Maine’s top election official removes Trump from 2024 primary ballot

[Stryker Ryker 188]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Probably, in retrospect, not the best use of terms. But I’m very concerned. He’s an autocrat, an idiot, a racist, with terrible ideas for the country. 

Um….youre LITERALLY describing Biden you dumb sack of monkey sh1t oh the IRONY 

[RLLD 4,232]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Probably, in retrospect, not the best use of terms. But I’m very concerned. He’s an autocrat, an idiot, a racist, with terrible ideas for the country. 

This reads like Biden to me, and we have the proof that this is actually true for HIM.

[The Real timschochet 6,778]

Well that’s 3 “you described Biden!” in a row. I certainly don’t share that perspective. Guess at this point we’ll have to vote and see what happens. 

[Stryker Ryker 188]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Well that’s 3 “you described Biden!” in a row. I certainly don’t share that perspective. Guess at this point we’ll have to vote and see what happens. 

Thats cause you’re a retard & everyone here knows it  

[nobody 2,675]

Hopefully the Republicans can put forth a candidate the Maine Secretary of State approves.

[TBayXXXVII 2,547]

Every Republican in Colorado and Maine, who actually cares about democracy, should sign a recall petition against every Republican involved in taking Trump off the ballot.  Then, come November, every one of them should write-in Trump, forcing the states to count a million+ (in CO), write-in's and over a 100k in Maine.  The ONLY reason to push this, is because the powers that be in those states, think Trump is going to take the state.

[Strike 5,555]

18 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Every Republican in Colorado and Maine, who actually cares about democracy, should sign a recall petition against every Republican involved in taking Trump off the ballot.  Then, come November, every one of them should write-in Trump, forcing the states to count a million+ (in CO), write-in's and over a 100k in Maine.  The ONLY reason to push this, is because the powers that be in those states, think Trump is going to take the state.

You do know that Trump hasn't actually been removed from any ballots, right?

[TBayXXXVII 2,547]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

You do know that Trump hasn't actually been removed from any ballots, right?

Yes.

[Strike 5,555]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

Yes.

Then why are we talking write in ballots?

[TBayXXXVII 2,547]

Just now, Strike said:

Then why are we talking write in ballots?

While it is not "official", the lawmakers in Maine and Colorado are planning to have Trump not on the ballot.  A scenario where that happens, is what I'm referring to for the write-in ballots.

[Strike 5,555]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

While it is not "official", the lawmakers in Maine and Colorado are planning to have Trump not on the ballot.  A scenario where that happens, is what I'm referring to for the write-in ballots.

But it's not going to happen.  Assign a percentage likelihood that you believe it might happen.  I'm gonna go with zero. 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

But it's not going to happen.  Assign a percentage likelihood that you believe it might happen.  I'm gonna go with zero. 

The only way it doesn’t happen is if the US Supreme Court intercedes and over-rules it.  Why are being obtuse on this?

[jerryskids 6,800]

6 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

Read the ruling my friend, 5 people.  You do know how to read don't you?

Quote

Bellows, a Democrat, issued the decision Thursday after presiding over an administrative hearing earlier this month about Trump’s eligibility for office. A bipartisan group of former state lawmakers filed the challenge against Trump.

Somebody can't read.  The ruling was made by a single Democrat Secretary of State.  

[Strike 5,555]

9 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

The only way it doesn’t happen is if the US Supreme Court intercedes and over-rules it.  Why are being obtuse on this?

1) In both cases the states have stayed their order pending the SCOTUS decision

2). An appeal has already been filed.

3). There is no way the SCOTUS allows this.  Do you think they will?

[Strike 5,555]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Somebody can't read.  The ruling was made by a single Democrat Secretary of State.  

Which is weird since Rusty was a newspaperman.  You'd think reading would be a requirement for that job.

[TBayXXXVII 2,547]

19 minutes ago, Strike said:

But it's not going to happen.  Assign a percentage likelihood that you believe it might happen.  I'm gonna go with zero. 

I don't care if they do or don't, my main point was that the people involved at the state level (who are Republican's), should be recalled.  If the measure went through, then the right thing to do by the public is to write him in.

[Tree of Knowledge 1,864]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

Which is weird since Rusty was a newspaperman.  You'd think reading would be a requirement for that job.

