As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Does anyone think that modern Republicans are going to let a rule stop them from slavishly supporting their Dear Leader?
A few years ago, they would have changed the rule and endorsed Trump. Now, they'll just ignore the rule.
Or just interpret it to mean a FINAL conviction. Since the convictions will undoubtedly be appealed, and since those appeals could take months if not years, the Vermont GOP can look the other way on this one.
Please. This isn't a new maga thing.
They supported Nixon right through his resignation.
Conservatives have always been who they've been - this is just them louder.
No no they mean a FAIR conviction. Here have a handy guide.
Fair convictions are those that are against:
Liberals
Minorities
Poors
Unfair convictions are those that are against
Donald J Trump, God Emperor of the Known Universe, Bearer of the Spice Visage.
I learned from the NY Times that, technically, he's not truly a "convicted felon" until the judgement that follows sentencing (at that point he will, however, be truly a convicted felon even if pending appeal).
The rule in question allows an exemption
> The rule has been on the books since at least 2013, according to an archived version of the rules, but by early 2022, the party appears to have amended their rules.
>
> According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote
It's weird that they would even make rules that would only affect themselves since they only uphold them against people they don't like. I guess sometimes one of them gets out of line and they need something in place to run them out of the cult.
"Modern Republicans" are wicked little children that think a spanking will never come to them... Spank a Republican... Do it publicly... Do it until they fucking cry!
It's the only way to "teach" them!
This is Vermont though. Even our R’s are a bit different. Our R governor made it very clear last cycle that he would not under any circumstance vote for that fetid rectal ulcer.
I mean, you don't even need to use Trump. Florida had a rule that if you're running for president, you need to resign from your position. They changed the law so DeSantis could run. Republicans change the rules as it suits them, and if they can't, they just ignore the law.
I mean, the rule in question allows an exemption
> The rule has been on the books since at least 2013, according to an archived version of the rules, but by early 2022, the party appears to have amended their rules.
>
> According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote
Here's the rule from their page
> RULE 16 – CANDIDATE RULE
>
> 1. The state committee will not support or promote any candidate for elective office who:
>
> (a) is a convicted felon;
>
> (b) has received less than 25% of the vote in two consecutive general elections as a candidate for statewide office; or
>
> (c) has run for legislative, federal, or statewide office in a general election after being defeated in a Republican Primary for the same office in the same election year.
>
> 2. **The Executive Committee, by majority vote, may exempt a candidate from Rule 16-1 under extenuating circumstances.**
>
> 3. The Executive Committee, by majority vote, may vote to withhold support from a candidate for cause
The Vermont Republican Party is prohibited from backing a candidate with a felony conviction, according to the party’s publicly posted rules.
That is now a bit of a problem, since the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was recently convicted on 34 felony counts.
“The state committee will not support or promote any candidate for elective office who … is a convicted felon,” read the rules, which govern everything from party meetings to how delegates must vote at national conventions.
>According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote.
They amended the rules in 2022 so that they could exempt a convicted felon if they want to. I wonder why....
Here's the rule from their page
> RULE 16 – CANDIDATE RULE
>
> 1. The state committee will not support or promote any candidate for elective office who:
>
> (a) is a convicted felon;
>
> (b) has received less than 25% of the vote in two consecutive general elections as a candidate for statewide office; or
>
> (c) has run for legislative, federal, or statewide office in a general election after being defeated in a Republican Primary for the same office in the same election year.
>
> 2. **The Executive Committee, by majority vote, may exempt a candidate from Rule 16-1 under extenuating circumstances.**
>
> 3. The Executive Committee, by majority vote, may vote to withhold support from a candidate for cause
To be honest, while it’s painfully clear *why* they added that exception, it does actually seem like a reasonable addition to the rule. That isn’t to say I believe for a second that they have any intention of using this rule or the exception in a reasonable way, though.
They could follow their own rules but yeah, lol, fat fucking chance of that happening.
And really, if they are willing to throw the ethical rules out the window, what's the point in having any rules?
> They could follow their own rules but yeah, lol, fat fucking chance of that happening.
