You must log in or register to comment.
If 1/6 wasn’t a disqualifying insurrection, then nothing is and the words are just wasted ink.
Exactly.
Well that’s nice to hear. Fuck that guy. But aren’t Maine and Colorado already blue states?
Maine can also split it’s electoral votes. The state has four, but Maine is one of two states where all electoral votes don’t have to go to the same candidate (Nebraska being the other state that can split the electoral votes.)
Maine is purple. The north and east are mostly republicans and libertarians and the “cities” in the south are mostly democrats. They also split their 4 electoral votes by district.
Yes, but the Supreme Court at some point is going to need to rule one way or the other on the 14th amendment issue, and States like Colorado and now Maine breaking from the rest it’s going to make that more clear. A presidential election isn’t going to work if the potential GOP nominee isn’t allowed on several state ballots for even the primary. And several of the states where Trump was allowed onto the primary ballot recently said that once he is officially the nominee that the case could/should then be tried again to disqualify him from the ballot for the presidential election on the fact he has been ruled an insurrectionist and the 14th would then apply.
It’s only “blue states” for now, but each is a push for the Supreme Court to make a ruling of law, else we have a banana republic where the GOP candidate isn’t even on the ballot (and would be blocked from a write in campaign also).
Things don’t turn into “banana republics” because they won’t put a well known traitor on the ballot. The GOP may still have a candidate that isn’t an active traitor, it’s not like they can’t run another candidate.
Your shitty ‘slippery slope’ argument means fuck all, if they replace the Democratic government with a Dictatorship. You know that. You’re ignoring that, and making a bad faith argument.
…why is this so common on Lemmy?
You have accused poor li’l Tim about ignoring stuff and making a bad faith argument…but you’re ignoring context.
Tech Lover Tim is just explaining that, while it’s just blue states for now, the stunts are to force the Supreme Court to make a ruling on whether those states can ban Trump from appearing on the ballot for his roll in leading an insurrection according to the 14th Amendment.
It’s literally just an explanation. The last bit of their interpretation of the consequence of the Supreme Court’s lack of ruling derives from that explanation.
In turn, your response is overly aggressive by assuming Tim is making a slippery slope argument with a moral quality you clearly find disagreeable. But you’ve ignored the explanation altogether. It’s like you isolated the conclusion and, regardless of the premises, tried to claim it’s morally depraved.
The nature of the conclusion derives from the premises! Where’s the moral depravity in the explanation? And why didn’t you show that work before asserting that they’re arguing in bad faith?
With the way things have been going the past 20 years everyone should be disqualified and we should start over
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Maine’s top election official has ruled that Donald Trump cannot run for president next year in the state, citing a constitutional insurrection clause.
Maine’s 34-page ruling says Mr Trump must be removed from its primary ballot because of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution - which bans anyone from holding office that has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”.
In her order, Mrs Bellows, a Democrat, says that Mr Trump “over the course of several months and culminating on January 6, 2021, used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them to the Capitol”.
Speaking with BBC News, Mrs Bellows said it was her duty to uphold election laws in her state, and that she hoped the “Supreme Court will settle this matter nationwide”.
Florida governor Ron DeSantis said Maine’s ruling “opens up Pandora’s Box”, suggesting Republican secretaries of state could try to disqualify President Joe Biden over the issue of migrants at the southern border.
It all leads to a Supreme Court showdown - which Mr Moreno said should take place “rapidly” to stop more states from individually determining Trump’s eligibility.
The original article contains 771 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The duopoly seems to be flipping the table in the game of God Cop Bad Cop they’ve been playing on us. Hopefully we can get ranked choice voting out of their collective blunders
Facism is already here because y’all voted blue no matter who
I too distinctly remember people storming to US capitol waving around democrat flags.
“Fascism”
I don’t think you know what that word means.
Sending weapons to an aparteid client state so they can perpetuate a genocide on our dime certainly seems like the kind of thing fascist governments do.
Foreign policy has nothing to do with fascism. Like literally nothing. Any form of government could do that.
Besides that, Republicans have done just as bad. Oliver North comes to mind…
Honestly asking, what do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that the current US government is fascistic? If so, I’d challenge you to offer some examples.
Thank God–fascism isn’t nearly as bad as i was warned 😅
Trump shouldn’t be allowed to run after what he did on 1/6
If this is fascism… I’ll take it.
Compared to what Mr. Trump said about illegal immigrants “poisoning the blood of our country,”
TIL “fascism” means “enforcing the 14th amendment against someone who literally attempted to end the peaceful transfer of power away from themself”.
Projection at its finest.
And red is less fascist somehow?
Are you mentally ill or stupid?
Idiotic.
This is just a spin on “everyone lies, so you should just pick the lie you like the most”. It’s such ignorant bullshit.
lol
What in the sam hill are you talking about? Make sense.
