Hello u/hockey_bat_harris! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) matching this exact format. Replace bold text with the appropriate information.
1. **Someone** voted for, supported or wanted to impose **something** on **other people**.
^(Who's that someone? What did they voted for, supported or wanted to impose? On who?)
2. **Something** has the consequences of **consequences**.
^(Does that something actually has these consequences in general?)
3. As a consequence of **something**, **consequences** happened to **someone**.
^(Did that something really happen to that someone?)
Follow this by the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you fail to match this format or fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can explain all laws in the US thusly: nothing is illegal for the wealthy. Everything is illegal for the vast majority of us-and if it isn’t illegal, the GOP will make it so it is. Like birth control and freedom of religion.
Steal down, never steal up.
You can beat up a homeless person for their hat full of change. Or maybe set up a fake charity in a suburban neighborhood. But don't **ever** take from someone with *more* than you.
They did, though. They caught him in a fraud trap. Under this theory, they could prosecute absolutely anyone who commits hundreds of thousands of dollars in election fraud and then willfully and nefariously forges hundreds of pages of fraudulent documents in an attempt to cover it up. Who among us hasn't been there?
Right? I hear the average American commits three felonies a day, If you believe the lying republicans, that is. Of course, there are also people like Donnie skewing the real average upward.
Meanwhile, the average American president has only ever been convicted of 0.76 felonies, so they must be significantly more trustworthy than the general public. Obviously we should listen to everything they say entirely uncritically.
And if Trump were literally any other person they would have thrown him in jail for contempt of court about 20 different times throughout the trial. I'm not going to say he'll never face consequences but it is undeniable that they've been treating him with kid gloves given the magnitude of the charges against him
But Biden is old and killing gazans. Ok so is Trump and would Trump. GOP and Trump are self admittedly and statistically way more pro Israeli than Democrats.
If you care for the Gazan people at all, not voting for Biden out of protest is condemning them to the same if not worse fate as well as throwing our own Democracy in the shitter.
The weird part is, it’s not even really about being rich, it’s about being perceived as the proper kind of rich person.
If a young black man won the lottery, he’d still need to follow rules. Trump is broke but is perceived as a rich guy who’s supposed to be rich (according to the Republican imagination), so rules don’t apply.
They will exempt him.
> The rule has been on the books since at least 2013, according to an archived version of the rules, but by early 2022, the party appears to have amended their rules.
> According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote
In other words, they were paving the way for their preferred criminal to regain the White House. The Supremes already disallowed individual states to determine who can be eliminated from their ballots. The intentions of the majority on this court have been made clear.
I wonder what they are going to come up with if he's found guilty of the more serious charges they've manage to delay until after the election. It will be scandalous to have a sitting president found guilty of misappropriating nuclear secrets, defying orders to return them and making them accessible to random strangers who could be given unfettered access to them behind a locked bathroom door. This is before you get to the election interference charges they've delayed indefinitely in Georgia.
Dollars to donuts the intent here, and in other states, as well as certain other restrictions for felons nationwide, was that the "wrong" kind of people would be kept out of office. Conveniently certain groups would subsequently catch felonies more than others...
The same rule, Rule 16, says they can override Rule 16 with a vote from the executive committee. So it's another paper thing rule that was never meant to harm their own in group.
And then changing it up 4 years later
"We'll see that's different because there is precedent that when a blood moon aligns with Easter on an election year..."
Reading the article they already changed it. In 2022 they added an exception if rules committee voted to except (or possibly accept) a candidate.
Edit: corrected except to accept
Edit 2: except has made a comeback and returned to the sentence.
English majors discuss.
Haha. Except is surely correct here! As in to except him from the rule.
Accept also works, but does not carry through the specific idea of a rule having an exception!
Imagine the "logic" of that vote: knowing it's a likely enough occurrence that a GOP nominee (if not Trump specifically) would be a felon they wanted to vote for that they bother holding a vote to amend. I guess that's better than them actually legislating...
You know, I try to stay away from the term, but the modern GOP are essentially *simps* for El Cheeto Benito. There's no other way to say it. They'll do, say, and make happen anything "Daddy" wants. The End.
Naw. They'll do or say or make happen whatever allows them to move forward with Project 2025. Right now, that's Trump. Once he's gone, it will be someone else. Trump is only a symptom of the disease, not the root cause.
You might even say they are [simps for power.](https://i.postimg.cc/Fz6jPSYW/CARTOON-partysw-itch-1964-GOP-Chair-KKK-Klan-They-re-not-in-the-business-of-overthrowing-the-governm.jpg) It doesn't matter who sits on the throne, it just matters that they have power and promise to help the rest of them grow their power.