Newspaperman?   Like this?

 

 

 

[Fnord 2,279]

7 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Somebody can't read.  The ruling was made by a single Democrat Secretary of State.  

Per Maine's weird state law. You can disagree with her decision, but it does not appear as though she overstepped her position. 

[Stryker Ryker 188]

22 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

The only way it doesn’t happen is if the US Supreme Court intercedes and over-rules it.  Why are being obtuse on this?

You’ve got to be a complete focking buffoon if you believe this will stand & an even bigger retard if you think it’s justified 

[Stryker Ryker 188]

4 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Per Maine's weird state law. You can disagree with her decision, but it does not appear as though she overstepped her position. 

She 100% did. And it’s also why she’s about to catch a major case

[Strike 5,555]

5 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I don't care if they do or don't, my main point was that the people involved at the state level (who are Republican's), should be recalled.  If the measure went through, then the right thing to do by the public is to write him in.

Recalled?  It wasn't legislators who sued in Colorado.  There isn't anybody to recall.  You're all over the place.

[Fnord 2,279]

2 minutes ago, Stryker Ryker said:

She 100% did. And it’s also why she’s about to catch a major case

No she didn't. In Maine, that decision is under her purview. Again, no one's saying you have to agree or think it isn't strictly a partisan decision. But she is wholly within her rights to do so. I hate Trump, but this and the CO case don't sit right with me, even though I completely agree that he is guilty of fraud, insurrection, and treason. You can't ignore the law just because you don't like the results. 

[jerryskids 6,800]

4 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Per Maine's weird state law. You can disagree with her decision, but it does not appear as though she overstepped her position. 

I was merely commenting on Rusty's inability to read.

That being said, what weird law?  Do you mean her power to remove someone from the ballot?

I'm interested to see how this plays out with SCOTUS.  On the one hand, a conservative-leaning court should err on the side of giving states the power to determine their candidates.  But on the other hand, these states are finding Trump guilty of things he hasn't even been formally accused of, so it seems like some sort of violation of his rights, or the rights of the electorate, or due process.  I dunno, I'm not a lawyer, but it comes down to a person or small group arbitrarily deciding they don't want him on the ballot.  

[Stryker Ryker 188]

4 minutes ago, Fnord said:

No she didn't. In Maine, that decision is under her purview. Again, no one's saying you have to agree or think it isn't strictly a partisan decision. But she is wholly within her rights to do so. I hate Trump, but this and the CO case don't sit right with me, even though I completely agree that he is guilty of fraud, insurrection, and treason. You can't ignore the law just because you don't like the results. 

YES she did hence why the entire state is in an uproar cause ONE woman is trying to keep the state for voting for someone. Typical retarded left cultist

[Dizkneelande 1,101]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Probably, in retrospect, not the best use of terms. But I’m very concerned. He’s an autocrat, an idiot, a racist, with terrible ideas for the country. 

Autocrat? We have a constitution that prevents that. The same one the Biden admin was found guilty of violating. So you’re going with Biden is a non-racist smart person? 

[Strike 5,555]

14 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I was merely commenting on Rusty's inability to read.

That being said, what weird law?  Do you mean her power to remove someone from the ballot?

I'm interested to see how this plays out with SCOTUS.  On the one hand, a conservative-leaning court should err on the side of giving states the power to determine their candidates.  But on the other hand, these states are finding Trump guilty of things he hasn't even been formally accused of, so it seems like some sort of violation of his rights, or the rights of the electorate, or due process.  I dunno, I'm not a lawyer, but it comes down to a person or small group arbitrarily deciding they don't want him on the ballot.  

There is no way they allow this.  If they do Biden will be removed in a bunch of red States and the entire election will be a joke.

[The Real timschochet 6,778]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

There is no way they allow this.  If they do Biden will be removed in a bunch of red States and the entire election will be a joke.

It actually wouldn’t, in the final analysis, be a joke, because there is no state that Trump will be removed in which would ever go for Trump, and vice versa for Biden, 

in the election of 1860, most southern states did not have Abe Lincoln on the ballot, 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,449]

Voters rights! 

[zsasz 369]

So the party that was gearing up to send alternate slates of electors to the 2020 election certification now have a problem with election shenanigans?  Noone's ever accused a Trumper of being not being a hypocrite.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,547]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

Recalled?  It wasn't legislators who sued in Colorado.  There isn't anybody to recall.  You're all over the place.

