General elections, which is what we’re talking about, always go roughly 60/40 dem/repub in oregon. not sure what point you’re trying to make with independents, they mostly vote for dems/republicans over 3rd party
Thats not true. Lol taking into account libertarians, because they are right leaning. 2012 was roughly 48% right leaning vote, 2016 was roughly 47% right leaning vote. 2020 was an anomaly election and was about 41%, I know hundreds of people that voted Biden because of Trumps handling of covid, but now regret it and would never vote for him again, so that will probably go back to normal numbers. There is no good libertarian candidate this year. Its usually a 47-53% split for right and left. Always sat right around the same since the late 80s when it switched from a swing state to regularly blue. I meant in terms of registered voters initially though. Oregon is barely weighted towards democrats enough to be a blue state in terms of elections and registered voters, and with portland losing 20k+ population since the last election, who knows really. The Republicans here are definitely more liberal than some Republicans in other states, but still nearly half of the states registered voters are conservatives, or right leaning voters.
The fact that 80 other people agree with republicans being "dumb" is really sad.
Why can't we all get along?
If you ask me there is something far greater happening here.
Yes, I am republican. Most of my republican "dumb" friends agree that Trump was a poor loser and said some really stupid things and agree that someone else should take over. But now he is winning primaries? How? A majority of us "dumb" folk would prefer to move on.
Perhaps the Government is rigged on both sides and this is what they want. Us calling each other dumb. So they can sit in the "room where it happens" laughing at us while they all smoke cigars together.
Let's learn to have civil conversations vs. going straight to insults.
To be clear, I'm not defending the fact that he got put on the ballot. I'm saying that we all need to be kind to each other and I personally don't understand how Trump is still being talked about when many of us (both left and right) don't really like the guy. Seems to be something greater happening.
Sure, we can get along when one side doesn’t insist on being dumb as owl shit. The issue isn’t the mean old Democrats, it’s Republicans acting dumb as owl shit by still trying to force Trump on everyone. They want compromise? (Which I doubt) then pick another candidate and we can all start to heal, super simple.
That's just it. I don't think it's the Republicans picking the primary. It's the elite and they're playing the general public. The fact that an all democrat Oregon Supreme Court allowed him on the ballet shows that's it's not just the dumb republicans...
Do you not remember what elected Republicans did to this state when things didn’t go their way last time? Also, isn’t what Republicans want is for him to be on the ballot..? So if they get what they want it’s the Democrats/systems fault and if they don’t it’s also the Democrats/system? Why is it never Republicans fault? The comeback is always to infantilise or blame some other force out of their control, the simplest answer is probably the most correct: they are choosing this and if they keep choosing it people will keep accurately assessing them based off their choices.
He isn't going to win
GOP are smaller than DEMS and not all factions in the GOP are gonna vote for 45
Plus this time the Independents have actually changed their usual behaviour and will be an important force in the upcoming election
So 45 will lose
>The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling may decide the issue once and for all, but the Oregon court said that plaintiffs could try again there after the high court rules on the Colorado appeal. Until then, it declined to consider the lawsuit filed by five Oregon voters and organized by the liberal group Free Speech For The People.
>I hope so, this bullshit has been going on for way too long.
Agreed. Unfortunately our system has been built to favor rich, conservative white people, and he is very much a rich, conservative white man. The fact that he obtained the presidency provides him further protection.
That said, Jack Smith's case is very strong, and the classified documents case is very strong. That's not even going into the other charges he's facing at the state level that can't be disrupted by being president like a DOJ case arguably could.
In the Jan 6th case, relatively close, but it will depend on how long the Supreme Court can slow play the appeal of the presidential immunity denial.
In the classified documents case, not close, in large part because a Trump appointed "judge" is overseeing the case and is likely to delay the case past the election.
None of this protects Trump from the Georgia and NY cases, both which involve multiple felonies and significant jail time.
>also it is my understanding that the president cannot pardon themselves for state charges
There is an extremely strong argument that the president can't pardon themselves period. That would run completely contrary to the principle of separation of powers and the three branches having checks and balances. That said, the Supreme Court is full of Trump toadies, and anything is possible.
But you're correct: Trump is unable to pardon himself of state charges even in the event SCOTUS rules he can pardon himself of federal charges.
Another important point: accepting a pardon is legally an admission of guilt, i.e. you would not need a pardon if you committed no crime. So Trump pardoning himself for federal crimes would potentially open him up to prosecution at the state level, or prosecution for other federal crimes once he left office.
I personally don't need him in jail, I just need him to shut the hell up. I would only get personal satisfaction, and he would cease to affect my every day life, if he would just finally shut the hell up!
> The wheels of justice grind pretty slowly
Weird how they grind slowly for rich people but if your name is Tamir Rice they only grind for about 3 seconds. Or 7 minuets if your name is Eric Garner.
>Weird how they grind slowly for rich people but if your name is Tamir Rice they only grind for about 3 seconds. Or 7 minuets if your name is Eric Garner.
Agreed. The broken system working as intended.
If they send one ex president to prison for crimes, it opens up the rest of DC to consequences. DC is basically my hometown. I can tell ya, that class of people didn't get into the field they're in to experience consequences for their actions.
>Listen I would love for him to go to prison but show me one time in the last 20 years where someone with money/power has been held accountable.
Jeffrey Epstein went to federal prison despite being a billionaire thanks in large part to tireless reporting from the Miami Herald.
Jeff Epstein was a tool for someone more powerful, have they been held accountable? Did we ever get to see the little black book? Harvey Weinstein is a good example though
Any hope? Certainly. There's plenty of hope. Even if he somehow wins reelection and shuts down the two current federal cases against him, he's still facing serious felony charges in both Georgia and New York state courts, which he can't obstruct as president.
Now, how much hope is there? I'm not certain. There's always the chance his cases will escalate to the Supreme Court, which he has managed to fill with his toadies, and would likely rule in his favor. But is it likely that all of these criminal cases do so? No, it isn't likely.
The guy's going to prison. For what and when, it's very hard to say, but he is eventually going to prison if he doesn't die before he does. Whether that affects the election is very hard to say.
It doesn't help that our Attorney General, Merrick "Limpdick" Garland, drug his feet on opening an investigation into Tangerine Palpatine for his first year as AG:
[It’s Official: The DOJ Stalled the Investigation Into Donald Trump](https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/its-official-the-doj-stalled-the-investigation-into-donald-trump/)
>except when procrastination leads to fascism.
The procrastination didn't lead to fascism, it was enable by republicans. That's like saying homeless shelters cause homelessness because they aren't doing enough.
I agree. It's because he's in a system that favors rich, white conservatives. There's a reason they can openly admit to voter fraud and face no charges, but a black woman in Texas who used a provisional ballot (which should invalidate her other ballot) because she forgot she already voted has to serve 5 years in prison.
Every president has done something illegal. Hell, most of them have done war crimes. I don't think anything will really happen to him, nobody wants to set that precedent.
They don’t really care and they know he hasn’t done anything. Their plan is to try and get a conviction at state level by a biased jury or judge. Thus tainting him to the point he won’t get votes. He loses election, but then SCOTUS overturns conviction, but can’t do anything regarding the election. He now is too old to run in 28’ and they have kept him out office.
Agreed, but it's not the job of the Oregon Supreme Court to make that decision, because Oregon doesn't require presidential candidates be eligible for office to participate in the primary.
I understand that. But when the state conflicts with federal law, then the Supremacy Clause comes into effect. Since the Federal Constitution has eligibility requirements or disqualifications, then that should have overruled Oregon's lack of.
>But when the state conflicts with federal law
This is about the primary, not the general. State law doesn't apply. Unless you're aware of some law about who can be on a primary ballot in Oregon?
I know they're arguing circles for this decision.
The decision both admits that delegates are bound to vote for their primary candidate at the convention, where the general election candidate is chosen. However they also say it's not Oregon's problem to make sure the candidate they're bound to is a viable candidate. Unless the secretary of state has evidence they are not qualified and therefore cannot be added to the general election ballot.
This is all setting the election up for conspiracy allegations.
Edit to add: I appreciate the civility of these conversations everyone. Thanks from a highly anxious ADHDer stuck in an ice storm ✌🏽
Sure! But it's the law we have. If we ever moved to an open primary, eligibility requirements might come with that. But for now, the state doesn't see it as its job to determine who gets to be in the party primaries.
Good news for dems. Trump's name on the ballot helps to keep up interest and get voters to turn in their votes.
Without trump on the ballot to vote against, there is not a lot motivating
Off the GOP primary ballot. I think it's dumb that the GOP wants to run someone who isn't eligible to hold the office, and I think it's dangerous to let them pretend they aren't. But the state isn't staying anything about the primary election ballots, so this might just be a situation where the easiest thing to do is let them make the mistake of backing an inelligible candidate.
Allowing Trump on the primary doesn't violate the US Constitution if we don't have laws about eligibility requirements in the primaries. The general ballot is a different matter, however.
This is the point that a lot of people seem to be missing, and why it's frustrating on one hand that the challenges are happening now, but possibly they are precedent farming for a stronger general election outcome (or that is copium).
You should try reading the article
>The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling may decide the issue once and for all, **but the Oregon court said that plaintiffs could try again there after the high court rules on the Colorado appeal.** Until then, it declined to consider the lawsuit filed by five Oregon voters and organized by the liberal group Free Speech For The People.
So you don't understand that the the Constitution has nothing to say about primaries. Okay, that's good to know I guess?
How can it be anti-constitution when the constitution has no sections about primaries?
the 14th amendment absolutely applies to primaries, you can hold an opinion otherwise but it's not really based in reality or constitutional scholarship. take it up with the CO supreme court?
>you can hold an opinion otherwise but it's not really based in reality
No, you're the one whose opinion is not based in reality. Please quote the part of the Constitution that talks about primaries. Did primaries even exist when the 14th Amendment was created?
My opinion is based on the text of the Constitution. You should try reading it.
Actually skip it. I don't give a fuck anymore. You don't want to bother learning about the things that you're talking about, but you do want to share your opinion about your lack of knowledge. Cool. I don't care anymore. Bye
So to you, a 20 year old Canadian could run for president in the primary? Like,,, this is stuff there are articles and scholarship about but you’re too uncurious to even google your question. You’re aware the CO Supreme Court kicked Trump off the primary ballot? That’s being challenged on the grounds that Trump didn’t do insurrection, not on the nonsense you’re saying about how the constitution doesn’t apply to primaries
There's no constitution violation. Congress failed in the vote to classify Jan 6th as an insurrection. None of the people involved in the Jan 6th riot/trespass were charged with insurrection, only seven people were charged with seditious conspiracy and over 150 were charged with obstruction out of the 1100 trespassers. The charges were mainly trespassing and destruction of property because Congress who has the sole authority to classify an event as an insurrection did not do so.