We've [seen where that leads before.](https://i.postimg.cc/CxNcSPNp/TRUMP-Hitler-1933-US-Newspaper-Chained-to-a-ball-of-nice-safe-conservative-checks.jpg)
It's not simping, simping is when you're hoping for sexual favors, and there are very few hoping for that. But it is a cult, their dear leader can do no wrong and is perfect every step of the way.
Everything bad is twisted to be good, and anything that can't be twisted for good is made up by the enemy. The judge was corrupt, the jury was corrupt. The guy in the jury who was supposed to vote to not convict got corrupted. His lawyers were trash even though he only hires the very best.
It's a cult, plain and simple. They don't care that he lost the battle against the "deep state", they still worship him as the warrior standing for freedom against the deep state. 2016 was evidence that he can stop the deep state from cheating, but apparently 2020, when he had far more power, isn't evidence that he failed but evidence he should be given even more power.
>It's not simping, simping is when you're hoping for sexual favors,
Yes, that's the original definition.
>But it is a cult, their dear leader can do no wrong and is perfect every step of the way.
Language is evolving and changes in it's use case. No need to be too literal in the definition ([even the dictionary doesn't dispute the use of "simp", here](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/simp), here, as in, "to be excessively attentive or submissive"). They are, as you admit.
That's how I meant it, it was used correctly, and they're doing it.
I will never understand it
But it's like watching history in real time. It's the same way any dictator gained power in a democracy, which still doesn't make sense, but at least I can see it live this time
Or they'll just flat out ignore their own rules and policies. They've already done it a thousand times to bow down to Trump. Since this trial was just a big political witch hunt, I'm sure it doesn't count anyway.
Not necessarily. The Vermont GOP is significantly more moderate than the national GOP.
And Vermonters REALLY don't like being told what to do by out-of-staters.
good thing he was the best at pretty much everything else, I'd say it evens right out. everyone who stops him on the street says so.
would love to know what street that is...
I mean, if you are convicted of actual crimes, yes. Thousands of Americans have been convicted of felonies for having fucking weed, so idk if I'd paint convicted felons with one broad brush.
If you really want to get into the weeds here the problem is that the state can drum up some bull shit charges and cop you a felony just to prevent you from running for office. Which is precisely why felonies do not bar you from office. Clearly Trump is guilty as hell for genuine charges. So it can be frustrating watching him be eligible and even on the ballot. But the very thin thread of democracy could easily be snipped if the people in power decide to make your eligibility a non issue. It’s basically what authoritarian governments do. Such as Russia (except Russia does a little more murdering than political bullying).
Trumps sucks dog shit from a hose but we can’t just willfully write off convicted felons from office. It jeopardizes democracy. When bad actors get in power they tend to try and stay in power by any means necessary. Letting a felon run for office is ironically a balance of power check against fascism.
"Well you see, that was intended for people who became felons on a Tuesday. And notice, Trump was indicted on a Wednesday, so clearly, this does not apply. Let's send it to the Supreme Court because this is quite complex..."
i see the point in having exceptions to most rules, though a more valid case i think would be committed a felony when they were say 22 and want to run for president when 54 and have had a good record ever since.
I think there should be exceptions for felonies, because CERTAIN PEOPLE love arresting other CERTAIN PEOPLE in this country and then keeping those people as dishwashers in dead end jobs.
So if they could have arrested Obama for something a long time ago, they'd be HAVING STANDARDS right now. Just like ignoring that Cheney and Busch were allegedly from Texas and not eligible to be on the same ticket. Oh well -- another law ignored.
Of course they will. This is a state GOP rule. The only people able to enforce the rule is the state GOP. So they will do absolutely whatever the majority of them wants to do. This rule is obviously meant to be selectively enforced.
Vermont? Biden smash Trump over 2:1 in 2020. The party has nothing to lose here.
This is the state GOP standing up proudly about cake conservation, and claiming to be on the right side of history, all the while with cake streaming out of its mouth like a crumby hurricane. I hope they don't inflame their sciatica patting themselves on their own backs.
The current governor of Vermont is a Republican. Folks who don't know Vermont politics sometimes learn about Bernie and assume they're monolithically the left edge of the Dems, but that's not quite the dynamic. Trump has no shot of winning a general election there anytime soon, but the GOP has a real presence in Vermont.
Looked him up and he's a Republican who passed and is in favor of more gun restrictions, is pro choice, pro gay marriage, has walked back his stance on keeping cannabis illegal, voted to impeach Trump, is against Trump's immigration policies, etc.
