1374
Donald Trump removed from Maine primary ballot by secretary of state
(www.washingtonpost.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
1374 points (98.7% liked)
News
23282 readers
3809 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Royal also argued that Trump violated Section 3, while Gordon’s challenge took a different tack, arguing that Trump is not eligible to be on the ballot because he claims to have won the 2020 election, which would have been his second term. The 22nd Amendment states that no person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice.
The other arguments are Colorado redux
Oh thats clever!
"The 14th Amendment Constitution says you, an insurrectionist, cannot be on the ballot"
Trump: "I'm not an insurrectionist! I was defending my election to office in 2020!"
"Ah, okay then so you're admitting that you're trying to run for a 3rd term in violation of the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution
Clever, but no. He didn't get a second term, and his whining in a corner doesn't change that.
But for him to publicly admit that... it might snap a few people out of the illusion.
...I hope.
They don't care if he admits it or if it's true. They only care about what he instructs them to care about. Please, we must all start to understand this otherwise it's us living in an illusion.
"They" are human beings. "They" are our family and neighbors. "They" are people who are being exploited for political gain. You'd do well to keep that in mind.
I don't think the idea was to dehumanize, but rather to be more aware of the shared psychosis so many people are living in.
"They" claim that Trump won the election without any regard to facts and evidence. Imagining that "they" will suddenly change their mind if they get just one more piece of factual information is foolish considering everything we've seen so far. We must find another way to get through to "them".
Just because I'm using a plural pronoun I'm not dehumanising anyone. Please read what is actually written and keep your desire to scold people at home.
You know what I think is funny? You used 'they' the same way one comment earlier:
Oh, just noticed this reply.
In the first example "They" is a generalization, in the second is a reference to a specific set of people.
They have been behaving like members of a cult and have alienated family members, relatives and friends with their MAGA-narrative filled of hate and xenophobia.
"They" are also objectively stupid. And they are willing, enthusiastic, participants in their "exploitation".
They most certainly are not. They have no compassion, no intelligence, no critical thinking, no love, and no respect for human life.
They are mammals. Even primates. I'll give you that. But they are sub-human.
They have caused unimaginable pain and suffering and they enjoy it all and run on hatred.
All of the things you listed are attributes humans have. There is no such thing as sub-humans, you're thinking of regular humans.
Trump supporters are easily fooled idiots but they are fellow humans nonetheless. Thinking of a group of people as "sub-humans" oppens the door to treating that group as inferior and not worthy of respect which leads to fascist tendencies. Please be aware of what your words mean.
I’m aware. That group is inferior and not worthy of respect. They are a cancer to our society and we should be making huge efforts to cure them.
Inferior is extreme though. I would say gullible idiots for the Qult crowd, but most people are just wholey uninformed. Uninformed voters are more likely to become single issue voters (IMO the worst kind). I don't know if you noticed, but the news cycle is exhausting. So, I could just ignore it and choose the side that wants to control women's bodies because I'm superstitious. Wouldn't even know democracy was under any threat at all. Of course, some are informed, but are so concerned with controlling women's bodies that they wouldn't mind totalitarianism.
Another often overlooked factor is people treating politics as another team sport. Some people will just never vote for the other side. And again, if they are uninformed, there will never be anything to change their mind.
I think a better way to say it, would be respect. I might hold more respect for someone who can critical think there way through the bs, but if they can't I wouldn't say they are inferior.
They are not inferior, they are badly educated and thus easily blinded. It's not inherent, it's circumstantial that they're idiots.
Holy fuck, dude. "They are sub-human" ??? Literally asking here: Who talks like that? I can think of at least one historical figure.
It would seem that a non-insignificant percentage of MAGA disagrees.
4D Chess? Do you mean strategically calculated political decisions? Or... "Politics."
Why else would they be taking this path if
I live in a red state, and this has been brought up more than once in conversations with my neighbors. One of my friends had family who brought it up last Thanksgiving, and, while I understand the "internet isn't real life," you can see it for yourself if you watch almost any video of someone interviewing MAGAs outside of a Trump rally.
These are the most likely to resort to violence. If you show them the man behind the curtain, he loses his appeal.
MAGA is far from a cohesive group with a unified world view, hence the "non-insignificant percentage"
All that being said... I'll ask again. If he obviously never served his term and there's no political strategy going on: Why is Maine doing it?
It’s obviously childish as fuck to be playing such twisted logic games with something as important as the Presidency. Clever is not a word I want applied to American jurisprudence
Obviously they're not operating in good faith, so they'll come up with some nonsense justification as to why president loser deserves a 3rd term or something anyway. But that's still a novel approach.
Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that someone deciding to bar Trump based on this “third term” argument is acting in good faith?
Why wouldn't they be? Just because a premise is farcical doesn't mean you can't accept it for the sake of argument.
mondo big LOLs there. It's not likely to hold water in court, imo, and I'm guessing that the argument will be that he never took the oath for the second term. Buuut it might mean Trump is either going to have to admit to the court that he didn't win or he's going to be told by the SCOTUS that he didn't. Get dunked on, idiot.