It isn’t ‘anti-democratic’ to bar Trump from office. It’s needed to protect democracy | Steven Greenhouse
It isn’t ‘anti-democratic’ to bar Trump from office. It’s needed to protect democracy | Steven Greenhouse
If it lets an insurrectionist like Trump on the ballot, the supreme court will be putting out a welcome mat to autocracy
Fucker needs to be in prison.Not in office.
The US political system has countless weaknesses, but Trump has shone a light on one of the deepest weaknesses inherent to all democracies — what happens if/when the majority support fascism, authoritarianism, a holy war to genocide X, etc (not the case atm, but Trump having more than 1% of the vote is insanity).
You could argue that moral citizens should take up arms against tyranny, but that appears to be what the majority of MAGA's believe they are doing, and would be anti-democratic, so you're ultimately just hoping that the more moral and ethical are better at slaughtering the least moral and ethical — not much of a failsafe if you ask me.
I guess my point is that I'm not surprised we have no evidence of other intelligent life, and the great filter preventing universal colonisation seems to simply be life itself...
The majority don't support it. Fascists never do. They get by with about 20% of the population directly supporting them, another 10-20% having reservations but being more afraid of leftists removing their cushy position in a stratified society, and a final 10% or so centrists who vote for their side because they voted for the other side last time.
Trump lost the popular vote both times, and only got in once because of a poorly conceived electoral college system. The German Nazi Party got 44% of the vote in 1933--much of that with voter intimidation--and then an old guy with a family title handed him the chancellorship. Mussolini never had a vote in his favor at all--his party led violent protests against the existing Prime Minister, and the King handed the job over to Mussolini.
They don't win at democracy. They win by exploiting holes in the democratic process and the failure of liberalism to make things better for people.
It's like the Paradox of Intolerance. In order to remain free and democratic, we need to disqualify candidates who would take away that freedom and would void our democracy. Not even counting all the myriad of crimes he's been guilty of, just based on his words and his platform, he should be disqualified. We have to be intolerant of intolerance.
Philosopher Rainer Forst resolves the contradiction in philosophical terms by outlining tolerance as a social norm and distinguishing between two notions of "intolerance": the denial of tolerance as a social norm, and the rejection of this denial.
I think viewing tolerance as a social contract perfectly sums up this situation. We allowed Trump to run for president when he had said some crazy shit, but hadn't yet tried to overthrow the government. As soon as that happened, the social contract was off. No do overs.
It's literally following the law.
If it lets an insurrectionist like Trump on the ballot, the supreme court will be putting out a welcome mat to autocracy
And they will be among the first up against the wall if that day comes, you can bet on it. I wonder if they have the slightest shred of self-preservation. If they are more afraid of maga now and not what maga will become, then their self-preservation instinct is badly flawed. We'll see.
Roberts doesn't. His response to the American people who were angry about the Dobbs abortion decision was that they should shut up and listen to the court's authority.
It's in the constitution! That sacred document that was divinely inspired. Granted it's an amendment so it wasn't part of Jefferson's initial creation, but it's been in there for 150 years.
How dare you suggest the Constitution was written by a person! It was written by God himself!
Yeah but the vibe of it all.
That's a terrible argument against it.
If there's a bad vibe to eliminating a candidate for following laws that were explicitly written down 150 years ago to stop such a candidate, then what kind of vibe does it give off if we flat out ignore that same law?
If we allow ourselves to be swayed by the idea that taking away a very specific privilege from a person gives off a bad vibe, then we'd be undermining our entire justice system and the very concept of law itself.
The law is unambiguous, and we must follow it. If we don't, then the rule of law truly has no meaning.
What happened to his hand and why has no one mentioned this? Are those burns or what?
Actually someone else in this thread mentions how it looks like secondary syphilis.
Grabbed one too many pussies eh?
Definitely seems like he hurt himself gripping something. Caught a falling knife would make sense if he ate anything that required cutting. Maybe held a frozen railing and lost skin?
It's from digging his nails in with a clenched fist.
Looks like he had to reposition a few times, given the numerous ruts.
It's the same group of dopes who have latched onto the ignorant "we're not a democracy, were a constitutional republic!" who are now arguing that disqualifying candidates that the cotus disqualifies is denying them their right to vote for whom they want.