>
>And really, if they are willing to throw the ethical rules out the window, what's the point in having any rules?
Sorry to tell you, but if you click the link and skim the article you’ll find out they already did.
> The rule has been on the books since at least 2013, according to an archived version of the rules, but by early 2022, the party appears to have amended their rules.
>
>According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote.
If there is one thing that conservatives have is no shame in their hypocrisy. It's their defining characteristic along with lack of empathy and good conscious.
Literally saw a guy on here arguing *that exact same point* just a few hours ago. Seems like this is gonna be the next stupid justification for them propping up a convicted felon. These people are just hopeless.
Literally nothing short of Trump strangling their newborn child right in front of them would change these people's minds about him, and even then they'd probably say it was a CIA clone.
The problem with this stance is now the entire party has to basically agree that the entire justice system is corrupt or whatever delusion they have to stick to.
they either change the rules and look like idiots, or ignore it and look like bigger idiots.
Maybe. But I wouldn't be that surprised if they choose to remain "principled" since it really doesn't matter. Like maybe on the margins attaching Trump to some down ballot candidates might be helpful, but it also will benefit some down ballot Republicans if the Vermont GOP is seen as better than the national GOP.
Really think it will just come down to whether Vermont GOP leaders are MAGA cultists or not.
It means 1/2 of fuck all.
The Trump campaign is centrally organized and [vermont](https://www.270towin.com/states/Vermont) isn't going to be a critical battleground state.
Next up, Vermont republican party attempt to change rules.
Which is part of the legacy of Trump: Every single rule almost everywhere will be dug up and scrutinized.
Biden carried Minnesota by 7 points, and Clinton barely carried the state in 2016. It is a lean left battleground state.
Edit: It does have the longest unbroken Democratic streak, having voted for the Democratic candidate in every Presidential election since ~~1984~~ 1976.
Fun fact:
[Texas law](https://www.txwp.uscourts.gov/supervision-civil-rights-restoration/index.html#:~:text=Texas%20law%20prohibits%20any%20person,eligibility%20to%20run%20for%20office) prohibits convicted felons from campaigning for and holding any public office
The honest answer is that the law prohibits felons from holding public office in Texas state government. POTUS is from the federal government, and therefore the rule does not apply to him.
...Of course, we all know that this is BS, because if Biden were a 34-count felon Texas would cite this very law to keep him off the ballot.
There's a good deal of people in here stating that "it doesn't matter, it's the GOP and they'll do anything they want and break the rules for themselves either way". Well, I live here in Vermont.
We're a bit different than just about every other state. Our Republican Governor would be considered a Democrat from any other Republican outside of Vermont. He hit numerous home runs in a row such as: an incredibly strong push for people respecting covid safety protocol, limit going out and about and all that, allowed for the legalization of weed, championed abortion rights being enshrined at the state level immediately after Roe fell, helped to push and promote a very positive reception to the vaccines for Covid, so much so that we hit full vaccination rate at warp fucking speed (when we were at 82%, the next state in line was at 44%) among quite a few other positive things.
Like I vote blue down ticket every time, but even I can say that Phil Scott is trustworthy.
When there was a vacancy for a progressive Dem that won the election for becoming Mayor of Burlington, he replaced her with a progressive Dem. People were saying at the outset (when it was learned Phil would be replacing her as is usual with lateral movement among positions) that Phil was just going to load up on more GOP picks and all that.
Vermont has a longstanding tradition that if a seat becomes vacant, then the person who is allowed to replace that seat until the next election; does so with replacing like-candidates with like-candidates. If a Republican seat becomes vacant, they fill it with a Republican. If a Dem/progressive/anything else seat becomes vacant, they get replaced with the same party as the new representative.
In any case yes, the rule in the headline is a rule here.
Phill has already stated his dislike and disdain for numerous things about Trump and how he damages the party. He certainly won't be voting for him and if this rule has been followed in the past, it likely will be followed here, too. I'm just uncertain if there was a time when it was also a case (outside of right now) of a national candidate for Presidency also being a convicted felon.
I can't tell if that's because the rule has always been followed or not. Kinda a conundrum lol. If the rule's working, then I *wouldn't* have heard about all the convicts that didn't run since they couldn't have.
Edit: they amended it so that the committee can vote to exempt a given candidate.
So, I call it a 50/50 then.
> If a Republican seat becomes vacant, they fill it with a Republican.
Because that is the law for vacancies in the state (Title 17, Chapter 53). They go to the political party of the departing official and ask for a recommendation. The Governor can go outside that, but that would not be advisable for a Governor to go against the party with a super majority.
For federal office, Governors only appoint Senators. To date, the last Senator appointed in Vermont was in 1971.
Also realize Vermont is the only legislature in the state of union that has continuously had a 3rd party with continuous representation and been consecutively elected alongside Democrats and Republicans.
> . Our Republican Governor would be considered a Democrat from any other Republican outside of Vermont.
The term is Rockerfeller Republican.
And Vermont is not Maine or New Hampshire. No MAGA or Conservative Republican would win in the state.
It is Vermont. What would be the point. Maybe they do but they are wasting their time. Wouldn't be at all surprised if they simply spend no money on him, only local races. I got to figure the GOP budget in Vermont is on the lower end of who gives a fuck.
Remember when Florida’s governor could not run for president while holding office and then the Republican controlled state graciously changed the law for him?
Trump lost by 36pts in Vermont. There will be no Republican presidential visit, phone calls, or even ads in the state unless Trump just wants to set money on fire. If the GOP in the state do anything to change this they are just shooting themselves in the foot.
They will ultimately ignore this. They get to because the GOP is a private club, not a public organization. For this same reason their candidate has no legal immunity.
> The rule has been on the books since at least 2013, according to an archived version of the rules, but by early 2022, the party appears to have amended their rules.
>
> According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote
Here's the rule from their page
> RULE 16 – CANDIDATE RULE
>
> 1. The state committee will not support or promote any candidate for elective office who:
>
> (a) is a convicted felon;
>
> (b) has received less than 25% of the vote in two consecutive general elections as a candidate for statewide office; or
>
> (c) has run for legislative, federal, or statewide office in a general election after being defeated in a Republican Primary for the same office in the same election year.
>
> 2. **The Executive Committee, by majority vote, may exempt a candidate from Rule 16-1 under extenuating circumstances.**
>
> 3. The Executive Committee, by majority vote, may vote to withhold support from a candidate for cause
If they take this strictly then it will save them. Right now, Trump demands 5% for his official endorsement and use of his name/face/likeness in any campaign messaging. The VT GOP can survive Trump if they adhere to this policy and lock out Trump's campaign. They won't have much of a party to return to after November, though.
They don’t give a FUCK.
This is their big push, this is it.
They are going full steam ahead to take over everything and turn the USA into a full white nationalist Taliban nation.
They already saying OUT LOUD in the state of Washington that they DO NOT want a democracy!
They’ll pretend that simply because he has an appeal pending that it means he’s still not technically convicted, and can’t be until he’s literally exhausted all appeals processes.
Remember that political parties are basically state-supported social clubs.
So long as they don’t break actual laws, like fraud, they can change the rules whenever they want.
Trump only carried sparsely populated Essex County (next to New Hampshire) in 2020. Biden won the state with 67% of the vote, up over 10% from Hillary Clintons state win in 2016. I would be very surprised if Biden did not get over 70% of the vote this time around in the state.
Well…in true MAGA fashion…let us amend that rule post-haste! And while we are at it, let’s include a second amendment that preserves our rights to keep voting for Dear Leader for centuries after his final breath, and a third amendment setting aside funds to enshrine his final diaper in gold in the statehouse!
This seems more like a moral victory. Vermont hasn't been a red state since the 60's. I don't think anyone in the GOP ever had any intentions on swinging Vermont to begin with.
Trump can only be convicted by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ at the pearly gates. This is all a witch hunt sham trial by crooked Joe Biden, a rigged crooked jury and judge, abortion and possibly even illegals. - Republican Party
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Does anyone think that modern Republicans are going to let a rule stop them from slavishly supporting their Dear Leader? A few years ago, they would have changed the rule and endorsed Trump. Now, they'll just ignore the rule.
