Maine barred Donald Trump from the primary ballot Thursday, making it the second state in the country to block the former president from running again under a part of the Constitution that prevents insurrectionists from holding office.

The decision by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) is sure to be appealed. The Colorado Supreme Court last week found Trump could not appear on the ballot in that state, and the Colorado Republican Party has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The nation’s high court could resolve for all states whether Trump can run again.

Archive

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      1181·
      11 months ago

      arguing that Trump is not eligible to be on the ballot because he claims to have won the 2020 election, which would have been his second term. The 22nd Amendment states that no person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice.

      Oh thats clever!

      “The 14th Amendment Constitution says you, an insurrectionist, cannot be on the ballot”

      Trump: “I’m not an insurrectionist! I was defending my election to office in 2020!”

      "Ah, okay then so you’re admitting that you’re trying to run for a 3rd term in violation of the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution

      • frezik
        653·
        11 months ago

        Clever, but no. He didn’t get a second term, and his whining in a corner doesn’t change that.

          • hdnsmbt@lemmy.world
            25·
            11 months ago

            They don’t care if he admits it or if it’s true. They only care about what he instructs them to care about. Please, we must all start to understand this otherwise it’s us living in an illusion.

            • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
              1129·
              11 months ago

              “They” are human beings. “They” are our family and neighbors. “They” are people who are being exploited for political gain. You’d do well to keep that in mind.

              • JonEFive
                17·
                11 months ago

                I don’t think the idea was to dehumanize, but rather to be more aware of the shared psychosis so many people are living in.

                “They” claim that Trump won the election without any regard to facts and evidence. Imagining that “they” will suddenly change their mind if they get just one more piece of factual information is foolish considering everything we’ve seen so far. We must find another way to get through to “them”.

              • hdnsmbt@lemmy.world
                14·
                11 months ago

                Just because I’m using a plural pronoun I’m not dehumanising anyone. Please read what is actually written and keep your desire to scold people at home.

                • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  10 months ago

                  Oh, just noticed this reply.

                  In the first example “They” is a generalization, in the second is a reference to a specific set of people.

              • 100_kg_90_de_belin @feddit.it
                9·
                11 months ago

                They have been behaving like members of a cult and have alienated family members, relatives and friends with their MAGA-narrative filled of hate and xenophobia.

              • Iamdanno@lemmy.world
                21·
                11 months ago

                “They” are also objectively stupid. And they are willing, enthusiastic, participants in their “exploitation”.

              • Hobbes@startrek.website
                511·
                11 months ago

                They most certainly are not. They have no compassion, no intelligence, no critical thinking, no love, and no respect for human life.

                They are mammals. Even primates. I’ll give you that. But they are sub-human.

                They have caused unimaginable pain and suffering and they enjoy it all and run on hatred.

                • hdnsmbt@lemmy.world
                  112·
                  11 months ago

                  All of the things you listed are attributes humans have. There is no such thing as sub-humans, you’re thinking of regular humans.

                  Trump supporters are easily fooled idiots but they are fellow humans nonetheless. Thinking of a group of people as “sub-humans” oppens the door to treating that group as inferior and not worthy of respect which leads to fascist tendencies. Please be aware of what your words mean.

                  • Hobbes@startrek.website
                    38·
                    11 months ago

                    I’m aware. That group is inferior and not worthy of respect. They are a cancer to our society and we should be making huge efforts to cure them.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        2·
        11 months ago

        Oh that’s clever!

        It’s obviously childish as fuck to be playing such twisted logic games with something as important as the Presidency. Clever is not a word I want applied to American jurisprudence

    • TallonMetroid@lemmy.worldEnglish
      301·
      11 months ago

      Obviously they’re not operating in good faith, so they’ll come up with some nonsense justification as to why president loser deserves a 3rd term or something anyway. But that’s still a novel approach.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        2·
        11 months ago

        Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that someone deciding to bar Trump based on this “third term” argument is acting in good faith?

        • TallonMetroid@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          11 months ago

          Why wouldn’t they be? Just because a premise is farcical doesn’t mean you can’t accept it for the sake of argument.

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      2·
      11 months ago

      arguing that Trump is not eligible to be on the ballot because he claims to have won the 2020 election

      mondo big LOLs there. It’s not likely to hold water in court, imo, and I’m guessing that the argument will be that he never took the oath for the second term. Buuut it might mean Trump is either going to have to admit to the court that he didn’t win or he’s going to be told by the SCOTUS that he didn’t. Get dunked on, idiot.