• Telodzrum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    What is the theory of the case on how he loses the GOP primary? He’s polling higher than the rest of the field combined. At this time, unless he dies before the election, I don’t see how he doesn’t end up as the Republican nominee.

    • FoxBJK@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like a lot of people would still insist on voting for him even if he was dead. Assuming of course that they believe the “liberal media fake news” that he’s dead.

      • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly a dead Trump presidency would be a net positive to the world compared to a alive Trump presidency. Do a Weekend at Bernie’s I don’t care.

        Every single day of Trump Presidency 2016-2020 was “What is this moron going to do today?” And just dominating the news. We are still feeling ripple effects of all the BS he rolled back.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Trump spoiling the 2024 election for the Republicans would be like a wet dream come true for me.

    • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Trump runs into a issue with the Fourteenth Amendment where states can block him from the ballot. Only a 2/3 vote in Congress can prevent that.

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ok, aside from bad fanfic what is the way he’s not the nominee and on the ballot in all 51 electoral jurisdictions?

          • Jimbob0i0@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean when even the federalist society are penning their opinions on various publications supporting such a position…

            • gac11@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Isn’t the opposite true though as well? Can’t red states just make up reasons to remove biden if a conviction isn’t required?

              • ganksy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It is insurrection specific so states would have the burden of proving (if they cared about proof) Biden was engaged with an insurrection.

              • agentsquirrel@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sure, if they could identify an instance in which he “engaged in insurrection or rebellion […], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”. Biden has never committed such an offense, so in order for red states to attempt this they’d have to fabricate facts and have a sufficient number of state officials go along with it, essentially The Big Lie 2.0.

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t. I get the appeal, but he is not charged with anything that falls under the clause nor is he likely to be charged with such. Historical and legal precedent requires a finding in law of such violation for the clause to be applicable. It’s wishcasting.

      • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        o person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

        Emphasized the bold part because I don’t quite understand why we would want that to even be an option.

        • hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I imagine the thinking is that if a rebellion has 2/3 support in both houses of Congress, it was probably popular enough to not be disqualifying.