Captain_Townsend Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 2 hours ago, fruitvilla said: That is true for aspects of the left too. Critical Theories for example. Indeed. I have always been centrist enough and preferred the days when most were centrist and you could find pragmatism in politics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A'Villan Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 (edited) 4 hours ago, mjmooney said: Adolf Hitler was democratically elected, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that his manifesto quite clearly stated that if he won, he would end democracy. Be careful what you wish for. Godwin's Law invoked. You are skimming over some very important aspects of that era. Hitler was not democratically elected. Reichstag fire (regardless of who you attribute blame of the arson to). Nazi stormtroopers unleashing a wave of violence against opposition political groups. SA and SS monitoring voting. The enabling act. Just a few factors missed. Edited March 15 by A'Villan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post limpid Posted March 16 Administrator Popular Post Share Posted March 16 18 hours ago, LondonLax said: It was not a deal that was done. It was just a case of turning a blind eye because the result of ruling the other way would have lead to a far worse outcome for the US. The constitution is there to ensure that the republic persists. It is not there to preserve democracy. The tyranny of the masses is a bad thing. It is the job of SCOTUS to be the legislative branch of the republic. Section 14.3 is utterly clear that someone involved in insurrection against the republic is disqualified. It is not for SCOTUS or the people to decide this. It can only be changed by amending the constitution. If Trump is on the ballot and loses, there will still be people claiming it was rigged, etc. They committed insurrection last time. This decision doesn't affect how they will behave. The founders wanted to ensure that anyone acting against the republic was disqualified forever. I think SCOTUS have made things worse, regardless of the next election result. At least if they followed the constitution, history might have looked more kindly on them. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 19 hours ago, fruitvilla said: That is true for aspects of the left too. Critical Theories for example. There does seem to be substantial evidence for a quantity theory of insanity: that is to say, that there is a fixed quantity of madness in our species, which means that where there is a reduction in one aspect of human behaviour, there must be an increase in another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 1 hour ago, limpid said: The constitution is there to ensure that the republic persists. It is not there to preserve democracy. The tyranny of the masses is a bad thing. It is the job of SCOTUS to be the legislative branch of the republic. Section 14.3 is utterly clear that someone involved in insurrection against the republic is disqualified. It is not for SCOTUS or the people to decide this. It can only be changed by amending the constitution. If Trump is on the ballot and loses, there will still be people claiming it was rigged, etc. They committed insurrection last time. This decision doesn't affect how they will behave. The founders wanted to ensure that anyone acting against the republic was disqualified forever. I think SCOTUS have made things worse, regardless of the next election result. At least if they followed the constitution, history might have looked more kindly on them. We have no way of knowing whether they made the right decision or not but I find some logic in their reasoning, being that if they allowed states to decide their own candidates the ultimate solution would be that ‘red’ states only allow ‘red’ candidates and ‘blue’ states would only allow ‘blue’ candidates. That would make the system unworkable, even if that’s what the constitution actually says should happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted March 16 Administrator Share Posted March 16 2 hours ago, LondonLax said: We have no way of knowing whether they made the right decision or not but I find some logic in their reasoning, being that if they allowed states to decide their own candidates the ultimate solution would be that ‘red’ states only allow ‘red’ candidates and ‘blue’ states would only allow ‘blue’ candidates. That would make the system unworkable, even if that’s what the constitution actually says should happen. That would be fair, but only if the candidates are disqualified according to the constitution. Many people already are. I am disqualified and cannot be on a US presidential ballot. If people are hoping that everything will be fine this time, even with the evidence of the last election's aftermath, then I don't know what to say. In my opinion, if you allow the insurrectionist to get to a vote, he'll be much more of a problem, win or lose, than not letting him get to the vote at all. They could have chosen to adjudicate on this case without setting precedent and highlighted that this part of constitution needs clarifying by the lawmakers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 7 minutes ago, limpid said: That would be fair, but only if the candidates are disqualified according to the constitution. Many people already are. I am disqualified and cannot be on a US presidential ballot. If people are hoping that everything will be fine this time, even with the evidence of the last election's aftermath, then I don't know what to say. In my opinion, if you allow the insurrectionist to get to a vote, he'll be much more of a problem, win or