFuckMyShitUp here? Yikes, this guy is rocking one atrocious haircut.

DarkThoughts ,

"While I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this, if not, Secretaries of State will step in & ensure the new legal standard for @realDonaldTrump applies equally to @JoeBiden!"

Sure. If Biden launches his own insurrection I think no one would hold it against you.

sin_free_for_00_days ,

Just a friendly reminder that it is Republicans who are kicking, or attempting to, kick trump off the ballot. If they want to change The Constitution, there is an amendment process. Until then, The Constitution is very clear on the topic.

HawlSera ,

Wait it is?

Nougat ,

Since we're at the primary stage, the only people who have standing to challenge are going to be Republicans and possibly independents (as in Colorado).

It's also important to remember that the reporting you hear like "Michigan and California left Trump on the ballot" doesn't mean the 14A S3 challenges are over in those states. Michigan, for example, does not have jurisdiction to exclude anyone from a primary ballot. (Colorado does, which is why they were able to find him disqualified from the primary ballot - because he is also disqualified from the general in Colorado.) If Trump wins the Republican nomination and is set to appear on the general election ballot, such states will see new challenges.

Neato ,
@Neato@ttrpg.network avatar

Yeah so THAT wouldn’t hold up to a SCOTUS hearing. Rather if it does we may as well ignore SCTOUS forevermore.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •