163

Gavin Newsom doesn’t want to remove Trump from California ballot (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 10 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

79 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] RunningInRVA@lemmy.world 235 points 10 months ago

“There is no doubt that Donald Trump is a threat to our liberties and even to our democracy,” Mr Newsom said on 22 December. “But in California, we defeat candidates at the polls. Everything else is a political distraction.”

I’m so sick of this shit. We had a choice of Trump or Biden in 2020 and we decided. Then Trump attempted to overthrow the government. We don’t need to decide again at the polls.

[-] Gargleblaster@kbin.social 69 points 10 months ago

Translation: I would rather take this opportunity to self-promote.

[-] Caradoc879@lemmy.world 50 points 10 months ago

Newsom's about face on policies this last year as he ramps up his run for presidency is fucking disgusting. Between him and fetterman we're learning that even 'the good ones' will throw their constituents to the wolves when power and money are involved.

[-] Jax@sh.itjust.works 9 points 10 months ago

If you've been paying attention to his decisions and the state of California, like at all, you'd know Newsom was never one of the good ones. He just puts on the face like he is.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] osarusan@kbin.social 103 points 10 months ago

Why the fuck do people let Trump get away with shit that no ordinary person would get away with.

Imagine if we used this same bullshit logic for ordinary people.

"Murderers shouldn't be stopped by police. We should defeat them in polls."

"Car thieves shouldn't be arrested. We should let the American people choose."

Fucking dumb.

And incidentally, we already did that, in 1868 when the 14th amendment was passed. So leaving it up to the polls is ignoring both the law and the will of the people.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Because holding famous, rich important people accountable for their actions would jeopardize the system. It needs that lack of accountability to function.

[-] SoleInvictus@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Because holding famous, rich important people accountable for their actions would jeopardize the system. It needs that lack of accountability to function in a way that only benefits the wealthy.

I changed that a little. I think capitalism is pretty shitty, but it could do better for many people if the United States government stopped letting rich people bend and often outright break the law.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 95 points 10 months ago

Mr Newsom, you are not above the constitution. Let the dust settle and do what the constitution recommends.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

...and do what the constitution recommends

part of the problem here is that the constitution doesn't actually recommend removing people from ballots. we're in uncharted waters here. Though I agree, remove trump from the ballot.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 32 points 10 months ago

It does say he's not eligible and the feds won't do it, now it's left up to the states.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 35 points 10 months ago

the feds won't do it because the feds don't run elections. Every state decides whose on the ballot. It's literally not the fed's job to do it, and never was

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 11 points 10 months ago

Are the states not also obligated to uphold the constitution?

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

the constitution only says he's ineligible. It doesn't say how to deal with that. It's left it to the states to figure that out on their own.

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 25 points 10 months ago

It should be pretty clear by the definition of "ineligible."

load more comments (2 replies)

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

I would argue that the constitution not only recommends Trump be removed from the ballot. It almost requires it.

The constitution explicitly states that people like Trump who participated in an insurrection are ineligible for office. This is similar to other requirements for the office. For example, you must be a natural citizen over 35 years old, etc.

Constitutionally, each state chooses how to run their own elections. However, that freedom does not give them the power to go against the other parts of the constitution.

Traditionally, states will not put people on presidential ballots who do not meet the requirements to be president.

But do they have to do that? I would argue that the case with Trump proves that, going forward, they do have to exclude ineligible candidates for president. Because Trump is the first ineligible candidate who is leading in polls.

Every state election he might win is a constitutional crisis. Each state has the duty to follow the Constitution and ensure that Trump doesn't win the presidency. The current method for doing this action is removing him from the ballot.

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

part of the problem here is that the constitution doesn’t actually recommend removing people from ballots.

Why would anyone keep an ineligible candidate's name on the ballot?

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 73 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

A twice impeached seditionist-rapist shouldn’t be defeated at the polls. They should be defeated by slipping and falling on a shiv in a prison shower.

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

After taking a swan dive down several flights of metal grate stairs and creatively perforating their small intestine with a rusty pineapple, but yeah, the shop & fall would be the clincher for sure

[-] NewPerspective@lemmy.world 47 points 10 months ago

I mean... Yeah, if you want to ignore the Constitution.

[-] oakey66@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago

He’s doing this for the same foolish reason that Hillary did. He’s got one thing going for him that Hillary didn’t. He’s not hated as much or more than Trump.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 28 points 10 months ago

Hillary won the popular vote by 2 million votes for reference.

