The title of this post is dumb. How about…get more voters. I don’t want to hear the bitching when the other side tries it.
I’m getting to a point with liberals.
it’s anti-democratic to nominate him or vote for him
It’s literally following the law.
Yeah but the vibe of it all.
That’s a terrible argument against it.
If there’s a bad vibe to eliminating a candidate for following laws that were explicitly written down 150 years ago to stop such a candidate, then what kind of vibe does it give off if we flat out ignore that same law?
If we allow ourselves to be swayed by the idea that taking away a very specific privilege from a person gives off a bad vibe, then we’d be undermining our entire justice system and the very concept of law itself.
The law is unambiguous, and we must follow it. If we don’t, then the rule of law truly has no meaning.
If it lets an insurrectionist like Trump on the ballot, the supreme court will be putting out a welcome mat to autocracy
And they will be among the first up against the wall if that day comes, you can bet on it. I wonder if they have the slightest shred of self-preservation. If they are more afraid of maga now and not what maga will become, then their self-preservation instinct is badly flawed. We’ll see.
I think the right-leaning justices know pretty well that their positions are safe. They’re already benefiting immensely from corruption. When democracy dies and they have no obligation to the law, they’ll do whatever it takes to enrich themselves further.
Roberts doesn’t. His response to the American people who were angry about the Dobbs abortion decision was that they should shut up and listen to the court’s authority.
If we literally follow the Constitution, Trump is already barred from office & needs Congress to vote to remove that disability.
Its literally anti-democratic. I dunno what definitions of democracy anyone here is using, but its a system by which people decide via votes.
You vote for representatives that make laws on your behalf. Everyone has to follow those laws. If you are a president and also a traitor, you will run afoul of those laws. If the law says you may not run for president if you break it, then that is what it is. Democracies can have laws and still be democracies.
So far he hasnt been convicted of any treason, or any other crime. Right now its entirely one party subjectively deciding to deny candidacy to the opposition party, as Russia and North Korea both do.
We ALL saw that traitor incite an insurrection in an attempt to overthrow the United States, and good thing the 14th amendment does NOT require a conviction to keep a traitor off the ballot.
Spare me the Russia North Korea bullshit, you anti-americans are the ones trying to destroy democracy and anoint your rapist god as king of America. Just like Russia and North Korea.
Fuck right off magat.
So does the 14th amendment just require accusations to deny candidacy?
It’s the same group of dopes who have latched onto the ignorant “we’re not a democracy, were a constitutional republic!” who are now arguing that disqualify candidates that the cotus disqualifies is denying them their right to vote for whom they want.
Always tell those people that we are a federal presidential constitutional republic or fpcr for short. Then tell them that is a form of democracy.
I’ve debated it plenty, it appears they either cannot grasp the difference between a direct democracy and a representative democracy. I’ve even had plenty try to argue that directly electing the president (effectively a representative for the whole US on the world stage) would make us a democracy and no longer a representative democracy. lol
Imagine living the White House like Trump did, and to live in a place where this orange guy is a serious contender to occupy the presidency once again after four years.
Maybe this democracy is not worthy of protection. With all due respect, American democracy may need way more than stopping Trump’s second term.
That’s not much of a solution, either. Don’t like what American democracy is doing now? Just wait until it doesn’t care about having pretenses to invade other countries, or even use nuclear weapons.
What happened to his hand and why has no one mentioned this? Are those burns or what?
Definitely seems like he hurt himself gripping something. Caught a falling knife would make sense if he ate anything that required cutting. Maybe held a frozen railing and lost skin?
Actually someone else in this thread mentions how it looks like secondary syphilis.
Trump acts like a mob boss, and Al Capone died in his Florida mansion of complications from syphilis.
Wouldn’t it be great if history repeated itself?
Grabbed one too many pussies eh?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Right now, however, I worry that the supreme court’s rightwing supermajority, in its anticipated rush to prohibit states from kicking Donald Trump off the ballot, will turn the constitution into a suicide pact.
When the court considers that case, the six conservative justices might focus on their concerns about infuriating rightwing voters, their political soulmates, if they rule that the constitution requires that Trump be disqualified as an insurrectionist.
He unarguably gave “aid or comfort” to the January 6 assault on the Capitol, which was essentially a coup attempt that sought to prevent the rightfully elected president, Joe Biden, from taking office.
If the supreme court’s six rightwing justices allow Trump to stay on the ballot, they can do so only by turning their backs on the methods of constitutional interpretation that they have repeatedly trumpeted: textualism and originalism.
But the two constitutional scholars who led the way in arguing that Trump should be disqualified – William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen – are highly regarded conservative members of the Federalist Society.
In decades past, the US supreme court did not shrink from issuing decisions that offended and angered millions of Americans, whether it was enraging many white southerners by barring school segregation in Brown v Board of Education, or infuriating millions of women by overturning Roe v Wade, or angering a wide swath of Democrats by cutting short the vote count to deliver victory to George W Bush over Al Gore.
The original article contains 1,569 words, the summary contains 242 words. Saved 85%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
“Democracy”
“Democracy” Isn’t a replacement word for, “dictatorship.” You are very well aware that removing his name isn’t democratic; the man hasn’t been charged with a crime. Pointing a finger and claiming he did some things he didn’t do, and your congress hasn’t said he were guilty, and using your offended feelings to remove him is fully wrong.
But, you derranged lot will take any angle to cry about Trump so have at it. Nothing else rises your endorphins.
You’re literally just ignoring the people who tell you he’s been charged with a crime. You posted a similar message in another thread yesterday, and just like this one you’re just posting and leaving.
the man hasn’t been charged with a crime
He has literally been charged with dozens of crimes. Have you been living under a rock? Do you just make shit up when you need to defend your orange garbage bag person?
Cry some more. The constitution was used to remove him. If you have problems with that, then take it up with the founding fathers. Per the 14th amendment, NO CONVICTION is required. Removing a proven insurrectionist from the ballot is DEMOCRACY.
Removing a proven insurrectionist from the ballot is
DEMOCRACYfollowing the rule of law in the United States. Exempting individuals from the rule of law is anti-democratic.All people having representation and subject to the rule of law are fundamental principles of democracy.
Removing a proven insurrectionist from the ballot is
DEMOCRACYfollowing the rule of law in the United States. Exempting individuals from the rule of law is anti-democratic. All people having representation and subject to the rule of law are fundamental principles of democracy.So, per your own logic, the fundamental principles of Democracy require people to have representation and are subjected to the rule of law. So, with Trump being removed from the ballot using the 14th amendment, which, in your own words he is being subjected to the rule law. Which makes his removal Democratic? No?
Yes, I’m being nit-picky. All I was trying to say was the original phrasing was “democracy at large says an insurrectionist cannot run for office” which is untrue. It is a US implementation of democracy specific case.
Another country could have no restrictions on candidates and it would be completely democratic for an insurrectionist to run for office.
We all saw everything that happened. The man tried to steal an election he lost and incited an insurrection. If you don’t believe that you’re captured by propaganda.
