There Is No “Both Sides” to Donald Trump’s Threat to Democracy
There Is No “Both Sides” to Donald Trump’s Threat to Democracy
Just because Republicans choose unreality doesn’t mean the media should ignore the facts of January 6.
You're viewing a single thread.
He's a threat to democracy, quick, make voting for him illegal!
It's been illegal for insurrectionists who have betrayed their oath of office to uphold the constitution to run for office since July 9, 1868 when the 14th amendment was approved. There is nothing quick about it.
If Donald Trump didn’t want to be removed from state ballots he shouldn’t have incited a violent insurrection when he lost last time.
This was an easily avoidable outcome.
No, you see, it's only democracy if you crawl up to people who make a literal coup attempt against a democratic government, put a shotgun in your mouth, and beg them to pull the trigger. THAT'S the true meaning of democratic government!
basically everyone is just explaining to me that it's illegal to vote for him. That's what I just said. Explain it all you want but it ain't democracy.
It's regulated democracy.
It turns out that if you don't regulate things to some extent, humans exploit them. Who would've thought huh?
Plus, did you forget what the insurrection was about? You don't get much more undemocratic than trying to flatout deny the results of the democratic process.
In one case you have a democracy with defenses against corruption (imperfect but still present), in the other case you have something that is just flatout not democracy in any definition of the word.
Theres a lot of regulated democracies in the world. North Korea has elections every 4 years. For allowed candidates of course.
I can't vote for:
-
Arnold Schwartzeneggar <- Constitution regulates, saying,"Sorry, not born here"
-
Billie Eilish <- Constitution regulates, saying,"Sorry, not seasoned enough. Try again in a few elections."
-
Donald trump <- Constitution regulates, saying,"Sorry, you engaged in insurrection. Fuck right the hell off."
Not saying I would if I could, just saying.
Right, again telling me its illegal, i already know. It aint democratic for all those examples. Especially the age one, man we need younger reps.
Donald Trump is anti-democratic by definition now. He made that very apparent, and has even promised to be a dictator “just on day one”. What you are suggesting is we give everyone a fair shot at overtaking the government because if it happens it must be because everyone (or the majority) wanted it.
Need I remind you that he incited the insurrection because he was already losing the democratically held vote? You don’t get to rip up the rules of democracy and then cry your way back into abusing democracy.
If I have failed to educate you then I sincerely wish you take a public course in Civic Studies. Just the 101 course should do fine.
-
Well when you establish democracy after you've already destroyed the entire foundation of it, it makes it a lot easier to get the results you want.
Exactly why the insurrection was kindof an issue.
Pretty bad faith to argue North Korea though, like there aren't a lot of other things with the situation that make it massively different from whats happening here.
No I'd say North Korea's whole situation boils down to that concept of state sanctioned candidates. For a situation a bit closer to ours, id point to Russia barring candidates from running for opposing the war.
You're confusing sanctioned with qualified.
Trump does not qualify. By definition. Just like someone under 35 doesn't qualify. Those are the rules.
Do you think these arent the rules in the examples ive given?
They are not. Quite strictly speaking, the Russian example you gave is an abuse of authority.
You are comparing a silencing of political opponents to someone who has performed the most basic form of treason. Like, there are no countries where Trumps situation would not be worse for what he has been recorded doing.
You are blatantly trying to tie together things to support someone who is cut and dry a traitor to the people of the country, not just it's government, and has already been noted on many accounts that he will disrupt the democracy in the country if elected.
If you want to keep dying on this hill, I'll probably just block you because this is a waste of time. Because you're not here to have a discussion, you're here to find people who don't understand these basic concepts that you can potentially sway to your side. In other words you're a waste of time to argue with, you decided from the outgo what your stance was.
Okey dokey… I can see there’s no point in continuing to engage here. Bye now 👋
Why are you lying and trolling?
Wow what an absolute moron
"illegal to vote for him" lmao you make it sound like you're gonna get arrested for doing it. No one cares if you write his name in, his names just not going to be on the ballot because he's a traitor.
it never was a simple democracy or he never would have won an election with fewer votes
Do you think he should have won with fewer votes?
....no???? But he did!
Is a democracy where I can't vote for a literal infant still a democracy or is it no democracy because I can't choose a baby to run the country? Like if I wanna vote for a 2 year old and they say no, that means it's not a democracy anymore?
If you have a country where the majority will vote for a 2 year old, you have much bigger problems than something a ban on voting for 2 year olds would address. This is like folks warning about marrying dogs with the gay marriage debate.
You dodged the question so I'm assuming you know exactly what you're doing and that democracy is indeed fully capable of still being democracy even with regulations. Thanks for showing you whole ass by sitting on the fence made it easy. I should have just assumed you were the way you are but I was curious.
