[Deutschmania]

I'm just saying that if you go to court for killing a guy and your argument is that "it was justified" rather than "I didn't kill that guy" you can't get upset when other folks go "well he killed that guy".

Whether it matters or not is for the future to say, but Trump's legal team went for an odd strategy which makes it easy for him to be removed from the ballot. If his strategy is indeed to get elected and then give himself immunity, then its a big blunder - by not contesting the charge of insurrection in court, and because the constitution doesn't distinguish between 'justified' or 'unjustified' insurrections, many states might not have a choice but to remove him from the ballot. Same as any guy not born an American or under 35.

On the last point , the Supreme Court will likely have to rule on the question of are the foreign born still barred from running for President , given that the Turkish born immigrant , Cenk Uygur is currently seeking the Democratic nomination for a President of the United States . A number of states have ruled that he is not qualified , yet he insists on challenging this requirement , all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary . https://apnews.com/article/arkansas-cenk-uygur-democrats-president-2024-election-a2e5991c5186ab56cc61b45d30a38718

[annatar1914]

My husband is convinced Trump is going to lose everything. I am skeptical. I think the SCOTUS might let him run for prez one more time.

I also think the GOP is going down the toilet soon. Too many people believing in the Cult.

@Tainari88 :

I think that your husband is correct, Trump will be defeated on constitutional grounds. And I believe by the US Supreme Court. The US Constitution is a remarkable document acting as a kind of political machinery.

Republics are illiberal in nature, but do tend by the very nature of reality to be Socialist or headed in that direction. And this is the reason that eventually Trump and company will have to step outside the laws and government of the Republic altogether if he wants to seize power: the Confederate gambit.

Will he do so? Will his popularity vanish when and if he crosses that Rubicon? I don't know.

[late]

On the last point , the Supreme Court will likely have to rule on the question of are the foreign born still barred from running for President...

That comes from the Founding Fathers, and it's not going to change in our lifetimes.

The larger context is we need to add more restrictions to the presidency. In that political environment, relaxing restrictions seems awfully unlikely.

[Rich]

So the point I was trying to make earlier is that a lot of people seem to be assuming that Trump's legal defence is a defence. That its intended purpose is to defend against the Liberal show trials. I'm suggesting that it may be an offensive move rather than a defensive move. That Trump is trying to establish his right to wield the powers the Presidency if he's elected, In his last period in office he was frustrated by the Liberal deep state that felt they were entitled to veto anything they didn't like.

[annatar1914]

So the point I was trying to make earlier is that a lot of people seem to be assuming that Trump's legal defence is a defence. That its intended purpose is to defend against the Liberal show trials. I'm suggesting that it may be an offensive move rather than a defensive move. That Trump is trying to establish his right to wield the powers the Presidency if he's elected, In his last period in office he was frustrated by the Liberal deep state that felt they were entitled to veto anything they didn't like.

@Rich :

Yes I believe that Trump's " defense" is an offense, predicated on the notion that he is returning to an office taken from him and his by right. He will threaten and intimidate and show how weak and stupid and vile his opponents are until he rides the wave right back into the White House.

The test will come after the US Supreme Court disqualifies him from running for office, and then he'll demand Congress remove the disqualification by a two thirds vote or greater.

[Rugoz]

Will he do so? Will his popularity vanish when and if he crosses that Rubicon? I don't know.

Trump has never been particularly popular with the general population. He has a cult following, which, given the 2-party duopoly with primaries, which are decided by a small minority that participates and votes, allowed him to capture one of the 2 parties.

In a "normal country", Trump would head a far-right party that gets ~20% of votes.

[annatar1914]

Trump has never been particularly popular with the general population. He has a cult following, which, given the 2-party duopoly with primaries, which are decided by a small minority that participates and votes, allowed him to capture one of the 2 parties.

In a "normal country", Trump would head a far-right party that gets ~20% of votes.

@Rugoz :

I believe that Trump has already factored in his actual popularity with the general population, or lack thereof, in his calculations. My concern is with what he could do with that understanding.

[Fasces]

That's what makes this a huge blunder. He relies on winning through EC votes, not the popular vote - but if many states declare him ineligible for the presidency because he didn't challenge the question of insurrection, then they can't send any voters for him to the EC. How could he possibly repeat 2016?