lose, than not letting him get to the vote at all. They could have chosen to adjudicate on this case without setting precedent and highlighted that this part of constitution needs clarifying by the lawmakers. I think there is a question of working in an ideal world vs working with the world we live in. I am pretty confident that Republicans would find reasons to disqualify candidates from standing in states where they control the legislature if the precedent is set with Trump. As a general principle I think it is better to leave it to the people to decide their choices for representation than give the power to the legislature. Even on the specific one off decision about Trump, I think it is better to let him face the electorate when he has such a large proportion of the electorate supporting him. Taking the vote away from half the country and essentially making the US a one party state would cause irreparable damage to the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted March 16 Administrator Share Posted March 16 8 minutes ago, LondonLax said: I think there is a question of working in an ideal world vs working with the world we live in. I am pretty confident that Republicans would find reasons to disqualify candidates from standing in states where they control the legislature if the precedent is set with Trump. As a general principle I think it is better to leave it to the people to decide their choices for representation than give the power to the legislature. Which was why they have the option of making a decision without setting precedent. If everything should be decided by the people, why have separation of powers? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 1 hour ago, limpid said: Which was why they have the option of making a decision without setting precedent. If everything should be decided by the people, why have separation of powers? It was fully within their power as the legislative branch of government essentially bar the Republican candidate but they unanimously decided it was not the way they wanted to go with it. In a robotic ‘letter of the law’ interpretation he would be barred but on a ‘is that really what we want?’ interpretation all 9 voted to let it go. This is also how I would have judged it myself and argued as much before the decision was handed down. I take it you would have ruled differently if you were in their position. I guess we will never know which would have led to the better outcome for US society in the long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 1 hour ago, LondonLax said: It was fully within their power as the legislative branch of government essentially bar the Republican candidate but they unanimously decided it was not the way they wanted to go with it. In a robotic ‘letter of the law’ interpretation he would be barred but on a ‘is that really what we want?’ interpretation all 9 voted to let it go. This is also how I would have judged it myself and argued as much before the decision was handed down. I take it you would have ruled differently if you were in their position. I guess we will never know which would have led to the better outcome for US society in the long term. Just a question I’m intrigued about given your view on the above. At the height of Schwarzenegger popularity and also his interest in politics, if he had created a similar base like Trump would’ve had the same argument as above where the rule would be against a foreign national? Or a modern day American who has a massive fan base who would follow her to the ends of the earth in Taylor Swift who would be 34 years old at the time of the election but if her fans (assume enough voting Americans) wanted her to be President but she falls foul of the age requirement would say ignore the constitution and let the people vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 1 hour ago, nick76 said: Just a question I’m intrigued about given your view on the above. At the height of Schwarzenegger popularity and also his interest in politics, if he had created a similar base like Trump would’ve had the same argument as above where the rule would be against a foreign national? Or a modern day American who has a massive fan base who would follow her to the ends of the earth in Taylor Swift who would be 34 years old at the time of the election but if her fans (assume enough voting Americans) wanted her to be President but she falls foul of the age requirement would say ignore the constitution and let the people vote? I think if they were popular enough and serious about it then it would be possible to make it happen so that the people get who they want to represent them, either by an amendment or some other interpretation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 3 minutes ago, LondonLax said: I think if they were popular enough and serious about it then it would be possible to make it happen so that the people get who they want to represent them, either by an amendment or some other interpretation. Issue being the opposition party wouldn’t agree to pass the amendment despite the popularity of the nation, so the people wouldn’t get to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 Just now, nick76 said: Issue being the opposition party wouldn’t agree to pass the amendment despite the popularity of the nation, so the people wouldn’t get to decide. I have a scenario for you as well. The ‘Umbrella Movement’ kicked off in Hong Kong because the Chinese government decreed that whilst the Hong Kong people were allowed to vote for their leader they were only allowed to vote once the candidates were vetted and any that didn’t meet the criteria of the communist party were struck off the