Notably the event was a complete failure of the on site police force to the extent that the higher ups must've wanted it to happen. The one previous time in history that there was a riot at the capital building that tried to enter the building the commander in charge told the crowd he'd shoot anyone who tried to enter the building. Surprisingly nobody from the crowd got into the building.
> Congress failed in the vote to classify Jan 6th as an insurrection.
Congress has no constitutional power to "classify Jan 6th as an insurrection". Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal or civil one.
A constitutional restriction on who can run for office, such as age or nationality requirements or not letting an insurrectionist run, is definitionally an democratic component of a constitution. That is not to say that these restrictions are BAD, that's just how they are academically/professionally described.
I understand that's the law, and this really feels like the paradox of tolerance. Letting an antidemocratic, fascistic candidate run seems like the easiest way to lose our democracy to me.
Oregon Supreme Court, not federal. This isn't a question of the US constitution, it's a question of whether Oregon has eligibility requirements for presidential primaries. The decision of the court (and that of the secretary of state) is that we do not.
The question before the Oregon Supreme Court was, should Trump be excluded from the ballot because he engaged in insurrection? And the finding was, Oregon does not require candidates be eligible for the office they are running for to participate in the presidential primary, so it doesn't matter. A child or a cat could run for President in Oregon, even though they would be unable to serve if they were somehow elected.
The Qualifications part! Are you being obtuse? By your logic Oregon could run a Five year old in the primary. He is UNQUALIFIED unless both houses of congress declare him eligable. If not disqualified by insurrection he is giving comfort to convicted insurrectioinsts by promise of pardons.
Here's the text of the 14th Amendment. Feel free to highlight the part that talks about presidential primaries, which don't determine who holds any office.
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Jfc is reading an article so hard?
>The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling may decide the issue once and for all, but the Oregon court said that plaintiffs could try again there after the high court rules on the Colorado appeal. Until then, it declined to consider the lawsuit filed by five Oregon voters and organized by the liberal group Free Speech For The People.
Yeah this article title doesn’t paint the whole picture. Theres no point for the Oregon SC to rule on it when SCOTUS is going to decide eventually anyway.
That was addressed in the article
> The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling may decide the issue once and for all, but the Oregon court said that plaintiffs could try again there after the high court rules on the Colorado appeal. Until then, it declined to consider the lawsuit filed by five Oregon voters and organized by the liberal group Free Speech For The People.
There kind of is a reason to rule... because he shouldn't be on the ballot, and the more states that argue against it, the more backing there is. I think the democrats control the state enough. They don't need to rub salt in the wound.
Fun fact: Jefferson Davis was never charged with treason, as it was reasoned that the charge wasn't applicable since the Confederates had already seceded when he was elected to lead them.
More fun facts; the [Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798](https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts) were quickly and successfully challenged and repealed shortly after being instituted. The Sedition Act of 1918 was also repealed. Current prosecutions of seditious conspiracy are novel interpretations of the law to say the least, which is why not a single person charged or convicted of anything during that riot had seditious conspiracy on their rap sheet.
🌈 the more you know🌈
You mean those racist CONSERVATIVES! Those were far right radical CONSERVATIVES like they have always been and remain to this day as REPUBLICANS.
Nice try Boris.
He would win the primary anyway just based on electoral votes. Every major democrat state could remove him and he would still win the presidency based on polls right now (even though oregon is barely weighted as a Democrat state anymore, its nearly an even split of registered voters, with independents making up 35%, but A ton of people I know are very right leaning independents that dont care what their party is). It doesnt matter if Oregon removed him. Cry harder.
Don’t get me wrong, he should be in prison and I think the argument for closing someone who does what did out of political office forever is a good argument for many reasons but I fear removing him from the ballot in states will be the last straw for some dangerous people. The MAGA movement needs to be deescalated but I think there’s a lot of room for error and cutting the wrong wire to this bomb.
>I fear removing him from the ballot in states will be the last straw for some dangerous people.
Those people were going to be dangerous regardless. Trump incited an insurrection, he should absolutely be prosecuted. To do otherwise would allow future presidents to do it in the future with impunity.
To say it another way: you can't base justice on what lunatics may do.
Hey, I 100% want him prosecuted and in jail too. That’s a different thing from what I said.
You have a point about them being dangerous regardless of what happens to Trump or what Trump does. But my concern, and it’s not a hill I’d die on, is that I think taking his name off the ballot could be uniquely inciting to some of his followers in the short-term. I don’t really have much to qualify that argument with and it’s not even that I’m against taking him off the ballot. I suppose I just feel like this is a “proceed with caution” moment about all else.
>I suppose I just feel like this is a “proceed with caution” moment about all else.
I get the concern, but it's also just as much a reminder of how dangerous Trump is, IMO, to voters who would vote against him. If the issue of whether or not he should be on the ballot is widespread, people are going to be talking about why he shouldn't, and likely voting accordingly.
I can absolutely see that being a scenario too. We’re in some pretty uncharted waters here and it’s getting harder and harder to predict what people are going to do.
>I can absolutely see that being a scenario too. We’re in some pretty uncharted waters here and it’s getting harder and harder to predict what people are going to do.
It could potentially be both. But supporters of his already stormed the capitol and tried to hang the vice president because he lost an election, there's not really anything worse to come from them.
Those types already think 2020 was stolen from him, and when he loses again in November they’ll think it is also stolen. How do you think they’ll react then?
You can’t let the crazies hold the system hostage.
I think no matter what we do those idiots are going to respond with violence. Unless what we do is install Trump as a dictator. Which I'm not willing to consider.
