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.

GOP threatened to sue over November ballot if Biden dropped out. Experts call that 'ridiculous'

Even before President Joe Biden’s long-speculated withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, allies of former President Donald Trump floated the possibility of suing to block Democrats from having anyone other than Biden on the ballot in November.

But election administration and legal experts said the timing of Biden’s exit on Sunday makes it unlikely that any Republican ballot access challenges will succeed, with some calling the idea “ridiculous” and “frivolous.” Democrats are on safe legal ground as they identify a new standard-bearer, they say, because the party hasn’t officially chosen its nominee. That typically occurs with a vote of delegates at the party’s convention.

“It’s ridiculous for people to talk about ‘replacing Biden.’ He hasn’t been nominated yet,” said Richard Winger, a leading expert on state ballot access laws and the longtime editor of the “Ballot Access News” newsletter.

DudeImMacGyver ,
@DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works avatar

Ridiculous pretty much sums up the GOP

crusa187 ,

Just like all of Trump’s election fraud cases (over 60 of them), this will be immediately thrown out as superfluous and/or for inability to provide any evidence.

Dems haven’t even held the convention to nominate yet, so GOP can keep cryin’ until November.

Maggoty ,

I’m just waiting for SCOTUS to declare a winner again. I doubt that will go over as smoothly as it did in 2000.

crusa187 ,

Hopefully it’s nowhere near close enough for that, but we shall see soon enough.

njm1314 ,

You’re welcome to try but I don’t see how they have any standing to sue.

Maggoty ,

SCOTUS said standing isn’t important anymore though.

yeahiknow3 ,

The Supreme Kangaroo Court

chellewalker ,
@chellewalker@lemmy.ca avatar

The Supreme Court call that “compelling”

IamSparticles ,

Right? I used to think it would be ridiculous for a former president to foment a violent insurrection of their own government and not be held accountable for their words and actions.

JaymesRS ,

That’s a “Major Question” if nothing else.

Paragone ,

This may well work for the repubs, though.

They want dictatorship, not representative-republic ( falsely-called “democracy” by us foolish peons ).

Legalism, which the christ they pretend to be aligned-with, repeatedly railed against, calling its devotees “Hypocrites!”…

www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=hyp…

I believe that in the gaslighting-about-being-aligned-with-christ republican territories … they’re going to get that result to happen…

Which only could have been prevented had the dems put Harris in the race months ago…

_ /\ _

LEDZeppelin ,

Supreme Court will show those experts who’s daddy

pivot_root ,

Given the current SCOTUS, it won’t be the Republicans, unfortunately.

dohpaz42 ,
@dohpaz42@lemmy.world avatar

They don’t have to succeed. They simply have to stall.

ShaggySnacks ,

SCOTUS - Something, something, this is illegal however only when Democrats do it.

DaddleDew ,

Let them waste even more money.

RageAgainstTheRich ,

Maybe don’t have a platform where the only thing you do is shit on the other person and call them kindergarten level nicknames? What a bunch of snowflakes.

SirDerpy ,

In 13 states the deadline for petitions for specific independent candidates has already passed. But, in at least 20 states the rules clearly allow Democrats and Republicans to do whatever, whenever.

If RCV magically appeared then the Green Party would be winning this one with AOC. Most aren’t as stupid as we think. They only lack practical alternatives. I believe harm reduction would be a second choice for so, so many.

But, RCV isn’t going to magically appear; Even if a politician wanted to, none can save us from the system; And, harm reduction simply isn’t good enough anymore. The only way we progress is by doing much, much more than voting.

baronvonj ,
@baronvonj@lemmy.world avatar

AOC and the squad have shown that Progressives can win on the Democratic ticket. Voters just need to turn out in the primaries to get their candidates nominated.

AmidFuror ,

AOC showed a progressive can win in an area that was +45% for Biden in 2020. I don't know how many conclusions you can draw about a national run from that.

KevonLooney ,

She wins because she represents the people in her district well and understands them on an intrinsic level. She is them.