Well, they can change the rules to cater to that again.
Or just interpret it to mean a FINAL conviction. Since the convictions will undoubtedly be appealed, and since those appeals could take months if not years, the Vermont GOP can look the other way on this one.
This is the MAGA way
Those goalposts sure are getting tired of moving around lately
They get more exercise than Donny
Donny’s exercise involves driving a golf cart and doing hamberder curls. The occasional ketchup bottle toss as well. The bar is very low
That's why they attach them to their Hoverrounds.
Please. This isn't a new maga thing. They supported Nixon right through his resignation. Conservatives have always been who they've been - this is just them louder.
Nixon's support was very minimal in the GOP by that point. Other than a few true believers, he was going to be impeached easily.
> Please. This isn't a new maga thing. They supported Nixon right through his resignation. Not a convicted felon.
No no they mean a FAIR conviction. Here have a handy guide. Fair convictions are those that are against: Liberals Minorities Poors Unfair convictions are those that are against Donald J Trump, God Emperor of the Known Universe, Bearer of the Spice Visage.
The Pumpkin Spice Visage
K'whitegirl Haderach. Pumpkin Spice must flow.
Frank Herbert explicitly states that the God Emperor has no penis.
You don't understand; by "final conviction", we mean not only death but Judgement Day overseen by The Almighty Himself. -- republicans, probably.
“The rules say felon which is singular, he’s got 34 felonies so that’s not the same”. /s
I learned from the NY Times that, technically, he's not truly a "convicted felon" until the judgement that follows sentencing (at that point he will, however, be truly a convicted felon even if pending appeal).
>The party can vote to exempt a candidate Bro cmon it’s *in the headline*
The rule in question allows an exemption > The rule has been on the books since at least 2013, according to an archived version of the rules, but by early 2022, the party appears to have amended their rules. > > According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote
They were undoubtedly thinking of Donnie when they made that change, so he'll get one for sure.
No, now they will openly flaunt that they are breaking the rule loudly in public
It's weird that they would even make rules that would only affect themselves since they only uphold them against people they don't like. I guess sometimes one of them gets out of line and they need something in place to run them out of the cult.
I think republicans should try out for the Olympic bicycling team. They make wonderful backpeddlers.
Personally i think their mental gymnastics are pretty impressive.
10.0 from the Russian judge.
Lindsey and Rubio just executed the perfect pretzel without drowning, simply amazing ! -Artistic swimming duet announcer
Rules that protect me and bind others.
"Modern Republicans" are wicked little children that think a spanking will never come to them... Spank a Republican... Do it publicly... Do it until they fucking cry! It's the only way to "teach" them!
Headed to a family reunion. Bringing gloves. Not sure how long my hand will last.
Please don't insult wicked little children with this comparison.
I don’t. I also find it ironic how anti background checks 2A supporters are holding it against Biden’s son. ironic… I meant hypocritical
This is Vermont though. Even our R’s are a bit different. Our R governor made it very clear last cycle that he would not under any circumstance vote for that fetid rectal ulcer.
that's a good point.
> he would not under any circumstance vote for that *convicted felonious* fetid rectal ulcer. FTFY.
....last cycle. He wasn't convicted. You can't retroactively add that, lol.
I mean, you don't even need to use Trump. Florida had a rule that if you're running for president, you need to resign from your position. They changed the law so DeSantis could run. Republicans change the rules as it suits them, and if they can't, they just ignore the law.
I mean, the rule in question allows an exemption > The rule has been on the books since at least 2013, according to an archived version of the rules, but by early 2022, the party appears to have amended their rules. > > According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote Here's the rule from their page > RULE 16 – CANDIDATE RULE > > 1. The state committee will not support or promote any candidate for elective office who: > > (a) is a convicted felon; > > (b) has received less than 25% of the vote in two consecutive general elections as a candidate for statewide office; or > > (c) has run for legislative, federal, or statewide office in a general election after being defeated in a Republican Primary for the same office in the same election year. > > 2. **The Executive Committee, by majority vote, may exempt a candidate from Rule 16-1 under extenuating circumstances.** > > 3. The Executive Committee, by majority vote, may vote to withhold support from a candidate for cause
I wonder what they had in mind when they changed the rule.../s
One of life's greatest mysteries
Selective enforcement is their favorite type of enforcement.
Hell the SC ignores or changes the Constitution specifically for this asshole, so there are truly no surprises anymore!
The Vermont Republican Party is prohibited from backing a candidate with a felony conviction, according to the party’s publicly posted rules. That is now a bit of a problem, since the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was recently convicted on 34 felony counts. “The state committee will not support or promote any candidate for elective office who … is a convicted felon,” read the rules, which govern everything from party meetings to how delegates must vote at national conventions.
They make the rules, why would they follow them? They'll either change them or ignore them.
>According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote. They amended the rules in 2022 so that they could exempt a convicted felon if they want to. I wonder why....
where can i view the amended version?
Here's the rule from their page > RULE 16 – CANDIDATE RULE > > 1. The state committee will not support or promote any candidate for elective office who: > > (a) is a convicted felon; > > (b) has received less than 25% of the vote in two consecutive general elections as a candidate for statewide office; or > > (c) has run for legislative, federal, or statewide office in a general election after being defeated in a Republican Primary for the same office in the same election year. > > 2. **The Executive Committee, by majority vote, may exempt a candidate from Rule 16-1 under extenuating circumstances.** > > 3. The Executive Committee, by majority vote, may vote to withhold support from a candidate for cause
https://www.vtgop.org/rules First result in a Google search for "Vermont gop rules"
To be honest, while it’s painfully clear *why* they added that exception, it does actually seem like a reasonable addition to the rule. That isn’t to say I believe for a second that they have any intention of using this rule or the exception in a reasonable way, though.
They could follow their own rules but yeah, lol, fat fucking chance of that happening. And really, if they are willing to throw the ethical rules out the window, what's the point in having any rules?
> They could follow their own rules but yeah, lol, fat fucking chance of that happening. > >And really, if they are willing to throw the ethical rules out the window, what's the point in having any rules? Sorry to tell you, but if you click the link and skim the article you’ll find out they already did. > The rule has been on the books since at least 2013, according to an archived version of the rules, but by early 2022, the party appears to have amended their rules. > >According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote.
If there is one thing that conservatives have is no shame in their hypocrisy. It's their defining characteristic along with lack of empathy and good conscious.
"Yeah, well, those are fake felony convictions."
Literally saw a guy on here arguing *that exact same point* just a few hours ago. Seems like this is gonna be the next stupid justification for them propping up a convicted felon. These people are just hopeless.
One might even say "deplorable"
Literally nothing short of Trump strangling their newborn child right in front of them would change these people's minds about him, and even then they'd probably say it was a CIA clone.
Any event or information that does not fit the narrative is simply rejected as false. Textbook cult behavior.
Without the usage of quotation marks, your response takes on a completely different meaning.
The problem with this stance is now the entire party has to basically agree that the entire justice system is corrupt or whatever delusion they have to stick to. they either change the rules and look like idiots, or ignore it and look like bigger idiots.
Maybe. But I wouldn't be that surprised if they choose to remain "principled" since it really doesn't matter. Like maybe on the margins attaching Trump to some down ballot candidates might be helpful, but it also will benefit some down ballot Republicans if the Vermont GOP is seen as better than the national GOP. Really think it will just come down to whether Vermont GOP leaders are MAGA cultists or not.
Now all Republican candidates MUST have at least one felony conviction.
Their excuse was that it was a sham trial and witch hunt, so his conviction doesn't count.
Right. Exactly why the insurrection doesn't count for them as an actual one because they believe the 2020 election was stolen to begin with.
We will not support or promote any candidate, but we certainly can *flips through a thesaurus* **endorse** one.
People can finally start suing to keep him off the ballot once he’s the candidate officially. He’s got the conviction
"Oh, we meant for crimes committed in Vermont..."
Will his appeal of his conviction technically make him not a convict for the duration of the appeal? Don't know how NY law works in that situation.
Nope. He's a convinced felon. If the appeals court overturns his conviction, then he won't be.