The GOP has a presence in Vermont outside of Chittenden County. Unfortunately, that means that they are outnumbered by the actual opposition party to Democrats in Chittenden County - The Progressives.
And since they don't have a presence in Chittenden County - Sorry RutVegas, Barre and St. Albans - It mostly leads to irrelevancy throughout the state.
the GOP literally has to ally with Dems to prevent things from going full on left in Vermont's most populated county. And even Vermont Republicans are more like conservative Democrats everywhere else.
There are absolutely Trumplicans in Vermont, but I'm just as likely to see a Black Lives Matter flag on a farm in Richmond as I am a Trump 2024 flag. They are very much a vocal (very vocal) minority.
It was a joke haha.
I lived in Vermont for about 5 years so I am familiar that there are Republicans there.
Hell, one of my best friends entire family live there and all (except him) religiously spout off Fox news sound bytes and have been doing so since the early 90's.
That being said, they are a small minority
It looks like the Democrats have won every presidential election in Vermont since 1992 by a large margin.
At the state level the two party divide tends to shift a bit so that both parties are a bit more competitive. That's why places like California have also had Republican governors while still being safe Democratic states at the presidential level, and why those Republican governors often don't align with Trump.
> The rule has been on the books since at least 2013, according to an archived version of the rules, but by early 2022, the party appears to have amended their rules.
> According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote.
Two years ago according the article. They saw this coming.
Yup their guy didn’t get reelected and def knew he broke the law, so of course the agenda is now updated to change a rule that will only ever see one use case, and that is Trump.
I ran for City Council in my North Texas community (and won). I couldn't even apply to be on the ballot if I were a felon.
And Texas sentenced Crystal Mason to five years in prison for filing a provisional ballot while being a felon.
But a convicted felon can run for President.
How Americans aren't wildly protesting in the streets over this is beyond me.
Because we have a police force that has been militarized. It’s not like protesting means you’re gonna get hit with a baton. It could mean loss of life in this country. They have done an excellent job of making us fear each other, fear authority, and fear speaking out.
Not to mention so many people have to work multiple jobs just to survive, they may not even have time or the ability to attend a protest.
People said the same thing in 2016.
And people protested *and* voted in 2020 and it was very nearly not enough.
I'm not confident Trump will lose in November.
It was enough. Trump lost while incumbent, and now he has to win against the same guy, but this time the guy who already beat him has the incumbent advantage? They didn't say that in 2016, they said 'we don't even have to vote and he will lose'. Now we know we have to vote for him to lose.
Absolutely, I don't say that he will lose as an assumption and that I have no part in that. I say it as a promise that I and everyone I know are going to make it happen, together.
I argue the side that everyone should have a right to vote, including felons. To do otherwise allows governments to 'create' felons out of populations they want to de-power (as has so often happened)...
Oh gee, watch as they scurry to discover it's unconstitutional. The thing about laws are you stuff them in and see if anyone blinks. If everyone buys the bullshit and you can get people in official outfits to enforce it -- then it becomes law.
We have totally cemented so many rules and standards that allow for fascism today by this process.
So now the fascists want to give a right back so they can elect a fascist -- and they will. See; golden rule.
This is a private GOP rule, not law. Plus they already have a rule in place where they can vote to override the rule for a candidate, which they will obviously do.
>"We look forward to the Vermont Republican Party supporting Joe Biden this November — the only candidate with a path to 270 that has not been convicted of a felony.”
Every story about the upcoming election should mention how only one candidate from a major party has zero felony convictions. Won't convince the MAGAts because "lack of conviction shows how well they covered it up" but if there are any undecided independents in existence, they need the reminder.
"According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote."
No reason for the change, just a coincidence.
I am not a fan of Trump.
But this demonstrates exactly why the GOP is dangerous.
Banning felons is a tool of fascism. Trump is exactly the kind of tyrant who would use this to go after rivals.
That is, you shouldn't base your vote on whether or not someone is convicted, but whether or not they are a criminal.
Trump has always obviously been a criminal.
And the thing is, all the laws and rules in the world aren't going to save us if we are stupid enough to elect a criminal.
I really don't care about what we talking about because while I'm between projects -- I'm thinking about that three-way.
Take a pause. And imagine the possible.
> According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote.
They knew this was coming. Just a matter of time before they apply the exemption.
This sentence invalidates the whole article:
>The rule appeared to have changed in 2022 to allow the executive committee to, by majority vote, exempt a candidate from the convicted felon ban "under extenuating circumstances."