Always tell those people that we are a federal presidential constitutional republic or fpcr for short. Then tell them that is a form of democracy.
I've debated it plenty, it appears they either cannot grasp the difference between a direct democracy and a representative democracy. I've even had plenty try to argue that directly electing the president (effectively a representative for the whole US on the world stage) would make us a democracy and no longer a representative democracy. lol
If we literally follow the Constitution, Trump is already barred from office & needs Congress to vote to remove that disability.
He's not qualified. Pretty simple . Just like any 34 year old.
I love Steven Greenhouse. 'Beaten down worked up' set the groundwork for many discussions I had with my coworkers on worker rights. Also, he warns us against Niki Haley and her high heels.
With that being said I think she is a larger threat to labor rights than any other candidate for the GOP. Trump being the largest threat to democracy.
Unfortunately, I think Project 2025 is the equalizer when it comes to who is worst and why. As long as the Republicans are dead set on forming a christofascist dictatorship it may not matter which Republican dictator we hypothetically get for domestic issues. And I'm not confident that any of them would be better on international issues either.
Agreed, if only Republicans could be grifted into progressive politics.
If you're not worried about the 2025 stuff, look at the Supreme Court, how little it took to quickly and fundamentally shift that to a broken body with absolutely zero integrity - now times that dangerous transition with every single aspect of government.
Your relatives who vote for trump are literally voting for the end of American democracy. They've had there's, they are going to die sometime soon, and they are tossing a match over their shoulders into the gasoline soaked mass they created behind them.
Imagine leaving the White House like Trump did, and to live in a place where this orange guy is a serious contender to occupy the presidency once again after four years.
Maybe this democracy is not worthy of protection. With all due respect, American democracy may need way more than stopping Trump's second term.
That's not much of a solution, either. Don't like what American democracy is doing now? Just wait until it doesn't care about having pretenses to invade other countries, or even use nuclear weapons.
Sure as hell I will not try to fix the thing. It's sad, but maybe Americans will have to do it to truly learn something this time. It's not like the rest of the world feels safe with America's attitudes towards war anyway.
People vote for him to see what happens. Show them what happens.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Right now, however, I worry that the supreme court’s rightwing supermajority, in its anticipated rush to prohibit states from kicking Donald Trump off the ballot, will turn the constitution into a suicide pact.
When the court considers that case, the six conservative justices might focus on their concerns about infuriating rightwing voters, their political soulmates, if they rule that the constitution requires that Trump be disqualified as an insurrectionist.
He unarguably gave “aid or comfort” to the January 6 assault on the Capitol, which was essentially a coup attempt that sought to prevent the rightfully elected president, Joe Biden, from taking office.
If the supreme court’s six rightwing justices allow Trump to stay on the ballot, they can do so only by turning their backs on the methods of constitutional interpretation that they have repeatedly trumpeted: textualism and originalism.
But the two constitutional scholars who led the way in arguing that Trump should be disqualified – William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen – are highly regarded conservative members of the Federalist Society.
In decades past, the US supreme court did not shrink from issuing decisions that offended and angered millions of Americans, whether it was enraging many white southerners by barring school segregation in Brown v Board of Education, or infuriating millions of women by overturning Roe v Wade, or angering a wide swath of Democrats by cutting short the vote count to deliver victory to George W Bush over Al Gore.
The original article contains 1,569 words, the summary contains 242 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Preach.
The title of this post is dumb. How about...get more voters. I don't want to hear the bitching when the other side tries it.
I'm getting to a point with liberals.
Its literally anti-democratic. I dunno what definitions of democracy anyone here is using, but its a system by which people decide via votes.
It's not anti-democratic to force candidates to abide by existing law.
For example: AOC couldn't run in 2020 because the Constitution states you have to be 35 to be President and she would not have been old enough.
That's not anti-democratic, that's the "you must be this tall to ride this ride" rule.
For the same reason, removing an insurrectionist from the ballot is not anti-democratic. They've proven they can't be trusted and so aren't qualified for office, and the 14th Amendment disqualifies them.
You vote for representatives that make laws on your behalf. Everyone has to follow those laws. If you are a president and also a traitor, you will run afoul of those laws. If the law says you may not run for president if you break it, then that is what it is. Democracies can have laws and still be democracies.