293
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 30 Dec 2023
293 points (98.7% liked)
politics
19120 readers
3725 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Insane? There are law professors writing editorials in the New York Times about how, in their expert opinion, Trump actually is eligible. You might think they're wrong (clearly the Maine secretary of state does) but this is a genuinely ambiguous and unsettled matter of law; there's no "insane" side.
It's not a hard concept that when someone attempts coup, they should not be allowed back in power. Many many countries have put leaders in prison for less. Law has to mean something, or your country and institutions will not last. He has broken so many laws while in office it's not even funny, and we've mostly turned a blind eye to it until very very recently.
What they claim is to disagree whether it constituted a coup attempt. Some say “it was unsuccessful” which is of course rather a dimwitted claim. Some still insist it was merely a protest and not a coup attempt. Nobody seems to dispute that Trump was involved and encouraged it. Anyhow, like most things republicans argue, they have a preconceived result and make up nonsense to support it, and it’s very biased - imagine if it had been democrats and Obama involved in something like that? They’d still be completely losing their shit about it and they couldn’t find enough harsh things to say about the participants.
The law isn't about should in that sense of the word. If Satan, the Devil, was running for President, whether or not he was legally eligible to do so would be an entirely separate question from whether or not people should vote for him. The article I linked to argues that
That might plausibly be true no matter how bad Trump is.
Playing devil's advocate doesn't actually mean you need to defend both the literal devil that exists and also the mythological one. It's an expression. No need to take it so literally.
This is a spurious as Trump's lawyers claiming he didn't swear to support the Constitution, only protect it, which is why he can violate it and still run again.
That has to be top 5 of the dumbest arguments I have heard.
That's interesting because the Times also just put out an article referencing Federalist professors who determined he should be disqualified. Looks like they're playing both sides, lol.
Not surprising. They are still in the horse race mode.
Kind of surreal to see someone arguing that an insurrection isn't a disqualifying action for a presidential candidate and that it's clearly just a matter of opinion with a legit argument