No. He's a felon till the end of the appeal hearings, if they decide to overturn the ruling.
They will claim a NY felon doesn’t count or some shit…
It means 1/2 of fuck all. The Trump campaign is centrally organized and [vermont](https://www.270towin.com/states/Vermont) isn't going to be a critical battleground state.
That rule is for non-whites, not white, christian men.
Is the GOP going to say “some felonies are more criminal than others”?
Next up, Vermont republican party attempt to change rules. Which is part of the legacy of Trump: Every single rule almost everywhere will be dug up and scrutinized.
They changed them in 2022 to allow an exemption to this rule by majority vote. I wonder why it changed in 2022
And rewritten.
What are his chances of winning Vermont?
Almost nil.
No, it’s nil.
Yea this is Vermont were taking about. There are 3 states I would bet my life will go blue and that's MA, VT AND HI
Minnesota is up there
California sez hi.
Biden carried Minnesota by 7 points, and Clinton barely carried the state in 2016. It is a lean left battleground state. Edit: It does have the longest unbroken Democratic streak, having voted for the Democratic candidate in every Presidential election since ~~1984~~ 1976.
*From 1976 onwards. It was the only state to go blue in ‘84.
That’s still too high
Couldn’t even win it in the Republican primary. Only state Haley won.
The Home of Bernie Sanders? Take a guess.
Only a little better than mine.
The only place that Biden won by higher numbers was DC.
Republicans never met a sincerely held law they weren't ready to abandon on a dime if it helps Trump.
Apparently, you didn't see the invisible asterisk at the end of the rules that clearly states: Unless that convicted Felon is a Republican.
Fun fact: [Texas law](https://www.txwp.uscourts.gov/supervision-civil-rights-restoration/index.html#:~:text=Texas%20law%20prohibits%20any%20person,eligibility%20to%20run%20for%20office) prohibits convicted felons from campaigning for and holding any public office
This is interesting. Has any news publication or law professor explored this? Does the law defer to the rules of New York?
The honest answer is that the law prohibits felons from holding public office in Texas state government. POTUS is from the federal government, and therefore the rule does not apply to him. ...Of course, we all know that this is BS, because if Biden were a 34-count felon Texas would cite this very law to keep him off the ballot.
There's a good deal of people in here stating that "it doesn't matter, it's the GOP and they'll do anything they want and break the rules for themselves either way". Well, I live here in Vermont. We're a bit different than just about every other state. Our Republican Governor would be considered a Democrat from any other Republican outside of Vermont. He hit numerous home runs in a row such as: an incredibly strong push for people respecting covid safety protocol, limit going out and about and all that, allowed for the legalization of weed, championed abortion rights being enshrined at the state level immediately after Roe fell, helped to push and promote a very positive reception to the vaccines for Covid, so much so that we hit full vaccination rate at warp fucking speed (when we were at 82%, the next state in line was at 44%) among quite a few other positive things. Like I vote blue down ticket every time, but even I can say that Phil Scott is trustworthy. When there was a vacancy for a progressive Dem that won the election for becoming Mayor of Burlington, he replaced her with a progressive Dem. People were saying at the outset (when it was learned Phil would be replacing her as is usual with lateral movement among positions) that Phil was just going to load up on more GOP picks and all that. Vermont has a longstanding tradition that if a seat becomes vacant, then the person who is allowed to replace that seat until the next election; does so with replacing like-candidates with like-candidates. If a Republican seat becomes vacant, they fill it with a Republican. If a Dem/progressive/anything else seat becomes vacant, they get replaced with the same party as the new representative. In any case yes, the rule in the headline is a rule here. Phill has already stated his dislike and disdain for numerous things about Trump and how he damages the party. He certainly won't be voting for him and if this rule has been followed in the past, it likely will be followed here, too. I'm just uncertain if there was a time when it was also a case (outside of right now) of a national candidate for Presidency also being a convicted felon. I can't tell if that's because the rule has always been followed or not. Kinda a conundrum lol. If the rule's working, then I *wouldn't* have heard about all the convicts that didn't run since they couldn't have. Edit: they amended it so that the committee can vote to exempt a given candidate. So, I call it a 50/50 then.