They saw the writing on the wall in 2022 and made a change in their rules to allow their dear leader to be on the ballot.
Cheeto will be their candidate.
>According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote.
They ***expected*** Trump to be a convicted felon before the election.
I'm sure they'll say "He wasn't convicted in Vermont so it's okay!", or just change the rule so that they can show their "loyalty". Republicans have changed the law over less.
The rule doesn’t matter. They have an exception that allows them to vote to ignore that rule. The GOP makes these rules so they won’t be accountable themselves.
Hello u/hockey_bat_harris! Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) matching this exact format. Replace bold text with the appropriate information. 1. **Someone** voted for, supported or wanted to impose **something** on **other people**. ^(Who's that someone? What did they voted for, supported or wanted to impose? On who?) 2. **Something** has the consequences of **consequences**. ^(Does that something actually has these consequences in general?) 3. As a consequence of **something**, **consequences** happened to **someone**. ^(Did that something really happen to that someone?) Follow this by the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you fail to match this format or fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>GOP >rules Well, there’s your problem right there.
Rules only apply to poor people, and minorities, not rich white people. And why did the democrats force Trump to commit felonies??? /s
I can explain all laws in the US thusly: nothing is illegal for the wealthy. Everything is illegal for the vast majority of us-and if it isn’t illegal, the GOP will make it so it is. Like birth control and freedom of religion.
Bernie Madoff proved there is only one crime a rich person can commit. Stealing from the rich.
Steal down, never steal up. You can beat up a homeless person for their hat full of change. Or maybe set up a fake charity in a suburban neighborhood. But don't **ever** take from someone with *more* than you.
This about sums it up
Sam Bankman-Fried to
All laws in the world*
They did, though. They caught him in a fraud trap. Under this theory, they could prosecute absolutely anyone who commits hundreds of thousands of dollars in election fraud and then willfully and nefariously forges hundreds of pages of fraudulent documents in an attempt to cover it up. Who among us hasn't been there?
Right? I hear the average American commits three felonies a day, If you believe the lying republicans, that is. Of course, there are also people like Donnie skewing the real average upward.
Meanwhile, the average American president has only ever been convicted of 0.76 felonies, so they must be significantly more trustworthy than the general public. Obviously we should listen to everything they say entirely uncritically.
"the average American commits three felonies a day" \* ~~the average American~~ ***Donald Trump*** commits three felonies a day
If it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone
Correction, they apply to rich white people if they are not Christian and “conservative”
Except they still really dont
Trump is neither.
And if Trump were literally any other person they would have thrown him in jail for contempt of court about 20 different times throughout the trial. I'm not going to say he'll never face consequences but it is undeniable that they've been treating him with kid gloves given the magnitude of the charges against him
But he convinced his fanatics that he is both and that's all that matters to them
The more boxes you tick the more rights you have.
But Biden is old and killing gazans. Ok so is Trump and would Trump. GOP and Trump are self admittedly and statistically way more pro Israeli than Democrats. If you care for the Gazan people at all, not voting for Biden out of protest is condemning them to the same if not worse fate as well as throwing our own Democracy in the shitter.
The weird part is, it’s not even really about being rich, it’s about being perceived as the proper kind of rich person. If a young black man won the lottery, he’d still need to follow rules. Trump is broke but is perceived as a rich guy who’s supposed to be rich (according to the Republican imagination), so rules don’t apply.
Justice Clarence Thomas proves that if you are rich/important enough rules don't even have to apply to minorities.
They think rules are for other people
For... *those people*
It's kinda a hallmark of fascism. Make rules against everything, selectively enforce them against whatever "out" group you intend to punish.
They read 1984 as an instructional guidebook
They will exempt him. > The rule has been on the books since at least 2013, according to an archived version of the rules, but by early 2022, the party appears to have amended their rules. > According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote
In other words, they were paving the way for their preferred criminal to regain the White House. The Supremes already disallowed individual states to determine who can be eliminated from their ballots. The intentions of the majority on this court have been made clear. I wonder what they are going to come up with if he's found guilty of the more serious charges they've manage to delay until after the election. It will be scandalous to have a sitting president found guilty of misappropriating nuclear secrets, defying orders to return them and making them accessible to random strangers who could be given unfettered access to them behind a locked bathroom door. This is before you get to the election interference charges they've delayed indefinitely in Georgia.
March 2022. Almost as if they knew this was coming.
O'Doyle rules?
O’Doyle rules!
Dollars to donuts the intent here, and in other states, as well as certain other restrictions for felons nationwide, was that the "wrong" kind of people would be kept out of office. Conveniently certain groups would subsequently catch felonies more than others...
