“There is no doubt that Donald Trump is a threat to our liberties and even to our democracy,” Mr Newsom said on 22 December. “But in California, we defeat candidates at the polls. Everything else is a political distraction.”
I’m so sick of this shit. We had a choice of Trump or Biden in 2020 and we decided. Then Trump attempted to overthrow the government. We don’t need to decide again at the polls.
Translation: I would rather take this opportunity to self-promote.
Newsom’s about face on policies this last year as he ramps up his run for presidency is fucking disgusting. Between him and fetterman we’re learning that even ‘the good ones’ will throw their constituents to the wolves when power and money are involved.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Why the fuck do people let Trump get away with shit that no ordinary person would get away with.
Imagine if we used this same bullshit logic for ordinary people.
“Murderers shouldn’t be stopped by police. We should defeat them in polls.”
“Car thieves shouldn’t be arrested. We should let the American people choose.”
Fucking dumb.
And incidentally, we already did that, in 1868 when the 14th amendment was passed. So leaving it up to the polls is ignoring both the law and the will of the people.
Because holding famous, rich important people accountable for their actions would jeopardize the system. It needs that lack of accountability to function.
Because holding famous, rich important people accountable for their actions would jeopardize the system. It needs that lack of accountability to function in a way that only benefits the wealthy.
I changed that a little. I think capitalism is pretty shitty, but it could do better for many people if the United States government stopped letting rich people bend and often outright break the law.
Democrats don’t actually care if they win elections. Thanks to the duopoly control of elections, they will never go away
Gavin Newsom is preparing for a presidential run in 4 years, he is trying to not seem so scary to independents.
Mr Newsom, you are not above the constitution. Let the dust settle and do what the constitution recommends.
…and do what the constitution recommends
part of the problem here is that the constitution doesn’t actually recommend removing people from ballots. we’re in uncharted waters here. Though I agree, remove trump from the ballot.
It does say he’s not eligible and the feds won’t do it, now it’s left up to the states.
the feds won’t do it because the feds don’t run elections. Every state decides whose on the ballot. It’s literally not the fed’s job to do it, and never was
Are the states not also obligated to uphold the constitution?
the constitution only says he’s ineligible. It doesn’t say how to deal with that. It’s left it to the states to figure that out on their own.
It should be pretty clear by the definition of “ineligible.”
deleted by creator
Meaning SCOTUS won’t say if he’s ineligible or not.
For the primary ballot? Certainly not. It’s not their purview. And in any case they’ve only got a few days to make that determination- many states are rapidly closing in on when the ballots need to be finalized so they can be printed and distributed.
Most likely, SCROTUS is waiting until after the regular election to see if such a ruling is even necessary.
I would argue that the constitution not only recommends Trump be removed from the ballot. It almost requires it.
The constitution explicitly states that people like Trump who participated in an insurrection are ineligible for office. This is similar to other requirements for the office. For example, you must be a natural citizen over 35 years old, etc.
Constitutionally, each state chooses how to run their own elections. However, that freedom does not give them the power to go against the other parts of the constitution.
Traditionally, states will not put people on presidential ballots who do not meet the requirements to be president.
But do they have to do that? I would argue that the case with Trump proves that, going forward, they do have to exclude ineligible candidates for president. Because Trump is the first ineligible candidate who is leading in polls.
Every state election he might win is a constitutional crisis. Each state has the duty to follow the Constitution and ensure that Trump doesn’t win the presidency. The current method for doing this action is removing him from the ballot.
So…. You can point me to where the constitution actually says thst?
No? Okay. So it doesn’t say that.
It implies that. And yes, every state has historically kept ineligible candidates off the ballot. But nobody has contested this. Nobody has argued this in court. So now that it is a crisis, it’s going to the relevant courts.
That relevant court is the US courts- not the state courts like Mn. State courts are concerned with upholding their respective state constitutions, which probably say even less about it.
It’s really for SCOTUS to decide, and they’re not going to decide until it’s neccessary. Because they don’t want to set new precedent unless they have to.
The constitution is a legal document that has over 200 years of being interpreted by courts. Legally, it says a lot of things that it doesn’t explicitly say, and those things are the result of something called “arguments”.
In my comment, my first words were “I would argue that”. This is because I am making an argument that the constitution recommends Trump be removed from the ballot. You know, similar to how somebody made an argument that the constitution guarantees that people are allowed to marry between races, and so now that’s what it says. But you can’t point to the part where it explicitly says it.