AmidFuror ,

That's precisely the point I'm making. Remember this is in the context of Derpy saying the Greens and AOC would win nationally if there were RCV.

baronvonj ,
@baronvonj@lemmy.world avatar

How do you propose achieving RCV without taking over the 2 major parties through their primaries? Honest question. Voting for 3rd parties in the general isn’t achieving that goal. Not voting only tells the majors parties and incumbents you don’t have an opinion they have to listen to because one of them will still win without it. You’re never going to get a watershed shift to the left by focusing only on the presidential race with a third party. Bernie’s Democratic party primary campaigns did more for the left than 3rd parties have done in the last 50 years (no 3rd party presidential candidate since Wallace in 68 has received a single electoral vote) by getting more progressives to run in Democratic primaries.

AmidFuror ,

I was only commenting on the idea that with RCV, AOC and the Greens would win the Presidency this year. I think RCV is a good idea. I don't know how to achieve it. The nice thing about it is that states and municipalities that adopt it don't put themselves at any kind of disadvantage, so it doesn't have to happen all at once.

baronvonj ,
@baronvonj@lemmy.world avatar

👍I would absolutely love if we had RCV nationwide. Also compulsory voting, mail-in ballot as standard nationwide, a mandatory “none of the above” option for every elected office, and a requirement that an actual majority of eligible voters is required to win the race (which should be possible through the combination of RCV and compulsory voting). But that takes either a Constitutional amendment or a coordinated and prolonged effort within each state to take over the legislatures.

baronvonj ,
@baronvonj@lemmy.world avatar

Wow it’s too bad I only mentioned AOC and nobody else …

We have progressives from multiple states now than we did 10 years ago, and their success should motivate more progressives in more states to run in their local primaries. Change takes time and consistent effort. Primary turnout sucks so we get what was chosen for us by a few if we don’t show up.

SirDerpy ,

Progressives can win on the Democratic ticket

Is that what happened to the Sanders campaign, twice? Are you certain there’s not a SCOTUS ruling where the DNC admits their tactics?

baronvonj ,
@baronvonj@lemmy.world avatar

Bernie received fewer votes in the primaries but succeeded in motivating more progressives to run and now we have the Squad. Just because he didn’t win the nomination doesn’t mean he didn’t have any success at all. Change takes time and consistent effort.

SirDerpy ,

Keep that head in the sand where you feel safe.

baronvonj ,
@baronvonj@lemmy.world avatar

I’m out here voting in the major party primaries to get better candidates. You’re voting for for a party that has never won a single electoral vote (no 3rd party has won a single electoral vote since Wallace in 1968) and expecting that to somehow convince the actual winners to change the rules in your parties favor then blaming the Democratic party for the Republican party winning. Pretty sure it’s not my head in the sand.

SirDerpy ,

I’m out here educating others about choices they could make.

You’re voting

No, I’m not.

You’re out here making assumptions about me and believing everyone else is too stupid to choose for themselves. It doesn’t even register for you that the rules unfairly limit choices because they favor your choice. Fuck everyone else: You got yours.

It’s just like the fascists you’re running from. Well done.

AmidFuror ,

How does you not voting make your case any better? It's even less effective than voting third party.

SirDerpy , (edited )

The SCOTUS case brought by the Sanders campaign had a ruling that stated the private parties can do whatever they want in their primaries, without regard for fairness or wants of the participants. SCOTUS recommend that if one doesn’t agree with that then they shouldn’t participate. I agree with them.

It also doesn’t matter whom they nominate. The platform and outcomes aren’t changed by the puppet politician, only by the corporate donors writing the legislation. I don’t care who figureheads either major party.

I also don’t care who figureheads the Green Party. The platform and ballot access is their value. If they scale then pressure is exerted on Democrats. If they scale a lot then a solid candidate will jump ship from Democrats.

My dichotomous vote for President also wouldn’t matter. My deep red state will cast all of their electoral votes for Trump. I’ve decided to vote Green POTUS in the general in small hope others also reason out where such is possible and why 5% of the GE vote is quite powerful for the cause, regardless of party affiliation. There’s one other local election where I’ll vote because I believe a viewpoint that I don’t agree with should be voiced for others’ benefit.

