Trump Removed from Maine Primary Ballot

[Rawley]

I know right. Maybe one day you morons will learn what due process actually means.

It is funny as shit that you brain dead morons think that Trump did not get due process in CO when he had his damn lawyers there and they are the ones that filed the appeal.

Can I ask an honest question, how does one get to be an adult (assuming you are) and be so fucking ignorant of the most basic of terms?

Have a blessed life.

 

[konradv]

It’s just mind-blowing that a hyper-leftist knucklehead watching YouTube videos presumes she can interfere with voting rights.

She’s presuming nothing. She’s following the Constitution of the State of Maine.

 

[Rawley]

Biden summoned, incited and aimed an Insurrectionist mob against the Congress of the United States? When? I missed the memo.

You did. "Insurrection" means what ever some politician says it means.

 

[konradv]

You did. "Insurrection" means what ever some politician says it means.

Bullshit

 

[Hollie]

She’s presuming nothing. She’s following the Constitution of the State of Maine.

Of course, dear.

Could you link to the section of the state constitution where it identifies the process of an unelected bureaucrat,
a) determining the specific circumstances of an insurrection™ taking place, and,
b) where the state constitution grants that unelected bureaucrat the authority to unilaterally assign responsibility for some insurrection™ after watching YouTube videos.

Thanks.

 

[HeyNorm]

It's snowballing. There will be more states disqualifying him. It's also a kick in the butt at SCOTUS, telling them they can't slow-walk this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/28/maine-trump-primary-ballot/?itid=hp_alert

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.

^^^^ This is what fascists do afterall.

 

[Rawley]

Bullshit

WHat does it mean?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Have a blessed life.

as I thought, too much of a fucking pussy to answer a simple question

 

[Hollie]

It's snowballing. There will be more states disqualifying him. It's also a kick in the butt at SCOTUS, telling them they can't slow-walk this.

Could you email links to the relevant YouTube videos so more leftist run states will have an authoritative source to to rely on for their interference in elections?

 

[JWBooth]

There was no insurrection and the answer to this nonsense is a return to a caucus system.

 

[DBA]

I know right. Maybe one day you morons will learn what due process actually means.

It is funny as shit that you brain dead morons think that Trump did not get due process in CO when he had his damn lawyers there and they are the ones that filed the appeal.

Can I ask an honest question, how does one get to be an adult (assuming you are) and be so fucking ignorant of the most basic of terms?

And what if AL tried a candidate and found him/her innocent and 20 other states used that ruling as a basis for them allowing him/her on the ballot. Meanwhile, CO found him/her guilty and 20 states used that ruling as a basis for removing him/her from the ballot. Do you see how ridiculous this process is and how it could tarnish every election going forward? Partisan states can try and convict candidates at will. Some states allow one person, the Secretary of State, to simply make a declaration to remove a candidate from the ballot.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And what if AL tried a candidate and found him/her innocent and 20 other states used that ruling as a basis for them allowing him/her on the ballot. Meanwhile, CO found him/her guilty and 20 states used that ruling as a basis for removing him/her from the ballot. Do you see how ridiculous this process is and how it could tarnish every election going forward? Partisan states can try and convict candidates at will. Some states allow one person, the Secretary of State, to simply make a declaration to remove a candidate from the ballot.

Are you suggesting that the states should not have the right and power to determine eligibility to be on their ballots?

 

[Rawley]

And what if AL tried a candidate and found him/her innocent and 20 other states used that ruling as a basis for them allowing him/her on the ballot. Meanwhile, CO found him/her guilty and 20 states used that ruling as a basis for removing him/her from the ballot. Do you see how ridiculous this process is and how it could tarnish every election going forward? Partisan states can try and convict candidates at will. Some states allow one person, the Secretary of State, to simply make a declaration to remove a candidate from the ballot.

Good luck getting anything from that one other than puerile insults.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And what if AL tried a candidate and found him/her innocent and 20 other states used that ruling as a basis for them allowing him/her on the ballot. Meanwhile, CO found him/her guilty and 20 states used that ruling as a basis for removing him/her from the ballot. Do you see how ridiculous this process is and how it could tarnish every election going forward? Partisan states can try and convict candidates at will. Some states allow one person, the Secretary of State, to simply make a declaration to remove a candidate from the ballot.

Let me ask you this, in 2020 Howie Hawkins was only on the ballot in 30 of the 50 states, should the other 20 have been forced to put him on the ballot, since those 30 did so?

 

[j-mac]

Let me ask you this, in 2020 Howie Hawkins was only on the ballot in 30 of the 50 states, should the other 20 have been forced to put him on the ballot, since those 30 did so?

Should one person be allowed to decide who you can vote for? Isn't that the definition of disenfranchisement?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Should one person be allowed to decide who you can vote for? Isn't that the definition of disenfranchisement?

If that one person is following the laws of the state, then yes, as long as there is a process to appeal the decision.

You tell me, how should ballot access be determined?

Should anyone and everyone that wants to be on the ballot be put on it?

 

[konradv]

Should one person be allowed to decide who you can vote for? Isn't that the definition of disenfranchisement?

It’s the way it works in Maine. In a federal republic each state has leeway on how to run their own elections. It’s a States’ Rights issue and as a non-Mainer where Trump would have any standing to sue. That would require a Maine citizen. Not that they couldn’t find one, but he’d still have the SR issue to climb.

 

[j-mac]

If that one person is following the laws of the state, then yes, as long as there is a process to appeal the decision.

You tell me, how should ballot access be determined?

Should anyone and everyone that wants to be on the ballot be put on it?

Can you cite the law that says Bellows can unilaterally do this?

 

[konradv]

Can you cite the law that says Bellows can unilaterally do this?

You expect us to cite Maine law?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Can you cite the law that says Bellows can unilaterally do this?

I do not know anything about Maine's laws. She claims she has the power, the courts will decide if that is true or not. Though you might notice that her being able to do so is not being questioned, just her decision.

Now your turn, Should anyone and everyone that wants to be on the ballot be put on it?