Dodged, man i explained in detail why banning you from voting for a 2 year old doesnt matter. Go ahead and vote for a 2 year old.
So, you see the problem with your point, yet are still trying to make that point. How... curious?
what problem? How are you guys interpreting what I wrote? So see, when gay marriage was being proposed, opponents were using crazy arguments like allowing gay marriage will lead to people marrying their dogs. Like really fucked up strawmen that wouldnt even really have consequences even if it happened, but it was still made in the worst possible faith. So this guy is arguing that we shouldnt allow some candidates, because what if people voted for 2 year olds? Again, it's a ridiculous, bad faith strawman, do you think he would vote for a 2 year old if he was allowed? Do you think he believes that enough people would vote for a 2 year old that it would matter if it was allowed? So even going along with their ridiculous strawman doesnt result in me thinking we should bar candidates from running.
You're still refusing to see the point.
Do you think not allowing 2 year olds to run is an infringement on democracy?
If not, then you agree that there are acceptable limits.
I think a ban on voting for 2 year olds would be pointless. Saying its an infringement on democracy is also pointless, because it wouldnt disenfranchise a single voter. Its a nonsense strawman. Legalize 2 year old candidates, legalize people eating sand. You gonna expect to see a sand eating epidemic?
I think a ban on voting for 2 year olds would be pointless.
Jesus, dude... smh my head. It's not a specific ban. It's a minimum age, you doofus. Stop sidestepping the question.
Do you agree that acceptable limits are possible?
No one has a right to run for president.
The Senate is not democracy. Within the Senate, the smallest state is equal to the largest state. Wyoming is equal to California.
The Bill of Rights is not democratic. The Bill of Rights restricts voters from inflicting their populist will on a minority that does not share their beliefs.
The judicial branch is the least "democratic" concept within the Constitution. The judicial branch grants overwhelming authority to a small, unelected group, and makes that group responsible for dealing with all matters related to the accused. We don't get to vote on whether to spare the accused, or feed them into a woodchipper; that power has been stripped from the people, and is thus undemocratically wielded.
Section 3 of the 14th amendment is not "Democratic" in the same way that the Senate, Bill of Rights, and Judiciary are not "Democratic". It is constitutionally essential for the same reasons that the Senate, Bill of Rights, and the Judicial Branch are essential.
Most of these are flaws in how our government works. No person's vote should count more than anothers, but thats just what disproportionate representation accomplishes in the senate and the electoral college.
The Bill of Rights itself was democratically ratified. The majority of people dont want minorities to be discriminated against.
And boy the supreme court is a mess lately. The lifetime appointments and lack of ethical oversight.
The Bill of Rights itself was democratically ratified.
So was the 14th amendment.
There are lots of rules to follow. You have to be of age, you need certain ID, etc.
Overthrowing the government is not a "whoopsy daisy". Your inability to comprehend is not everyone else's problem.
He's removed from ballots, people won't go to jail for voting for him, it's just more inconvenient to do so.
You can still write in his name on the ballot. Nobody is going to arrest you for that. Ridicule you, sure, but not arrest you.
write in ballots for him were also banned from the colorado ruling
You're still allowed to do it, they just won't count votes for anyone not eligible
Just like if you're under 35 or not a natural born citizen. He's ineligible. And that's because we don't want 6 year olds, Russian operatives who became a citizen six months ago or traitors who are both Russian operatives and act like 6 year olds.
How democratic
A democracy cannot work if the will of the people is not enforced. part of that is enforcing the laws that those people have put in place. To argue that someone can be voted in against that is, indeed, undemocratic.
You're looking at the end result and ignoring the process that leads up to it. Given that the main violation was constitutional, the amount of effort needed just to make that into law requires a significant amount of representatives or straight up popularity throughout the country. This is not something that should be lightly brushed aside.
So yes, if they're not eligible, they're not eligible. Because by supporting your stance it is also damning the stance of many others both past and present.
I would also argue you shouldn't find much issue with finding someone you can vote for that hasn't performed the very uncommon crime of treason.
You can't vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ariana Grande, either, and that doesn't represent the collapse of democracy.
I mean, when you violate one of the few laws above all the branches that is regarding whether you're allowed to be elected....
Why exactly do you want to vote for a treasonous insurrectionist? Why should such a person be allowed to run?
Do you really think it's undemocratic to protect democracy from someone approaching fascism?
I dont. I dont like trump. I hope he gets convicted for his crimes. But so far he hasnt. People are direly minimizing how dangerous a precedent it is to bar a frontrunner candidate from an election. That is millions of Americans who are being told they cant vote for who they want to, by the opposition party. Later on Trump will preach to them about democracy being taken away from them, and theyll have quite the reason to believe him. This wont go well.
It wouldn't be a dangerous precedent. What WOULD be a dangerous precedent would be to let someone who clearly engaged in insurrection run for President unmolested.