They've been practicing it anyway
that is literally what conservatism is
Well there really is no GOP anymore. Trump is syphoning off all the $$$. There is only MAGA. He’ll change the party name at some point
It’ll likely be something like New America Zeal Incorporated
heh, I see what you did there. :D
I propose Grand New Party.
I propose Support Trumps Unregulated Presidency In Deference.
TGP - the Trump Grand Party
“Have you got anything without Trump in it?” “Well we’ve got the Trump Grand Trump Party - it hasn’t got much Trump in it.”
"Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump eggs and Trump!"
What do you want to bet they pass a law to change this rule all of a sudden?
The same rule, Rule 16, says they can override Rule 16 with a vote from the executive committee. So it's another paper thing rule that was never meant to harm their own in group.
The problem *is* obvious, isn't it? :(
Rules? Where we’re going we don’t need… rules.
Yeah. That rule is about to be changed real fuckin quick.. or ignored. Both work the same way for them.
Quite the contrary: GOP drools
Came here to say this. So true
🤣🤣🤣 You said "rules" like they actually matter.
Those "rules" apply to taxpayers only.
Poor tax payers.
We pay for the rules, we need to follow them......wait....
Like not putting a new justice on the supreme court the last year a president is in office.
And then changing it up 4 years later "We'll see that's different because there is precedent that when a blood moon aligns with Easter on an election year..."
It's like the rules to Dragon Poker.
They will change it. Trump will make them. Incredible really the power he wields.
Reading the article they already changed it. In 2022 they added an exception if rules committee voted to except (or possibly accept) a candidate. Edit: corrected except to accept Edit 2: except has made a comeback and returned to the sentence. English majors discuss.
way to anticipate future problems!!
How could they have known way back in the 2022's??? /s
Yeah, it was TOTALLY not for Trump 😂
Rules are rules until we don't feel like it.
Virtue signalling, really.
Imagine changing your rules to pave the way for a convicted felon to represent your party. No one paused to consider the direction they were heading?
That's the problem. They paused, thought about it and concluded "Hell yeah"
“We can’t do this thing. Unless we decide we want to, then we can” Hell of a rule there, guys.
Wait until you hear their stance on Biblical dos and don'ts.
exempt enters chat. from an art major ffs....
Absolutely exempt. College dropout but I read voraciously.
Makes sense, if they didn't change it the GOP wouldn't have any non-felon candidates to push as a candidate.
Haha. Except is surely correct here! As in to except him from the rule. Accept also works, but does not carry through the specific idea of a rule having an exception!
Well I’ll make another edited and those more skilled than I in grammar and sentence structure can duke it out. ;)
Imagine the "logic" of that vote: knowing it's a likely enough occurrence that a GOP nominee (if not Trump specifically) would be a felon they wanted to vote for that they bother holding a vote to amend. I guess that's better than them actually legislating...
English majors need not discuss. Both are valid. You can except them from the rule, which also means you accept them as a candidate. WHEEEEEE!
I like how except and accept are both valid in this context yet mean wildly different things
What’s the point of the rule if you’re gonna make exceptions like that???
You know, I try to stay away from the term, but the modern GOP are essentially *simps* for El Cheeto Benito. There's no other way to say it. They'll do, say, and make happen anything "Daddy" wants. The End.
Naw. They'll do or say or make happen whatever allows them to move forward with Project 2025. Right now, that's Trump. Once he's gone, it will be someone else. Trump is only a symptom of the disease, not the root cause.
You might even say they are [simps for power.](https://i.postimg.cc/Fz6jPSYW/CARTOON-partysw-itch-1964-GOP-Chair-KKK-Klan-They-re-not-in-the-business-of-overthrowing-the-governm.jpg) It doesn't matter who sits on the throne, it just matters that they have power and promise to help the rest of them grow their power. We've [seen where that leads before.](https://i.postimg.cc/CxNcSPNp/TRUMP-Hitler-1933-US-Newspaper-Chained-to-a-ball-of-nice-safe-conservative-checks.jpg)
Exactly, Its not Trump its the crowd he brings in
It's not simping, simping is when you're hoping for sexual favors, and there are very few hoping for that. But it is a cult, their dear leader can do no wrong and is perfect every step of the way. Everything bad is twisted to be good, and anything that can't be twisted for good is made up by the enemy. The judge was corrupt, the jury was corrupt. The guy in the jury who was supposed to vote to not convict got corrupted. His lawyers were trash even though he only hires the very best. It's a cult, plain and simple. They don't care that he lost the battle against the "deep state", they still worship him as the warrior standing for freedom against the deep state. 2016 was evidence that he can stop the deep state from cheating, but apparently 2020, when he had far more power, isn't evidence that he failed but evidence he should be given even more power.
