volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@ArtSmart The answer to why put such people in the ballot is simple: because voters want to vote for the person.

You say the stupidity of the electorate was proved in 2016, well, I guess that's why.

The problem with democracy is that people are stupid. But so long as we are doing this democracy thing, well, that's part of it.

If we're going to indulge a system where the people get to express their voice like that, then we have to accept that a lot of stupid people are going to say a lot of stupid things, including voting for a lot of stupid people that they probably shouldn't vote for.

But that's democracy for you.

We could decide against that, put me in charge of everything. It would be fun I promise 🙂 but no, we're going to stick with democracy and part of democracy is dealing with the voices of stupid people.

Oh stupid democracy. It is the worst system except for all the others.

@jaystephens Oh I would emphatically say that no behavior at all should keep a person off the ballot! Because I support the democratic process. I think it's really important for voters to have that voice.

And again, we do have legal safeguards to prevent bad people from actually taking office, but I think it is so important that voters be able to vote for whoever they want to. That is a really important thing for society.

That element of formal expression of public ideas is critical to a modern society.

Have you heard the old phrase involving soapbox, ballot box, cartridge box? Well that's why the ballot box is so critical to preventing the process from getting to number three.

Let voters vote for whoever they want to, and let the legal institution react to their choice.

@liquor_american @chrisgeidner

@jaystephens I have no idea how you get there from here, as I am emphatically saying that we should reject the authoritarian leaders trying to put their fingers on the scales of voting.

The whole point is that I am trying to resist that slippery slope that you bring up.

We have to recognize the facts before us and not let authoritarians rewrite them in order to pressure us in the way we vote.

@liquor_american @chrisgeidner

@ArtSmart anarchy? I was emphatically citing the controlling law that would apply.

It's the opposite of anarchy.

We have legal institutions in place to react to the results of the democratic process. It's emphatically the opposite of anarchy that we apply the laws as they are.

@timo21 no it's a huge difference because it's the difference between the Supreme Court acting within or without jurisdiction, and controlling an election versus controlling a different court.

It's a huge difference in part because of the separation of powers, the fundamental idea in the US that different branches of government are different, with checks between them.

So yeah, huge difference.

@Joe_Hill @StillIRise1963

@ArtSmart we already have the legal procedures to handle vacancies, so we would simply abide by those laws.

It's not an unforeseen situation that a vacancy would occur, so we just do whatever the particular vacancy has prescribed by law to handle it.

@mediabiasfactcheck If you read the actual decision by the court, this fact check is wrong.

The actual decision debunks the version of events presented by this article. The fact check doesn't have its facts straight.

@timo21 If you read Bush v Gore they weren't applying oversight overstate elections.

They were applying oversight over a state court that was misapplying federal law.

@Joe_Hill @StillIRise1963

@ArtSmart frankly when I look at the people that we elect in this country It all seems quite absurd to me.

So that's how the democratic process works.

Yes, often enough voters vote for absurd candidates. It's their choice, and that's just part of the downside of this notion of letting people have such a voice.

@ArtSmart well if nothing else the court cited an election that hadn't yet happened in the timeline it laid out.

@nytimes it just goes to show how out of touch #Biden is with the general public that he'd declare as self-evidence something that a large proportion of the public considers unfounded.

@ArtSmart no, it wouldn't be election interference since voters would remain equally free to cast their votes as they wished.

If voters want to vote for someone who can't actually take office, that's their choice.

@ArtSmart The problem is that we can tell that the finding of fact was wrong since it relied on a timeline that was not legal.

The court is gaslighting us.

@ArtSmart I mean, it is election interference.

Even if we think it is warranted interference, even if we think it is entirely appropriate to impose the anti-democratic order, even if we say it is entirely correct to strike a major candidate from the ballot, it is indeed election interference.

We need to own that.

Trump's right that it is election interference even if we want to tell him, yeah, and you deserve it.

@Joe_Hill this is overlooking the dispute over what the constitution actually says.

"Rules for the constitution" makes an assumption about the interpretation of the terminology in the document that is arguable.

@timo21 @StillIRise1963

@realTuckFrumper The problem is that this story relies on a disputed claim about the relationship itself.

@sarahc you say that, but it's debunked by seeing right-wingers vote in favor of social safety nets that do exactly that.

@DMTea Hey fascist, I am definitely not crying. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not looking to vote for Trump, so it's not like it is disenfranchising me for him not to be on ballots.

But to be clear, if the guy is following the laws of the country then he's not engaging in rebellion or insurrection.

And he clearly did. And courts are occasionally wrong throughout history, as was the Colorado court, as it cited claims that have been debunked pretty roundly by now.

But you do you. As a good fascist go ahead and get behind the authorities calling for undemocratic resolutions based on outright propaganda.

That is, after all, pretty clearly the fascist way to go.

Like @Oggie suggested, really his campaign is failing because the guy's personality doesn't resonate with his potential voters.

The rest of what @mcnado said doesn't really apply because his voters don't live in the same reality, they don't think that list of complaints is actually true, so they don't judge him based on them.

He just doesn't have the charisma to capture the voters living in that reality, and that's why he's failing.