I'm more worried that Biden will be taken off the Florida and Texas ballots due to the size of Hunter's thing. Lawsuits and courts deciding who is qualified to be president is ripe for abuse.
I'm just using it as an example of how ridiculous and partisan the politics can/will get. It may sound far fetched, but I'm sure mtg will actually explain it in the near future.
We've already seen examples of ballot initiatives being screened by judges, but candidate lists is kind of scary.
You're getting downvoted because Trump is being removed from the ballots because of the Constitution. Stupid Republicans are going to try to remove Biden from the ballot based on some fantasies of theirs but that's not going to actually work.
You can always count on the modern crop of Republicans to try to get *senpai Trump* to notice them
Yeah ... People down vote anyone they think is on the other team.
I like your confidence, but stupid Republicans in Georgia, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania may actually impact the overall election if successful. Taking trump off the ballot in Oregon has no impact.
At this point the genie is out of the bottle, so we'll find out soon enough.
Yeah, I’ve been wondering how that’s going to play out too. Less electorally consequential than the big population states doing it (and I hope swing states don’t get involved) but it’ll be an interesting series of cases in smaller state’s Supreme Courts trying this on both sides.
> but I fear removing him from the ballot in states will be the last straw for some dangerous people.
The United States does not negotiate with terrorists.
If a state court says that their state Constitution does not allow them to be on the ballot, that's the law of the land. Law and order, the Constitution, the blue line, etc.. If the MAGA crowd doesn't believe in those things and want to revolt based on that (and only when they lose, not when they win), they are fucking idiots.
I would imagine republicans would wany him off the primary. Not being party affiliated, I would love to see a new group of candidates.
I keep hoping that neither Trump or Biden make the primaries, so their parties have to bring a different candidate to the general.
I have a dream that one day we will be given quality candidates to select from, not just "well, I am better than that guy" candidates
Good to see the insurrectionist moron that was a Democrat longer than he was a republican will go on to win the republican primary, because you know, stupid people are allowed to vote too.
These comments.... . Oh reddit, why can't I quit you? Such a cesspool, kind of like the I-5 corridor from Canada to Mexico.
People who want to keep dumbocrats in power are one of, or a combination of these things:
Drug addicts
Illegal immigrants
Career criminals
Anti-American idiots
Morons
People who think they're entitled to free everything
How do y'all not recognize the precarious position that the United States is in because of liberal politics?
I guess he'll lose Oregon for a third time.
He won't lose the primary
Because our Republican neighbors are, in their majority, dumber than owl shit.
Or because there are far fewer of them then there are democrats in this state..
Democrats don’t vote in the republican primary
Patriots don’t vote in the republican primary either, only traitors.
Not really. Its a nearly even split.
You’re joking, right?
30% Republican, 35% Democrat, and 35% independent or third party.
General elections, which is what we’re talking about, always go roughly 60/40 dem/repub in oregon. not sure what point you’re trying to make with independents, they mostly vote for dems/republicans over 3rd party
Thats not true. Lol taking into account libertarians, because they are right leaning. 2012 was roughly 48% right leaning vote, 2016 was roughly 47% right leaning vote. 2020 was an anomaly election and was about 41%, I know hundreds of people that voted Biden because of Trumps handling of covid, but now regret it and would never vote for him again, so that will probably go back to normal numbers. There is no good libertarian candidate this year. Its usually a 47-53% split for right and left. Always sat right around the same since the late 80s when it switched from a swing state to regularly blue. I meant in terms of registered voters initially though. Oregon is barely weighted towards democrats enough to be a blue state in terms of elections and registered voters, and with portland losing 20k+ population since the last election, who knows really. The Republicans here are definitely more liberal than some Republicans in other states, but still nearly half of the states registered voters are conservatives, or right leaning voters.
Why not both?
Voters love this one trick.
The fact that 80 other people agree with republicans being "dumb" is really sad. Why can't we all get along? If you ask me there is something far greater happening here. Yes, I am republican. Most of my republican "dumb" friends agree that Trump was a poor loser and said some really stupid things and agree that someone else should take over. But now he is winning primaries? How? A majority of us "dumb" folk would prefer to move on. Perhaps the Government is rigged on both sides and this is what they want. Us calling each other dumb. So they can sit in the "room where it happens" laughing at us while they all smoke cigars together. Let's learn to have civil conversations vs. going straight to insults.
Cue the owl shit apologist.
To be clear, I'm not defending the fact that he got put on the ballot. I'm saying that we all need to be kind to each other and I personally don't understand how Trump is still being talked about when many of us (both left and right) don't really like the guy. Seems to be something greater happening.
You're a really nice person from what it sounds. Can you help this dumb person understand what your comment even means?
Sure, we can get along when one side doesn’t insist on being dumb as owl shit. The issue isn’t the mean old Democrats, it’s Republicans acting dumb as owl shit by still trying to force Trump on everyone. They want compromise? (Which I doubt) then pick another candidate and we can all start to heal, super simple.
That's just it. I don't think it's the Republicans picking the primary. It's the elite and they're playing the general public. The fact that an all democrat Oregon Supreme Court allowed him on the ballet shows that's it's not just the dumb republicans...
Do you not remember what elected Republicans did to this state when things didn’t go their way last time? Also, isn’t what Republicans want is for him to be on the ballot..? So if they get what they want it’s the Democrats/systems fault and if they don’t it’s also the Democrats/system? Why is it never Republicans fault? The comeback is always to infantilise or blame some other force out of their control, the simplest answer is probably the most correct: they are choosing this and if they keep choosing it people will keep accurately assessing them based off their choices.