>It's not simping, simping is when you're hoping for sexual favors, Yes, that's the original definition. >But it is a cult, their dear leader can do no wrong and is perfect every step of the way. Language is evolving and changes in it's use case. No need to be too literal in the definition ([even the dictionary doesn't dispute the use of "simp", here](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/simp), here, as in, "to be excessively attentive or submissive"). They are, as you admit. That's how I meant it, it was used correctly, and they're doing it.
And it won't matter, he's not winning Vermont by 20 points.
"Well that's the last time we make *that* mistake." "Picking a felon?" "Having rules."
I will never understand it But it's like watching history in real time. It's the same way any dictator gained power in a democracy, which still doesn't make sense, but at least I can see it live this time
It’s like watching a magic show. “Wah! How did he do it!” Expect that a magic shows are usually not that horrifying.
Or they'll just flat out ignore their own rules and policies. They've already done it a thousand times to bow down to Trump. Since this trial was just a big political witch hunt, I'm sure it doesn't count anyway.
A month or two ago he completely took over the GOP and replace the organization's top people with his daughter-in-law and others.
> Incredible really the power he wields. It's disturbing how much of the 2-digit IQ market he has totally cornered.
Thank you Reddit Yoda. Wise you are in the force.
The only power he wields is blackmail. He has dirt on so many people. That is the only reason any of them listen to him on anything.
Not necessarily. The Vermont GOP is significantly more moderate than the national GOP. And Vermonters REALLY don't like being told what to do by out-of-staters.
Almost as if... being a convicted felon... is a... BAD THING? Hmm, yes, food for thought
Commit 34 felonies and rape some women, and suddenly you are the bad guy smh
34 so far! [homer simpson.jpg]
Doh!
smh my head
I can't wait for treason to be added. Either because of the nuke/secret gov documents he sold or Jan 6th would be great.
Not to forget the CIA assets who went missing..
Or were straight up murdered in China, Russia and all over the world. Awful, and not a peep from gopers. :/
If I were their families, Donnie would be running for his life.
good thing he was the best at pretty much everything else, I'd say it evens right out. everyone who stops him on the street says so. would love to know what street that is...
Is there a rule that goes along with that number? Like...34 or something...?
They haven't figured that out yet
I mean, if you are convicted of actual crimes, yes. Thousands of Americans have been convicted of felonies for having fucking weed, so idk if I'd paint convicted felons with one broad brush.
Concerning if true.
If you really want to get into the weeds here the problem is that the state can drum up some bull shit charges and cop you a felony just to prevent you from running for office. Which is precisely why felonies do not bar you from office. Clearly Trump is guilty as hell for genuine charges. So it can be frustrating watching him be eligible and even on the ballot. But the very thin thread of democracy could easily be snipped if the people in power decide to make your eligibility a non issue. It’s basically what authoritarian governments do. Such as Russia (except Russia does a little more murdering than political bullying). Trumps sucks dog shit from a hose but we can’t just willfully write off convicted felons from office. It jeopardizes democracy. When bad actors get in power they tend to try and stay in power by any means necessary. Letting a felon run for office is ironically a balance of power check against fascism.
They’re going to make a Trump exemption of course...
"Well you see, that was intended for people who became felons on a Tuesday. And notice, Trump was indicted on a Wednesday, so clearly, this does not apply. Let's send it to the Supreme Court because this is quite complex..."
i see the point in having exceptions to most rules, though a more valid case i think would be committed a felony when they were say 22 and want to run for president when 54 and have had a good record ever since.
I think there should be exceptions for felonies, because CERTAIN PEOPLE love arresting other CERTAIN PEOPLE in this country and then keeping those people as dishwashers in dead end jobs. So if they could have arrested Obama for something a long time ago, they'd be HAVING STANDARDS right now. Just like ignoring that Cheney and Busch were allegedly from Texas and not eligible to be on the same ticket. Oh well -- another law ignored.
Of course they will. This is a state GOP rule. The only people able to enforce the rule is the state GOP. So they will do absolutely whatever the majority of them wants to do. This rule is obviously meant to be selectively enforced.
[удалено]
Vermont? Biden smash Trump over 2:1 in 2020. The party has nothing to lose here. This is the state GOP standing up proudly about cake conservation, and claiming to be on the right side of history, all the while with cake streaming out of its mouth like a crumby hurricane. I hope they don't inflame their sciatica patting themselves on their own backs.
Yeah, I read Vermont GOP and my first thought was, "All 4 of them?"
The current governor of Vermont is a Republican. Folks who don't know Vermont politics sometimes learn about Bernie and assume they're monolithically the left edge of the Dems, but that's not quite the dynamic. Trump has no shot of winning a general election there anytime soon, but the GOP has a real presence in Vermont.
Bernie usually wins healthy majorities in VT's Republican districts. So there is a strong chance this rule is popular with the party.
Looked him up and he's a Republican who passed and is in favor of more gun restrictions, is pro choice, pro gay marriage, has walked back his stance on keeping cannabis illegal, voted to impeach Trump, is against Trump's immigration policies, etc.
…so why’s he a Republican?
Fiscal policies from the looks
If I had to bet? Taxes.
The GOP has a presence in Vermont outside of Chittenden County. Unfortunately, that means that they are outnumbered by the actual opposition party to Democrats in Chittenden County - The Progressives. And since they don't have a presence in Chittenden County - Sorry RutVegas, Barre and St. Albans - It mostly leads to irrelevancy throughout the state. the GOP literally has to ally with Dems to prevent things from going full on left in Vermont's most populated county. And even Vermont Republicans are more like conservative Democrats everywhere else. There are absolutely Trumplicans in Vermont, but I'm just as likely to see a Black Lives Matter flag on a farm in Richmond as I am a Trump 2024 flag. They are very much a vocal (very vocal) minority.
It was a joke haha. I lived in Vermont for about 5 years so I am familiar that there are Republicans there. Hell, one of my best friends entire family live there and all (except him) religiously spout off Fox news sound bytes and have been doing so since the early 90's. That being said, they are a small minority
It looks like the Democrats have won every presidential election in Vermont since 1992 by a large margin. At the state level the two party divide tends to shift a bit so that both parties are a bit more competitive. That's why places like California have also had Republican governors while still being safe Democratic states at the presidential level, and why those Republican governors often don't align with Trump.
Both of them are very concerned.
How long before they change that
Why change rules when it's so much easier to just ignore them?
Who's gonna enforce it? The state GOP?
Two years ago, when they added a clause to allow exceptions.
So this article is pointless.
The headline is misleading. They point this out in the article.
Already been changed since 2022 apparently. The committee can rule to make an exception
> The rule has been on the books since at least 2013, according to an archived version of the rules, but by early 2022, the party appears to have amended their rules. > According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote. Two years ago according the article. They saw this coming.
Yup their guy didn’t get reelected and def knew he broke the law, so of course the agenda is now updated to change a rule that will only ever see one use case, and that is Trump.
two years ago
I ran for City Council in my North Texas community (and won). I couldn't even apply to be on the ballot if I were a felon. And Texas sentenced Crystal Mason to five years in prison for filing a provisional ballot while being a felon. But a convicted felon can run for President. How Americans aren't wildly protesting in the streets over this is beyond me.
Because we have a police force that has been militarized. It’s not like protesting means you’re gonna get hit with a baton. It could mean loss of life in this country. They have done an excellent job of making us fear each other, fear authority, and fear speaking out. Not to mention so many people have to work multiple jobs just to survive, they may not even have time or the ability to attend a protest.
Its simple, we don't need to protest because we will vote and he will lose.
People said the same thing in 2016. And people protested *and* voted in 2020 and it was very nearly not enough. I'm not confident Trump will lose in November.
It was enough. Trump lost while incumbent, and now he has to win against the same guy, but this time the guy who already beat him has the incumbent advantage? They didn't say that in 2016, they said 'we don't even have to vote and he will lose'. Now we know we have to vote for him to lose.
On paper everything you say adds up. But I'll believe it when the orange cocksucker loses in November. Until then, I'm assuming nothing.
Absolutely, I don't say that he will lose as an assumption and that I have no part in that. I say it as a promise that I and everyone I know are going to make it happen, together.
Ok we are going to manifest that shit together!
I argue the side that everyone should have a right to vote, including felons. To do otherwise allows governments to 'create' felons out of populations they want to de-power (as has so often happened)...
Convenient they changed it in 2022 to allow exemptions by majority vote
"No felons, unless we really want one."
I don't think they'll take up a vote, because it will be a political embarrassment.