[Rugoz]

That's what makes this a huge blunder. He relies on winning through EC votes, not the popular vote - but if many states declare him ineligible for the presidency because he didn't challenge the question of insurrection, then they can't send any voters for him to the EC. How could he possibly repeat 2016?

It is highly unlikely that a red or swing state disqualifies Trump. AFAIK there is too much legal leeway and the political fallout is too big.

[wat0n]

That's what makes this a huge blunder. He relies on winning through EC votes, not the popular vote - but if many states declare him ineligible for the presidency because he didn't challenge the question of insurrection, then they can't send any voters for him to the EC. How could he possibly repeat 2016?

It depends on the state, as @Rich suggested. In some, it would be legal for delegates to vote for Trump in the EC even if he wasn't in the ballot.

[late]

This one will likely take the cake for the weirdest presidential election in American history.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S Thompson

[wat0n]

Unless Haley somehow catches up to Trump among Republicans.

Haley would be totally electable and has a good chance to defeat Biden.

[Rich]

It depends on the state, as @Rich suggested. In some, it would be legal for delegates to vote for Trump in the EC even if he wasn't in the ballot.

As far as I'm aware it doesn't depend on the state. If no candidate has a majority of delegates on the first ballot at the electoral convention, then delegate have to be allowed to switch their votes or otherwise it would lead to paralysis. In recent times third party or independent candidates haven't won a single delegate as far as I'm aware. But if Trump was banned from the ballot then voters would have to vote for a proxy, so this third candidate might well win 1 or more state's thereby denying both Trump and Biden the 270 required for victory. Hence on the second and subsequent ballots these third / fourth candidate delegates would have to choose between Biden and Trump.

[Fasces]

If Trump is not on the ballot, it's because he is found to be ineligible to be President, full stop. The Electoral College could no more vote for Trump than they could a 12 year old or a Tanzanian.

[Rich]

If Trump is not on the ballot, it's because he is found to be ineligible to be President, full stop. The Electoral College could no more vote for Trump than they could a 12 year old or a Tanzanian.

I was presuming that Trump was on the ballot for most most states. For example lets say that Colorado is the only place that excludes Trump from the ballot and that without Colorado Biden has 269 electoral votes and that Trump has 261. Now if Biden wins Colorado he get his 270 and wins, but that's true whether Trump is on or off the ballot. But if Colorado votes for a third candidate, then neither Trump nor Biden have the required 270 votes, so it goes to the House of Representatives. They can elect any of the top three candidates from the electoral college. Given the make up of the House this almost certainly gives the Presidency to Trump.

So what the Republicans need to start doing is taking Biden off the ballot in states they control.

[Fasces]

Under what legal mechanism would Biden get removed from the ballot? This is the issue with lawfare.

[wat0n]

If Trump is not on the ballot, it's because he is found to be ineligible to be President, full stop. The Electoral College could no more vote for Trump than they could a 12 year old or a Tanzanian.

Federally, yes. But if the federal trial isn't done in time and Trump's on the ballot in some states and not others...

[annatar1914]

I'm beginning to think that all this is really about the courts awarding US Presidents immunity from prosecution for crimes, done before Trump returns to the White House. If the US Supreme Court doesn't disqualify him on the basis of the 14th Amendment that seems likely to me.

[Verv]

In court, none of the dissenters, in the Colorado case, argued that Trump wasn't guilty of insurrection.

It's a given.

If someone runs for the presidency a 3rd time, we would be in the same situation. There is no enabling legislation, it's self-executing.

Capiche?

I... don't understand this at all, lol. There is no capiche.

Where has Trump been convicted of "insurrection?" Where is this fake consensus, but in the crazy media?

I also have always heard the description of term limits being applied to terms, never to election bids.

[Verv]

Trump and his lawyers dug their own grave. Their defense in the DC case wasn't that it wasn't an insurrection, and they didn't contest that charge. They conceded the facts of the case and went for "as president he had immunity and can't be prosecuted for actions done while in office".

They didn't say "it wasn't an insurrection and we didn't do anything" instead doubling down on "so what if it was an insurrection".

Except

"I’m not an Insurrectionist (“PEACEFULLY & PATRIOTICALLY”), Crooked Joe Biden is!!!" Trump wrote on his Truth Social account.

NBC News

There is no actual concession on the point that he incited an insurrection - it was a legal defense brought up. You haven't even convinced us that it was the only legal defense being employed and, even if it was, there's still a giant amount of space between what the laws should be and what they are.