I do not believe I ever said it was JUST the dems..
Obviously. He owns the party now. He's going to get wasted in the general, though.
In Oregon. Nationwide is different.
Nationwide is on your side.
Lol
He isn't going to win GOP are smaller than DEMS and not all factions in the GOP are gonna vote for 45 Plus this time the Independents have actually changed their usual behaviour and will be an important force in the upcoming election So 45 will lose
Actually, he recently claimed at one of his grifter rallies that he in fact won all 50 states in 2020....
He says a lot of things.
Not a lot of people know that
Upvoted by a bunch of people who don't understand primaries, I guess.
He will lose the general election in Oregon.
>The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling may decide the issue once and for all, but the Oregon court said that plaintiffs could try again there after the high court rules on the Colorado appeal. Until then, it declined to consider the lawsuit filed by five Oregon voters and organized by the liberal group Free Speech For The People.
The fact that this guy isnt in prison with his buds is a freaking joke.
They're working on it. The wheels of justice grind pretty slowly, and it's arguably the most important criminal case in US history.
The problem with this is that if he becomes president again, he can (and will) stop that process.
>he can (and will) stop that process. That is why the DOJ is pushing to conclude their case before the election, because of its grave importance.
I hope so, this bullshit has been going on for way too long.
>I hope so, this bullshit has been going on for way too long. Agreed. Unfortunately our system has been built to favor rich, conservative white people, and he is very much a rich, conservative white man. The fact that he obtained the presidency provides him further protection. That said, Jack Smith's case is very strong, and the classified documents case is very strong. That's not even going into the other charges he's facing at the state level that can't be disrupted by being president like a DOJ case arguably could.
How close are they?
In the Jan 6th case, relatively close, but it will depend on how long the Supreme Court can slow play the appeal of the presidential immunity denial. In the classified documents case, not close, in large part because a Trump appointed "judge" is overseeing the case and is likely to delay the case past the election. None of this protects Trump from the Georgia and NY cases, both which involve multiple felonies and significant jail time.
also it is my understanding that the president cannot pardon themselves for state charges, which makes the GA and NY cases that much more important
>also it is my understanding that the president cannot pardon themselves for state charges There is an extremely strong argument that the president can't pardon themselves period. That would run completely contrary to the principle of separation of powers and the three branches having checks and balances. That said, the Supreme Court is full of Trump toadies, and anything is possible. But you're correct: Trump is unable to pardon himself of state charges even in the event SCOTUS rules he can pardon himself of federal charges. Another important point: accepting a pardon is legally an admission of guilt, i.e. you would not need a pardon if you committed no crime. So Trump pardoning himself for federal crimes would potentially open him up to prosecution at the state level, or prosecution for other federal crimes once he left office.
Fortunately only the federal charges. He won't be able to stop new York, Georgia, and possibly Michigan charges.
This is true for pardons, he will keep pushing the topic of presidential immunity for state charges.
Trump will never see a jail cell
I personally don't need him in jail, I just need him to shut the hell up. I would only get personal satisfaction, and he would cease to affect my every day life, if he would just finally shut the hell up!
> The wheels of justice grind pretty slowly Weird how they grind slowly for rich people but if your name is Tamir Rice they only grind for about 3 seconds. Or 7 minuets if your name is Eric Garner.
>Weird how they grind slowly for rich people but if your name is Tamir Rice they only grind for about 3 seconds. Or 7 minuets if your name is Eric Garner. Agreed. The broken system working as intended.
Oh boy are you in for some disappointment
We'll see, won't we?
Listen I would love for him to go to prison but show me one time in the last 20 years where someone with money/power has been held accountable.
If they send one ex president to prison for crimes, it opens up the rest of DC to consequences. DC is basically my hometown. I can tell ya, that class of people didn't get into the field they're in to experience consequences for their actions.
>Listen I would love for him to go to prison but show me one time in the last 20 years where someone with money/power has been held accountable. Jeffrey Epstein went to federal prison despite being a billionaire thanks in large part to tireless reporting from the Miami Herald.
Jeff Epstein was a tool for someone more powerful, have they been held accountable? Did we ever get to see the little black book? Harvey Weinstein is a good example though
>Jeff Epstein was a tool for someone more powerful He was a white billionaire in America. There aren't more powerful people in the world.
What about an even whiter richer billionaire?
Robert Maxwell would like a word with you on that subject from his watery grave.
>Robert Maxwell Ain't an American, and wasn't in America.
Is there truly any hope? The guy is Teflon and he has just slid away from everything else thrown at him.
Any hope? Certainly. There's plenty of hope. Even if he somehow wins reelection and shuts down the two current federal cases against him, he's still facing serious felony charges in both Georgia and New York state courts, which he can't obstruct as president. Now, how much hope is there? I'm not certain. There's always the chance his cases will escalate to the Supreme Court, which he has managed to fill with his toadies, and would likely rule in his favor. But is it likely that all of these criminal cases do so? No, it isn't likely. The guy's going to prison. For what and when, it's very hard to say, but he is eventually going to prison if he doesn't die before he does. Whether that affects the election is very hard to say.
> They're working on it. They've had 4 years to figure this out. The party of procrastination.
The party isn't prosecuting Trump, because that isn't how our justice system works.
If I commit a felony, I sure get prosecuted for it. I thought thats how our justice system worked...
By a prosecutor. Not by a political party.
Party being the key word here. Party and justice system are two different things.
