1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

The goal won't change just because some states take him off the ballot.  Do you actually think he can win a general election?

Should he make it to the general and loses (AGAIN)-you think he will accept that loss?   I say no, and that is why I feel what's best here is to disqualify him.

 

agent orange is so corrupt that sheet like this barely gets noticed. 

1 minute ago, DiPros said:

Should he make it to the general and loses (AGAIN)-you think he will accept that loss?   I say no, and that is why I feel what's best here is to disqualify him.

Of course he won't.  How about we simply run the cases against him and put him in jail for a long time?

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

The goal won't change just because some states take him off the ballot.  Do you actually think he can win a general election?

I said achievable goal.

No, of course I don't think he can win in a general but with a House and even much of the Senate ready to do his bidding and cultist lawmakers packing the states (a point you made the other day), it's an achievable goal, however remote.  If he's off the ballot the only concern are the crazies being crazy, but they're always a concern, so nothing changes.

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Of course he won't.  How about we simply run the cases against him and put him in jail for a long time?

That would be Ok too, but don't see it happening before November.

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

I said achievable goal.

No, of course I don't think he can win in a general but with a House and even much of the Senate ready to do his bidding and cultist lawmakers packing the states (a point you made the other day), it's an achievable goal, however remote.  If he's off the ballot the only concern are the crazies being crazy, but they're always a concern, so nothing changes.

Don't see much difference to be honest.  They can still drive that line of thinking a year from now whether he's on the ballot of every state or not.

1 hour ago, DiPros said:

He obviously "participated"  

This is where the disagreement lies. Half the country believes Trump participated in insurrection. Who knows what the other half is thinking. Will they believe it when Trump is convicted? Who knows?

In a perfect world, we could let due process play out. Trump is convicted, or he is not, then we will know for sure if he belongs on the ballot. (Or, the Senate could have done their job in 2021 and convicted him in the second impeachment. They did not.) This is not the reality. Litigation against Trump is not complete. Yet the election is in 2024. Ballots need to be set. Challenges to Trump's nomination have been entered. We have 50 states running 50 different elections. The Supreme Court in CO and the Secretary of State in Maine have ruled Trump is ineligible. I believe as 2024 unfolds there will be more challenges in more states. This is only the beginning. What a mess. 

 

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

Don't see much difference to be honest.  They can still drive that line of thinking a year from now whether he's on the ballot of every state or not.

One is an achievable goal.  One isn't.  I'm not sure how you can't see the difference in those two things.

11 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

  Do you actually think he can win a general election?

yep. cheeto's voters will turn out & vote for him no matter what. and people are stupid. younger voters don't even remember jan 6 or how much of a f up cheeto was during his term. hell, as time goes by older voters don't either. the anti-trump sentiment was strong in 2020 but i don't see the same vigor this time around. dems need to remind voters of how unhinged cheeto was/is...but they suck at that. then you have a 3rd party loon like kennedy in the mix & somehow polling at around 5-10% so that could f things up as well.

in conclusion, people are stupid...so yeah, he has a shot. 

4 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

One is an achievable goal.  One isn't.  I'm not sure how you can't see the difference in those two things.

Play it out.  Let's say Trump is on 38 ballots including nearly all the swing states.  We get to the period after the election where Trump has lost.  What happens?  What is different vs. the same scenario where he loses and is on the ballot of all 50 states?

isn't the "not on the ballot" thing for the primaries?     

3 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

as time goes by older voters don't either

Hey, watch it!  

I remember being here on this MB after the 2020 election and you guys had pegged the challenge process, and even that he may try (AND did) disrupt the electoral process.

I am dug in (IN CONCRETE!) that keeping him off the 2024 ballot by way of disqualification is the best way out of this mess.  As you can tell, I'm tired and I better not die before that SOB!!!!

Just now, DrPhilly said:

Play it out.  Let's say Trump is on 38 ballots including nearly all the swing states.  We get to the period after the election where Trump has lost.  What happens?  What is different vs. the same scenario where he loses and is on the ballot of all 50 states?

