IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 29th February 2024, 10:11 PM   #1081
dirtywick
Philosopher
 
dirtywick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,412
this has been discussed thoroughly in the 14th amendment thread. i'm not going to rehash it here.

if you don't think he engaged in insurrection, that's interesting. if you do, i'm not concerned about the details of the process of how it gets there when, ultimately, he's ineligible.
dirtywick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2024, 10:42 PM   #1082
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,279
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
This is just mind-boggling. How difficult is it to bite the bullet? You just have to admit the ends justify the means. Or that in this case, something is more important in your hierarchy of values than democracy.

A person can be a disastrous candidate but still be eligible for office. Who are you or I to say he isn't? Have a jury convict Trump of insurrection. Or should we spare ourselves of the formality of a trial? After all, we know he did it. I think I'm starting to understand the difference between using and abusing the law. Planting evidence on a person is abusing the law. Planting evidence on someone you know to be guilty is using the law.
Iím not sure why you think the ďformality of a trialĒ is required to determine candidate eligibility under the 14th amendment.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2024, 01:26 AM   #1083
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 15,412
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Iím not sure why you think the ďformality of a trialĒ is required to determine candidate eligibility under the 14th amendment.
I am not arguing the law. I said the Constitution's age requirement, among other things, is objectively silly and anti-democratic. This 18th-century holey document is not my North Star. It does not even guarantee citizens the right to vote. In terms of consequentialism, I've said this provision in the 14th Amendment has been a dead letter. This already on shaky ground is compounded by unelected judges depriving voters of a choice. Which do you think is stronger, a trial where Trump has been found guilty of insurrection or a greenhorn judge in Colorado saying he committed insurrection but he can still run?
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2024, 01:38 AM   #1084
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,251
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I am not arguing the law. I said the Constitution's age requirement, among other things, is objectively silly and anti-democratic. This 18th-century holey document is not my North Star. It does not even guarantee citizens the right to vote. In terms of consequentialism, I've said this provision in the 14th Amendment has been a dead letter. This already on shaky ground is compounded by unelected judges depriving voters of a choice. Which do you think is stronger, a trial where Trump has been found guilty of insurrection or a greenhorn judge in Colorado saying he committed insurrection but he can still run?
The electoral system is fundamentally undemocratic, so why get hung up on something very minor?
__________________
ďDonít blame me. I voted for Kodos.Ē
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2024, 08:33 AM   #1085
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,279
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I am not arguing the law. I said the Constitution's age requirement, among other things, is objectively silly and anti-democratic. This 18th-century holey document is not my North Star. It does not even guarantee citizens the right to vote. In terms of consequentialism, I've said this provision in the 14th Amendment has been a dead letter. This already on shaky ground is compounded by unelected judges depriving voters of a choice. Which do you think is stronger, a trial where Trump has been found guilty of insurrection or a greenhorn judge in Colorado saying he committed insurrection but he can still run?
A discussion of a legal proceeding that is predicated on ignoring the Constitution doesnít seem productive. What standards are you proposing we use? Vibes?
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2024, 09:03 AM   #1086
dirtywick
Philosopher
 
dirtywick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,412
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
A discussion of a legal proceeding that is predicated on ignoring the Constitution doesnít seem productive. What standards are you proposing we use? Vibes?
essentially yes. the constitution is clear that those who engage in insurrection canít hold office, and very few people dispute thatís what happened, therefore heís ineligible to hold office.

what isnít clear is the mechanisms used to enforce the eligibility. not to speak out of turn but it seems cain, or at least others, would feel better if he was criminally convicted. thereís nothing requiring that either, itís never been addressed and maybe never will, so to me itís just as valid as anyone elseís opinion on what the process should be.
dirtywick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2024, 11:34 AM   #1087
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,084
If the objection is around the mechanisms of enforcement, arguing that the basis of that provision of the 14th Amendment is anti-democratic doesn't advance that objection. Arguing that different provisions are also anti-democratic also doesn't advance that and is confusing. Making it clear that one doesn't support all the provisions of the Constitution is fine, but it just doesn't make sense to do when you're already arguing that you don't support a specific provision.