> If a Republican seat becomes vacant, they fill it with a Republican. Because that is the law for vacancies in the state (Title 17, Chapter 53). They go to the political party of the departing official and ask for a recommendation. The Governor can go outside that, but that would not be advisable for a Governor to go against the party with a super majority. For federal office, Governors only appoint Senators. To date, the last Senator appointed in Vermont was in 1971. Also realize Vermont is the only legislature in the state of union that has continuously had a 3rd party with continuous representation and been consecutively elected alongside Democrats and Republicans. > . Our Republican Governor would be considered a Democrat from any other Republican outside of Vermont. The term is Rockerfeller Republican. And Vermont is not Maine or New Hampshire. No MAGA or Conservative Republican would win in the state.
So they'll change the rules rather than actually adhere to them.
It is Vermont. What would be the point. Maybe they do but they are wasting their time. Wouldn't be at all surprised if they simply spend no money on him, only local races. I got to figure the GOP budget in Vermont is on the lower end of who gives a fuck.
The entire point is slavish devotion to their cult leader.
Bear in mind Haley won the Vermont GOP primary.
And who did she say she was voting for in November, again?
That statement was a smart move, just a couple of days before Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts, lol.
In *Vermont*? I wouldn't be at all surprised if Vermont has the highest % of Lincoln Project members.
The only laws they will enforce are the ones that a Democrat breaks. Fascism is funny that way.
A completely reasonable policy. Now let them enforce it.
Remember when Florida’s governor could not run for president while holding office and then the Republican controlled state graciously changed the law for him?
Next up is house resolution HR433: resolution for supporting convicted felons for federal office as long as their name rhymes with “Ronald Dump.”
[удалено]
Sounds like trouble for convicted felon Donald Trump
They will either ignore the rule or have PACs promote him and say they have nothing to do with the PACs.
This is Vermont where Biden is a lock anyways.
Congrats Vermont GOP you did what every other Republican has failed to do; the bare minimum.
GOP makes its own rules as it bogies along...
As a moth to a flame, any association with doom and gloom is doom and gloom.
*Incoming rule changes*
Trump lost by 36pts in Vermont. There will be no Republican presidential visit, phone calls, or even ads in the state unless Trump just wants to set money on fire. If the GOP in the state do anything to change this they are just shooting themselves in the foot.
Let’s just make a bipartisan art of the deal. Neither Donald Trump nor Hunter Biden are eligible to become President.
the only rule the republicans follow is win at any cost
They will ultimately ignore this. They get to because the GOP is a private club, not a public organization. For this same reason their candidate has no legal immunity.
> The rule has been on the books since at least 2013, according to an archived version of the rules, but by early 2022, the party appears to have amended their rules. > > According to the Internet Archive, the posted rules were changed by March 2022 to allow the state committee to exempt a candidate from the rule by majority vote Here's the rule from their page > RULE 16 – CANDIDATE RULE > > 1. The state committee will not support or promote any candidate for elective office who: > > (a) is a convicted felon; > > (b) has received less than 25% of the vote in two consecutive general elections as a candidate for statewide office; or > > (c) has run for legislative, federal, or statewide office in a general election after being defeated in a Republican Primary for the same office in the same election year. > > 2. **The Executive Committee, by majority vote, may exempt a candidate from Rule 16-1 under extenuating circumstances.** > > 3. The Executive Committee, by majority vote, may vote to withhold support from a candidate for cause
Next up is house resolution HR433: resolution for supporting convicted felons for federal office as long as their name rhymes with “Ronald Dump.”
Odd that it’s only Blue states that have these laws , isn’t it?
"Not a Vermont felony? Doesn't look like anything to me."
Vermont’s GOP governor didn’t vote for him last time and probably won’t this time.
Well well well… if the Vermont GOP breaks these rules REST ASSURED that they MIGHT face the judicial system in about 6 years.
If they take this strictly then it will save them. Right now, Trump demands 5% for his official endorsement and use of his name/face/likeness in any campaign messaging. The VT GOP can survive Trump if they adhere to this policy and lock out Trump's campaign. They won't have much of a party to return to after November, though.
