• MJBrune@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    11 months ago

    Cool, now get him blocked where it matters. Colorado was never going to vote Red.

    • ayla [she/her]@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is for the primary, which matters even in blue states — their delegates to the nationwide party conference are worth just as much as the red states’.

      • MJBrune@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Ah, that’s a bit more interesting but even so the vote doesn’t matter. If the RNC wants to pick Donald Trump as the candidate, they could.

        • MimicJar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          The RNC has never wanted Trump, but they’re stuck with him. I’m sure they’re secretly happy with this ruling.

          • MJBrune@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            If they truly never wanted Trump, they could have not picked him as the 2016 candidate.

    • socphoenix@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s likely to get appealed to the Supreme Court, which would effectively do what you ask if they rule he did participate in an insurrection.

      • MJBrune@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        At this point I wouldn’t hold by breath for the Supreme Court to rule against republican interests.

  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    Given the very short timeframe involved I have no doubt SCOTUS will put an injunction on this ruling.

  • atomicfox@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    are we really supposed to be cheering for higher-ups deciding who we’re allowed to vote for?

    • BmeBenji@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      You’re still allowed to vote for him if all the glue you’ve huffed hasn’t made you forget how to write out a name on a line.

      He’s just not allowed to be on the ballot because the court determined he sacrificed his eligibility to hold the office by trying to take the office by force, which he did.

    • Safeguard@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      This was a decision based on him not following the rules we all need to abide by. And when you do that, there are SUPPOSED to be consequences. In fact, USA is being WAY to lenient on him.

    • TheFriendlyArtificer@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      If a candidate were foreign born, they’d be ineligible. If they were under 35, they’d be stricken as well.

      We have rules regarding eligibility. If you break those rules, you’re no longer eligible.

      If a state court removed a candidate because they discovered that they were actually a Canadian citizen, removing them from the ballot isn’t “deciding” who we’re allowed to vote for. It’s applying the rules.