volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@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.

@kissane Well I think it's complicated on all sides because on one hand the meta haters don't let reality interfere with their claims, and on the other side meta itself seems kind of poorly run, so I'm not sure they know how they are going to monetize the information they vacuum up.

So it ends up being unreasonable people complaining about unreasonable people around a topic that is fundamentally unreasonable.

There's no high road there. Just a mess.

@Joe_Hill but none of that amounts to supporting the claims being made.

Despite claims to the contrary, the US has laws surrounding the presidential election process, and Trump acted within those laws.

Maybe we should change the laws. Well we actually did, but maybe we should change them more. That's a fair discussion to have.

But with the sanction of US law these claims against Trump just don't stand.

@DMTea

@jaystephens denying the facts doesn't make them untrue. It just makes the arguer clearly wrong.

Yes it is undemocratic. Just stomping the foot and declaring it otherwise doesn't change the fact that it is undemocratic.

@liquor_american @chrisgeidner

@Joe_Hill honestly I never found the time too do more reading into the pizzagate conspiracy, so I have a lot of reading piling up.

That's how far behind I am on my nutty conspiracy reading list at this point.

I promise once I get done with reading about the clintons and pedophilia and whatever the hell that was about I'll get around to reading about your conspiracy theory too.

@DMTea @liquor_american @chrisgeidner

@Joe_Hill so if you read the ruling, it's not exactly true to the record.

You say like it or not, but really I don't care. I don't live in Colorado. I actually don't care what they rule. They can find whatever the hell they want for their own citizens.

This ruling is obviously wrong because it gets the facts wrong. It gaslights the citizens of the state, but again, none of my business.

PS, I have no idea why any of my replies would be hidden that's just how this platform works apparently, I have no idea what any of that is about.

Seems pretty fitting for this topic though

@thomasapowell but then the thing is, claims of hypocrisy are nice in theoretical, but when they impact the real world they involve real people hanging in the balance.

If you're being threatened with punishment hypocrisy is hardly something that's going to be on your mind.

So it really doesn't matter. The Constitution says what it says, and it can be changed if we want to, but we really don't care to change it at this point.

@StarkRG

@emarktaylor@thecanadian.social no.

@thomasapowell I've been listening to a lot of conservatives and I haven't heard any of them talking about the 14th as being woke.

They mainly talk about it being misconstrued.

Big difference.

@StarkRG so fix it.

If the amendment is so poorly worded propose an amendment to fix the wording.

It's not that the Supreme Court ignored the first half of the sentence, it's that the first half didn't say anything compelling. Which, again, if that's your hangup, propose an amendment to fix it.

That's how that process works.

@thomasapowell

@emarktaylor@thecanadian.social dangerous to let voters vote how they want? @dick_nixon