Yes, but the Supreme Court at some point is going to need to rule one way or the other on the 14th amendment issue, and States like Colorado and now Maine breaking from the rest it’s going to make that more clear. A presidential election isn’t going to work if the potential GOP nominee isn’t allowed on several state ballots for even the primary. And several of the states where Trump was allowed onto the primary ballot recently said that once he is officially the nominee that the case could/should then be tried again to disqualify him from the ballot for the presidential election on the fact he has been ruled an insurrectionist and the 14th would then apply.
It’s only “blue states” for now, but each is a push for the Supreme Court to make a ruling of law, else we have a banana republic where the GOP candidate isn’t even on the ballot (and would be blocked from a write in campaign also).
Things don’t turn into “banana republics” because they won’t put a well known traitor on the ballot. The GOP may still have a candidate that isn’t an active traitor, it’s not like they can’t run another candidate.
Your shitty ‘slippery slope’ argument means fuck all, if they replace the Democratic government with a Dictatorship. You know that. You’re ignoring that, and making a bad faith argument.
You have accused poor li’l Tim about ignoring stuff and making a bad faith argument…but you’re ignoring context.
Tech Lover Tim is just explaining that, while it’s just blue states for now, the stunts are to force the Supreme Court to make a ruling on whether those states can ban Trump from appearing on the ballot for his roll in leading an insurrection according to the 14th Amendment.
It’s literally just an explanation. The last bit of their interpretation of the consequence of the Supreme Court’s lack of ruling derives from that explanation.
In turn, your response is overly aggressive by assuming Tim is making a slippery slope argument with a moral quality you clearly find disagreeable. But you’ve ignored the explanation altogether. It’s like you isolated the conclusion and, regardless of the premises, tried to claim it’s morally depraved.
The nature of the conclusion derives from the premises! Where’s the moral depravity in the explanation? And why didn’t you show that work before asserting that they’re arguing in bad faith?
Yes, but the Supreme Court at some point is going to need to rule one way or the other on the 14th amendment issue, and States like Colorado and now Maine breaking from the rest it’s going to make that more clear. A presidential election isn’t going to work if the potential GOP nominee isn’t allowed on several state ballots for even the primary. And several of the states where Trump was allowed onto the primary ballot recently said that once he is officially the nominee that the case could/should then be tried again to disqualify him from the ballot for the presidential election on the fact he has been ruled an insurrectionist and the 14th would then apply.
It’s only “blue states” for now, but each is a push for the Supreme Court to make a ruling of law, else we have a banana republic where the GOP candidate isn’t even on the ballot (and would be blocked from a write in campaign also).
Things don’t turn into “banana republics” because they won’t put a well known traitor on the ballot. The GOP may still have a candidate that isn’t an active traitor, it’s not like they can’t run another candidate.
Your shitty ‘slippery slope’ argument means fuck all, if they replace the Democratic government with a Dictatorship. You know that. You’re ignoring that, and making a bad faith argument.
…why is this so common on Lemmy?
You have accused poor li’l Tim about ignoring stuff and making a bad faith argument…but you’re ignoring context.
Tech Lover Tim is just explaining that, while it’s just blue states for now, the stunts are to force the Supreme Court to make a ruling on whether those states can ban Trump from appearing on the ballot for his roll in leading an insurrection according to the 14th Amendment.
It’s literally just an explanation. The last bit of their interpretation of the consequence of the Supreme Court’s lack of ruling derives from that explanation.
In turn, your response is overly aggressive by assuming Tim is making a slippery slope argument with a moral quality you clearly find disagreeable. But you’ve ignored the explanation altogether. It’s like you isolated the conclusion and, regardless of the premises, tried to claim it’s morally depraved.
The nature of the conclusion derives from the premises! Where’s the moral depravity in the explanation? And why didn’t you show that work before asserting that they’re arguing in bad faith?