Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
One of their arguments is that allowing states to decide who can be on the ballot might nullify the votes of millions, in direct contradiction to the intention of the electoral process.
But...let's be honest here, Trump engaged in insurrection. His own legal arguments in his other cases acknowledge this. Americans shouldn't want to vote for an insurrectionist in the first place, but when they do, they shouldn't have the option. That's not anti-democratic. In fact, the entire point of disenfranchising people willing to vote for someone that would overthrow the government is to prevent the government from being overthrown.
In a strict legal sense, I understand the argument and it's the right one. Pragmatically though, this is a prime example of principled liberalism making way for a dictatorship.
When was Trump tried for insurrection ? I must have missed where a court determined that
Your head is buried so, so far in the sand that it’s started to compress into glass
I get facts always confuse people but there is no conviction for insurrection and the fbi didn’t find it either.
It’s the skree of the left that there was an insurrection. The facts don’t match that theory
Ahh that's the thing! He hasn't been. But, if not for Jan 6, why is his legal team arguing for presidential immunity, or for Joe Biden to murder Trump with no consequences?
If he didn't do something egregiously illegal for which no American should be able to vote for him for the rest of eternity, then why is he wasting so much legal energy?
Because he's being railroaded?
If you were accused of murdering someone, would you not mount a defense, using any possible approach to prevent being executed for a crime you didn't commit?
If you were to accuse me of a crime I didn't commit, I wouldn't need to argue that I should be able to commit that crime in any capacity.
Why is he mounting a defense again a false accusation ?
If the allegation were false, he could sue for defamation, but he isn't, because it's not false
Trump has not been convicted. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Conviction is not a requirement for barring a candidate for office under the 14th amendment, as established by previous precedent:
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
Heres the thing, the Supreme Court establishes precedent. Thats their job.
This is a terrible understanding of the supreme court. Their job isn't "establish precedent". Their job is to interpret the constitution for modern problems, to analyze and interpret past precedent, and to establish precedent where there is none. It is multi-fold, not a simple one item.
There is already precedent for this, and it shows that conviction is not a requirement for taking a candidate off the ballot like this. The supreme court does not have the authority to make a mockery of past precedent and just make up shit as they go like you suggest. The point of precedent is to have a stable and consistent rule of law, meanwhile you guys just want to throw out the things that would hurt your god emperor.
Well yes, they have more than one job. But one of them is establishing precedent. And this was a 9-0 decision, so its not like its just trumps judges.
I don't give a shit that it was 9-0. It was a stupid decision regardless of author.
9-0 sends a clear message.
It is also consistent with many other recent rulings. Congress do your job.
Roe vs wade was overturned because Congress needs to make a law.
Most the recent decisions have been a pushback to Congress
People who don’t get the roles, get upset because their “side” lost but it’s part of the check and balances.
I support abortion but roe was made up fantasy land.
Same thing with states trying to disqualify Trump. It’s not a power they hold.
He did?
Where's the conviction again?
Even the FBI said there was no "insurrection".
When the lefties all barged into congress in 2018, was that an "insurrection"?
What about all the lefties standing, outside politicians houses (which is a clear violation of the law) and yelling "kill them"?
~~You're all a bunch of hypocrites~~ It's hypocritical to use the law when it benefits, but decry it when it doesn't achieve your end goals.
*Where's the conviction again? *
It’s weird to see the democrats jump through hoops trying to stop Trump from running. Now I’ve never been a fan a Trump. I think he did a good job but he isn’t my first pick. Yet I’ll be voting for him in the next election. The democrats have shown they can’t handle letting the people decide