^ I agree. But the problem with "sporting" conduct is the stakes are astronomical. A Trump win means Ukraine loses and likely US pullout from NATO. We can't cover the airspace in both Taiwan and Europe with Putin at the western Ukraine border, and given a choice Trump will check China. So Russia rebuilds, rearms and may take Europe. If you think that sounds ridiculous read the strategic assessments.
@penguins He encouraged an insurrection, election denial, and has stated outright that he wants to install an authoritarian government. If our systems can’t stop him, why have the systems?
“If Trump loses, I want him to lose fairly”, he and his co-conspirators already tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election. That’s not fair to the voters. Why should he get fair treatment when he refuses to engage fairly with the process?
That’s an astonishing level of doublethink. “It would be un-democratic to remove the potential candidate who undemocratically tried to invalidate the votes of millions of people by illegally conspiring with officials to overturn a legitimate election and when that failed to attempt a violent overthrow of the government”—what??
It’s not even subtle. Trump has been very clear about who he is and what he wants. He is a fascist who is angling to lead a fascist takeover of the US government and if he is the GOP candidate for president he will use every illegal dirty trick in the book to make it happen.
Again, as an outsider, the current SCOTUS is big on states rights, and made it pretty clear in 2020 that states run their elections as they see fit. It will be hypocritical, though not unpredictable, for them to changes their minds now.
@Kernel Kurtz This SCOTUS has made it clear they will rule as their right wing masters see fit. Roberts is now the moderate on the court, which is extremely scary because he’s no moderate.
@Merrick, don't be angry, I get where @penguins is coming from, and neither of us are pro-Trump. His point is that if he loses because of not being on the ballot it'll give the conspiracy theorists everything they want and half the country will be talking not just insurrection but rebellion.
Ultimately though, if you missed my comment, I support taking him off the ballot because I'm willing to risk unrest because America will literally lose military control of Europe and we're talking real WWIII scenarios. I'd rather risk rebellion.
@roshambo123 He’s being disqualified due to amendments to the US Constitution specifically designed for this purpose. If we’re saying that we can no longer follow the Constitution because it will give ammunition to insurrectionists, then we might as well pack it up because that’s the end of the country as we know it.
Some things are worth risking rebellion for. If Trump wins we’ll have to become the rebellion and that fight is much harder because Trump will have the levers of power and access to the most powerful military in world history.
@Merrick, on the access to the military, as a third POV here, if Trump wins I had the thought that Trump's intended damage to America's strategic position in Europe would be sufficient for some officers and possibly the CIA to consider a coup.
@roshambo123 That seems far worse than keeping him off the ballot, rule by military/intelligence fiat is far less desirable than using defined Constitutional processes to invalidate him before the fact. Every scenario where he wins is markedly worse than any scenario where he’s invalidated from running.
Cool. It looks like the Colorado Supreme Court discovered that the Constitution is a thing. Now they can reference that document when it comes time to rule on new BS gun laws. How convenient.
@YMO a conviction would certainly help the case but this amendment isn’t a criminal proceeding, and removing someone from a ballot isn’t a criminal punishment. People are invalidated from being on ballots for all sorts of reasons, most of them not criminal.
The same standard applies when you're actually in office. You don't need to actually commit a crime to be removed, just as George Santos was removed based on investigation without a conviction. Same applies to the impeachment and vote to remove a sitting president.
Also for due process, the text is "shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process." Eligibility to run for office is not defined as a liberty. Stuff like freedom of speech and religion are.
This comment section is the first time I've received anything close to 30+ notifications in less than 24hrs...
Anyways, back to the topic at hand - rs123 is right in saying I'm not pro-Trump. And one of those reasons is because he does have a lot of dictator tendencies and desires.
But how is blocking free speech and making an example of people saying that they aren't happy with the election or whatever else, to in crude terms "prevent the GREAT TRIGGERING" and force a different set of behaviors and values any less dictator-like? Because the party is different?
@penguins He didn’t just say he was unhappy with the election, he conspired with people to overturn the results and when that didn’t work he whipped up an insurrection. I don’t see how you’re missing all this context.
I don’t know how many different ways I can say that he is an authoritarian fascist who tried to overthrow the government and has said he will take dictatorial power if he wins the next election.
This is not a freedom of speech issue. Furthermore there are already limits on who can run for president in the Constitution and I don’t see why “hasn’t committed treason” isn’t a reasonable limit to include.
So I should give a disclaimer that I don't watch or follow "regular news" due to lack of interest and desire, but
1) Gore challenged Bush because he didn't agree with the results in 2000 - is that treason? (IMO no). Granted, Gore was much more organized about it and IMO there was definitely something weird going on with counts there
2) I also think there was some weirdness in the counts this time around too. Trump challenged it like Gore, just in much a less organized (and IMO dumb) way, but less organized or dumb to me is not treason.
Final comment: IMO ultimately reveals the bigger problem - for reasons I haven't looked into more, I don't see why and how elections aren't more organized and transparent.
Politicians on ALL sides at the local level across the country have been caught and CONVICTED of election fraud. Given that the same systems are in place for national elections, why can fraud not be plausible at the national level?
@penguins You need to do more research into what Trump actually did. He did not challenge the results in any legitimate way, he colluded with officials to overturn certified results and he stirred up an armed insurrection. The man is a traitor.
There are legal mechanisms to challenge vote counts and demand a recount. Some groups did try this in Arizona and found no evidence of widespread fraud. Trump did not do this, he tried to install faithless electors and overturn certified results.
@penguins Even if fraud did occur, Trump would still be a traitor because he tried to overturn results without any evidence and did so outside of the legal mechanisms to challenge the counts. Having an armed mob storm Congress is treason.
@YMO You must be joking. Trump is one of the most widely covered people on the planet right now. Google “Trump election fraud” and you’ll find plenty of material about the case against him and the evidence for it.
I do have to agree with @YMO . Always just state the point you believe. Nobody wants to stop a conversation to read. For the sake of rhythm if nothing else
I stated it in multiple ways. Penguin admitted he hasn’t followed the news. Can’t have an informed conversation without information. And I included a link.
Read these "rules" AND introduce
yourself before your first post
Being true to what the artists intended
(opinion / entertainment piece)
Comments on Profile Post by Merrick