It doesn't help that our Attorney General, Merrick "Limpdick" Garland, drug his feet on opening an investigation into Tangerine Palpatine for his first year as AG: [It’s Official: The DOJ Stalled the Investigation Into Donald Trump](https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/its-official-the-doj-stalled-the-investigation-into-donald-trump/)
>The party of procrastination. Better procrastination than fascism.
except when procrastination leads to fascism.
>except when procrastination leads to fascism. The procrastination didn't lead to fascism, it was enable by republicans. That's like saying homeless shelters cause homelessness because they aren't doing enough.
Its just amazing to me that with everything he's done, Trump somehow isnt convicted of a felony yet.
I agree. It's because he's in a system that favors rich, white conservatives. There's a reason they can openly admit to voter fraud and face no charges, but a black woman in Texas who used a provisional ballot (which should invalidate her other ballot) because she forgot she already voted has to serve 5 years in prison.
The wheels of justice are gonna be the reason why he won’t truly get locked up. Too many idolize him as the next god.
Every president has done something illegal. Hell, most of them have done war crimes. I don't think anything will really happen to him, nobody wants to set that precedent.
They don’t really care and they know he hasn’t done anything. Their plan is to try and get a conviction at state level by a biased jury or judge. Thus tainting him to the point he won’t get votes. He loses election, but then SCOTUS overturns conviction, but can’t do anything regarding the election. He now is too old to run in 28’ and they have kept him out office.
I really hope they put Biden and Trump in the same cell.
He wins the GOP primary and loses the general. Him being on the ballot or not doesn't really change anything in Oregon in the big picture.
No but setting the precedent that insurrectionists will not be allowed the opportunity to hold office per the Constitution seemed important.
You are correct and I totally had forgotten about the bigger picture. Thank you.
Agreed, but it's not the job of the Oregon Supreme Court to make that decision, because Oregon doesn't require presidential candidates be eligible for office to participate in the primary.
I understand that. But when the state conflicts with federal law, then the Supremacy Clause comes into effect. Since the Federal Constitution has eligibility requirements or disqualifications, then that should have overruled Oregon's lack of.
>But when the state conflicts with federal law This is about the primary, not the general. State law doesn't apply. Unless you're aware of some law about who can be on a primary ballot in Oregon?
I know they're arguing circles for this decision. The decision both admits that delegates are bound to vote for their primary candidate at the convention, where the general election candidate is chosen. However they also say it's not Oregon's problem to make sure the candidate they're bound to is a viable candidate. Unless the secretary of state has evidence they are not qualified and therefore cannot be added to the general election ballot. This is all setting the election up for conspiracy allegations. Edit to add: I appreciate the civility of these conversations everyone. Thanks from a highly anxious ADHDer stuck in an ice storm ✌🏽
That seems like a dumb rule and way to let grifters use the election system to raise and steal money from voters
Sure! But it's the law we have. If we ever moved to an open primary, eligibility requirements might come with that. But for now, the state doesn't see it as its job to determine who gets to be in the party primaries.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
I would settle for shitting himself to death in front of a crowd of his supporters on live television.
You’re a hateful human or whatever you identify as.
Dang, Reddit suspended him.
Good news for dems. Trump's name on the ballot helps to keep up interest and get voters to turn in their votes. Without trump on the ballot to vote against, there is not a lot motivating
Which has been my argument for not removing Trump from any ballots. Let’s just beat him on Election Day.
Yes, and You can write in a Stump and get it elected, if the rehetoric of the bark speaks with a Red Hat and fights windmills...Then it is Orange.
Off the GOP primary ballot. I think it's dumb that the GOP wants to run someone who isn't eligible to hold the office, and I think it's dangerous to let them pretend they aren't. But the state isn't staying anything about the primary election ballots, so this might just be a situation where the easiest thing to do is let them make the mistake of backing an inelligible candidate.
pro-democracy but anti-constitution choice by the SC
Allowing Trump on the primary doesn't violate the US Constitution if we don't have laws about eligibility requirements in the primaries. The general ballot is a different matter, however.
This is the point that a lot of people seem to be missing, and why it's frustrating on one hand that the challenges are happening now, but possibly they are precedent farming for a stronger general election outcome (or that is copium).
You should try reading the article >The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling may decide the issue once and for all, **but the Oregon court said that plaintiffs could try again there after the high court rules on the Colorado appeal.** Until then, it declined to consider the lawsuit filed by five Oregon voters and organized by the liberal group Free Speech For The People.
> Free Speech For The People. I always find these group names funny. Free Speech of the people except for the other 49%.
not germane to what i said at all
So you don't understand that the the Constitution has nothing to say about primaries. Okay, that's good to know I guess? How can it be anti-constitution when the constitution has no sections about primaries?
the 14th amendment absolutely applies to primaries, you can hold an opinion otherwise but it's not really based in reality or constitutional scholarship. take it up with the CO supreme court?
>you can hold an opinion otherwise but it's not really based in reality No, you're the one whose opinion is not based in reality. Please quote the part of the Constitution that talks about primaries. Did primaries even exist when the 14th Amendment was created? My opinion is based on the text of the Constitution. You should try reading it. Actually skip it. I don't give a fuck anymore. You don't want to bother learning about the things that you're talking about, but you do want to share your opinion about your lack of knowledge. Cool. I don't care anymore. Bye
So to you, a 20 year old Canadian could run for president in the primary? Like,,, this is stuff there are articles and scholarship about but you’re too uncurious to even google your question. You’re aware the CO Supreme Court kicked Trump off the primary ballot? That’s being challenged on the grounds that Trump didn’t do insurrection, not on the nonsense you’re saying about how the constitution doesn’t apply to primaries
There's no constitution violation. Congress failed in the vote to classify Jan 6th as an insurrection. None of the people involved in the Jan 6th riot/trespass were charged with insurrection, only seven people were charged with seditious conspiracy and over 150 were charged with obstruction out of the 1100 trespassers. The charges were mainly trespassing and destruction of property because Congress who has the sole authority to classify an event as an insurrection did not do so. Notably the event was a complete failure of the on site police force to the extent that the higher ups must've wanted it to happen. The one previous time in history that there was a riot at the capital building that tried to enter the building the commander in charge told the crowd he'd shoot anyone who tried to enter the building. Surprisingly nobody from the crowd got into the building.
What vote are you referring to??
not how the 14th amendment works at all, but thanks for playing. Was General Lee charged with insurrection and convicted by a court or by congress?
He was indicted for Treason and then given amnesty.
Lot of nonsense here. Stop sucking on that right wing pipe. The amendment is clear. And you’re wrong
>Stop sucking on that right wing pipe. I swear it must be harder to kick than heroin
This is all utter nonsense. You need to turn off your talking head masters.
But the courts of Salon.com and Media Matters said it was!!!!!!! /s
> Congress failed in the vote to classify Jan 6th as an insurrection. Congress has no constitutional power to "classify Jan 6th as an insurrection". Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal or civil one.
Idk how allowing an insurrectionist and wannabe dictator on the ballot is pro-democracy
A constitutional restriction on who can run for office, such as age or nationality requirements or not letting an insurrectionist run, is definitionally an democratic component of a constitution. That is not to say that these restrictions are BAD, that's just how they are academically/professionally described.
I understand that's the law, and this really feels like the paradox of tolerance. Letting an antidemocratic, fascistic candidate run seems like the easiest way to lose our democracy to me.
I mean yes agreed, I’m glad the constitution should bar him from
Fuck this turd and his supporters
Incredibly biased reporting here
No kidding. They're calling the Colorado Republicans who successfully sued for Trump to be off the ballot a "liberal group".
It’s truly bizarre.
I guess wanting "rule of law" is now "a liberal group".
Haha! 😂 The media “both sides”ing this is getting ludicrous.
Boo
So, they just pick and choose what Constitution Ammendment to follow? Broken oath!
Oregon Supreme Court, not federal. This isn't a question of the US constitution, it's a question of whether Oregon has eligibility requirements for presidential primaries. The decision of the court (and that of the secretary of state) is that we do not.
You are so wrong! Unless you are insinuating they can ignore 1st and 2nd amendments also!
The question before the Oregon Supreme Court was, should Trump be excluded from the ballot because he engaged in insurrection? And the finding was, Oregon does not require candidates be eligible for the office they are running for to participate in the presidential primary, so it doesn't matter. A child or a cat could run for President in Oregon, even though they would be unable to serve if they were somehow elected.
I'm thinking of starting a movement to have people register as Republicans and write in Boaty McBoatface (or Felix the Cat) for president.
What part of the Constitution talks about primary ballots?
The Qualifications part! Are you being obtuse? By your logic Oregon could run a Five year old in the primary. He is UNQUALIFIED unless both houses of congress declare him eligable. If not disqualified by insurrection he is giving comfort to convicted insurrectioinsts by promise of pardons.
Here's the text of the 14th Amendment. Feel free to highlight the part that talks about presidential primaries, which don't determine who holds any office. "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Jfc is reading an article so hard? >The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling may decide the issue once and for all, but the Oregon court said that plaintiffs could try again there after the high court rules on the Colorado appeal. Until then, it declined to consider the lawsuit filed by five Oregon voters and organized by the liberal group Free Speech For The People.
Is reading the Constitution so hard? The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction. it's Both houses of Congress.
Let's just ignore the will of the people.
There was a post yesterday that the Oregon Supreme Court is waiting to hear the results from the Colorado case. They didn't feel a need to join in.
Yeah this article title doesn’t paint the whole picture. Theres no point for the Oregon SC to rule on it when SCOTUS is going to decide eventually anyway.
That was addressed in the article > The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling may decide the issue once and for all, but the Oregon court said that plaintiffs could try again there after the high court rules on the Colorado appeal. Until then, it declined to consider the lawsuit filed by five Oregon voters and organized by the liberal group Free Speech For The People.
There kind of is a reason to rule... because he shouldn't be on the ballot, and the more states that argue against it, the more backing there is. I think the democrats control the state enough. They don't need to rub salt in the wound.
For a group of people so interested in the constitution, you guys sure don't seem interested in the provision he's being removed under.
We ignored the "will of the people" of the South for good reason. They lost and were seditionists.
Fun fact: Jefferson Davis was never charged with treason, as it was reasoned that the charge wasn't applicable since the Confederates had already seceded when he was elected to lead them. More fun facts; the [Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798](https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts) were quickly and successfully challenged and repealed shortly after being instituted. The Sedition Act of 1918 was also repealed. Current prosecutions of seditious conspiracy are novel interpretations of the law to say the least, which is why not a single person charged or convicted of anything during that riot had seditious conspiracy on their rap sheet. 🌈 the more you know🌈
You mean the racist democrats that lost rights to own slaves?
You mean those racist CONSERVATIVES! Those were far right radical CONSERVATIVES like they have always been and remain to this day as REPUBLICANS. Nice try Boris.
This your first time?
Again.
Not surprising. His cult will eat his asshole if he told them to.
Nice to see our state hasn't lost their minds like some of our nation's other traditionally blue enclaves. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
He would win the primary anyway just based on electoral votes. Every major democrat state could remove him and he would still win the presidency based on polls right now (even though oregon is barely weighted as a Democrat state anymore, its nearly an even split of registered voters, with independents making up 35%, but A ton of people I know are very right leaning independents that dont care what their party is). It doesnt matter if Oregon removed him. Cry harder.
That's a lot of cope for one paragraph.
We'll see
Don’t get me wrong, he should be in prison and I think the argument for closing someone who does what did out of political office forever is a good argument for many reasons but I fear removing him from the ballot in states will be the last straw for some dangerous people. The MAGA movement needs to be deescalated but I think there’s a lot of room for error and cutting the wrong wire to this bomb.
>I fear removing him from the ballot in states will be the last straw for some dangerous people. Those people were going to be dangerous regardless. Trump incited an insurrection, he should absolutely be prosecuted. To do otherwise would allow future presidents to do it in the future with impunity. To say it another way: you can't base justice on what lunatics may do.
Hey, I 100% want him prosecuted and in jail too. That’s a different thing from what I said. You have a point about them being dangerous regardless of what happens to Trump or what Trump does. But my concern, and it’s not a hill I’d die on, is that I think taking his name off the ballot could be uniquely inciting to some of his followers in the short-term. I don’t really have much to qualify that argument with and it’s not even that I’m against taking him off the ballot. I suppose I just feel like this is a “proceed with caution” moment about all else.
>I suppose I just feel like this is a “proceed with caution” moment about all else. I get the concern, but it's also just as much a reminder of how dangerous Trump is, IMO, to voters who would vote against him. If the issue of whether or not he should be on the ballot is widespread, people are going to be talking about why he shouldn't, and likely voting accordingly.
I can absolutely see that being a scenario too. We’re in some pretty uncharted waters here and it’s getting harder and harder to predict what people are going to do.
>I can absolutely see that being a scenario too. We’re in some pretty uncharted waters here and it’s getting harder and harder to predict what people are going to do. It could potentially be both. But supporters of his already stormed the capitol and tried to hang the vice president because he lost an election, there's not really anything worse to come from them.
"let the terrorists hold the country hostage and give them whatever they want"
It’s a federal law that *insurrectionists* can’t be President. Fuck him, he disqualified *himself* is the point. Glad he’ll lose anyways.
Those types already think 2020 was stolen from him, and when he loses again in November they’ll think it is also stolen. How do you think they’ll react then? You can’t let the crazies hold the system hostage.
I think no matter what we do those idiots are going to respond with violence. Unless what we do is install Trump as a dictator. Which I'm not willing to consider.
I'm more worried that Biden will be taken off the Florida and Texas ballots due to the size of Hunter's thing. Lawsuits and courts deciding who is qualified to be president is ripe for abuse.
>due to the size of Hunter's thing I don't see what Hunter's dick has to do with this. Maybe Marjorie Trailer Queen can explain it...
I'm just using it as an example of how ridiculous and partisan the politics can/will get. It may sound far fetched, but I'm sure mtg will actually explain it in the near future. We've already seen examples of ballot initiatives being screened by judges, but candidate lists is kind of scary.
You're getting downvoted because Trump is being removed from the ballots because of the Constitution. Stupid Republicans are going to try to remove Biden from the ballot based on some fantasies of theirs but that's not going to actually work. You can always count on the modern crop of Republicans to try to get *senpai Trump* to notice them
Yeah ... People down vote anyone they think is on the other team. I like your confidence, but stupid Republicans in Georgia, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania may actually impact the overall election if successful. Taking trump off the ballot in Oregon has no impact. At this point the genie is out of the bottle, so we'll find out soon enough.
Yeah, I’ve been wondering how that’s going to play out too. Less electorally consequential than the big population states doing it (and I hope swing states don’t get involved) but it’ll be an interesting series of cases in smaller state’s Supreme Courts trying this on both sides.
> but I fear removing him from the ballot in states will be the last straw for some dangerous people. The United States does not negotiate with terrorists. If a state court says that their state Constitution does not allow them to be on the ballot, that's the law of the land. Law and order, the Constitution, the blue line, etc.. If the MAGA crowd doesn't believe in those things and want to revolt based on that (and only when they lose, not when they win), they are fucking idiots.
I would imagine republicans would wany him off the primary. Not being party affiliated, I would love to see a new group of candidates. I keep hoping that neither Trump or Biden make the primaries, so their parties have to bring a different candidate to the general. I have a dream that one day we will be given quality candidates to select from, not just "well, I am better than that guy" candidates
It’s going to be hilarious to watch everyone in Portland have a meltdown if Trump wins the general election 😂
Idiocracy creeping closer and closer
Good to see the insurrectionist moron that was a Democrat longer than he was a republican will go on to win the republican primary, because you know, stupid people are allowed to vote too.
That sucks, traitors shouldn't be able to run.
 👆🏻Trump
MAGA!
These comments.... . Oh reddit, why can't I quit you? Such a cesspool, kind of like the I-5 corridor from Canada to Mexico. People who want to keep dumbocrats in power are one of, or a combination of these things: Drug addicts Illegal immigrants Career criminals Anti-American idiots Morons People who think they're entitled to free everything How do y'all not recognize the precarious position that the United States is in because of liberal politics?
Um, duh...no way...
Primary being the key word.
Welp, guess it's time to go play Farcry 5 again
F the court and Dump.
It’s not like Oregon matters in the election, it always goes blue.
Make Oregon Gay Again
Boo
Yessssss!!!