There’s much more powerful avenues of change than voting. I spend most of my time on what history says will work.

baronvonj ,
@baronvonj@lemmy.world avatar

I’ve decided to vote Green POTUS in the general

So you’re contradicting yourself by telling me you’re not voting and that I’m making flawed assumptions about you in response to my apparently correct inference about you intending to vote Green Party, and then telling AmidFuror you are voting Green. Derpy indeed.

SirDerpy ,

I’m voting two races. And, I don’t spend hardly any time voting relative the time I spend on all the other more effective means of change.

If you want to label two reasoned and explained exceptions bad faith then by all means.

nomous ,

What kind of “more effective means of change” do you spend more time on?

SirDerpy ,

What kind of “more effective means of change” do you spend more time on?

rebellion, riot, strike, boycott, protest

nomous ,

What more effective means of change do YOU spend more time on though; in real life not in fantasies.

SirDerpy , (edited )

Strike and boycott, 20 hours per week, unpaid. The data analytics would pay $250-300/hr as a sub (because that’s what I bill and regularly earn). I also spend a significant amount of time as an educator. My family makes sacrifices, lives a lower standard of living, for the cause of anonymous others that have far less.

How about yourself? How big is your dick, lumpen?

nomous ,

Pretty big but I’m not sure that’s relevant. What is though is I work 50+hrs per week to keep shelter over my families head and food in their stomach. Probably a bit too busy to pretend I’m a revolutionary.

Luckily there’s a bunch of you out there striking and boycotting every week so I’m not too concerned!

baronvonj ,
@baronvonj@lemmy.world avatar

I’m out here educating others about choices they could make.

And I’m pointing out the historical and statistical futility of either voting 3rd party or not voting as a means to break away from the current Democratic/Republican stranglehold.

You’re out here making assumptions about me

That’s fair, I did infer from your post advocating for ACO as a Green party candidate that you were voting for Green party. My bad. You did just clearly say you’re not voting. Which, like, how do you expect to achieve your goals then? What’s your concrete plan of action to win by not participating?

and believing everyone else is too stupid to choose for themselves

No, I’m saying voting 3rd party or not voting isn’t going to unseat the current Democratic/Republican parties and to run those progressive candidates in the Democratic primaries as a more effective means to the desired end.

It doesn’t even register for you that the rules unfairly limit choices because they favor your choice. Fuck everyone else: You got yours.

Bernie was on the primary ballot, I voted for him, he lost. They didn’t favor my choice. My choice lost. I did not “get mine.” That doesn’t mean I didn’t have a choice. I’m not saying the DNC did no wrong. But he did, in fact, receive fewer votes. And the only things that limit my possible choices are who has actually declared/registered to run on the primary and my willingness to register to vote and actually turn up to vote.

I want RCV to be a reality so that 3rd party candidates will be viable. But I can acknowledge the reality that I won’t get RCV by voting third party or by not voting. I will only get it by electing representatives who will fight for it in my stated government, and 3rd party candidates just haven’t been able to win any state/local elections where I live. So I’m voting in the primaries of the two parties who have a statistical chance of winning to get there. And I need more people to do the same in order to “get mine”.

SirDerpy , (edited )

Most importantly, I appreciate that you’re asking questions that appear to be in good faith. Neither of those is the status quo. So, I’ll give you good answers.

And I’m pointing out the historical and statistical futility of either voting 3rd party or not voting as a means to break away from the current Democratic/Republican stranglehold.

No, I’m saying voting 3rd party or not voting isn’t going to unseat the current Democratic/Republican parties and to run those progressive candidates in the Democratic primaries as a more effective means to the desired end.

You’ve assumed that winning is the only outcome of value. Five percent of the GE in this cycle puts the platform on every ballot in the next. That choice would be outside the influence of party primary and from a party more loyal to the platform than even Sanders.

