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.
I think the right-leaning justices know pretty well that their positions are safe. They’re already benefiting immensely from corruption. When democracy dies and they have no obligation to the law, they’ll do whatever it takes to enrich themselves further.
Well, when democracy dies they’re not needed at all. Not being necessary is a dangerous position to be in. People who aren’t necessary are easily eliminated. And of course, there’s no incentive to pay off people who aren’t necessary.
I say if they have an ounce of self-reflection, they would know this is true and it would make them nervous. But you’re right, they probably don’t.
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.
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.
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
Wow, I was surprised to find out that you are right, it really does. Not in the same quantities as the examples I can find, however.
