• queermunist she/her
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    60
    ·
    1 year ago

    Great idea, ban the frontrunner of the only other viable Party from running for office, this won’t have any consequences at all!

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        You think election denialism was bad before? Just wait until it’s literally illegal for Trump to get elected lol

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The nation is only as strong as we’re willing to fight corruption and enforce laws.

          If Trump faces no consequences it will be easier for the next dictator wannabe to seize control.

          Pissing off maga morons is a small price to pay.

          • queermunist she/her
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Trump should have faced consequences years ago. They waited too long and now he’s running for president again.

            • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The legal system moves slowly and this is rather unprecedented so there is a lot of room for debate.

              Your don’t just skip all that. It’s important that the legal system work this out so Trump Jr. (figuratively and possibly literally) faces clear consequences in the future.

              The best time to punish him was on Jan 6, the second best time is now.

    • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Perfectly valid action to take when that front runner is a traitor to the nation he swore to serve.

      • danikpapas@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If that’s true then people votes should decide that, if you don’t believe the people then the nation is doomed

        • Downcount@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Than let everybody vote too. But I guess you’d agree that it wouldn’t be a good idea, right?

        • Unaware7013@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          People don’t elect the president, land does. So sure, let’s let him run once 1 person = 1 vote. Until then, fuck the traitor, land shouldn’t get to put someone in office that tried to perform a soft coup.

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Texas is talking about taking Biden off the ballot.

        This country is barely hanging on dude

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is exactly why this is a terrible idea from the get-go. This will just embolden every state to pick and choose who they want on a ballot.

          Edit: Just to add onto the point a little bit… Take note of how many red states there are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

          Now imagine that 100% of them now push Blue off the ballots all together. And the ones that are light, could force a dark reddening, Blue would NEVER win an election ever again. Just letting a court choose to define what happened on Jan 6 as an insurrection leaves this problem on the table. It’s also against the American motto of Innocent until proven guilty to just let a court decide that without trial and jury. None of the current cases against Trump have the “insurrection” as a charge, so he’s never been guilty of it… including the impeachment. Find him guilty, like the southern office holders, then you have a case. But jumping the gun like this just makes you all look looney tunes and opens the doors to all sorts of abuse that WILL NOT work in your favor.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s the point what’s the point of having an election if we’re just going to ignore the laws anyway?

      The laws that say he can run for office are also on the same constitution that say he’s no longer elligible, what is this cherry picking laws nonsense?

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        His base is already primed to believe the election is stolen. Making it literally illegal for Trump to be on the ballot will have serious consequences.

    • Unaware7013@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Great idea, don’t hold former presidents to account when they attempt to subvert democracy, that won’t have any consequences at all!

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        If they wanted to hold him to account they’d have charged him immediately after the insurrection, rather than waiting for the next election. Why did they wait so long? Now he’s campaigning and can use every decision against him to rally his supporters into a frothing mob.

        • Unaware7013@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You mean like the impeachment or any of the trials we’ve had for his criminal behavior? Yeah, why didn’t they do that immediately??? And while we’re at it, why does the legal system move so slowly???

          • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You mean like the impeachment or any of the trials we’ve had for his criminal behavior?

            The insurrection-based charges were dropped from every single one…

          • queermunist she/her
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The impeachment was literally nothing.

            What I mean is that he could have been arraigned much earlier. They slow walked the charges so that he’d have time to become the frontrunner in order to sabotage the GOP. This isn’t just the law moving slowly, this is a political strategy to ensure Biden’s reelection.

            This will only result in his cult becoming radicalized.

            Hopefully they don’t get violent.

            • Jordan_U
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago
              1. Federal courts just move slowly. Any of the current cases against Trump taking less than 6 years would be an anomaly. That’s not an endorsement of our current system of justice, far from it.

              2. Trump notoriously uses delay as his primary legal tactic; Has done for decades.

              His lawyers have taken every opportunity to take legal actions doomed to “fail” because they knew they would gum up the works and move trial dates further back. They have argued at every turn for delays, and are currently complaining about being told to work over the holidays because a judge gave them strict deadlines for filing briefs in Trump’s own appeal which has paused all actions in the case until it is resolved.

              (The appeal is that Trump has “absolute immunity” and therefore can’t even be tried, let alone convicted, for any crimes he may have committed while president. It’s absurd on its face)

              • queermunist she/her
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Federal courts just move slowly.

                The J-6th rioters got court hearings and sentences before Trump was even brought up on charges. That’s telling.

                Now it’s too late and he’s the frontrunner. By taking so long they might destabilize the country.

                • Jordan_U
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The prosecuted J-6th rioters actually entered the capital building, committed crimes with their own hands on camera, or spent months prior to the insurrection explicitly (in writing) organizing people to do things like kidnap Nancy Peloci and kill Mike Pence.

                  Those are easier cases to make, and those defendants filling court records with defenses of “I was just following the orders of my president” help build a case against Trump himself.

                  The “Imminent lawless action” standard in first amendment jurisprudence is a harder one to meet than most people realize. There’s reasonable precedent to say that enough time passes between Trump inciting his croud to insurrection and them actually doing it that it doesn’t meet the “imminent” standard. It’s not in any way an easy case to make and win.

                  There are many federal and state cases against Trump right now, and to say that they’ve been intentionally slow-walked to cooencide with the election is to ignore the years of litigation that have already happened in most of them.

                • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Not at all. Trump’s case is much more difficult and he has used far more delay tactics. It’s a bit similar to preparing a case for a mob boss vs for a foot soldier.