joker-dancing

  • ClimateChangeAnxiety [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    • 1. Pointless gesturing, Colorado would never have gone for Trump anyway

    • 2. If he engaged in insurrection, charge him. Do it. Charge him for treason in the state of Colorado. Otherwise shut up.

    • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]@hexbear.netM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      only the federal DOJ, the president, or congress can charge someone w treason. this might be the most Colorado can do, as milquetoast as it is

      edit: on further investigation, some states do have laws against treason and people have been tried for treason by individual states’ courts

      • SacredExcrement [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        States can charge individuals with it, I’d assume mostly stemming from Civil War related nonsense (like someone else pointed out, John Brown was charged with treason by Virginia, not the US at large)

        Colorado’s statute on Treason

        A person commits treason if he levies war against the state of Colorado or adheres to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless upon the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or upon confession in open court. Treason is a class 1 felony.

        I’d think a fairly easy argument to make would be inciting revolt against US Congress fits the bill of ‘adheres to enemies, giving aid and comfort’, but we all know libs are scared to go the whole way against their fashy friends

    • PKMKII [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      11 months ago

      Conservative control of the Supreme Court aside, it’s never been firmly established if the President constitutes an officer of the United States per the 14th amendment. So there’s a lot of room for interpretation, and some decent legal arguments, that it doesn’t.

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          This isn’t even an exaggeration. There’s a real theory real legal academics support that’s basically “a sufficiently talented judge can come to whatever conclusion they want and put a defensible gloss on it.” There are similar theories of legal interpretation that posit even the most plain of plain language in a statute or constitution can be plausibly re-written by a motivated court.

          • autismdragon [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Hell, its based when this method is used for progress.

            Funny enough, its conservatives who pretend theyre sticking to the Constitution as written (or that “what the foundinf fathers intended” bullshit). But ive seen progressive advocates openly just say “no just interpret however you need to to do the right thing.”

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      11 months ago

      Georgia would be the state most likely to do so. If Trump gets convicted of a state crime, that might kill his nomination.

      • DragonBallZinn [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Libs are deadass hoping Trump pulls a voldemort and defeats himself by breaking a rule rather than dems actually defeating Trump fair and square.

        …And then DeSantis wins in a landslide after Trump endorses him and #AvengeTrump goes viral.

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          No, it is more hoping that the rule of law catches up to Trump before the election.

          But if you want DeSantis to win, I’m probably not going to be able to convince you otherwise.

          • RyanGosling [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            27
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Rule of law? Dude is walking around giving rallies. It took you dumbasses 2, 3 years? to actually get him sitting in a courtroom. The rule of law would’ve put him in front of a firing squad 48 hours after January 6, but we live in la la land where the instigator of a failed coup led by boat dealers get to play golf while we pay for his security.

            Your rule of law is a joke. Your party only wields power when it comes to undermining poor people. Otherwise the democrats would’ve banned the GOP and arrested every single one of their politicians. If you call them as undemocratic terrorists, then where is the rule of law when they get to stand next to you in the halls of power?

          • Doubledee [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            ·
            11 months ago

            Given the sclerotic and partisan nature of the US “rule of law” isn’t it irresponsible of them to hope that the courts solve the problem for them instead of trying to run a convincing campaign for their side?

            • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              That assumes the legal option is the only one being pursued.

              There are tons of posts here calling out the political arguments that inflation is falling and the economy isn’t in a recession as political propaganda that may be technically accurate but hide the suffering of common Americans and should therefore be treated as nothing but propaganda to be forgotten.

              • Doubledee [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                18
                ·
                11 months ago

                I’m not sure how that deals with the problem? Joe is deeply unpopular, people don’t like him and whether you think it’s fair or not people are not enjoying the way things are going right now. Doubling down on “voters feel wrong about how things are going and should vote for this unpopular old man” is not actually pursuing an electoral strategy.

                You suggested they were hoping the law would solve this problem, which is more coherent than suggesting that they’re trying to campaign by calling everybody who dislikes their candidate (almost 2/3 of voters, last count) wrong over and over.

                • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I suggested it was an option, but not the only one. Others believed that I was suggesting it was the only option.

  • Elon_Musk [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    11 months ago

    Ok hear me out, somehow this survives all appeals and sticks. 3rd parties focus all their efforts on Colorado. Dems don’t show up to the polls because there’s no way Biden could lose, meanwhile 3rd party voters and bitter GOP supporters show up and flip the state yellow. Trump wins by one state.

  • happybadger [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I mean it was a Bernie state in both 2016 and 2020. There’s no way in hell a republican would win anything more than our most inbred counties and they’re dwarfed in population by the all-but-one democratic cities.

  • Kaplya@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I don’t think this is a good move. It will only trigger the persecution complex of the conservatives, even those who don’t like Trump, and they will come out in droves just to stick it to the Democrats to make a point.

    Why do anything like this when Biden already has the upper hand (disregard the polling, which is way too early to be informative at this point).

      • Kaplya@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Still not a good idea to let Trump become the martyr that unifies the conservatives. I’m talking not just the crazy MAGA people, but the moderate conservatives that may have been repulsed by Trump, and are starting to see that Biden is actually more capable of realizing their vision.

        Now they are just going to see the Democrats as “openly out to persecute conservatives”, and if they don’t defend Trump, whom they don’t like, they could be next.

        • FactuallyUnscrupulou [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’ve got a feeling that Trump will skirt any form of justice and die peacefully one day. It seems like more people are coming around to the idea that Trump will remain a free man and maybe president because the government really doesn’t want to stop him. Let SCOTUS write some more crazy bullshit further delegitimizing their standing. The more jarring the spectacle of the US government becomes the more likely people could lose faith in it’s institutions.

    • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      11 months ago

      come out in droves just to stick it to the Democrats to make a point

      think-about-it how they gonna do that if the big wet boy ain’t on the ballot?

      90% forecast of a terrorism about it if they don’t retreat on appeal tho

      • Kaplya@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        This is assuming that Democrats can get enough states to ban Trump from running to prevent him from winning. Otherwise it’s just going to rile up the conservatives across the country and put the swing states in danger.

        • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          11 months ago

          well it’s too soon to tell, in actuality. but dems doing a legalistic cockblock isn’t inherently a wrong move unless they fail to do it sufficiently to secure a victory, is it? i’m not going to do the math rn but if enough electoral votes are on the table that they could secure as such, i’d be willing to declare this an astute political move.

          greatest liability being the US supreme court overruling them i imagine

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          if this is legal in one state it’s legal in every state. the argument is based on constitutional law. not sure if (assuming the ruling survives the openly corrupt SCotUS) this would automatically disqualify him everywhere or if there would have to be separate legal proceedings in each state that wants to disqualify him, but those proceedings are already happening in several states and upholding this ruling would essentially mean Trump has to try to win without several swing states. PA and WI have dem majorities on their state supreme courts and there’s already a 14th amendment challenge over trump’s candidacy in PA.

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      11 months ago

      Colorado has judicial elections doesn’t it? Easy political win for lib judges to stoke their base by saying that they protected democracy by ruling against Drumpf.

    • D61 [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      The 4-3 ruling , which rests on an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, will almost certainly force the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve whether Trump, the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, is eligible to hold future public office.

      When this gets to the SCOTUS they will rule the opposite.

  • TheWorldSpins [any, undecided]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    11 months ago

    I dont know what this Cheeto of a man likes more: Whataboutism, or freaking Whataburger. One thing is for sure, he doesn’t have America’s best interests at heart. That spells trouble for Democracy. liberalism

    • LesbianLiberty [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      To be fair this kinda downplays everything that happened, don’t get me wrong I don’t care about liberal “democracy” or it’s institutions or whatever, but there’s a lot of other things that happened. In reality, you’re right though, other presidents have gotten away with far more horrifying things and this is a sign of American decay