LondonLax

1 hour ago, limpid said:

The constitution is there to ensure that the republic persists. It is not there to preserve democracy. The tyranny of the masses is a bad thing. It is the job of SCOTUS to be the legislative branch of the republic. Section 14.3 is utterly clear that someone involved in insurrection against the republic is disqualified. It is not for SCOTUS or the people to decide this. It can only be changed by amending the constitution.

If Trump is on the ballot and loses, there will still be people claiming it was rigged, etc. They committed insurrection last time. This decision doesn't affect how they will behave. The founders wanted to ensure that anyone acting against the republic was disqualified forever. 

I think SCOTUS have made things worse, regardless of the next election result. At least if they followed the constitution, history might have looked more kindly on them.

 

We have no way of knowing whether they made the right decision or not but I find some logic in their reasoning, being that if they allowed states to decide their own candidates the ultimate solution would be that ‘red’ states only allow ‘red’ candidates and ‘blue’ states would only allow ‘blue’ candidates. That would make the system unworkable, even if that’s what the constitution actually says should happen. 

1 minute ago, Captain_Townsend said:

It's not a case of disagreeing with a candidate's tax policy here, or their social values. It is fundamentally seeing them as a weapon being used by to create an authoritarian regime.

Besides, you misinterpreted my original point. I was not saying he should be banned from the ballot. I was saying shame on the GOP for selecting him as their candidate. 

The GOP old guard are spineless. They needed to stand up to him when they had the chance rather than thinking they could somehow tag along. Trump will destroy the Republican Party the same way Boris Johnson ran the Tories onto the rocks. 

8 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

Not in the US system.

Well they run the system as they see fit. We have a similar thing in Australia for deciding the members of our upper house. It’s not decided on pure democracy, it is weighted towards all states having equal representation regardless of their actual population. 

2 minutes ago, limpid said:

The states do run their own "election systems". They always have. Citizens vote within their state and then members of the state electoral college votes for the president. They are supposed to vote according to the wishes of their electorate, but this is not required in law and different states do this part differently (some states have all electors vote for the winning candidate in their state, some vote reflecting the split of their electorate).

This is the very core of at least one of the criminal cases he's fighting where he tried to install fake electors.

The SCOTUS has decided that for article 14.3, the states do not run their own election. I can assume that a deal was done.

It was not a deal that was done. It was just a case of turning a blind eye because the result of ruling the other way would have lead to a far worse outcome for the US. 

1 minute ago, mjmooney said:

Not if he wins, it won't. 

I genuinely think it would be worse if the 3rd of the US who passionately support Trump were told they were denied their opportunity to vote form him. I think you’d be looking at civil disobedience and even the possibility of civil war type outcomes. That would be even worse than another 4 years of Trump should he somehow actually win. 

14 minutes ago, bickster said:

So the Supreme Court didn't decide that Trump SHOULD be on the ballot then? Glad we've cleared that up

No I don’t believe I ever made that claim.

There is no established reason why he should not be on the ballot. The entire US population will decide his eligibility for presidency not 9 people on a court. 

Ultimately that will result in a much more satisfactory outcome for US society. 

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

No they didn't, they came to a unanimous decision that the state didn't have the power to make that decision, only congress could do that.

And that is a completely different matter.

Their interpretation of the issue was politically expedient. They could have chosen to interpret states to have the rights to establish their own electoral systems if they wished, there was plenty of legal opinion supporting their right to do this prior to the case being decided. 

The reasoning given for why the liberal justices decided the way they did was because they were worried red states would decide to bar Democrat candidates and blue states would decide to bar Republican candidates and democracy would no longer function. 

29 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said:

Yeah, because trying to prevent the certification of the 2020 election result and inciting a fascist mob to storm the houses of Congress is absolutely 100% compatible with the high office of the Republic he wishes to lead.

 

Aside from everything else he does to demean politics, spread disinformation and add support to the most evil dictator today, Vladimir Putin

All of those things are reasons for why people may choose not to vote for him in a future election. 

Far better to let people come to the correct decision themselves then tell them you are making the decision for them. 

31 minutes ago, bickster said:

Not if that person was responsible for an insurrection aimed at overturning the will of the people.

There are many reasons all over the world that people aren't allowed to be an elected representative. For example bankrupts cant be an elected MP in the UK, neither can judges or police officers or active service personnel

The Supreme Court came to a unanimous decision that he is eligible to stand. The US runs their system as they see fit. 

16 minutes ago, nick76 said:

It’s not removing, it’s about not being eligible just like being under 35 or being a foreign national would make you ineligible to be on the ballot.  Being determined by parties that he was an insurrectionist they used this to make him ineligible but Supreme Court decided it wasn’t the States right to do this.  That’s not removing him, it’s just saying he was ineligible.

The decision not to remove him was unanimous and the reasoning given by the liberal judges was pretty persuasive that it would just be a partisan weapon used every electoral cycle to remove your political opponent. 

Let the people decide. 

57 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said:

The reason many of us say  he shouldn't be on the Ballot is because The USA used to take democracy seriously and out itself forward as the leader of the democratic world.

That Trump is a candidate  after everything he has done and after more ir less confirming he would allow a putin do as he pleases causes us alarm and shows the decline of the USA as leader of the free world.

Surely removing people you don’t agree with from the ballot is the opposite of democracy?

The American people will decide if they want Trump as their leader or not. 

I’d say Lille fans are more frustrated with the draw than ours are. 

1 hour ago, Ceemo said:

Liverpool get the easiest draws they could have wished for and should stroll to the final without much fuss.

Good news for the 5th Champions League spot

One side of the draw much tougher than the other. 

Looked very nervous and didn’t have the best cameo but some time on the pitch will do his confidence a lot of good. Was at least still showing for the ball. 

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I'll take Viktoria Plzen please, because I've never **** heard of them.

Where Pilsner beer was invented. Would make for a great away trip

3-0 to West Ham. This tie is done 

7 hours ago, S-Platt said:

Blame the Champions League stupid rules!  Mind you I am watching it  

It’s nothing to do with the Champions League. It is a 3pm match that was rearranged after the Luton player had a heart problem on the pitch. It was never a televised game in the U.K.  

8 hours ago, Villa_Vids said:

It is the pure and nasty nature of having three acls injuries that makes our injury crisis far greater than other clubs. Three season enders is freak and unheard of.

We were lucky in the sense that two happened before the summer window closed so we could bring in 2 loan replacements. 

It will be interesting to see how we line up next season with the injured players back. 

He’s kicked the player up into the air. A shocker of a tackle. 

Often the songs for entries from other countries are written by Swedes as well. It’s a pretty big business.

5 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Trade with Russia has dropped by £9.8 billion according to the Dept of Trade & Business. 

 

 

Though, entirely coincidentally I’m sure, trade with countries immediately bordering Russia, like Kazakhstan and Georgia, has gone up by about that amount

It’s no longer in our hands but there will still be twists and turns on this run in. 

If someone gets stabbed in town how can you turn around and punish the local club that happens to be playing that day?

The club can’t police a whole city. 

I don’t think many voters will switch from Trump to Biden but I think there will be a much lower turnout in this election. 

It would only take a handful of Biden supporters in a few key states to stay home and Trump could feasibly win those states back, giving him the presidency.