list. Potentially you also think the people of Hong Kong were wrong to protest against their preferred candidate being struck off for not meeting the requirements to stand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 9 minutes ago, LondonLax said: I have a scenario for you as well. The ‘Umbrella Movement’ kicked off in Hong Kong because the Chinese government decreed that whilst the Hong Kong people were allowed to vote for their leader they were only allowed to vote once the candidates were vetted and any that didn’t meet the criteria of the communist party were struck off the list. Potentially you also think the people of Hong Kong were wrong to protest against their preferred candidate being struck off for not meeting the requirements to stand? I completely agree, both ways are fraught with issues imo. We could go further that Trump didn’t actually win the popular vote of the Americans in 2016, Clinton did so the people didn’t decide. Yes,it was the electoral college way of doing it but that isn’t letting the people decide either. Adding to that, not all Americans can vote like Puerto Ricans…there are millions in these various territories that can’t vote for a President despite being American citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 13 hours ago, nick76 said: Just a question I’m intrigued about given your view on the above. At the height of Schwarzenegger popularity and also his interest in politics, if he had created a similar base like Trump would’ve had the same argument as above where the rule would be against a foreign national? Or a modern day American who has a massive fan base who would follow her to the ends of the earth in Taylor Swift who would be 34 years old at the time of the election but if her fans (assume enough voting Americans) wanted her to be President but she falls foul of the age requirement would say ignore the constitution and let the people vote? This exact argument played out for real in this election cycle. A naturalised citizen wanted to run, but ultimately failed to get on the ballot as he was considered constitutionally ineligible. His legal argument was actually quite well thought through and persuasive (imo), but I can see why he was ultimately rejected. The example Quote COLUMBIA — A federal judge denied a request by a left-wing pundit born in Istanbul to Turkish parents to appear on the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary ballot, rejecting Cenk Uygur's argument that the 14th Amendment overrode the natural-born-citizen clause of the Constitution. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 On 15/03/2024 at 17:56, Captain_Townsend said: Agree 100%, social media seems to have driven traditional Conservative parties absolutely insane! Left and Right both gone insane it appears when compared to "traditional" ie 1990/2000s. I still do wonder how much of that is really true though. It's certainly true for the loudest and on social media. I think there are still lots of sensible people still who are silent. Liberal democracy means tolerance for others views however much you disagree with them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 10 minutes ago, CVByrne said: Left and Right both gone insane it appears when compared to "traditional" ie 1990/2000s. I still do wonder how much of that is really true though. It's certainly true for the loudest and on social media. I think there are still lots of sensible people still who are silent. Liberal democracy means tolerance for others views however much you disagree with them. What is the extreme left? I hear this about both sides going extreme but I mainly see the Tories and Farage and now Trump and the MAGA lunatics. What are the extreme left doing? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 20 hours ago, limpid said: If Trump is on the ballot and loses, there will still be people claiming it was rigged, etc. They committed insurrection last time. This decision doesn't affect how they will behave. The founders wanted to ensure that anyone acting against the republic was disqualified forever. It wasn't a real insurrection. It was a bunch the the lunatic mob incited by Trumps lies to essentially riot. Excluding Trump from this election would be incredibly damaging for the US. Half the population or so want him as president and the division that barring him from running would do is more significant than him winning and being barred by the two term limits from running again in 4 years time. While if he loses to Biden a 2bd time then the Republican party will surely stop tying to get him elected having lost twice and barely winning the original time. Either way the future needs to be mending the wounds not further division Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 Just now, DCJonah said: What is the extreme left? I hear this about both sides going extreme but I mainly see the Tories and Farage and now Trump and the MAGA lunatics. What are the extreme left doing? The Universities in the US. The driving of identity politics. Trans in womens sports. Coordinated cancel culture. DEI hiring based on race. You find plenty of extremes in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post bickster Posted March 17 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted March 17 47 minutes ago, CVByrne said: It wasn't a real insurrection. It was a bunch the the lunatic mob incited by Trumps lies to essentially riot. What utter nonsense. A group of people stormed the seat of government and some of them were clearly looking for Pence and Pelosi. There were less people involved and less people injured in the Storming of the WInter Palace. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts