Maine barred Donald Trump from the primary ballot Thursday, making it the second state in the country to block the former president from running again under a part of the Constitution that prevents insurrectionists from holding office.

The decision by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) is sure to be appealed. The Colorado Supreme Court last week found Trump could not appear on the ballot in that state, and the Colorado Republican Party has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The nation’s high court could resolve for all states whether Trump can run again.

Archive

  • @Rapidcreek
    link
    15511 months ago

    Royal also argued that Trump violated Section 3, while Gordon’s challenge took a different tack, arguing that Trump is not eligible to be on the ballot because he claims to have won the 2020 election, which would have been his second term. The 22nd Amendment states that no person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice.

    The other arguments are Colorado redux

    • partial_accumen
      link
      11811 months ago

      arguing that Trump is not eligible to be on the ballot because he claims to have won the 2020 election, which would have been his second term. The 22nd Amendment states that no person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice.

      Oh thats clever!

      “The 14th Amendment Constitution says you, an insurrectionist, cannot be on the ballot”

      Trump: “I’m not an insurrectionist! I was defending my election to office in 2020!”

      "Ah, okay then so you’re admitting that you’re trying to run for a 3rd term in violation of the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        6411 months ago

        Clever, but no. He didn’t get a second term, and his whining in a corner doesn’t change that.

        • @GardenVarietyAnxiety
          link
          4111 months ago

          But for him to publicly admit that… it might snap a few people out of the illusion.

          …I hope.

          • @hdnsmbt
            link
            2511 months ago

            They don’t care if he admits it or if it’s true. They only care about what he instructs them to care about. Please, we must all start to understand this otherwise it’s us living in an illusion.

            • @GardenVarietyAnxiety
              link
              -1811 months ago

              “They” are human beings. “They” are our family and neighbors. “They” are people who are being exploited for political gain. You’d do well to keep that in mind.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                1711 months ago

                I don’t think the idea was to dehumanize, but rather to be more aware of the shared psychosis so many people are living in.

                “They” claim that Trump won the election without any regard to facts and evidence. Imagining that “they” will suddenly change their mind if they get just one more piece of factual information is foolish considering everything we’ve seen so far. We must find another way to get through to “them”.

              • @hdnsmbt
                link
                1411 months ago

                Just because I’m using a plural pronoun I’m not dehumanising anyone. Please read what is actually written and keep your desire to scold people at home.

              • Flying Squid
                link
                1011 months ago

                You know what I think is funny? You used ‘they’ the same way one comment earlier:

                • @GardenVarietyAnxiety
                  link
                  110 months ago

                  Oh, just noticed this reply.

                  In the first example “They” is a generalization, in the second is a reference to a specific set of people.

              • 100_kg_90_de_belin
                link
                fedilink
                911 months ago

                They have been behaving like members of a cult and have alienated family members, relatives and friends with their MAGA-narrative filled of hate and xenophobia.

              • @Iamdanno
                link
                1
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                “They” are also objectively stupid. And they are willing, enthusiastic, participants in their “exploitation”.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -6
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                They most certainly are not. They have no compassion, no intelligence, no critical thinking, no love, and no respect for human life.

                They are mammals. Even primates. I’ll give you that. But they are sub-human.

                They have caused unimaginable pain and suffering and they enjoy it all and run on hatred.

                • @hdnsmbt
                  link
                  911 months ago

                  All of the things you listed are attributes humans have. There is no such thing as sub-humans, you’re thinking of regular humans.

                  Trump supporters are easily fooled idiots but they are fellow humans nonetheless. Thinking of a group of people as “sub-humans” oppens the door to treating that group as inferior and not worthy of respect which leads to fascist tendencies. Please be aware of what your words mean.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -5
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    I’m aware. That group is inferior and not worthy of respect. They are a cancer to our society and we should be making huge efforts to cure them.

                • @GardenVarietyAnxiety
                  link
                  110 months ago

                  Holy fuck, dude. “They are sub-human” ??? Literally asking here: Who talks like that? I can think of at least one historical figure.

            • @GardenVarietyAnxiety
              link
              311 months ago

              What those people believe is that he was elected but obviously never served his term so it doesn’t apply.

              It would seem that a non-insignificant percentage of MAGA disagrees.

              There’s no 4D chess going on here.

              4D Chess? Do you mean strategically calculated political decisions? Or… “Politics.”

              Why else would they be taking this path if

              he was elected but obviously never served his term so it doesn’t apply. ?

                • @GardenVarietyAnxiety
                  link
                  -111 months ago

                  I live in a red state, and this has been brought up more than once in conversations with my neighbors. One of my friends had family who brought it up last Thanksgiving, and, while I understand the “internet isn’t real life,” you can see it for yourself if you watch almost any video of someone interviewing MAGAs outside of a Trump rally.

                  These are the most likely to resort to violence. If you show them the man behind the curtain, he loses his appeal.

                  And if so, why are they all riled up about “the big steal” that they don’t even believe happened?

                  MAGA is far from a cohesive group with a unified world view, hence the “non-insignificant percentage”

                  All that being said… I’ll ask again. If he obviously never served his term and there’s no political strategy going on: Why is Maine doing it?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        211 months ago

        Oh that’s clever!

        It’s obviously childish as fuck to be playing such twisted logic games with something as important as the Presidency. Clever is not a word I want applied to American jurisprudence

    • @TallonMetroid
      link
      English
      2911 months ago

      Obviously they’re not operating in good faith, so they’ll come up with some nonsense justification as to why president loser deserves a 3rd term or something anyway. But that’s still a novel approach.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        211 months ago

        Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that someone deciding to bar Trump based on this “third term” argument is acting in good faith?

        • @TallonMetroid
          link
          English
          111 months ago

          Why wouldn’t they be? Just because a premise is farcical doesn’t mean you can’t accept it for the sake of argument.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      arguing that Trump is not eligible to be on the ballot because he claims to have won the 2020 election

      mondo big LOLs there. It’s not likely to hold water in court, imo, and I’m guessing that the argument will be that he never took the oath for the second term. Buuut it might mean Trump is either going to have to admit to the court that he didn’t win or he’s going to be told by the SCOTUS that he didn’t. Get dunked on, idiot.