On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 8:34:43 AM UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:

"57% of Americans think that criminal charges should disqualify Trump from running again"

Mixed Signals On Trump: Majority Says Criminal Charges Should Disqualify '24 Run, Popularity Is Unchanged, Leads DeSantis By Double Digits, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds
Quinnipiac - Mar 29, 2023
-- https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3870

Being a clueless dumnass also disqualifies him, but that didn't stop him before.

Doug

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"57% of Americans think that criminal charges should disqualify Trump from running again"

Perhaps, but what do a majority of Supreme Court justices say?

Remember, a majority of Californians that bothered to vote on the subject said that same-sex couples had no right to a "marriage certificate."

On the other hand, what restrictions does a state have to decide who can appear on that state's Presidential ballot? The Constitution appears to say, "none whatsoever" (in fact, there is no requirement that there be a ballot at all - in 1860, South
Carolina's legislature chose that state's electors).
On the other other hand, the Supreme Court has struck down restrictions on who can (and cannot) appear on a state's ballot for Senate, but then again, (a) the 17th Amendment requires that Senators be elected by vote of the people, and (b) a Presidential
election doesn't elect a President per se, but just for electors.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The NOTBCS Guy <don.p.del.grande@gmail.com> wrote:

"57% of Americans think that criminal charges should disqualify Trump from running again"

Perhaps, but what do a majority of Supreme Court justices say?

Remember, a majority of Californians that bothered to vote on the subject said that same-sex couples had no right to a "marriage certificate."

On the other hand, what restrictions does a state have to decide who can appear on that state's Presidential ballot? The Constitution appears to
say, "none whatsoever" (in fact, there is no requirement that there be a ballot at all - in 1860, South Carolina's legislature chose that state's electors).
On the other other hand, the Supreme Court has struck down restrictions
on who can (and cannot) appear on a state's ballot for Senate, but then again, (a) the 17th Amendment requires that Senators be elected by vote
of the people, and (b) a Presidential election doesn't elect a President
per se, but just for electors.

It’s pretty clear that being a felon, or even being in prison, is not a
legal disqualification from running for president.

Multiple felons have run for President. One of them,Eugene Debs, did it
from a prison cell and got 3.4 percent of the vote. Lyndon LaRouche also
did it.

--
“I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian, liberal personality.” — Altie

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:00:38 AM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

"57% of Americans think that criminal charges should disqualify Trump from running again"

Perhaps, but what do a majority of Supreme Court justices say?

Remember, a majority of Californians that bothered to vote on the subject said that same-sex couples had no right to a "marriage certificate."

On the other hand, what restrictions does a state have to decide who can appear on that state's Presidential ballot? The Constitution appears to say, "none whatsoever" (in fact, there is no requirement that there be a ballot at all - in 1860, South

Carolina's legislature chose that state's electors).

On the other other hand, the Supreme Court has struck down restrictions on who can (and cannot) appear on a state's ballot for Senate, but then again, (a) the 17th Amendment requires that Senators be elected by vote of the people, and (b) a

Presidential election doesn't elect a President per se, but just for electors.

You're beginning to see a call for the legislature to be independent on the question of the President and create that South Carolina 1860 situation.

You're also beginning to see the direct abolition of the Democratic Party in the state of Florida, with Tennessee to follow.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/6/2023 9:34 AM, bruce bowser wrote:

"57% of Americans think that criminal charges should disqualify Trump from running again"

Mixed Signals On Trump: Majority Says Criminal Charges Should Disqualify '24 Run, Popularity Is Unchanged, Leads DeSantis By Double Digits, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds
Quinnipiac - Mar 29, 2023
-- https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3870

A lot of my fellow Americans are misinformed dolts.
--
ÄLSKAR - Fänga Dagen

Слава Україні та НАТО

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/6/2023 2:17 PM, Michael Falkner wrote:

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:00:38 AM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

"57% of Americans think that criminal charges should disqualify Trump from running again"

Perhaps, but what do a majority of Supreme Court justices say?

Remember, a majority of Californians that bothered to vote on the subject said that same-sex couples had no right to a "marriage certificate."

On the other hand, what restrictions does a state have to decide who can appear on that state's Presidential ballot? The Constitution appears to say, "none whatsoever" (in fact, there is no requirement that there be a ballot at all - in 1860, South

Carolina's legislature chose that state's electors).

On the other other hand, the Supreme Court has struck down restrictions on who can (and cannot) appear on a state's ballot for Senate, but then again, (a) the 17th Amendment requires that Senators be elected by vote of the people, and (b) a

Presidential election doesn't elect a President per se, but just for electors.

You're beginning to see a call for the legislature to be independent on the question of the President and create that South Carolina 1860 situation.

You're also beginning to see the direct abolition of the Democratic Party in the state of Florida, with Tennessee to follow.

Mike

Gotta start somewhere.
--
ÄLSKAR - Fänga Dagen

Слава Україні та НАТО

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 4:30:22 PM UTC-7, Ken Olson wrote:

On 4/6/2023 2:17 PM, Michael Falkner wrote:

You're beginning to see a call for the legislature to be independent on the question of the President and create that South Carolina 1860 situation.

You're also beginning to see the direct abolition of the Democratic Party in the state of Florida, with Tennessee to follow.

Gotta start somewhere.

This is why you're going to have to shoot me.

I already AM the threat to you which would qualify, but, as a Republican, you're too stupid to see HOW.

I could expand this to a larger scale and ask you the following questions (collective "you"):

* Why did you allow the 2021 Congress to seat?

* Why did you allow the 2022 elections to take place?

* Why aren't you wholesale-ly shooting up the "blue hives", as the threats to your existence that they truly are?

I could go on, but we'll start with those three.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)