I don't read liberal sites, when a board communist said it was a bi-partisan measure, then I assumed that elected Republicans were involved as well.

[TBayXXXVII 2,547]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

I was merely commenting on Rusty's inability to read.

That being said, what weird law?  Do you mean her power to remove someone from the ballot?

I'm interested to see how this plays out with SCOTUS.  On the one hand, a conservative-leaning court should err on the side of giving states the power to determine their candidates.  But on the other hand, these states are finding Trump guilty of things he hasn't even been formally accused of, so it seems like some sort of violation of his rights, or the rights of the electorate, or due process.  I dunno, I'm not a lawyer, but it comes down to a person or small group arbitrarily deciding they don't want him on the ballot.  

Yes, the Supreme Court should allow the states to do as they wish... BUT, not at the cost of violating someone's rights.  There's no issue here.  The Supreme Court should ALWAYS... 100% of the time, side with someone's rights over the government - at ANY level.

[TBayXXXVII 2,547]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

It actually wouldn’t, in the final analysis, be a joke, because there is no state that Trump will be removed in which would ever go for Trump, and vice versa for Biden, 

in the election of 1860, most southern states did not have Abe Lincoln on the ballot, 

In 2016, Trump lost to Hilary by less than 5% of the vote, something like 120k votes (similar to Romney to Obama in 2012).  That gap may not be that hard to overcome considering that lack of faith / support Biden apparently has.

In both 2016 & 2020, Trump got 1 electoral vote from Maine.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,449]

27 minutes ago, zsasz said:

So the party that was gearing up to send alternate slates of electors to the 2020 election certification now have a problem with election shenanigans?  Noone's ever accused a Trumper of being not being a hypocrite.  

Hot take. Glad you’re here. 

[seafoam1 3,034]

28 minutes ago, zsasz said:

So the party that was gearing up to send alternate slates of electors to the 2020 election certification now have a problem with election shenanigans?  Noone's ever accused a Trumper of being not being a hypocrite.  

Dang, you are stupid. 

[Strike 5,555]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

It actually wouldn’t, in the final analysis, be a joke, because there is no state that Trump will be removed in which would ever go for Trump, and vice versa for Biden, 

in the election of 1860, most southern states did not have Abe Lincoln on the ballot, 

No.  While unlikely you never know how a given state might vote, especially right now.  But that doesn't even matter.  Taking away those people's right to vote violates a fundamental tenet of our republic.  I find it funny that people like you are ok with this but as soon as conservatives want to enact voter ID laws to ensure the integrity of an election you scream "RACISM!!!!" and that we're taking away people's right to vote.  This would impact a much larger portion of our electorate than voter ID laws.  But here we are......

[zsasz 369]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Hot take. Glad you’re here. 

I didn't like the alternate elector end around theory....I don't like this Maine lady.  I'd imagine there aren't many Trumpers who can say that.  It's us in the Center that always have to put up with both sides BS.  

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

I hope the Supreme Court overturns both of these.

Otherwise, where does it end? Texas and other red states pull Biden off the ballot because the politicians interpret his actions as similar to Trump's.

Sure, if Trump is convicted, I'm for him not being on the ballot. 

[jerryskids 6,800]

5 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

It actually wouldn’t, in the final analysis, be a joke, because there is no state that Trump will be removed in which would ever go for Trump, and vice versa for Biden, 

in the election of 1860, most southern states did not have Abe Lincoln on the ballot, 

Maine is not a winner take all state.  So removing Trump would potentially have an impact.

[Ron_Artest 1,545]

9 hours ago, Stryker Ryker said:

I’m DEAD serious when I say if the politicians here in SC do this they won’t make it to the end of the week alive. I swore an oath to protect my country from all enemies foreign & domestic. You wanna commit treason? I’ll straight up end your life  Jail doesn’t scare me at all when faced with the bigger picture of them going full blown dictatorship. The SC politicians might be the first ones to die if they try this

Quoted for evidence

[Ron_Artest 1,545]

7 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Somebody can't read.  The ruling was made by a single Democrat Secretary of State.  

Um, you posted that the challenge was from a bipartisan group, and then you say I can't read.