It's also a bit of nonsense sophistry. Even if disallowing non-natural borne citizens is anti-democratic, that doesn't mean disallowing people who tried to subvert our democracy power in our democracy is anti-democratic apart from in the most trivial way. This is like saying it makes no sense to jail someone who committed false imprisonment. Every provision limiting the power of a democratic government is anti-democratic. If the people want to democratically vote to establish a state religion, disallowing that is anti-democratic. It's one step away from 'well what do words even mean, man?'. Isn't have representatives anti-democratic because it dilutes the power of the direct vote? Isn't this akin to the argument the 'we aren't a democracy' people make when they claim because we are not a direct and total democracy, we are not one at all?

Focusing on the deficits in the mechanisms enforcing the provision would be better if that is one's objection, focusing on if the actual provision's limits on democratic principles are justified if that is one's actual objection would be better, and don't deny that you're doing either if both are important.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2024, 03:06 PM   #1088
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 15,412
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The electoral system is fundamentally undemocratic, so why get hung up on something very minor?
If Trump were barred from running, then the political consequences would not be minor.

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
A discussion of a legal proceeding that is predicated on ignoring the Constitution doesnít seem productive. What standards are you proposing we use? Vibes?
You're assuming the truth of your understanding of the Constitution, which, will in all likelihood find no purchase with the Court. You're also ignoring the pragmatic consequentialism you would presumably embrace in Breyer-like decisions. And the context of this part of the discussion is about democracy. Above you attempted to argue that this type of petty legalism was not anti-democratic. If Kagan votes to allow Trump to run, she will have been relatively consistent in her opinions. That's not so for the more conservative members of the Court who are suddenly concerned about the practical consequences. Ironically, we'd have Democratic activist types embracing the reasoning of conservative legal scholars.

Echoing your earlier question, I might ask "Are states required to let people vote for president?" The Constitution leaves a lot of discretion to the states about how to conduct elections. Suppose a state decides they're going to allow their gerrymandered legislature to allocate Electoral Votes. Would that be OK? How one answers that question should not hinge on "Well, does it help my guy or hurt my guy?"

Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
essentially yes. the constitution is clear that those who engage in insurrection canít hold office, and very few people dispute thatís what happened, therefore heís ineligible to hold office.
No, it's not clear. Constitutional disputes in the mid-19th century were ultimately resolved by extra-judicial means (i.e., the bloodiest war in American history). It would have been practically impossible to have trials for everyone engaged in rebellion (uniforms make it relatively easy to identify who did what). There's no such practical barrier for trying and convicting Donald Trump. The suddenly strong opinions people have on a relatively obscure clause in the 14th Amendment reminds me of how more or less the same activists from across the spectrum abruptly became vocal about stoves.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
If the objection is around the mechanisms of enforcement, arguing that the basis of that provision of the 14th Amendment is anti-democratic doesn't advance that objection.
It sounds like what you're struggling to say was addressed in the reply to dirtywick in this same post.

Quote:
It's also a bit of nonsense sophistry. Even if disallowing non-natural borne citizens is anti-democratic, that doesn't mean disallowing people who tried to subvert our democracy power in our democracy is anti-democratic apart from in the most trivial way. This is like saying it makes no sense to jail someone who committed false imprisonment.
You're attempting to forge connections between claims that are not linked in an ironic bid for nonsense sophistry. It would seem pretty simple to maintain that prohibiting Trump is anti-democratic, but the right thing to do. I can understand why people want to eat their cake and have it too.

You're also papering over how people want him barred, which often seems to suggest "by any means necessary." The case against prohibiting Trump from running becomes substantially stronger if he's found guilty of insurrection through familiar public-facing legal channels (charged, tried, convicted) rather than a star chamber. If there had been a regular trial, then the public would have been prepared for the consequences well in advance of the election, as the media and activists would repeatedly point out that if Trump were found guilty, he could be prohibited from holding office.

As for the analogy from jr. high death penalty debates -- what?? We can think more broadly about crime and punishment. This canned response often assumes a retribution model of punishment. The most defensible argument for incarceration is to humanely protect the public. In the case of a well-publicized, competitive election, you have participation from the public itself. Abstracting the discussion away from the totems and tribalism of the current situation, we might imagine a state that imprisons someone because he committed a crime and poses a threat to the public. The public disagrees that the person is a threat, and petitions for the prisoner's release. In a well-functioning society, the public might have more trust in their institutions, deferring to the expertise of the people who staff them. Shady legal maneuvering further erodes trust in institutions, which makes it easier for elites to rationalize still greater levels of paternalism, and the cycle continues. Americans constantly want to read their own political views into the Constitution rather than engage in the hard work of democratic governance.

