I suspect (though I'm way of armchair psychoanalysing people online) that it's due to the cognitive dissonance of being a GOP supporter and it being really obvious that the GOP are evil. Not unlike people who believe themselves when they say "I'm not racist, but...", I guess.
I think I'd be more general about it.
You don't think what Phoenixmgs wrote is the direct equivalent to the routine GOP $CANDIDATE is our last hope claims? The GOP perennially claims we're on the edge of collapse that can only be prevented if they win, Dems have just started taking up the same ploy. In both cases, it's to try to drive their voters to the polls with fear.
When this inevitably hits court, it's probably going to be argued on due process grounds. Who makes the determination if someone is ineligible under 14A, and under what standards are they supposed to do that? It's an important question because when it was written they were thinking about public office holders in a rebel faction, no questions of fact involved. And every application of 14A section 3 I've been able to look up has either involved a Confederate official or someone convicted in criminal court for having done the thing disqualifying him.
You don't have to vote for either of them though. You'd really have to do a full list of shit both parties have done to actually come to the conclusion on who is worst honestly. The democrats put in a lawsuit to stop ranked choice voting in DC because they literally said it was too confusing for black people.
He hasn't been convicted of the crime so he's not, currently, an insurrectionist.
If there's only 2 parties and they only ever select their candidates, how much of a democracy is it? The other candidates followed the rules to be on the ballot.
Being for like every progressive policy is places like Denmark and Sweden is disregarding progressive ideals? I literally say both sides fear monger all the time and I've asked for everyone to stop acting like the sky is gonna fall if the other side wins an election.
I would be shocked if SCOTUS did not demand criminal conviction (and/or maybe Congressional impeachment) to uphold someone being barred office under the 14th Amendment insurrection clause. Not least because it's by some way the most reasonable way to do it. If we take the basic principle that the right to vote and stand for office is fundamental to a democracy, it demands a high bar to remove from someone.
TIL Al Capone was not actually a gangster, smuggler, murderer etc.
Hmm, well you say you do, and then do nothing but trash progressive ideals.
Okay, so what are you going to do about it?
And that's still not on a par with what Trump attempted over the election. After all, that's actually two years of investigation by an independent counsel, and the Democrats refrained from an impeachment at the end. It is reasonably comparable to the Hillary Clinton email farrago, and the long-winded investigation into Hunter Biden (still ongoing) being milked for everything it's worth. Plus you're still omitting the serious concerns over obstruction of justice - contextually remembering of course that the Republicans thought obstruction of justice sufficient to send Bill Clinton to an impeachment trial in the 90s.
Yes, as evidenced by this forum, you do disregard a lot of progressive ideals. You seem to be a social conservative.
Innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not the one voting for democrats or republicans, that's what I do about it.
I'm sure that works out wonderfully for you, and makes such a huge difference. The Democrats and Republicans must be shaking in their boots.
Very efficient way of demonstrating that you don't understand statistics, I'll grant you that. Also, data point of 1 vs data point of 100?
If a man tells me he's going to act like a despot I'm going to believe him. Essentially proof by mortification. +calling political opponents "vermin" and insulting someone for being assaulted is a pretty good sign of a bad person.
I can only do what I can do.
As I said earlier:
Then say Al Capone was innocent. And mean it.
Unless it's republican, in which case you'll endlessly leap to its defence, no matter how hopelessly destructive it is.
A) They didn't just dig dirt. Digging dirt is normal. Some dirt was real. The majority of it was outright fabricated. Even that's not that unusual for politics. But then that fabricated info was handed off through a half-dozen parties to make its way, laundered, back into the hands of US intelligence (some of whom knew it was paid for by Democrats but kept their mouths shut) to justify getting warrants to have the FBI spy on the opposing campaign. That's not just "digging dirt".
He was legally.
The DNC paid a company to look into connections between Trump and Moscow. That company subcontracted to an independent intelligence agent, with neither the agent nor DNC apparently aware of each other at the time. The DNC terminated the contract before completion, but the agent completed the work and sent it to British and American intelligence himself anyway. There's no evidence the agent fabricated anything, although he certainly included preliminary intel that has never been verified.
I understand that the gross failings of the the Republicans are an intense shame that you have problems processing clearly.
You do know that Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly said in overturning Roe v. Wade that the ruling on gay marriage was now also an error and should be reconsidered, right? Why do you think supporters of gay marriage might have viewed an clearly stated criticism of the constitutionality of gay marriage by a Supreme Court Justice as a threat to gay marriage?
fucking, fucking hell...
It's not a conspiracy, it's genuinely worse than a conspiracy. To have a conspiracy, you need people to organize and agree to take certain actions, actions they'd likely not otherwise take, to reach a particular end. This required no planning or changing of behavior to reach that end, it's just a bunch of people acting in normal self-interest in a system so insulated from oversight that the end result looks like they planned it.
Uh-huh. So you believe he was innocent, then?
And yet, women are losing abortion access rights, trans people are losing legal protections, various groups are losing discrimination protection, workers are losing workplace protections. Rights are being lost across the board-- you're just unaware or dismissive because it doesn't affect you personally.
If a man tells me he's going to act like a despot I'm going to believe him. Essentially proof by mortification. +calling political opponents "vermin" and insulting someone for being assaulted is a pretty good sign of a bad person.
What was that quote by Franz Ferdinand, that someone might jump out of a bush now and shoot him, therefore he wasn't worried about going to Sarajevo?
