326

Colorado GOP Threatens to Go Rogue If Trump Decision Stands (www.thedailybeast.com)

submitted 9 months ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/politics@lemmy.world

80 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Colorado Department of State warned that it would be “a matter for the Courts” if the state’s Republican party withdrew from or ignored the results of the primary.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] orclev@lemmy.world 167 points 9 months ago

They seem to be rather missing the point. It wouldn't matter if they switch to a caucus, he's banned from running in the state so all they would do is exclude Republicans from having a candidate for president in the general election. This is very much in the "don't threaten me with a good time" territory.

[-] WashedOver@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago

[-] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 6 points 9 months ago

I think the point is that a caucus is overseen by the party, not the state. I still don’t know the legality of doing it at this late stage after the primary has been agreed to and will be set on Jan 5, but that’s their thinking.

This is my favorite part though:

Nevertheless, Williams told NBC News that the Colorado Republican Party would look to kick off the process of putting together a caucus in “the next week or two,” requesting a waiver to convert the system from the Republican National Committee. … “We’re figuring it out as we go,” Williams said.

A whole week or two to put together a caucus.

[-] orclev@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

You're not understanding. They're complaining about the primary so their solution is essentially to hold their own primary outside of state control, but he wouldn't be able to run in the general election even if he wins their primary so it doesn't matter. As things currently stand there's only two possibilities, Trump loses the primary to someone else in which case things continue as normal, or Trump wins the primary in which case the GOP wouldn't be able to run a presidential candidate in Colorado. Biden (assuming he's the DNC candidate for the general election) would run unopposed in Colorado.

Probably not earth shattering since he would likely win there even if Trump could run there, but if Trump isn't on the ballot a certain percentage of GOP voters won't bother going to the polls which will hurt the GOP in senate and congress races as well as on state votes.

[-] DogWater@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Oh man your last point is important. I'm so low on confidence in the system that I'm nervous to rely on the government a tuallly excluding him from the ballot, but if he really is banned it'd be so awesome to watch gop officials freaking the fuck out as their turn out numbers drop like a meteor

[-] Kiwi@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Especially because lauren boebert is in a very competitive down ballot primary race that trump not getting out the voters for will hurt. Her opponents are more centrist, standard Coloradan republicans

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] uphillbothways@kbin.social 113 points 9 months ago

Remember when people who employed fascist rhetoric, incited riots at Capitols, tried to destroy democracy and kill a sitting Vice President were considered terrorists by everyone and weren't to be negotiated with?
Pepperidge Farms does.

[-] Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 64 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The comments in conservative communities are saying “democrats” are fascists and blaming them for shit conservatives did in the past prior to the voting rights act.

Basically flaunting their ignorance of history and the southern strategy while intentionally muddying the waters with projection. It’s gross

[-] blazeknave@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

*dangerous ftfy

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 63 points 9 months ago

What does that mean, they’ll have their own election with blackjack and hookers?

[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

This has nothing to do with Melanie trump.

[-] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

They're just going to take their burning cross and go home.

[-] yuki2501@lemmy.world 61 points 9 months ago

Plot Twist: They've already gone rogue. Right now they're just bullying to get what they want.

They can just go fuck themselves. 🖕

[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Right? Every threat was something they're already doing.

And from 2000-2015, democrats have been bending over.

I'm glad they're starting to recognize the BS.

[-] FoundTheVegan@kbin.social 53 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Dave Williams, the chairman of the state party, reaffirmed the plan. “I’m not going to let these sons of bitches dictate who we’re going to nominate,”

Where was Dave on January 6th?

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago

Pretty sure anyone giving comfort to Trump on this matter now is giving comfort to an insurrectionist. Time to clean house.

[-] Fades@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

The goddamn constitution is the one dictating

[-] AshMan85@lemmy.world 46 points 9 months ago

sounds like threats from terrorists

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 45 points 9 months ago

do it then. no one's afraid of you. y'all threaten a civil war every time the waiter forgets your ranch. we're done capitulating to threats. do it or shut the fuck up.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 43 points 9 months ago

Dave Williams, the chairman of the state party, reaffirmed the plan. “I’m not going to let these sons of bitches dictate who we’re going to nominate,” he said

So eloquently put by the chairman of the party of Christian family values.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 35 points 9 months ago

Well, they can do their caucus thing as they like. As long as Trump will not appear on the ballot, I'm fine with it.