That exerts a fuck ton of pressure on Democratic Party platform for at least four years. I couldn’t care less which party serves the ideological choice We the People deserve. I like Green today because they’ve been more loyal to the platform than even Sanders and they’re already engaged with local ballot access.

But, this reasoning only works well in deep red states. Everywhere else voters need to worry much more about short term harm reduction. I even did the math for what proportion of deep red state Democratic voters would need to reason this out to get 5% of the GE. It’s definitely possible.

Literally, neolibs just need to trust other neolibs to not be so stupid as to fuck up something so simple it can be responsibly communicated in three paragraphs.

Which, like, how do you expect to achieve your goals then? What’s your concrete plan of action to win by not participating?

I advocate and practice the means that have been historically, statistically, psychologically proven, in order of decreasing importance: rebellion, riot, strike, boycott, protest, and voting.

But he did, in fact, receive fewer votes

Why? What did the DNC do to favor his opponents?

Anyone I’ve asked to read the ruling that then did so no longer votes in the major party primaries. You seem reasonable. Please, read it for yourself.

So I’m voting in the primaries of the two parties who have a statistical chance of winning to get there.

Succinctly, I want more to think along a longer scale of time than the next five years.

More importantly, individuals may represent the same ideology but be in very different situations making very different choices. For example, I think a wise leftist in a red state probably best represents leftist ideology by voting Green POTUS this cycle. But, the same wise leftist in a purple state probably best represents leftist ideology in shorter term harm reduction with a Democratic POTUS vote. Said simply, our loyalty isn’t party, but to each other.

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

You’ve assumed that winning is the only outcome of value.

My opinion is that persons who continue to bring up Bernie Sanders not winning the primary as a reason to not shift the parties through their primaries is that those persons are making that assumption and that I am trying to refute it by pointing out the existence of the progressive Squad since his losing bids in 2016 and 2020. So it appears we’re both misunderstanding each other on that point.

Five percent of the GE in this cycle puts the platform on every ballot in the next. That choice would be outside the influence of party primary and from a party more loyal to the platform than even Sanders.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a ballot that doesn’t have 3rd party candidates on it. I see Green and Libertarian candidates all the way up and down the ballot here in Texas. Going back to my first election in 96 there have always been both Green and Libertarian candidates to vote for in the general.I’m

That exerts a fuck ton of pressure on Democratic Party platform for at least four years.

I disagree with this. My observation thus far is that in the last 40 years of elections I’ve voted in the presence of 3rd party platforms on the ballot has not any measurable effect on the Democratic platform or candidates. And the only thing that did, in my opinion, was Bernie Sanders running in the Democratic primary for the presidential nomination. I started voting in the primaries in 2008.

But, this reasoning only works well in deep red states. Everywhere else voters need to worry much more about short term harm reduction. I even did the math for what proportion of deep red state Democratic voters would need to reason this out to get 5% of the GE. It’s definitely possible.

I’m in Texas, in a district gerrymandered Republican. Greens and Libertarians are already on the ballot. Democratic candidates aren’t getting more progressive here to appeal to Green party voters. Not that I can see.

I advocate and practice the means that have been historically, statistically, psychologically proven, in order of decreasing importance: rebellion, riot, strike, boycott, protest, and voting.

As long as you’re voting.

Why? What did the DNC do to favor his opponents? What I’ve seen is that the DNC was in debt and the Clinton campaign bailed them out in exchange for a bit of nepotism to put some of her people in charge.

Anyone I’ve asked to read the ruling that then did so no longer votes in the major party primaries. You seem reasonable. Please, read it for yourself.

What I looked up showed a law suit filed in Florida by Bernie supporters asserting they had been defrauded.

en.wikipedia.org/…/Wilding_v._DNC_Services_Corp.
observer.com/…/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasser…

The circuit court ruled against them because “none of the plaintiffs had claimed to have donated to the DNC on the basis of promises contained in the DNC charter.” The 11th circuit appellate court unanimously upheld the circuit court ruling, and SCOTUS declined to hear the case.