If I meant, “the constitution explicitly states that”, then I would have used that language, instead. You can tell that by the way I used that exact language in my second paragraph.
You know, similar to how somebody made an argument that the constitution guarantees that people are allowed to marry between races, and so now that’s what it says. But you can’t point to the part where it explicitly says it.
In court, they made the argument in court. Which is now what they’re doing… yes?
I could just as easily argue that it says dipping french fries in frosties is illegal…. doesn’t make me right. (Who am I kidding fries+frosties is awesome).
For better or worse, this is the process we’re stuck with.
I could just as easily argue that it says dipping french fries in frosties is illegal
My argument referenced the contents of several parts of the constitution, including two amendments. It referenced current practices by states as well as reasoning as to why not following the recommendation can have poor outcomes. In response to your comment, I even referenced the contents of existing case law.
Your “argument” lacks anything approaching an argument. Where’s a reference to any part of the constitution? Where’s any precedent? If you can make a similar constitutional argument about dipping french fries in frosties being illegal, feel free to do so. But you don’t get any credit for simply claiming you can do it. I doubt you could make a coherent argument on french fries if you tried. Maybe not even if you were a law student, for example. But I’d bet a constitutional lawyer would be able to make an argument. But anyways, the point is that you didn’t even try. You just claimed victory.
I feel like we’ve gone through the part where I disagreed with you. Then you reacted by misinterpreting my comment. Then, I explained everything, and now, we both know that there’s nothing factually wrong with what I said, but you are still somehow trying to make new arguments. There’s nothing to win here, and in fact, your last argument is quite low quality, trivial to refute.
My point is that I don’t understand your motivation. It seems like you should just acknowledge that you understand what I mean, and we can all get on with life doing other things.
I feel like we’ve gone through the part where I disagreed with you. Then you reacted by misinterpreting my comment. Then, I explained everything, and now, we both know that there’s nothing factually wrong with what I said, but you are still somehow trying to make new arguments. There’s nothing to win here, and in fact, your last argument is quite low quality, trivial to refute.
No, but, we’ve apparently got to the point, where you feel the need to insult my intelligence, while still ignoring the point.
The purpose of the frosty analogy is simple: it’s absurd for any one to make any argument- no matter how reasonable and then assert that that is how it is. The fact- which you keep glossing over- is that we have never faced this particular question before, and the constitution’s sole input is “congress gets to do it.”
There’s long precedent, of course, that ineligible people may be kept off the ballot… but there’s really no solid argument at all for insisting they must be kept off- indeed, precedent is against you here, in the 1918 matter of Victor Berger- whose conviction under the espionage act prompted the senate to call a special committee to enforce section three.
I don’t know that anyone tried to keep Berger off the ballot; but he was in fact, elected and unseated twice. The fact is, these cases are in entirely uncharted water, and we can argue all we want on the internet. But those arguments provide zero influence into how the courts will decide the matter- and for better or worse, it’s the courts who will decide these things.
is trump ineligible? certainly. But the constitution itself provides no clarity in how the enforcement mechanism is supposed to work, and outside some rando commissioner in New Mexico that got outed from a state position, Berger is the last person to be held ineligible- and the only person who was not a confederate.
If you followed MN’s ruling on the matter, the judge basically decided that there was no law nor state-constitutional clause prohibiting Trump from being nominated by the state’s republican party. Because there is none. Every state is going to have to figure out that matter for themselves- and when (if?) trump wins in november; then it becomes a matter for congress.
part of the problem here is that the constitution doesn’t actually recommend removing people from ballots.
Why would anyone keep an ineligible candidate’s name on the ballot?
Dunno.
Because they’re idiotic sycophants?
The point is there’s mk qualification of what is “insurrection”, etc, no process for fact finding or determining the legitimacy of the accusations and really no way to keep people from voting for the orange turnip anyhow.
We all “know” he incited an insurrection. We all know he’s ineligible. But this is an inconceivable and utterly novel legal territory here, people are going to have wonky takes.
Because they’re idiotic sycophants?
Is Gavin Newsom an idiotic sycophant? The article is about how he wants to keep Trump on the ballot.
The point is there’s mk qualification of what is “insurrection”, etc, no process for fact finding or determining the legitimacy of the accusations
Colorado begs to differ.
Colorado came to a ruling after investigation; the courts heard the case and had a finding of fact.
that’s the process at work. I haven’t a clue what game Newsom is playing at. but honestly, I couldn’t be arsed after what he wants. It doesn’t really concern him all that much, really.
Because there’s not a consensus that they’re ineligible.
That’s why we have judges.
There’s not a consensus among judges.
Had the Dems done an actual impeachment of Trump, called witnesses and the like, and got a conviction this question would already be answered around the nation. But the half assed it and now we’re here.
I mean… Yeah, if you want to ignore the Constitution.
He’s doing this for the same foolish reason that Hillary did. He’s got one thing going for him that Hillary didn’t. He’s not hated as much or more than Trump.
Hillary won the popular vote by 2 million votes for reference.
Whether Trump’s actions constitute abetting insurrection is still an open question that will undoubtedly reach SCOTUS.
Regardless, and pragmatically, removing Trump from the ballots of states he would never win in the first place only emboldens the aggrieved right. It might feel nice to people that don’t support Trump, but roughly half of all voters DO support Trump. Even in bright blue California, 30% supported Trump for president. That’s roughly 1 out of every 3 people. In CALIFORNIA.
Removing candidates from the ballot is a dangerous game for everyone. Things will only change for the better if we do it the hard, annoying way: changing the minds of people that support him. Removing him from the ballot is not the way to do that.
changing the minds of people that support him
nope. fuck them.
I absolutely will not fuck any of them. I hope they all acquire a disease of the genitals that can only be cured with lye and sandpaper.
While I do agree with you, nearly completely, one nit that I would pick is the implication that “the aggrieved right”, and the emboldening of same are a point of concern to be avoided.
At this point, I feel that the right, and the actions and positions they’ve taken, have removed them markedly from the realm of a worthy and respectable political bloc, even if one I rarely agree with, and moved them squarely into the realm of radical and destabilizing faction that pushes for goals which can and will permanently destroy the foundations of the democracy I stand for as an essential underpinning of personal liberty.
At that point, they deserve to be aggrieved, and I see pissing them off as a necessary by-product of preserving democracy.
They’ve chosen to place themselves at odds with democratic rule, not the other way around.
That being said, however, I feel it would be a bigger win for everyone if Trump loses the election while appearing on ballots than if he’s absent from ballots in battleground states.
Treating Trump with any sort of legitimacy is how we got here. We have laws designed exactly for him. He shouldn’t go on the ballot. The right is only emboldened because they’re constantly getting away with fucking everything, skirting the lines of the law if not outright breaking them. We should entertain him being on the ballot like we’d entertain someone who’s 20 or wasn’t born in the country – it’s absurd.
deleted by creator
You are factually correct about “30% of the vote in CA”. But I think you are misinterpreting the data. PEW says that in 2020 96% of people voted strictly along party lines. PEW shows 30% of registered voters in CA are GOP or GOP leaning. Which means whoever the GOP candidate is would have received 29% of the voter REGARDLESS of who the candidate was. And before you point out the 1% “gain”, Biden “gained” 6% over registered DEM voters using the same metrics in CA.
(I sourced PEW because they were the first Google results that had the stats at the detail level I needed)
That’s a fairly long post that completely missed the point of what I said while needlessly parsing data that is mostly immaterial to the thesis.
The amount of time people like you spend trying to interpret polling data to support an unrealistic belief that things aren’t as bad as they seem then having the audacity to strike a pikachu-face as the extreme right continues to expand and the country regresses is embarrassing.
You should go into politics.
I wish more people could see this, and understand it. It’s a bit shocking to me how little empathy people have. Empathy isn’t just about knowing when to give someone a hug- it’s also about understanding what makes some people angry (among other things). Removing Trump from the ballot in California would do FAR more harm than anything else.
I agree with (you) and Newsome on this one
One thing which keeps sticking with me that was mentioned on another thread that I agree with, is precedence. If blue/liberal states start trying to remove him from their ballots, what’s going to stop the red/conservative states from trying to do the same for Biden?
It may just keep escalating to a larger bickering match between the states akin to children fighting over what channel to watch.
I doubt that would happen, but I also never thought I’d see the day that human rights in the U.S. went backward, either
While I absolutely see your point, and am even on the fence about it myself, I also see Trump as a huge threat to the country and the world. He’s made his intentions pretty well known at this time what he plans to do in his second term, and it’s basically dismantle everything. Couple that with the fact that he was probably only a few key people away from creating a constitutional crisis on Jan 6th, and using that as a reason to retain power. If he purges most of the government and puts in people loyal to him rather than the COTUS, it could go very bad for this country.
Additionally, it appears that nothing can convince his cultists that he is a bad person. It’s all out in the open: we have him bragging on tape to mishandling classified information (while not all that long ago they were chanting that a political opponent should be locked up for just that), we have him on tape - and other evidence - of pressuring an election official to overturn an election he lost, we have him - in violation of the law - withholding money appropriate by congress and then secretly calling the recipient of that aid and basically pressuring him into opening an investigation into a political rival.
I just don’t get how you could possibly convince these people that he is a bad person when we have so much blatant shit, right in front of us, indicating how bad he is and that only makes him more popular. They live in a bubble where penetrating it is impossible, or they are simply fascists who want this guy to be their god-emperor so it actually part of the plan.
The COTUS is designed to protect us from these types of people. . .and if we aren’t going to use when it’s so clearly appropriate, and just leave it up to chance of the misinformed public, what’s the point of it at all?
Things will only change for the better if we do it the hard, annoying way: changing the minds of people that support him.
Honestly, how? How do you possibly do this? They live in a bubble at this point, completely impervious to the facts. We have so much public information that would is absolutely damning that this guy is a criminal: the most clear being admitting on tape to mishandling classified information. Yet they don’t care. How do you get through to these people? If you have a good way, I would love to attempt it. But every attempt at debate I’ve had with these people is met with “you watch too much CNN” it’s a complete shut down to any type of logic.
Gavin Newsom needs to sit down and shut the fuck up. He’s got a future in politics. Now is not his time but he keeps trying to put himself into the news cycle for recognition. Chill bro.
There’s certainly no need to tussle over it in California. Trump wouldn’t win in California anyway and it would just feed into the persecution narrative among his fan base.
There’s still red districts that might see a drop in Republicans voting if trump wasn’t an option.
True. Down ballot it would make a difference. Local govts could see substantial improvements.
Dis shits gonna streissand effect in Trump’s favor.
If it does then that means political accountability is impossible.
I think he’s avoiding more Streisand this way, but it’s prolly arguable.
Removed by mod
I don’t see the Supreme Court upholding even Colorado’s ruling. Trump has gained more political steam with this. He has his angle that the “Dems are actively not being democratic”. Not that I agree with any of that message.
There’s no way he’d win in California regardless. Makes no sense to attempt it there.
No way this supreme court upholds that ruling. Which pisses me off even more that Biden refused to stack the court when he had the chance
It would take an act of Congress to alter the Judicial Act of 1969, which sets the current size of the Supreme Court.
Democrats consider the preservation of the filibuster to be more important.
Yes I fear it is just misleading hope. Another thread is hoping Dean Phillips can upset a repeat of 2020 Biden v Trump. Who knows, we’ll see.
At least Breyer was replaced by Jackson. The Senate is as much to blame as well.
I mean that’s the message he’ll spin for sure, but the Colorado suit was brought to the courts by Republicans trying to remove Trump from the ballot.
He’ll just say theyre RINOs that are agents of the democrats.
deleted by creator
Why would supreme Court weigh in on states rights to run their elections?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
California Governor Gavin Newson isn’t backing his own lieutenant’s call to remove Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot after the Colorado Supreme Court determined that he was ineligible for the presidency.
California Lt Gov Eleni Kounalakis responded to the move by suggesting that her state should do the same ahead of its 5 March primary.
Ms Kounalakis had expressed her intent to remove Mr Trump from the ballot in a letter to California’s Secretary of State on 20 December.
“Prompted” by the Colorado ruling, Ms Kounalakis wrote, “I urge you to explore every legal option to remove former President Donald Trump from California’s 2024 presidential primary ballot.”
On the same day, Democratic state Sen Dave Min announced he planned to introduce a bill in 2024 that would allow California “residents to sue to remove ineligible candidates from the ballot.”
In response to the Colorado ruling, Mr Trump took to Truth Social to air out his grievances: “A SAD DAY IN AMERICA!!
The original article contains 381 words, the summary contains 162 words. Saved 57%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I can halfway agree with this. It’s not like Trump was going to win in California, so it might make sense to focus efforts on other states.
Still, I’d like to see CA at least try.