The courts decision is a bit wonky, though. I don't consider "being the candidate for party X" an "office, civil or military, of the United States", so banning him from the primaries is (IMHO) unwarranted. On the other hand, the court admits that Trumps actions are valid reasons to invoke A14, so removing him from the ballot papers for November would be justified. And that is the only place that counts.

[-] lingh0e@sh.itjust.works 49 points 9 months ago

Luckily for you, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch already ruled on that precise topic when he was a Colorado judge. A foreign born man who had become a US citizen, a person who is ineligible by default, still insisted he should have the right to run for president even if he can't take office.

Gorsuch ruled that the state had a responsibility to prevent anyone who is ineligible for office from even being allowed on the ballot.

His decision was even cited in Trumps ruling.

[-] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

And that makes sense. If a person can't legally hold the office, it's letting people waste their votes by allowing that person to remain on the ballot.

You might argue that people should know all about who they're voting for, but we all know that's not the case.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

He didn't actually rule on this. There was no question of eligibility in that case, it was just whether being ineligible for the position gave the state the right to block him from the ballot. This one will hinge on whether or not the amendment applies to trump. And based on the wording of the amendment, unfortunately, they have multiple ways to reasonably argue it does not, and we all know the conservative majority will rule he is eligible.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Fades@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago

If by the 14th he is not eligible for the presidency outside of 2/3rds of Congress voting to waive that, then why the fuck should he be on the ballot? It’s pointless.

That’s like saying I’m banned from a venue but keeping me from getting in line to enter is unfair and unwarranted.

Do you hear yourself? I guess you think you know better than the high courts lmao

[-] Garbanzo@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

why the fuck should he be on the ballot?

Because the Republicans should be able to do whatever they want in their candidate selection process, all the way up to and including running a disqualified candidate. It's their club and they can run it however they like.

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

They should be allowed to choose the candidate but the state shouldn't be forced to put him there. He's disqualified. It should be equivalent to the party dropping out of the race if they pick him...

[-] lingh0e@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago

That's exactly what should happen.

You want to nominate a dog to run for president? You want to nominate a fictional character to run for president? You want to nominate a dead person to run for president?

Go ahead.

The state is not obligated to put that nominee on the ballot because that nominee is 100% ineligible to hold the office of president.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] dynamojoe@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

I reluctantly agree with this. If they want to nominate or even elect a candidate that cannot serve, so be it. When the time comes to take office, the person with the most votes that is qualified to serve should take the office.

[-] tory@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yeah, it's more than just a social club electing a leader, though. It's quite literally our nation sorting out our presidential elections. I think some legal boundaries outside the norm are in order for these two particular "clubs."

You go ahead and make Trump the leader of your rotary club, though.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 22 points 9 months ago

I love that instead of doing any type of introspection about letting someone that has been channeling Hitler in his campaign rails, and tried to overthrow the US government to remain in power represent your political party, they just want to change the rules basically making the choice for the voters that might want a real candidate.

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

They WANT the strongman in power. That's the point. They're terrible people who want to do terrible things.

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

Good luck? He's still not going to be on the ballot or eligible for a write in campaign.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

You're setting yourself up to be sorely disappointed when the scotus rules that he is eligible and they can't remove him from the ballot, and the argument will be completely reasonable based on the he stupid wording of the amendment.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

Oh? So you buy that line that the President is not an officer of the government?

load more comments (7 replies)

[-] sturmblast@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Unlikely.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] jimbo@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago

Go ahead, lol. Vote for someone who can't be president.

[-] dipshit@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

Colorado GOP: removes trump from ballot. Also Colorado GOP: rages that trump was removed from ballot.

“snowflake” doesn’t even begin to describe the level of self-flagellation the GOP have for themselves.

seek therapy, GOP.

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago

If they try to still put him on the ballot, Colorado should treat it as if he isn't on there and announce the second place Republican as the winner for the state's primary.

[-] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago

The republicans literally can’t put him on the ballot. They don’t print the ballots.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023

326 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18894 readers

2719 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News