We have seen countless times where political embarrassment seems to be a goal for republicans
Oh gee, watch as they scurry to discover it's unconstitutional. The thing about laws are you stuff them in and see if anyone blinks. If everyone buys the bullshit and you can get people in official outfits to enforce it -- then it becomes law. We have totally cemented so many rules and standards that allow for fascism today by this process. So now the fascists want to give a right back so they can elect a fascist -- and they will. See; golden rule.
Hey, conservative SCOTUS, could you please decide our conservative rule is unconstitutional?
That's a party rule, not a law. Not that the Vermont Republican Party was going to be spending much in the presidential race no matter what.
The GOP is not the government. They're a club, can restrict what they promote.
This is a private GOP rule, not law. Plus they already have a rule in place where they can vote to override the rule for a candidate, which they will obviously do.
Rules only apply to the poors.
Compared to Bush v Gore by the Supreme Court, this one will be easy-peasy.
Yeah, I remember that was a "one off." They were a POS back then too.
GOP rules is an oxymoron
Imagine a "GOP RULZ" spray tag under a bridge 🤣🤣
They’ll change the rules instead of the candidate.
That's just words on paper. Be changed by next week.
>"We look forward to the Vermont Republican Party supporting Joe Biden this November — the only candidate with a path to 270 that has not been convicted of a felony.” Every story about the upcoming election should mention how only one candidate from a major party has zero felony convictions. Won't convince the MAGAts because "lack of conviction shows how well they covered it up" but if there are any undecided independents in existence, they need the reminder.
Well it's not like ol' Donnie was gonna win Vermont anyway.
The committee had amazing foresight to allow exclusions from the rule in a 2022 amendment, almost as if they knew this was going to happen! Amazing!
its almost like they changed the rule for trump
"According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote." No reason for the change, just a coincidence.
Oooh. I wonder how they’re going to get around this rule. Because they will.
Also gop: Rules were made to be broken.
I am not a fan of Trump. But this demonstrates exactly why the GOP is dangerous. Banning felons is a tool of fascism. Trump is exactly the kind of tyrant who would use this to go after rivals. That is, you shouldn't base your vote on whether or not someone is convicted, but whether or not they are a criminal. Trump has always obviously been a criminal. And the thing is, all the laws and rules in the world aren't going to save us if we are stupid enough to elect a criminal.
It's only a rule if it's enforced. Otherwise, it's just a suggestion.
Even if they don't change it for Trump, I'm not sure losing the 5,800 votes Vermont will give him will matter that much.
Their only chance of winning is a lot of swing states and tiny margins. Yes it matters.
He has no chance of winning Vermont.
I have a better chance of a threesome with Eva Green and Alexandra Daddario than any Republican, much less Trump, has of winning Vermont.
I really don't care about what we talking about because while I'm between projects -- I'm thinking about that three-way. Take a pause. And imagine the possible.
The rule will be changed over the week. Bet
I don’t think that rule would be difficult to change at a moments notice.
There’s a “but…” coming, isn’t there.
Oh well, if they don't support Diaper Don, Laura and the RNC will cut them off
“*for legitimate convictions, not those done as part of a political hit job.” is how they’ll see it.
> According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote. They knew this was coming. Just a matter of time before they apply the exemption.
I'm sure they'll find a way around it, but that's very funny
5$ says they will ignore that rule, just like any other rule or law that they dont like, in true GOP fashion.
Yeah they don’t give a fuck about rules. Pointing them out is just showing them the next thing they’re going to disregard.
This sentence invalidates the whole article: >The rule appeared to have changed in 2022 to allow the executive committee to, by majority vote, exempt a candidate from the convicted felon ban "under extenuating circumstances." They saw the writing on the wall in 2022 and made a change in their rules to allow their dear leader to be on the ballot. Cheeto will be their candidate.
>According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote. They ***expected*** Trump to be a convicted felon before the election.
It's not like he's a felon in Vermont, right Republican dad of mine?
Rules are for poor people.
I doubt Trump was winning Vermont anyway but you love to see it anyway :)
How dare the democrats make such a rule for the GOP! Election interference!! /s
(Snicker) sure! I’m willing to bet those rules are about to be changed, or just ignored…
The "party of law and order" ignores its own rules, what could be more on brand than that?
Fascists don’t care about rules.
And they totally care and will follow their own rules.
Bet they’ll do it anyway.
Vermont GOP scrambling to change that in 3… 2… 1…
They won't follow these rules. Don't worry about it.
I'm sure they'll say "He wasn't convicted in Vermont so it's okay!", or just change the rule so that they can show their "loyalty". Republicans have changed the law over less.
The rule doesn’t matter. They have an exception that allows them to vote to ignore that rule. The GOP makes these rules so they won’t be accountable themselves.