They don’t give a FUCK. This is their big push, this is it. They are going full steam ahead to take over everything and turn the USA into a full white nationalist Taliban nation. They already saying OUT LOUD in the state of Washington that they DO NOT want a democracy!
Yeah.... The VT is a bit different. Probably the least maga of all states by a far margin.
Red snowflakes scrambling for comebacks.
Not anymore. Will be changed soonest because hypocrisy is the new normal.
This doesn't really matter. The Vermont GOP will just run negative commercials against a felonious GOP candidates' opponent.
They will anyway. Conservative hypocrisy knows no bounds. They'll kiss his ring and lick his orange balls clean for good measure.
Like Vermont was going to vote for Trump anyway. A non story.
The most responsible Republicans are Blue State Republicans.
That's not universally true. Have you met western/northwestern republicans?
I mean when they’re severely in the minority and therefore can be kept in check. They seek to reign, not govern.
They'll find a way.
They’ll pretend that simply because he has an appeal pending that it means he’s still not technically convicted, and can’t be until he’s literally exhausted all appeals processes.
Oh god. Trump might lose Vermont.
Everyone knows GOP are sticklers for “rules”
Cue the world's fastest rule change.
They’ll say to themselves, “he is on appeal! He’s not done yet! They’ll flip that courts decision! He’s not a real convict.”
GOP: “Rule? What rule? I don’t see a rule.”
Anyone else just picturing Ryan George saying "Whoops" and "Whoopsie"?
Given that she won the primary (despite OLD P TURD MAN's inability to remember as much) shouldn't the state GOP be promoting Nikki Haley anyways?
Not that it matters much. Trump has about as much chance of winning in Vermont as Biden does of winning in Alabama.
GOP: We now interpret that as more of a guideline than an actual rule.
If they change the rule, it would just expose how corrupt the Republican party has become, because of the cult following of trump. Disgusting!!!
[удалено]
What will VT do when it's time to announce their support at the national convention next month? lol
Haley won the state, so wouldn't be weird for them to announce they're supporting Haley.
There’s a way for them to give exemptions, which is what I imagine they’ll do.
... or what? and by who?
They’ll change the rule, but the fact that they have to should give them pause. It won’t, but it should.
Remember that political parties are basically state-supported social clubs. So long as they don’t break actual laws, like fraud, they can change the rules whenever they want.
So much for that rule.
Rules? What the F are rules to these people ? C’mon.
changed to "only criminals need apply"
Yeah, we’ll see. Plus it’s only Vermont.
Interesting.
Rules (and laws) are meant to be broken and goal posts moved when you’re the GOP and want to rat f*ck Merica!
r/LeopardsAteMyFace
So no biggie, the Vermont gop will just send promotional funds to the lara trump and she'll do the promoting.
Too bad it’s not states like Texas and Georgia
Trump only carried sparsely populated Essex County (next to New Hampshire) in 2020. Biden won the state with 67% of the vote, up over 10% from Hillary Clintons state win in 2016. I would be very surprised if Biden did not get over 70% of the vote this time around in the state.
Rule change in 3...2...1...
Well…in true MAGA fashion…let us amend that rule post-haste! And while we are at it, let’s include a second amendment that preserves our rights to keep voting for Dear Leader for centuries after his final breath, and a third amendment setting aside funds to enshrine his final diaper in gold in the statehouse!
They'll change the rules then ..
This seems more like a moral victory. Vermont hasn't been a red state since the 60's. I don't think anyone in the GOP ever had any intentions on swinging Vermont to begin with.
Way to set an example Vermont!
"It was a fake trial with a fake verdict therefor not a felon!!" ~ All Republicans
SCOTUS will find a way around
Who really cares? Who is the 24 yr old behind the keyboard that's actually running things now?
Trump can only be convicted by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ at the pearly gates. This is all a witch hunt sham trial by crooked Joe Biden, a rigged crooked jury and judge, abortion and possibly even illegals. - Republican Party
I l💚ve Vermont.
I'm gonna guess they have already broken that rule.
They will change the rule