Good day for the #GOP, the #fascist #RepublicanParty is begging their puppets on #SCOTUS to keep #traitor #Trump on the Colorado ballot while alternate Führer Nikki Haley (because no Republican will vote for her if they realized her real name was Nimrata or that she’s Indian, for God’s sake being a woman is bad enough) comes out in favor of Civil War #slavery.
@bigheadtales yeah, such fascists, promoting the concept that maybe just maybe the people have more of a voice in their government.
This is why all the shouts of fascist! come across as so out of touch with reality.
@volkris
You’re suggesting that the Consitution should only be followed when it suits your point of view.
Nobody is preventing someone from casting their vote or that their vote be counted. (That’s what Republicans do)
The Constitution is very clear that Trump is disqualified from holding federal public office again.
@bigheadtales that's not what I'm suggesting, nor is it my position.
@volkris
It appears that you are suggesting that the 14th amendment as it pertains to public office eligibility be ignored.
@bigheadtales and that would also be a misreading of what I was suggesting.
Notice emphatically that I said nothing about any amendments.
I said nothing about any amendments, because I wasn't suggesting anything about any amendments.
I was merely trying to point out that standing out of the way of the peoples' abilities to express themselves in the voting booths is generally the opposite of what we think of as fascism.
That has nothing to do with any amendments.
@volkris
So, are you in favor of removing restrictions on presidential eligability?
That would be a different discussion.
@bigheadtales if it's a different discussion why bring it up?
I don't consider my personal opinions to be particularly interesting or relevant, but to the extent that I'm in favor of blocking voters' say, I own it.
@volkris
No votes are being blocked.
Your assertion is false.
Trump is ineligible to hold office under the Constitution.
@bigheadtales I didn't say any votes were being blocked. The voting process is certainly being interfered with, though.
And that's independent of whether you've bought into the claims about constitutional ineligibility.
@volkris No, no voting process has been interfered with.
The question is constitutional eligibility. Trump is not eligible.
@bigheadtales interference in the voting system is literally the only practical thing that is happening here.
There's no reason to deny that.
Maybe you want the voting system interfered with.
Maybe you think it's for the best that it's interfered with.
Maybe you think Trump is such a threat to whatever you think is going on that you would say that we need to interfere with the voting system.
Great!
So own it. It just emphasizes how critical that is to you. It's a way for you to say it is just that important that we fight against Trump.
But don't deny what's going on. Denying that fact just makes a person look foolish or untrustworthy.
Yes, this is about interfering with voting, whether or not that interference is justified.
@volkris
Again, Donald Trump is not eligible to run under the Constitution of the United States.
It is not interference.
It is following eligibility for holding federal office as very clearly defined in the US Constitution.
What my opinion is about Donald Trump is not germane to the question.
@bigheadtales the constitution says nothing about who can run though.
The 14th, for example does not say who can and can't run. It says who cannot serve. That is a completely different question from who can run.
And of course it's interference to manipulate the voting system like that. You can say it's not all you want, and I can say water doesn't run downhill all I want, but that doesn't make it true.
Of course It is interference even if you think it's entirely right to interfere.
To own it if that's the way you want to go.
Otherwise you just come off as kind of dishonest.
@volkris
You're suggesting that persons ineligible to serve in an office should be included on the ballot for an office they are ineligible to hold, presumably, because they say so?
Are you sure you want to go with that?
Does that apply to anyone who wants to be on the ballet or just Donald Trump?
@bigheadtales no!
It's not about what the candidate says, it's about the voters.
We conduct elections for the sake of voters, not for the sake of candidates.
If voters want to vote for an ineligible person, that's how they express themselves. Often enough I vote for my dog because the candidates are just that bad. It's my way of expressing my opinion.
And similarly, maybe voters want to vote for Trump EVEN IF he's not actually eligible to be president.
They are two completely different questions.
Elections are how voters express their opinions, separate from how their opinions might work out in the end.
It's just how democracy works.
@volkris
You are incorrect.
Elections are not about opinions. It is about voting amongst eligible candidates for an office.
What you are describing is a write-in candidate, which voters may still do.
By your logic, your dog should be included on the ballot.
Don’t hurt yourself trying to justify this.
Regardless, Trump is ineligible for office. To put him on the ballot would be as much a disservice to voters as including your dog (who I’m sure is a good boy).
@bigheadtales
You are incorrect.
Elections are about whatever the voters want them to be about.
In the US, voters in each state get to decide what they want their votes to be about, so it's a democratic process about a democratic process.
Let me emphasize that the US Constitution says nothing about voting being about voting amongst eligible candidates. In fact it is notably silent on the issue.
You say regardless Trump is ineligible for office, but again that is an entirely different topic, and it is debatable, and it is being debated.
So you are wrong on the first topic, as the voting system in the US simply doesn't mandate your personal opinion, and you are on shaky ground with a second, no matter how many times you might repeat your position without providing any evidence for it.
Really zero for two there.
This is just how democracy works. And again if you want to be undemocratic that's fine, but admit that that is what you are up to.
@volkris
And my personal opinion isn't germane.
Those states determined that Trump "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof".
Congress may, however, remove this ineligibility with a two thirds majority vote.
@bigheadtales there is a problem, though, in that the states explained reasoning that's questionable.
If the states had simply said, "Nope! Not eligible because I say so!" then, funnily enough, they would be on more solid ground.
BUT, since they laid out reasoning that's based on factually and logically shaky ground they've opened themselves up to challenge.
@volkris
I love the word salad!
In a way, you're correct in that each state has its own laws about how elections are run, and those laws are determined by state officials who are elected.
In the two cases in question, those states determined through their own processes that Donald Trump is ineligible based on section 3 of the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
It doesn't matter what you want the election to be about.
Elections are about electing candidates to office.