[-] pingveno@kbin.social 10 points 10 months ago

There's certainly no need to tussle over it in California. Trump wouldn't win in California anyway and it would just feed into the persecution narrative among his fan base.

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

There's still red districts that might see a drop in Republicans voting if trump wasn't an option.

[-] ganksy@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

True. Down ballot it would make a difference. Local govts could see substantial improvements.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Whether Trump's actions constitute abetting insurrection is still an open question that will undoubtedly reach SCOTUS.

Regardless, and pragmatically, removing Trump from the ballots of states he would never win in the first place only emboldens the aggrieved right. It might feel nice to people that don't support Trump, but roughly half of all voters DO support Trump. Even in bright blue California, 30% supported Trump for president. That's roughly 1 out of every 3 people. In CALIFORNIA.

Removing candidates from the ballot is a dangerous game for everyone. Things will only change for the better if we do it the hard, annoying way: changing the minds of people that support him. Removing him from the ballot is not the way to do that.

[-] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

While I do agree with you, nearly completely, one nit that I would pick is the implication that "the aggrieved right", and the emboldening of same are a point of concern to be avoided.

At this point, I feel that the right, and the actions and positions they've taken, have removed them markedly from the realm of a worthy and respectable political bloc, even if one I rarely agree with, and moved them squarely into the realm of radical and destabilizing faction that pushes for goals which can and will permanently destroy the foundations of the democracy I stand for as an essential underpinning of personal liberty.

At that point, they deserve to be aggrieved, and I see pissing them off as a necessary by-product of preserving democracy.

They've chosen to place themselves at odds with democratic rule, not the other way around.

That being said, however, I feel it would be a bigger win for everyone if Trump loses the election while appearing on ballots than if he's absent from ballots in battleground states.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] mmagod@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

changing the minds of people that support him

nope. fuck them.

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

I absolutely will not fuck any of them. I hope they all acquire a disease of the genitals that can only be cured with lye and sandpaper.

[-] Lemmygizer@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

You are factually correct about "30% of the vote in CA". But I think you are misinterpreting the data. PEW says that in 2020 96% of people voted strictly along party lines. PEW shows 30% of registered voters in CA are GOP or GOP leaning. Which means whoever the GOP candidate is would have received 29% of the voter REGARDLESS of who the candidate was. And before you point out the 1% "gain", Biden "gained" 6% over registered DEM voters using the same metrics in CA.

(I sourced PEW because they were the first Google results that had the stats at the detail level I needed)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

Things will only change for the better if we do it the hard, annoying way: changing the minds of people that support him.

Honestly, how? How do you possibly do this? They live in a bubble at this point, completely impervious to the facts. We have so much public information that would is absolutely damning that this guy is a criminal: the most clear being admitting on tape to mishandling classified information. Yet they don't care. How do you get through to these people? If you have a good way, I would love to attempt it. But every attempt at debate I've had with these people is met with "you watch too much CNN" it's a complete shut down to any type of logic.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] tacosplease@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Gavin Newsom needs to sit down and shut the fuck up. He's got a future in politics. Now is not his time but he keeps trying to put himself into the news cycle for recognition. Chill bro.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

California Governor Gavin Newson isn’t backing his own lieutenant’s call to remove Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot after the Colorado Supreme Court determined that he was ineligible for the presidency.

California Lt Gov Eleni Kounalakis responded to the move by suggesting that her state should do the same ahead of its 5 March primary.

Ms Kounalakis had expressed her intent to remove Mr Trump from the ballot in a letter to California’s Secretary of State on 20 December.

“Prompted” by the Colorado ruling, Ms Kounalakis wrote, “I urge you to explore every legal option to remove former President Donald Trump from California’s 2024 presidential primary ballot.”

On the same day, Democratic state Sen Dave Min announced he planned to introduce a bill in 2024 that would allow California “residents to sue to remove ineligible candidates from the ballot.”

In response to the Colorado ruling, Mr Trump took to Truth Social to air out his grievances: “A SAD DAY IN AMERICA!!

The original article contains 381 words, the summary contains 162 words. Saved 57%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] blazera@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

Dis shits gonna streissand effect in Trump's favor.

[-] TheDankHold@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

If it does then that means political accountability is impossible.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023

163 points (94.1% liked)

politics

19096 readers

1997 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
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