Trump Removed from Maine Primary Ballot

[konradv]

Post the requirements to be on the ballot for both those states that Trump didn’t meet. Bring links to their election laws.

Why? Are you saying they don’t know their own laws?

 

[DBA]

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

Sure, they have that right and the federal government should have the right to determine that their electoral votes will not be counted.

Why couldn’t a state with a Democrat SC and/or Secretary of State just remove everyone other than the Democratic candidate from their ballot? Same for a Republican led state. Our federal election system would be in shambles.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sure, they have that right and the federal government should have the right to determine that their electoral votes will not be counted.

Why couldn’t a state with a Democrat SC and/or Secretary of State just remove everyone other than the Democratic candidate from their ballot? Same for a Republican lead state. Our federal election system would be in shambles.

In 2020 Howie Hawkins was only on the ballot in 30 of the 50 states, should those states that did not allow him on their ballots be punished?

 

[DBA]

so, then as long as a state has a write in spot they can leave anyone off the ballot and all is good?

Ok, so let’s just remove all names from ballots. Everyone must write-in their vote. It is a clear advantage for a candidate to have their name on the ballot.

 

[DBA]

In 2020 Howie Hawkins was only on the ballot in 30 of the 50 states, should those states that did not allow him on their ballots be punished?

Why why was his name not on the ballot in those states? It stands to reason that we can’t have everyone’s name on a ballot. There must be a number of signatures required.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Ok, so let’s just remove all names from ballots. Everyone must write-in their vote. It is a clear advantage for a candidate to have their name on the ballot.

It is indeed. I would settle for removing party affiliation from ballots.

Why why was his name not on the ballot in those states? It stands to reason that we can’t have everyone’s name on a ballot. There must be a number of signatures required.

Unless of course one is a member of a "major" party, then there is no such requirement. Does this seem fair to you?

And also, if one thinks it is fine bar someone from being on the ballot for not having enough signatures, why would it not also be for a reason listed in the Constitution?

 

[DBA]

Under Maine law the SOS is allowed to make that determination. And she used the 14 ammendment to come to her decision, Trump trained monkey.

And she didn't come to that conclusion lightly. Your soiled undies had no bearing on her decision.

In Maine, I guess the SOS could essentially remove anyone from the ballot at any time for any reason or no reason at all. Seems pretty nefarious to me.

The electoral college is accepting votes from each state, so they should have some say as to how the election in that state is executed, otherwise, we have pure chaos.

 

[DBA]

Unless of course one is a member of a "major" party, then there is no such requirement. Does this seem fair to you?

No, but if using a number of signatures requirement, both parties would be on every ballot. If that is the measure, so be it.

And also, if one thinks it is fine bar someone from being on the ballot for not having enough signatures, why would it not also be for a reason listed in the Constitution?

It isn’t up to each state to individually try a candidate on federal crimes, regardless of whether or not the candidate has been formally accused or not. It is utter chaos and we both know that courts can be very politically biased. Allowing each state court to rule on a candidates eligibility based on each state court’s opinion as opposed to quantitative signatures is absurd.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It isn’t up to each state to individually try a candidate on federal crimes, regardless of whether or not the candidate has been formally accused or not. It is utter chaos and we both know that courts can be very politically biased. Allowing each state court to rule on a candidates eligibility based on each state court’s opinion as opposed to quantitative signatures is absurd.

Even the signatures are subject to a court's opinion as they are often challenged.

One must remember, every court ruling ever is nothing more than a court's/judge's opinion.

 

[DBA]

Even the signatures are subject to a court's opinion as they are often challenged.

Verified signatures is a quantitive system, though, that can certainly be manipulated, which is why we shouldn’t have mass mail-in balloting, but that is a different discussion.

One must remember, every court ruling ever is nothing more than a court's/judge's opinion.

My point is that we must have a final verdict. Each court in each state can rule differently on issues, but if the ruling affects the nation as a whole in some way, we must defer to the SC. For elections that involve placing state representatives in federal government positions, there should be a federally enforced set of laws that need to be followed. If a state wants to elect their governor by removing all opposing party candidates, that is up to them and their citizens.

Now, all of this gets dicey if/when the federal government becomes fully corrupt. We aren’t that far from that now, which is why we had the Jan. 6th debacle.

 

[j-mac]

That well may be and could be a valid argument.

That Trump is not getting due process is not a valid argument.

SCOTUS will let you know about that...

 

[j-mac]

You have no right to impose your conception of the rules on Maine.

Me? I'm just a poster on a message board...How the hell am I doing anything of the sort?

 

[konradv]

Me? I'm just a poster on a message board...How the hell am I doing anything of the sort?

OK, let’s go with, opinions from outside Maine about their procedures are interesting, but irrelevant.

 

[Nostra]

Why? Are you saying they don’t know their own laws?

So you can't post the law.

I'm saying she never cited any Maine law, just the 14th based on watching youtube videos, Simp.

 

[Nostra]

In 2020 Howie Hawkins was only on the ballot in 30 of the 50 states, should those states that did not allow him on their ballots be punished?

Did he qualify to be on the ballot in the 20 he wasn't on the ballot?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

SCOTUS will let you know about that...

Yes they will, which is the very definition of due process.

 

[Nostra]

It is indeed. I would settle for removing party affiliation from ballots.




Unless of course one is a member of a "major" party, then there is no such requirement. Does this seem fair to you?

And also, if one thinks it is fine bar someone from being on the ballot for not having enough signatures, why would it not also be for a reason listed in the Constitution?

The Maine SOS is not empowered by the Constitution to enforce the 14th, Simp. Only congress is.

 

[Delldude]

Yet the 9th circuit said individual voters have no standing to challenge a candidates position on a ballot and the supremes wouldn't take up an appeal. Go figure.

Pretty sure most of these cases were started by big head Trump haters. Be funny as all hell to see this stuff unravel in their faces.

Just like all the other times.

 

[Delldude]

Yes they will, which is the very definition of due process.

Wait a minute......I thought due process was some radical leftist ACLU-AG deciding Trump is an insurrectionist.

 

[Delldude]

Why would I do that? I do not even agree with these actions, but unlike you I do not need to agree with something to defend the right of a person to do it

Well, why the are you playing with your dictionary defending those actions?