I think there's a very strong chance that if Trump's removed from a couple swing states that he doesn't win the Republican nomination, whether that's at the ballot or at the convention.  If he literally can't win (realistically, without winning somewhere like California), then I don't see how they make it all the way through the convention marching into a certain defeat. 

The only thing that Republicans as a whole care about (actually care about, not pretend to care about), is winning.  It's become very obvious over the Trump years that they'll drop any core issue in the blink of an eye if it suits them, but needing to win (which is really just needing the Dems to lose) is the single issue that universally moves the needle for them.  The only time Trump's really lost favor in the party was after the 2022 election (not 2020, since they somehow convinced themselves he really won).  But in 2022, it was clear he lost them elections across the board.  And what happened?  His poll #'s sank and DeSantis was briefly in command.  Of course they have short attention spans and that eventually changed, but if he's off the ballot in too many states and the math doesn't add up there's really no way to change that narrative.  He'll be a guaranteed loser.  I just don't see how they stay on board at that point.

6 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

You think he will win the election?

I think he can steal it

5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I think there's a very strong chance that if Trump's removed from a couple swing states that he doesn't win the Republican nomination, whether that's at the ballot or at the convention.  If he literally can't win (realistically, without winning somewhere like California), then I don't see how they make it all the way through the convention marching into a certain defeat. 

The only thing that Republicans as a whole care about (actually care about, not pretend to care about), is winning.  It's become very obvious over the Trump years that they'll drop any core issue in the blink of an eye if it suits them, but needing to win (which is really just needing the Dems to lose) is the single issue that universally moves the needle for them.  The only time Trump's really lost favor in the party was after the 2022 election (not 2020, since they somehow convinced themselves he really won).  But in 2022, it was clear he lost them elections across the board.  And what happened?  His poll #'s sank and DeSantis was briefly in command.  Of course they have short attention spans and that eventually changed, but if he's off the ballot in too many states and the math doesn't add up there's really no way to change that narrative.  He'll be a guaranteed loser.  I just don't see how they stay on board at that point.

That's not how I read it.  I think it is too late.  Trump owns the party at this stage.

Further, even if he isn't on a state ballot he can still go with the same strategy he ran last time of trying to have states ignore the actual vote tallies and send in electors ready to vote for him and it won't matter whether he was on the ballot or not.

So, this remains just an incredibly interesting Constitutional question which really requires going to the language. Let's start with -- @Dave Moss is correct that the Constitution leaves the administration of elections to the states per Article IV. 

Quote

 

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

 

Now clearly, that is for the election of Representatives and Senators, but Article II says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." But it doesn't end there for a couple of reasons. 

First, the SCOTUS ruled in 1995 (U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton) that states can administer elections and safeguard integrity, but "[T]he Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints." So, this was about trying to enforce term limits, or note candidates that didn't favor term limits. But the words "favor or disfavor a class of candidates" is interesting.

Second, of course, is the 14th Amendment itself. No, the amendment does not require conviction, simply for one to have "engaged in insurrection" after " having previously taken an oath...or as an officer of the United States...to support the Constitution of the United States." So did Trump engage in insurrection, and was he an Officer of the United States that had taken an oath to support the Constitution?

The second test is self-evident -- he took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution live on TV. The argument the President isn't an officer of the US is idiotic.

The first -- what does "engage in insurrection" mean is the crux of this -- Colorado has said he did, but Trump argues we wasn't afforded due process to defend himself. The 14th amendment states " nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and the 5th Amendment says "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Well, no one is depriving Trump of life or property, obviously. Liberty? No one is putting him in jail. Does restricting his right to run for President deprive him of "liberty"? I would say not as the word was understood at the time. So...if I were Colorado, I'd argue that Trump is not Constitutionally granted due process here. 

So basically, we are left with this going to SOCTUS as the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional questions. There's a few ways they can go. They could conclusively rule that Trump did not "engage in insurrection" and therefore must be eligible in all 50 states -- I think there is almost ZERO chance of them doing that because they frankly lack the evidence and testimony. They could rule that states have the right over elections to disqualify Trump on a state by state basis -- I think there is ZERO chance of this, as the 1995 decision is easy enough to fall back on here. They could do what I said previously and say he is auto disqualified if convicted in the Jan 6 trial, but I don't think they do that.

What they should do, what is Constitutional, is say -- states can not disqualify Trump from the ballot using the 14th Amendment, and if he meets all the other requirements the states have to be on the ballot, then he's on the ballot. Section 3 says "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States...." So he can't HOLD the office. Doesn't mean he can't run for it. If I were on SCOTUS, I'd say this argument isn't ripe because no one is trying to make Trump the President, yet. I'd reserve the right to revisit the issue if he is elected. So basically...take the risk if you want GOP. If Trump were to win, and then be found ineligible, the person elected Vice President would be the President (I believe, but this is another quagmire). But there's no reason electors can't throw their vote away voting for someone who is ineligible.

I guess the one qualifier to my post would be if a state already has a law that bars anyone from being on their ballot who is Constitutionally ineligible for the office. I don't know if CO has that law. If they have that law on the books, then I'm not sure how SCOTUS gets him back on the ballot. Maybe they say he wasn't given due process, but then CO could have a redo and let Trump present evidence.

Based on this quick search, it doesn't seem like they have that law.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_Colorado

6 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

What they should do, what is Constitutional, is say -- states can not disqualify Trump from the ballot using the 14th Amendment, and if he meets all the other requirements the states have to be on the ballot, then he's on the ballot. Section 3 says "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States...." So he can't HOLD the office. Doesn't mean he can't run for it. If I were on SCOTUS, I'd say this argument isn't ripe because no one is trying to make Trump the President, yet. I'd reserve the right to revisit the issue if he is elected. So basically...take the risk if you want GOP. If Trump were to win, and then be found ineligible, the person elected Vice President would be the President (I believe, but this is another quagmire). But there's no reason electors can't throw their vote away voting for someone who is ineligible.

Well that would create the world's biggest cluster F.

6 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Well that would create the world's biggest cluster F.

But it's the legally correct conclusion, IMO. Here are the 2 sections of CO election code that are referenced -- neither talks about Constitutional qualifications.

Quote

 

(1) Not later than sixty days before the presidential primary election, the secretary of state shall certify the names and party affiliations of the candidates to be placed on any presidential primary election ballots. The only candidates whose names shall be placed on ballots for the election shall be those candidates who: (a) Repealed. (b) Are seeking the nomination for president of a political party as a bona fide candidate for president of the United States pursuant to political party rules and are affiliated with a major political party that received at least twenty percent of the votes cast by eligible electors in Colorado at the last presidential election; and (c) Have submitted to the secretary, not later than eighty-five days before the date of the presidential primary election, a notarized candidate's statement of intent together with either a nonrefundable filing fee of five hundred dollars or a petition signed by at least five thousand eligible electors affiliated with the candidate's political party who reside in the state. Candidate petitions must meet the requirements of parts 8 and 9 of this article 4, as applicable. (1.5) No later than the sixty-fifth day before the presidential primary election, a person whose name has been qualified to be placed on the ballot may file with the secretary of state an affidavit stating that the person is not a candidate for the office of the president of the United States and requesting that the person's name not be included in the list of names certified by the secretary of state in accordance with subsection (1) of this section. The secretary of state shall not include in the list the name of a person who timely files an affidavit. (2) The names of candidates appearing on any presidential primary ballot must be in an order determined by lot. The secretary of state shall determine the method of drawing lots. (3) Except as otherwise prohibited by political party rules, the state chairperson of a political party may request the secretary to provide a place on the primary ballot for electors who have no presidential candidate preference to register a vote to send a noncommitted delegate to the political party's national convention. To be valid, this request must be received by the secretary of state no later than seventy days before the presidential primary election. (4) Any challenge to the listing of any candidate on the presidential primary election ballot must be made in writing and filed with the district court in accordance with section 1-1-113(1) no later than five days after the filing deadline for candidates. Any such challenge must provide notice in a summary manner of an alleged impropriety that gives rise to the complaint. No later than five days after the challenge is filed, a hearing must be held at which time the district court shall hear the challenge and assess the validity of all alleged improprieties. The district court shall issue findings of fact and conclusions of law no later than forty-eight hours after the hearing. The party filing the challenge has the burden to sustain the challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. Any order entered by the district court may be reviewed in accordance with section 1-1-113(3).

C.R.S. § 1-4-1204

 

Quote

 

(1) When any controversy arises between any official charged with any duty or function under this code and any candidate, or any officers or representatives of a political party, or any persons who have made nominations or when any eligible elector files a verified petition in a district court of competent jurisdiction alleging that a person charged with a duty under this code has committed or is about to commit a breach or neglect of duty or other wrongful act, after notice to the official which includes an opportunity to be heard, upon a finding of good cause, the district court shall issue an order requiring substantial compliance with the provisions of this code. The order shall require the person charged to forthwith perform the duty or to desist from the wrongful act or to forthwith show cause why the order should not be obeyed. The burden of proof is on the petitioner. (2) Repealed. (3) The proceedings may be reviewed and finally adjudicated by the supreme court of this state, if either party makes application to the supreme court within three days after the district court proceedings are terminated, unless the supreme court, in its discretion, declines jurisdiction of the case. If the supreme court declines to review the proceedings, the decision of the district court shall be final and not subject to further appellate review. (4) Except as otherwise provided in this part 1, the procedure specified in this section shall be the exclusive method for the adjudication of controversies arising from a breach or neglect of duty or other wrongful act that occurs prior to the day of an election. (5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the procedures specified in section 1-1.5-105 shall constitute the exclusive administrative remedy for a complaint arising under Title III of the federal "Help America Vote Act of 2002", Pub.L. 107-252.

C.R.S. § 1-1-113

 

 

I mean, if you want to really parse it, 1-4-2014 (1)(b) says a "bona fide" candidate, but that's one weak arse argument. 

Cluster F chaos is where Trump lives and thrives. 

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

But it's the legally correct conclusion, IMO. Here are the 2 sections of CO election code that are referenced -- neither talks about Constitutional qualifications.

 

 

What's crazy about that scenario (aside from, well basically everything), is that you're saying the VP is running for President.  Which means Trump is personally choosing the nominee.  I really wonder what that does to his decision making.  He doesn't care even a little bit about the Republican Party so it would have nothing to do with elect-ability.  It would still be about loyalty of course, since he would really, really need this person to pardon him, but since he wouldn't ever be President, it would need to be 100% an extension of himself.  I actually think in this scenario, he'd choose Don Jr.

The only way to make it totally clear is to actually convict him.  Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen before the election.

At this point, the path to victory is to win the general over Trump and then be ready to fend off the claims he will make thereafter.  Essentially the same fight all over again only this time the VP is Harris and a mob of a couple thousand idiots aren't going to be able to overrun the Capitol.

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

The only way to make it totally clear is to actually convict him.  Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen before the election.

At this point, the path to victory is to win the general over Trump and then be ready to fend off the claims he will make thereafter.  Essentially the same fight all over again only this time the VP is Harris and a mob of a couple thousand idiots aren't going to be able to overrun the Capitol.

The other way to make it clear was just outlined by Vikas.  If he's ineligible, he's ineligible.  Take it up with the Constitution.

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

The other way to make it clear was just outlined by Vikas.  If he's ineligible, he's ineligible.  Take it up with the Constitution.

The Vikas scenario ended up with Trump winning (possibly) and then another Trump being POTUS.  I don't think we want that.

I want Trump on the ballot. He has less support than in 2016. I'd love to watch America reject his pathetic arse one more time.

Perennial loser.