08 Nov 22
@kevcvs57 saidNo judge upheld Trump's claims. For that reason, I am fine with him not being president.
Judges decide that and they decided that in at least 60 cases that the insurrectionist lawyers raised in bad faith.
Do you really believe that there is no such condition as substantiated in relation to evidence.
No judge substantiated Stacey Abrams claim in the last Georgia election. She is not governor of Georgia for that reason.
But you're suggesting another level of unsubstantiated. You are suggesting that not only did Trump lose, but his claims are so badly unsubstantiated that he can not run for office in the future.
If that is not what you are suggesting, then are you also saying that Stacey Abrams and Hillary Clinton should be disqualified? If they are not to be disqualified, then you are suggesting some OTHER process that distinguishes "unsubstantiated" from "really, really unsubstantiated".
08 Nov 22
@techsouth saidNo Stacy Abrams is not Georgia governor but she is entitled to bring a case if she thinks she has one.
No judge upheld Trump's claims. For that reason, I am fine with him not being president.
No judge substantiated Stacey Abrams claim in the last Georgia election. She is not governor of Georgia for that reason.
But you're suggesting another level of unsubstantiated. You are suggesting that not only did Trump lose, but his claims are so badly unsubstantiated that h ...[text shortened]... sting some OTHER process that distinguishes "unsubstantiated" from "really, really unsubstantiated".
I am curious about the vision here.
Let's say I run for office and lose.
What if I am at a bar with someone and he secretly records me saying I think there was cheating? Would a secretly recorded audio be enough evidence to disqualify me from running for office in all future elections?
Edit: I can see how this is an attractive idea to prevent fascism.
08 Nov 22
@JJ-Adams
You really need to change your Alziemers med, it not working.
Do you really think we are impressed by your incredible leap of logic?
There was REAL evidence worth impeaching BOTH TIMES but you know good and well the spineless balless senate was WAY too afraid of consequences going against their god king so the voted not to fully impeach but he WAS impeached TWICE and there is NOTHING you can do or say that will change that.
Like #1, WE NEED A FAVOR THOUGH, where Zelensky was denied military help for MONTHS that was already authorized by congress, like near a half BILLION in military aid. All Z had to do was just ANNOUNCE a fraud case against the Biden's,. no matter fake or real. That is using the power of the presidency for PERSONAL GAIN, which Trump figured would help him in his re-election.
If you think otherwise, give us your best shot.
You zombies really want to rewrite history and the adults in the room will not let that happen.
How does it feel to be a cult member who can no longer think for yourself?
If they told you Vallhalla is waiting if you just jump off this cliff, you would probably do it.
08 Nov 22
@techsouth saidI never suggested any such thing. I did point out how disingenuous your post was in claiming the "Democrats" or "party in power" supported such a thing.
Two people living in the same area. Neither have violated the law. You are suggesting that one be disqualified from public office and the other not. That fulfills the definition of someone having "legal rights" stripped away. Any disagreement is just gaslighting.
How do you envision that happening? Do we pass a special law about the 2020 presidential election (of co ...[text shortened]... omeone DOES cheat in an election? Are we really staving off fascism by making it illegal to say so?
You're dodging now and should just admit your post was incorrect.
08 Nov 22
@kevcvs57 saidThat's not really a question anyone is raising or disagreeing with.
No Stacy Abrams is not Georgia governor but she is entitled to bring a case if she thinks she has one.
What the OP is suggesting is kind of leads to something like playing baseball without umpires.
Certainly most base running plays in baseball are easy to determine because the runner is either safe by a wide margin or out by a wide margin. The umpire call is a mere formality that no one really needs to think about.
But the rules require a clear definition of what is "out" and what is "safe" (sorry if not everyone knows baseball rules, but imagine any other sport). And for even easy calls, but especially for close calls, there needs to be an umpire to make the call and declare the runner "safe" or "out".
This whole thread is premised on the idea that Trump is "out" by such a wide margin that we have no need to discuss umpires and no need to even concern ourselves with clearly articulating the rules.
But that can't function in the real world. For Trump to be disqualified, there needs to be an "umpire" that is assigned to make such calls. And that "umpire" needs to be appointed by someone. Realistically that can only be done by those currently in power.
Even if Trump is "out" by a wide margin, many of the spectators watching are going to say, "well Trump is 'out', why isn't Hillary Clinton also 'out'?".
Many of the supporters of this idea aren't trouble by any of this as if we're just going to peacefully coexist with all such decisions being too obvious to dispute. The only thing that is obvious to me is that such a plan is a recipe for granting unprecedented power to the party in office that raises far more concern than it would for a so called "election denier" to run for office.
08 Nov 22
@techsouth saidI think the vision was laid out pretty clearly in the OP. Potential candidates for office : here are the election rules. Here are the options for legal disputes and appeals. Now, as a qualification to running for public office, please check this box saying you agree to these rules and will accept the election outcome, whether favorable or not. No one cares what you whisper to a buddy at the bar, but if you can't agree to the rules of elections then don't run for office.
I am curious about the vision here.
Let's say I run for office and lose.
What if I am at a bar with someone and he secretly records me saying I think there was cheating? Would a secretly recorded audio be enough evidence to disqualify me from running for office in all future elections?
Edit: I can see how this is an attractive idea to prevent fascism.
08 Nov 22
@no1marauder saidHere is what I said: But it does seem like Democrats are creeping slowly in that direction.