Quote:
Every provision limiting the power of a democratic government is anti-democratic. If the people want to democratically vote to establish a state religion, disallowing that is anti-democratic. It's one step away from 'well what do words even mean, man?'. Isn't have representatives anti-democratic because it dilutes the power of the direct vote? Isn't this akin to the argument the 'we aren't a democracy' people make when they claim because we are not a direct and total democracy, we are not one at all?
This has been addressed already in terms of minority rights. You seem to be internalizing the Constitution in a distinctly American way. The horror of establishing an official religion is the type of argument that I expect would resonate with similarly provincial USians who eschew any kind of critical thinking or worldly knowledge. Northern European countries have official state churches, but are nevertheless high-functioning democracies with strong individual rights. Again, I'm inclined to blame the cult of the Constitution for discouraging socializing citizens into moral-political adulthood and resorting to "but the Constitution sez."

In terms of direct vs. representative democracy, the former can be problematic when only the few are able to participate while others are busy with life and work, so it's not really a rule by the people. This is one of the stronger objections to the US's primary system, which allows voters to select candidates directly. In almost every advanced democracy, the parties select their slate of candidates (and would almost never choose a figure like Donald Trump). Are those other countries "less democratic"? Not really. Participation in primaries is notoriously low, and the highly motivated voters tend to be unrepresentative of the electorate. There's the added challenge of gerrymandering, so the general election is often a farce. However, referendums with broad participation that are robustly debated can have even greater legitimacy than laws passed via representatives. I highlighted the 22nd Amendment because it's well-understood and has overwhelming buy-in even though it limits people's choices.

Quote:
Focusing on the deficits in the mechanisms enforcing the provision would be better if that is one's objection, focusing on if the actual provision's limits on democratic principles are justified if that is one's actual objection would be better, and don't deny that you're doing either if both are important.
Like other parts of your post, this is not a model of clarity, and I'm too busy to parse it. Please do better.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2024, 03:18 PM   #1089
dirtywick
Philosopher
 
dirtywick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,412
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
No, it's not clear. Constitutional disputes in the mid-19th century were ultimately resolved by extra-judicial means (i.e., the bloodiest war in American history). It would have been practically impossible to have trials for everyone engaged in rebellion (uniforms make it relatively easy to identify who did what). There's no such practical barrier for trying and convicting Donald Trump. The suddenly strong opinions people have on a relatively obscure clause in the 14th Amendment reminds me of how more or less the same activists from across the spectrum abruptly became vocal about stoves.
it's obscure, but it's simple
dirtywick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2024, 04:37 PM   #1090
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,279
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
You're assuming the truth of your understanding of the Constitution, which, will in all likelihood find no purchase with the Court. You're also ignoring the pragmatic consequentialism you would presumably embrace in Breyer-like decisions. And the context of this part of the discussion is about democracy. Above you attempted to argue that this type of petty legalism was not anti-democratic. If Kagan votes to allow Trump to run, she will have been relatively consistent in her opinions. That's not so for the more conservative members of the Court who are suddenly concerned about the practical consequences. Ironically, we'd have Democratic activist types embracing the reasoning of conservative legal scholars.

Echoing your earlier question, I might ask "Are states required to let people vote for president?" The Constitution leaves a lot of discretion to the states about how to conduct elections. Suppose a state decides they're going to allow their gerrymandered legislature to allocate Electoral Votes. Would that be OK? How one answers that question should not hinge on "Well, does it help my guy or hurt my guy?"
Iíve offered no understanding of or ignored anything about the Constitution.

Iíve merely asked you to defend your position from a Constitutional standpoint and you donít seem to be able to do that, other than to dismiss the parts of the Constitution you donít like.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2024, 05:47 PM   #1091
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,084
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
[SNIP]
No, it's not clear. Constitutional disputes in the mid-19th century were ultimately resolved by extra-judicial means (i.e., the bloodiest war in American history). It would have been practically impossible to have trials for everyone engaged in rebellion (uniforms make it relatively easy to identify who did what). There's no such practical barrier for trying and convicting Donald Trump. The suddenly strong opinions people have on a relatively obscure clause in the 14th Amendment reminds me of how more or less the same activists from across the spectrum abruptly became vocal about stoves.



