315
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
315 points (96.5% liked)
politics
18909 readers
3558 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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?