• _number8_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    if enough states remove him, he’ll cause a big enough fuss that he’ll get 1/3 of the damn vote from loons writing him in

      • RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Technically they will count.

        The issue is that he is ineligible to be president. The the same as if he was foreign born or under 35.

          • RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            It is a primary. A party can nominate whoever they want. It has no bearing on whether who they nominated actually is eligible to be sworn in.

          • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Some 3rd parties have ran ineligible candidates. If they actually won, the electors wouldn’t actually cast their votes for them, but the votes are counted and tallied AFAIK. Given these are parties that make the Green Party and Libertarian parties look like first parties, they’ve just been ignored.
            For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero

            Notably, Colorado is one of the states that wouldn’t let Calero on the ballot because he was ineligible.

          • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            I think they mean the secretary of state may release a total of write-ins, but to my knowledge they make no effort to distinguish write-in names if there aren’t enough to swing it.

            So technically, they count write-ins. Just not in the winner’s column.

        • AnarchistsForDemocracy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          A lot of foreign born presidents, so I’m calling bullshit on this one!

          Many of the presidents were actually born in england…

          .

          .

          .

          .

          .

          .

          /S

      • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        To be honest, I just don’t see how he can be disqualified without a conviction. Among others, it requires state courts to rule on out-of-state conduct. For instance, in the (admittedly unlikely) event that the jan 6th charges against T are dismissed, should he be allowed back on the ballot?

        • lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary.

        • neptune@dmv.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Does Arnold Schwarzenegger need to be convicted of having been born in Europe?

          • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            That’s a bit of apples to oranges. Nobody contests the fact that Schwarzenegger is born in Europe, while Trump’s case is literally pending in court.

        • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          The question you are trying to get at is whether or not section 3 is self-executing. The answer is that it’s not a settled matter.

          The consensus right now, as far as I can tell based on my media consumption, is that the SCOTUS will overturn the Colorado decision. The real question is how they will decide to do so.

    • surfrock66@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Or claim the election is already rigged, causing enough of his folks to stay home and NOT vote in other races that the house and state governments see unprecedented flips.

    • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think you might be underestimating the sheer laziness of voters.

      I honestly think we’re going to see something very similar to J6 both in the run up and in the potential for it to turn violent. I think it could happen on a larger scale because the consequences have not been very harsh, except for a handful of minor players. There’s nothing that will keep Bobo and MTG and that whole rogues gallery from calling on people to “make their voices heard 1776 style” or some such euphemism. I don’t even know if they’ll bother with euphemisms at this point.