It sounds like what you're struggling to say was addressed in the reply to dirtywick in this same post.
My explanation of why your arguments about how other provisions of the Constitution are anti-democratic are not supportive of your argument regarding the mechanisms applying the insurrection provision of the 14th was not only quite a bit shorter, it was vastly more clear than your argument above. You assume that your overall argument was so well constructed, that the only reason one could confuse the points you were throwing out as being related to each other is the reader not having your special boy understanding of the 14th (on dint of them not really knowing about it until it was cool to). The simpler explanation is that several readers were trying to connect things you wrote next to each other because you wrote them next to each other about the same general thing.

Your above response doesn't actually see the source of the confusion at all. You're welcome for clarifying for you that your statements weren't actually meant to support each other.


Quote:
You're attempting to forge connections between claims that are not linked in an ironic bid for nonsense sophistry. It would seem pretty simple to maintain that prohibiting Trump is anti-democratic, but the right thing to do. I can understand why people want to eat their cake and have it too.
I explained they were not connected. Why are you objecting to an argument you didn't make being called sophistry? Stop yelling at the clouds.

Quote:
You're also papering over how people want him barred, which often seems to suggest "by any means necessary."
No, I am addressing your arguments and choices in writing. You reading into the motives of the people who disagree with your insistence on mechanisms that don't exist in the law (which includes many Republicans) is not really important to your points, the points people thought you were connecting, nor my writing.

Quote:
The case against prohibiting Trump from running becomes substantially stronger if he's found guilty of insurrection through familiar public-facing legal channels (charged, tried, convicted) rather than a star chamber. If there had been a regular trial, then the public would have been prepared for the consequences well in advance of the election, as the media and activists would repeatedly point out that if Trump were found guilty, he could be prohibited from holding office.
This is in the 'no **** ought' category and it's becoming more clear why some have been misreading your writings. Several posters have tried to make the point to you that also in the 'no **** ought' category is that Trump engaged in insurrection. So on one 'ought' we have 'Trump should have been held accountable in the criminal justice system for his insurrection'. In another 'ought', we have 'Trump should be disqualified from office because of his insurrection'. The fact that you are arguing the mechanism of criminal trial is better than any other for getting to the second 'ought' doesn't actually speak to the second 'ought' nor to if that is in legal fact what is required.

Quote:
As for the analogy from jr. high death penalty debates -- what??
You're not arguing at a higher level than jr high school. 'But have you considered the Napoleonic legal tradition' and assumptions about how Americans consider the law and the Constitution aren't exactly advanced rhetoric.

Quote:
We can think more broadly about crime and punishment. This canned response often assumes a retribution model of punishment. The most defensible argument for incarceration is to humanely protect the public. In the case of a well-publicized, competitive election, you have participation from the public itself. Abstracting the discussion away from the totems and tribalism of the current situation, we might imagine a state that imprisons someone because he committed a crime and poses a threat to the public. The public disagrees that the person is a threat, and petitions for the prisoner's release. In a well-functioning society, the public might have more trust in their institutions, deferring to the expertise of the people who staff them. Shady legal maneuvering further erodes trust in institutions, which makes it easier for elites to rationalize still greater levels of paternalism, and the cycle continues. Americans constantly want to read their own political views into the Constitution rather than engage in the hard work of democratic governance.
This is the navel gazing that passes for deeper analysis than jr. high? This makes it seem like you really were making arguments you and I both said you were not.


Quote:
This has been addressed already in terms of minority rights. You seem to be internalizing the Constitution in a distinctly American way. The horror of establishing an official religion is the type of argument that I expect would resonate with similarly provincial USians who eschew any kind of critical thinking or worldly knowledge. Northern European countries have official state churches, but are nevertheless high-functioning democracies with strong individual rights. Again, I'm inclined to blame the cult of the Constitution for discouraging socializing citizens into moral-political adulthood and resorting to "but the Constitution sez."
There is that special boy hubris again. No, it is not unknown that there are solid democracies that have state religions, and even royal families, among 'provincial USians'. Did you really think knowing that is an example of critical thinking or worldly knowledge? Utter tosh. You've just decided to actually drop the use of critical thinking in order to use the most banal 'American bad' insults while sidestepping what the examples I used was talking about.

