115
Colorado Supreme Court says Trump is ineligible to run again
(www.politico.com)
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 19 Dec 2023
115 points (100.0% liked)
news
23540 readers
795 users here now
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
No, it is more hoping that the rule of law catches up to Trump before the election.
But if you want DeSantis to win, I'm probably not going to be able to convince you otherwise.
"rule of law" Imagine believing in such nonsense. Consider deepthroating a cactus, please and thank you.
😠
I'm going to need you to vote for Trump '24 to help with that.
no one here is voting for trump and no one here wants desantis to win. you're annoying and delusional
But it would be funny. Make the libs see that their beliefs are a lie. Just fucking rub it in their faces.
I mean yeah, shitty right wingers,( yes liberals are right wing) deserve to have their delusions shattered because thats how many of us grew out of that phase.
So yeah, Trump deserves to win for the lulz.
Nah they all deserve guillotines but you wont let that happen so 🤷
You think I have a lot more power than I do.
We think every vote blue redditor enables our scam democracy
I'm voting green or socialist, depending on who's on the ballot.
Rule of law? Dude is walking around giving rallies. It took you dumbasses 2, 3 years? to actually get him sitting in a courtroom. The rule of law would’ve put him in front of a firing squad 48 hours after January 6, but we live in la la land where the instigator of a failed coup led by boat dealers get to play golf while we pay for his security.
Your rule of law is a joke. Your party only wields power when it comes to undermining poor people. Otherwise the democrats would’ve banned the GOP and arrested every single one of their politicians. If you call them as undemocratic terrorists, then where is the rule of law when they get to stand next to you in the halls of power?
Why is it my rule of law? Who gave it to me?
Being pedantic over words you clearly understand because you can’t defend your dogshit positions. Unfortunately you can’t take the Reddit out of the ex-Redditor
What dog shit positions are you protecting on me?
Which side of the brunch debate are you on? It matters deeply.
Hard to say because there's so many...
Failing to protect women
Failing to protect trans people
Building the wall
Kids are still in Cages
Aiding a genocide in Gaza
Stopping the rail strike
Given the sclerotic and partisan nature of the US "rule of law" isn't it irresponsible of them to hope that the courts solve the problem for them instead of trying to run a convincing campaign for their side?
That assumes the legal option is the only one being pursued.
There are tons of posts here calling out the political arguments that inflation is falling and the economy isn't in a recession as political propaganda that may be technically accurate but hide the suffering of common Americans and should therefore be treated as nothing but propaganda to be forgotten.
I'm not sure how that deals with the problem? Joe is deeply unpopular, people don't like him and whether you think it's fair or not people are not enjoying the way things are going right now. Doubling down on "voters feel wrong about how things are going and should vote for this unpopular old man" is not actually pursuing an electoral strategy.
You suggested they were hoping the law would solve this problem, which is more coherent than suggesting that they're trying to campaign by calling everybody who dislikes their candidate (almost 2/3 of voters, last count) wrong over and over.
I suggested it was an option, but not the only one. Others believed that I was suggesting it was the only option.
Well I sure hope democracy isn't on the line. It would be pretty irresponsible to run your campaign this poorly if that was the case.
So don't vote. Let inertia choose the winner.
Voting doesn't affect who wins
Unless you and a few thousand friends are ready to pick up a gun yesterday, yeah. There's nothing you can do to affect whether or not Trump "happens." I know it sucks to feel powerless but you are powerless. That's the point of the way this country was built.
And do you have a thousand friends who will pick up a gun to defend what you believe in?
No I do not, what is the point of the question?
You brought up the threat of violence as a way to protect a political belief since, without the rule of a law, might makes right.
Therefore, if you want to protect your political beliefs, it would seem prudent for you to back up your political beliefs with the threat of violence.
If you are going to ask for an army to defend a political position, I would expect that you should be able to field an army to defend your political position. After all, might makes right, right?
At no point did I say that might makes right. The US empire is extremely mighty, and also deeply evil and corrupt to the very core. What I said is that if you want to actually affect whether or not Trump becomes president, you will need to harness great might to do that. Whether you used that might for evil, such as to install a fascist dictator, or for good, such as to install a communist party, you would need that sort of might.
Voting does not accomplish any goal.
I assure you, I don't want DeSantis nor Trump to win.
Why not? That would definitely own the Libs, wouldn't it?
Something can be funny without it being good or desired, like in a cosmically funny way.
Yeah, President DeSantis would be fucking hilarious.
It would absolutely be funny watching libs spin and steam and blame again instead of ever asking if there's a good reason why people hate Democrats. That doesn't mean it's good, but it's definitely funny to watch y'all twist yourselves in knots trying desperately to ignore reality
No, it will be funny so it is good. It doesn't matter if one side is better than another if both sides are bad. So let the bad happen and hope the next election will bring a communist.
No one here thinks your silly elections will bring anything but suffering. Go ahead and vote for Joe, but don’t come crying if he wins 50 million more votes than the GOP candidate and still loses because of the electoral college.
My silly elections? You think I can organize this shit?
You clearly came here with an expectation about what we think, and what we actually think or say isn't about to dissuade you from that expectation.
I think I don't really understand your perspective here. Are you trying to tell me that because you can't find bad things funny that we can't either, so despite what we clearly say you're telling us actually we think it would be good if Desantis or Trump (or Biden) were president of the United States?
I think we got off on the wrong foot here. I'm not some kind of GOP cheerleader, I'm mostly making a joke about how infuriatingly lucky the GOP is, and part of it is that democrats are controlled opposition.
"rule of law"
Oh you mean imaginary things like the tooth fairy?
Wait hang on I have one better.
The rule of law:
It's taken 80 years but you're planning on it getting him in the next 11 months?
I ain't planning shit.
This is such a stupid bit.