How did the DNC prevent voters from voting for Bernie in the primary? He was included in the debates for all the voters to hear him present his platform. He was on the primary ballot in every state for the voters to chose him. I’ve not been made aware of any actual vote tampering to contest the winners of the popular vote in each state or super delegate ratfuckery to overrider the popular votes. And to my knowledge Hillary won more delegates through the popular primary votes around the country.

Succinctly, I want more to think along a longer scale of time than the next five years.

I’m under no delusion that shifting the parties through their primaries is a 5 year plan. I’m of the opinion that people who keep citing Bernie losing the 2016 and 2020 primaries as reasons to vote 3rd party or not vote are the ones under such a delusion. The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The next best time is today.

More importantly, individuals may represent the same ideology but be in very different situations making very different choices. For example, I think a wise leftist in a red state probably best represents leftist ideology by voting Green POTUS this cycle.

I’m in Texas in a gerrymandered red district, so I voted in the Republican primary for the best chance at defeating Abbot’s school voucher program, and I’m voting Democratic in the general for the same. It’s just a matter of enough voters showing up to flip the script though. Bill Clinton came within a quarter million of winning the state in 96. Biden received more votes in Texas in 2020 than he did in New York, and Trump only won by ~650k votes that year, which is a significantly lower margin than the number of voters in the core blue areas of the state who did not vote. Gen Z turned out in 2022 to temper the red wave, and we have a woman running in the first post-Roe presidential election. I think we can do it if we get all the left-leaning voters to come out and vote Democratic.

SirDerpy , (edited )

You decided to go back to assigning me others’ opinions instead of the ones I explained to you as mine. You’re having a conversation with yourself to beat down your own straw men because it serves your ego.

Old habits die hard. I’ll leave you to it.

edit: The SCOTUS ruling, dummy. Wiki even links the appeal. You’re better off not trying to be king of the idiots.

baronvonj ,
@baronvonj@lemmy.world avatar

You decided to go back to assigning me others opinions instead of the ones I explained to you as mine.

No more so than you did of me. I was trying to provide in my last comment the context under which I had been engaging with other people that was informing my responses prior your clarifications.

edit: The SCOTUS ruling, dummy. Wiki even links the appeal. You’re better off not trying to be king of the idiots.

Lemmy seems to be stripping the trailing ‘.’ off my wikipedia link link in my prior comment, but the text “scotus” does not appear in either of the links I provided. But here’s another article that affirms my statement that SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal.

www.detroitnews.com/story/news/…/5307489002/

Maybe you could provide a link to the ruling you’re talking about, because I can’t find anything that says the SCOTUS did anything other than decline to hear the appeal of the 2016 lawsuit brought by Bernie supporters.

SirDerpy ,

Best of luck. You’ll need it.

solsangraal ,

it’s hilarious that they’re proving in real time just how pants-shittingly scared of harris they are.

“keep the old man in!!! we don’t want to go up against a younger woman whom we can’t publicly criticize for not being white!”

Nougat ,

... whom we can't stop ourselves from publicly criticizing for not being white!

FTFY

tyler ,

They’re already publicly criticizing her for not being white…

solsangraal ,

let’s see how the bLaCkPpLbAd strategy pays off…

Asafum ,

“DEI” is the new codeword for the “n-word” so they say it all day every day…

Imagine thinking you’re being “smart” by not being openly racist, by being openly racist in your accusation that “this person couldn’t possibly get here by their merits, they’re here because of their skin color.”

…yep still racist there little buddy…

norimee ,

They already made it public that they will do everything to invalidate democrat votes and that they won’t accept any outcome that isn’t a Trump win.

It’s going to be Jan 2021 but worse again.

henfredemars ,

Friendly reminder to check your voter registration. Many states are un-registering voters for dumb reasons.

CareHare ,

Why is this even a thing in the USA? In Belgium, everyone over the age of 18 just gets a letter in the mail. Making people go for tedious registration and what not sounds very undemocratic to me.

Reverendender ,

The GOP is very undemocratic

billiam0202 ,

On the surface, it’s not bad. If, for example, you move from one state to another, your previous state may not know you don’t live there anymore. So if they see you haven’t voted in that state for a while, they’ll assume you don’t live there and remove your name from their registration.

