Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Phoenixmgs]

The SCOTUS were likely to overturn it because it would be politically dangerous to allow it. There's no solid or unambiguous federal law that prevents states barring candidates for state primaries-- I notice you've been unable to cite one.

And of course, you also claimed that states can't rule on cases arising from federal law. Which has now been comprehensively shown to be bullshit.

States can have their own rules for how one gets on a ballot, but they just can't bar candidates from the ballot just because they don't like them, that kinda falls under the constitution...

You're take that it's likely that SCOTUS will allow states to determine for themselves is even more bullshit.

Like Silvanus said, states have pretty broad authority over how they run their elections, including ballot access. Which presents a reasonable argument to remove Trump from the general election ballot being a valid thing a state can do (for the same reason they don't have to include every third party candidate). Since primaries are private organizations borrowing state election infrastructure to decide who to back, it's arguable that the state might have less say so about who's on the ballot for those.

States do have broad authority to set how one gets on the ballot and as long as someone follows those rules, they get on the ballot. States can't deny people to get on the ballot that follow those rules just because.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The facts of turnout and vote distribution don't magically change if you wish it so. You said we need to take these factors into consideration, and then once you realise how unsupportive they are for your own approach, suddenly they don't matter?

we're talking about a future election and what would happen- what information would be gained- should people vote a certain way

on the backdrop of a discussion of NOVELTY of all things

which is why your posts on this matter are stupid enough to inspire awe.

 

[Silvanus]

States can have their own rules for how one gets on a ballot, but they just can't bar candidates from the ballot just because they don't like them, that kinda falls under the constitution...

But it wasn't "just because they don't like them", was it? It was because of insurrection. And the constitution very much does speak on that.

You're take that it's likely that SCOTUS will allow states to determine for themselves is even more bullshit.

....i never said that. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite.

 

[Silvanus]

we're talking about a future election and what would happen- what information would be gained- should people vote a certain way

Well, not quite: you're the one who started talking about the value of messages and information in an election defeat.

I was initially just pointing out the absurdity of recasting a continuation of the same government as 'novel'.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Well, not quite: you're the one who started talking about the value of messages and information in an election defeat.

Specifically about Keith losing.

I was initially just pointing out the absurdity of recasting a continuation of the same government as 'novel'.

Which would also be specifically about Keith losing. The utter collapse of Blairite "Labour" would be novel.

 

[Silvanus]

Which would also be specifically about Keith losing. The utter collapse of Blairite "Labour" would be novel.

As would the utter collapse of the Conservatives. And they're a great deal closer to that eventuality than Labour right now.

But yes, the third defeat in a row for a Labour manifesto promising nationalisation-- at the hands of a hard-right incumbent-- would indeed send a message. That message categorically would not be to appeal harder to a minuscule constituency of British socialists, who simply won't believe you even when you pledge what they want.

Yours is a recipe to lurch ever further to the right.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

But it wasn't "just because they don't like them", was it? It was because of insurrection. And the constitution very much does speak on that.



....i never said that. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite.

Then states would be defining what an insurrection is and they can't do that.

If the Supreme Court were to rule, they could easily rule that states may make their own determinations.

 

[Silvanus]

Then states would be defining what an insurrection is and they can't do that.

Well no, they wouldn't need to define it. They could just use the definition.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Hillary crawled out of her hole to remind everyone why she lost her big election to Donald Trump of all people.



Literally the same interview "Think about the future, you fucking moron kids who hate genocide."

 

[Seanchaidh]

As would the utter collapse of the Conservatives. And they're a great deal closer to that eventuality than Labour right now.

Are they, though?

In any case, there is little further point in engaging the rest of your oversimplification.

 

[Silvanus]

In any case, there is little further point in engaging the rest of your oversimplification.

My oversimplification! Your reading of this has been utterly surface-level, displaying that peculiar and arrogant Americentrism that leads commentators to expound confidently on every other country's politics without ever bothering to look much into them. You don't actually have any real understanding of where British political discourse is, and are just insisting that it must be in such a place as to reinforce what you already want to do.

"You must account for turnout and smaller party voteshare", you said, without any actual knowledge of those two factors and zero awareness of how completely unhelpful they are to your case. Then suddenly-- they don't matter any more!

 

[Schadrach]

Then states would be defining what an insurrection is and they can't do that.

The Legal Definitions of “Insurrection” and “Rebellion” and Their Historical Context in the United States - Hepworth Legal | Attorneys at Law

The Legal Definitions of “Insurrection” and “Rebellion” and Their Historical Context in the United States Understanding Insurrection and Rebellion In the fabric of American history, terms like “insurrection” and “rebellion” carry profound legal and historical weight. They are not merely synonyms...

www.hepworthlegal.com

 

[Gergar12]

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

We need more economic nationalism in the US.

Every employer on there is like no one wants to work, help us, gib cheap labor.

Piss off, you guys want the US to rob the American worker blinded. Soon they will pay every position 10 cents an hour.

 

[Trunkage]

The Legal Definitions of “Insurrection” and “Rebellion” and Their Historical Context in the United States - Hepworth Legal | Attorneys at Law

The Legal Definitions of “Insurrection” and “Rebellion” and Their Historical Context in the United States Understanding Insurrection and Rebellion In the fabric of American history, terms like “insurrection” and “rebellion” carry profound legal and historical weight. They are not merely synonyms...

www.hepworthlegal.com

I'm really disliking how some people are pretending that insurrection or rebellion is somehow a new word recently made up that has not had any case work associated with it

 

[Schadrach]

I'm really disliking how some people are pretending that insurrection or rebellion is somehow a new word recently made up that has not had any case work associated with it

To be fair, the primary example they have to point to is the Civil War which is not the same general category of what happened as Jan 6. As far as being disqualified by section 3, every case of it happening so far has either been a public official of the Confederacy or someone criminally convicted of a relevant crime (including one case of someone convicted regarding Jan 6).

 

[Seanchaidh]

 

[Seanchaidh]

My oversimplification!

Yes, your oversimplification.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, your oversimplification.

Rrright, but I've given much more detail than you. The closest you got was to vaguely point to turnout and smaller party voteshare, which you promptly stopped talking about after you were given the numbers.

Let's be honest, you're not really a 'details' guy on this board. You're a 'tweet or a condescending snipe' guy.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Rrright, but I've given much more detail than you.

Irrelevant detail is your forte. "But these past elections don't support the novelty of something different happening in a future election"

 

[Silvanus]

Irrelevant detail is your forte. "But these past elections don't support the novelty of something different happening in a future election"

One wonders why you brought up those factors, then, if you were just going to insist they're irrelevant. Anyway, digress.

So: if your novel scenario isn't based on any existing trends or factors, what exactly is it based on? Dreams and wishes? Why should we credit it at all if its just hopeful speculation?