In case you missed it from your special throne of 'not like the other Americans' and 'I knew about the 14th Amendment before it was popular', the explicit point of those examples was that something could be anti-democratic in trivial ways and still be part of a well-functioning democracy. Why on earth would you think pointing out that something is an acceptable provision of the Constitution while reducing democratic power be an argument that a well functioning democracy couldn't exist without that provision? The entire point was that something could be anti-democratic in trivial ways and still be acceptable in democracy. It says nothing about the lack of it not being acceptable in a democracy.

But hey, you got out your trivia about Norway at least.

Quote:
In terms of direct vs. representative democracy, the former can be problematic when only the few are able to participate while others are busy with life and work, so it's not really a rule by the people. This is one of the stronger objections to the US's primary system, which allows voters to select candidates directly. In almost every advanced democracy, the parties select their slate of candidates (and would almost never choose a figure like Donald Trump). Are those other countries "less democratic"? Not really. Participation in primaries is notoriously low, and the highly motivated voters tend to be unrepresentative of the electorate. There's the added challenge of gerrymandering, so the general election is often a farce. However, referendums with broad participation that are robustly debated can have even greater legitimacy than laws passed via representatives. I highlighted the 22nd Amendment because it's well-understood and has overwhelming buy-in even though it limits people's choices.

Yes, yes, and first-past-the-post voting leads to the domination by two parties, reducing the democratic power of the vote, and amount people have to work leaves them with less time to engage in the system to make informed choices, and a whole host of other issues in the US, none of which means our democratic republic isn't really a democracy.



Quote:
Like other parts of your post, this is not a model of clarity, and I'm too busy to parse it. Please do better.
Ironically this was pointing out a problem with your writing that you must be too busy to deal with too. To rephrase for your sooooo much better than 'provincial USian' understanding; your writing about how undemocratic baring anyone from being eligible from office for any reason could be bad on principle is confusing and detracting from your objections on the specific mechanisms used to bar someone from office.

Even in this long post, you can't help but to take up the cause of attacking what you consider other deficiencies in American democracy, Constitution, and most of all the disdain you have for several different understandings Americans have of them other than your objection to the 14th not requiring a criminal court mechanism to be implemented. If your main objection were that the provision is anti-democratic, then it ultimately doesn't matter what mechanism was used to implement it, for you'd object regardless. If your main objection is that not having the most robust criminal trial standard leads to other problems, that can be argued better without calling people stupid Cult of the Constitution worshiping Americans.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

Last edited by tyr_13; 1st March 2024 at 05:49 PM.
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2024, 10:25 PM   #1092
dirtywick
Philosopher
 
dirtywick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,412
and i'll tell you as far as anti-democratic goes, ensuring people who want to overthrow democracy don't hold office with the only bar to entry being they haven't already tried to overthrow democracy is a lot more pro-democratic than anti-democratic

unless, again, you feel like he didn't do that.
dirtywick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2024, 10:47 PM   #1093
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,251
If Trump wouldn't get to run, the result would be defacto Nil.

The Republican establishment doesn't want him.
His base will fill his absence with someone on a platform to "bring Trump back".
And the FBI has already the address of everyone who might do something violent.

Seriously, what is a credible worst-case scenario if Trump gets kicked off the Ballot?
__________________
ďDonít blame me. I voted for Kodos.Ē
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2024, 10:57 PM   #1094
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,618
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
If Trump wouldn't get to run, the result would be defacto Nil.

The Republican establishment doesn't want him.
His base will fill his absence with someone on a platform to "bring Trump back".
And the FBI has already the address of everyone who might do something violent.

Seriously, what is a credible worst-case scenario if Trump gets kicked off the Ballot?
The obvious immediate worst case scenario involves Republicans engaging in bad faith revenge/opportunistically removing Democrats from the ballots for issues that Republicans manufactured and things becoming much more of a mess.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2024, 11:01 PM   #1095
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,251
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
The obvious immediate worst case scenario involves Republicans engaging in bad faith revenge/opportunistically removing Democrats from the ballots for issues that Republicans manufactured and things becoming much more of a mess.
Fine.

That would force the supreme Court to either stop punting or get officially ignored.
It would be healthy for US democracy to come to a situation where no one gets to be President.
__________________
ďDonít blame me. I voted for Kodos.Ē
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:07 AM   #1096
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 7,122
She's back!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...nd/ar-BB1j3kCy

Marianne Williamson. "Not delusional."
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:04 PM   #1097
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 34,924
No, just barking mad.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.