The problem is, as usual, how it gives conservatives in the US cover to remove legitimate voters. If you haven’t moved but also haven’t voted for the last several election cycles, you might get removed even if you intend to vote in this election. And you can see how that’s a short jump to “Oh no, we accidentally removed a whole bunch of people who were going to vote against us and darn it, wouldn’t you know there’s no way to fix this in time!”

tyler ,

If, for example, you move from one state to another, your previous state may not know you don’t live there anymore. So if they see you haven’t voted in that state for a while, they’ll assume you don’t live there and remove your name from their registration.

They always know, especially if you’re paying your taxes correctly. Try moving to Colorado. You’ll get registered immediately without doing anything and your ballot will be mailed to you. You don’t ever have to do anything in person.

There’s no reason to unregister someone from voting. In any state.

billiam0202 ,

Try moving to Colorado. You’ll get registered immediately without doing anything and your ballot will be mailed to you.

In Kentucky, you have to go register yourself. And unless KY tells CO you’ve registered there, they wouldn’t know.

Buelldozer ,
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

Why is this even a thing in the USA?

Belgium has a population of only 11.7 Million, a population density of 387 per square kilometer, and a whopping 98.8 percent of the population is Urban.

We have 30 times your population, 1/10th of your population density, and 20% less of our population is Urban.

The United States has 28 Million people, more than twice your entire population, that MOVES every year. Over a million people immigrate into the United States every year, meaning we could literally populate your entire nation in just a decade.

All of that means you cannot simply “send everyone a letter”.

It’s like the old saw “Everything works fine in a small network.” So no offense but relatively speaking Belgium is a tiny network compared to what we’ve got going on in the United States.

CareHare ,

Does the IRS send a letter to everyone in the USA every year?

Semi_Hemi_Demigod ,
@Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world avatar

Nope. You file your taxes and send them in. They don’t mail you anything unless it’s necessary.

tyler ,

The irs literally did send almost everyone in the country a letter during covid… it’s not nearly as difficult as y’all are making it out to be.

Buelldozer ,
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

Now go look up the error rate on those letters.

Buelldozer ,
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

No, they do not.

tyler ,

Colorado handles it just fine. Sounds like you’re making excuses for your state, don’t lump all the states in with yours.

Buelldozer ,
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

We aren’t discussing a single state and if we were then Colorado has a population half of Belgium.

Everything works fine in a small network.

forrgott ,

All of that means you cannot simply “send everyone a letter”.

False.

FelixCress ,

Your point is?

skulblaka ,
@skulblaka@sh.itjust.works avatar

That’s because it is! Just one of the thousands of many little ways the American Republicans have made life worse for everyone, including their own. Gerrymandering and tampering with voter registration are historically Republican strategies that serve no purpose other than voter disenfranchisement. They can’t win a popular vote and they know it, so their best strategy is to prevent people from voting in the first place. Hence their history of arcane voter registration rules, disgustingly absurd gerrymandered districts, removal or last-minute changing of acceptable voting locations in Democratic areas, voter intimidation, even active voter endangerment via refusal of water bottles during summer heat - not as in they wouldn’t give you water at the voting lcoation - no, you aren’t allowed to have water, even if you brought your own, even if someone showed up and tried to donate water to you. They took it right out of our hands. Meanwhile we were standing in a line in a parking lot with no shade in 96F weather for multiple hours because local republican leadership also shut down all other democratic voting locations within an hour’s drive.

It is disgustingly undemocratic, dangerous, abusive and frankly it’s embarrassing. These are not politicians, these are spoiled little children stamping their feat and screaming “no, I get to be king, and you have to go home!” They actively will not associate with the word “democracy” anymore because it’s too close to accidentally being called a Democrat.

If you’ve noticed Americans being a little more pissy than usual recently in the last several years, it’s largely because people are starting to open their eyes to this truth. It’s nothing new, but it is starting to get noticed. Trump flipped over a big ol’ rock and suddenly everyone saw all the worms and slugs squirming underneath.