I never suggested any such thing. I did point out how disingenuous your post was in claiming the "Democrats" or "party in power" supported such a thing.
You're dodging now and should just admit your post was incorrect.
Sorry if I lack precision, but the OP in this thread has 7 likes. And social media as well is the press is full of left leaning pundits supporting this idea. You asked if someone in power was supporting this idea. I did a 5 second google search and found that the idea has fairly broad support, but I did not do a rigorous analysis of exactly who is and is not supporting it.
I doubt I'll find that Joe Biden is on record supporting this idea, because his handlers are too smart to let that happen. But with the breadth of support I am seeing, I'd be surprised if I could not find fairly high level support for this idea.
But since this requires work, I put this question before you first. Do you feel like it would be a challenge for me to find examples?
You did not initially say "Democrats" in your question. You said someone in a "position of power", which is arguable could be an influential journalist or something other than a politician.
There are around 275 Democratic members of congress (senate and house) plus many high level state office holders. What are the odds that none of them support this idea? I haven't looked yet, so I might be surprised to find none. But before I spend my time looking, I'd like you to say whether you think it will be a challenge to find one or not.
I will also posit that you will not be able to find any of these Democrats who publicly disavow this idea.
And I'll restate another point. You like this idea and think it is a good idea, but you are defending the idea as okay because no one with real power is bad enough to agree with you? You may turn out to be right and I won't be able to find a congressmen that publicly holds this position, but if that's your way of winning this little side argument, doesn't that say the OP is a bad idea?
I mean, really. You think this idea is defendable because it's so bad that no prominent Democrats agree with it? Really?
08 Nov 22
@wildgrass saidNo one cares what I whisper in a bar? Sorry for my confusion. Was that obvious to everyone else in the USA other than me before you helpfully filled me in? All 329,999,999 saw that as so obvious that we would not even need to write it down, and I was the only one that worried that rules might be twisted to fit a political agenda? Silly me.
I think the vision was laid out pretty clearly in the OP. Potential candidates for office : here are the election rules. Here are the options for legal disputes and appeals. Now, as a qualification to running for public office, please check this box saying you agree to these rules and will accept the election outcome, whether favorable or not. No one cares what you whisper to a buddy at the bar, but if you can't agree to the rules of elections then don't run for office.
Also, since no one has signed such a document yet, how is this to be applied retroactively?
And how is Trump disqualified but Abrams and Hillary not?
Are all those so obvious to all 329,999,999 Americans except me that we don't even need to write down the rule?
@techsouth saidLet's apply it proactively then. Politicians: Agree to rules and accept outcomes, so we avoid the pearl clutching about the end of democracy as we know it.
No one cares what I whisper in a bar? Sorry for my confusion. Was that obvious to everyone else in the USA other than me before you helpfully filled me in? All 329,999,999 saw that as so obvious that we would not even need to write it down, and I was the only one that worried that rules might be twisted to fit a political agenda? Silly me.
Also, since no one has sign ...[text shortened]... se so obvious to all 329,999,999 Americans except me that we don't even need to write down the rule?
Stop it with the Russian interference.
Stop it with the bamboo ballots.
Stop it with the machine tampering.
Stop encouraging supporters to storm capitals.
It's all laid out. Clearly. Opportunities for legal challenge exist. Now that we've done that, and you lost, concede gracefully and crawl over to complain at your favorite local pub.
Stop whining, election losers. You're ruining it for the rest of us.
08 Nov 22
@wildgrass saidAt the very least, you'd have to apply it proactively and create rules that are very precise.
Let's apply it proactively then. Politicians: Agree to rules and accept outcomes, so we avoid the pearl clutching about the end of democracy as we know it.
Stop it with the Russian interference.
Stop it with the bamboo ballots.
Stop it with the machine tampering.
Stop encouraging supporters to storm capitals.
It's all laid out. Clearly. Opportunities for legal chal ...[text shortened]... at your favorite local pub.
Stop whining, election losers. You're ruining it for the rest of us.
How does this play out if implemented in places such as Venezuela where even the courts are packed beyond hope?
At some point the country can be so far lost that such a law would help serve to entrench the corrupt.
08 Nov 22
@techsouth saidSure I'm not trying to reduce entrenched political systems.
At the very least, you'd have to apply it proactively and create rules that are very precise.
How does this play out if implemented in places such as Venezuela where even the courts are packed beyond hope?
At some point the country can be so far lost that such a law would help serve to entrench the corrupt.
This rule would limit the losers from continuing to proclaim victory after losing. Election integrity would be maintained. Less ink would be wasted on absurd claims of fraud, rigging and general denialism.
@techsouth saidThe 'denier' gambit is being overused. Libs deny inflation for god sakes. They deny problems at the Border. Denial is all over, so it really does not add energy to any discussion. It is prevalent, it is a wash.
That's not really a question anyone is raising or disagreeing with.
What the OP is suggesting is kind of leads to something like playing baseball without umpires.
Certainly most base running plays in baseball are easy to determine because the runner is either safe by a wide margin or out by a wide margin. The umpire call is a mere formality that no one really needs ...[text shortened]... fice that raises far more concern than it would for a so called "election denier" to run for office.
08 Nov 22
@averagejoe1 saidPlease provide references. I would love to hear about the libs who deny inflation.
The 'denier' gambit is being overused. Libs deny inflation for god sakes. They deny problems at the Border. Denial is all over, so it really does not add energy to any discussion. It is prevalent, it is a wash.