CareHare ,

I actually caught myself mouthing “What the fuck” at the water part of your comment. That’s some third world country shit. Everyone’s entitled to water, it’s the most basic human right. How would one argue that a ruling like that benefits the people?

Asafum ,

“ThEy’Re BuYiNg VoTeS wItH wAtEr!”

I’ve never heard about not being allowed to bring water, but I’ve definitely read about not being allowed to hand out water/sell water.

There is no legitimate reason, only excuses to cover for their bullshit.

skulblaka ,
@skulblaka@sh.itjust.works avatar

Their argument, such that it is, argues that Democrats are running the country into the ground and that they cannot be allowed to make decisions for other people. Not that the people should be allowed to govern themselves, no, the people should only be allowed to vote for things that are “in their best interest” as defined by Republicans.

Which is, obviously, horseshit. But a semi-significant percentage of our population eats up the anti-Democrat messaging and keeps enough of them in office that they can continue fucking with human rights without retribution.

Tower ,

www.americanbar.org/…/is-line-warming-legal/

It’s called “line warming” or “line relief” in case anyone wants to look up more about it.

Maggoty ,

Because they know they can’t win if they do that.

AceFuzzLord ,

Thankfully I’m in the clear where I live. Got some mail in ballets for a different election for everyone in my apartment. Just hoping that nobody tries to do like what was done last time and have republican mail people dump the mail in votes somewhere random. Luckily it wasn’t anywhere near my neck of the woods, but I’m always worried it’ll happen.

thegr8goldfish ,

You can bet the National Guard would be deployed if a similar coup attempt is planned this time around.

norimee ,

I would have bet on a more drastic response to a mob attacking an official building in the first place. But that didn’t happen either.

thegr8goldfish ,

That’s for sure. Every one of those fuckers should have gone directly to jail that night. If that had been a George Floyd protest they would have just opened fire.

pastel_de_airfryer ,

That’s what we did in Brazil.

Bolsonaro’s clowns pulled that same shit over here and almost two thousand of them were in jail by the end of the day.

dragontamer ,

Donald Trump controlled the DC National Guard on January 6th 2021. Joe Biden (or maybe Kamala Harris, if Joe steps down early) will control the DC National Guard in 2025.

SteveFromMySpace ,

The party is a private apparatus and can put up whoever they want. Get the fuck over it. Trump could drop out today and people would be excited, not fighting to force him back on ballot. Except for his fanatics I guess.

EatATaco ,

It’s s different with trump because he has already secured the nomination. Biden was just the presumptive nominee, which is why they have no standing because there is no nominee yet.

After that, there is probably a period of time where the wheels are in motion to put people on the ballot where they cannot turn back.

Like do you think the day before the election they could just swap out a candidate? What about printing ballots and distributing them? There has to be some kind of cut off.

takeda ,

They absolutely have no legal basis, my only worry is that they have activists in SCOTUS which showed us multiple times that they don’t care what the Constitution says.

sp3tr4l ,

Exactly.

It used to be the case that sane people with a modicum of understanding of our government/legal system, or even the ability to do a bit of research, they could just laugh this off.

But uh, nope, now we live in corrupt/activist Supreme Court era, which throws out decades of precedent and functionally invents new laws as it pleases.

dragontamer ,

Historically speaking, we Americans usually ignore what the SCOTUS says. Virginia was practically segregated into the early 1970s, for example, well over a decade after Brown v Board of Education.

That’s the hilarious part of the SCOTUS. They kind of don’t matter.

The response to an unjust SCOTUS is to ignore them. Like what are they actually gonna do about it?

HoustonHenry ,

Only works if everyone ignores them, don’t see that happening

dragontamer ,

Step 1 of the plan is to at least make people aware of the plan.

There’s more options available than expanding the court or whatever. Ultimately, the reigns of power largely rest in Congress and the President. Supreme Court is the moral center, they’re only effective if people believe their judgements to be moral and just. Otherwise, their statements are just fancy words on a piece of obscure paper.

Supreme Court has no ability to write laws or enforce them.

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