354
submitted 4 weeks ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 91 points 4 weeks ago

It's more opportunity to declare fraud. Biden postal service (crippled by Trump) not delivering votes in conservative counties, etc.

[-] qarbone@lemmy.world 44 points 4 weeks ago

I figured it was an attempt to get votes in before he's declared ineligible. So when he's ousted, he'll say "I got all these votes, count em! I should win but they're cheating and saying I can't run! FRAUD!"

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 63 points 4 weeks ago

Trump isn't going to be declared ineligible. He meets the constitutional requirements for being President. Unfortunately. We are just going to have to win the election by giving Biden more votes. And they're going to declare fraud whether he loses by 1 vote or 10 million, so let's try to just absolutely destroy them at the ballot. We can't just beat him, we have to send a message that Trump and his sycophants will never have a path to election again.

[-] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 22 points 4 weeks ago

His candidacy is clouded, he engaged in insurrection on January 6 and Congress can't requalify him for office. They and only they have the authority but they don't have the votes. Even if he loses he's going to try to seize power. He only has to seize it if he loses. They are past caring about the election and you can tell because they have already told us that win or lose they intend to spill American blood.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 8 points 4 weeks ago

Congress can't requalify him for office. They and only they have the authority but they don't have the votes.

I don't disagree with the rest, but this part I just have no idea what part of the constitution you are referencing. He's 35+, a natural born citizen, and a 10+ year resident. That's it. He's qualified because beyond that the founding fathers foolishly had faith that the citizenry would hold politicians to account. I guess to their credit that worked for a couple hundred years.

[-] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Section 3 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Unfortunately, it is left to Congress to declare an insurrection, and that section is of little use to us. That was adjudicated with several states trying to remove him from the ballot. So he doesn't need to be requalified.

I question that decision, particularly given the current extremely partisan court. But unfortunately our constitution gives us no recourse save impeachment or passing explicit laws that are within the framework of the constitution, but bar Trump.

The votes aren't there for either so the law holds that the supreme court's interpretation that Congress must vote to declare an act to be insurrection is currently the law of the land.

We have a tremendous fight ahead of us to undo all the harm Trump caused in his first term. I'm talking perhaps decades.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

given the current extremely partisan court

Note that on this particular matter, they ruled unanimously that Trump couldn't be removed from ballots.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Very true. The partisanship calls into question everything the court does, but the unanimity is a strong statement. There are reasons for it, but it's frustrating to watch a crowd of people violently attack the Capital for the express purpose of preventing the lawful transfer of power and then have the courts say damn our eyes, Congress gets to decide.

It very clearly was the thing we all saw with our own eyes as it happened, but the right side of Congress won't say so because it's to their political advantage.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Agreed, though to be fair, since we all saw it with our own eyes, you would hope we would move to prevent it by voting against him.

[-] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

The Section 3 clause absolutely has not been adjudicated. Nice try.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 1 points 3 weeks ago

Supreme Court said he can't be removed from the ballot based on that. Not sure what you call that, but the clause does us no good in preventing him from being elected.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

The Supreme court's reply: Section 5 14th Amendment

They said only the national legislature can make this determination, based on section 5.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

The problem is that 'everyone knows' but Congress did not hold designate him as doing so. While Colorado declared he did, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that section 5 of the 14th amendment says it's up to congress, not courts (neither state or federal) to make the determination.

[-] Audacious@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago

He would be the first felon as president. I do not want that.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 4 points 3 weeks ago

We can only express that with a vote. I mean besides shouting it from the rooftops, but the only concrete way is with a vote.

[-] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago

Lmao don't you understand by now, there is no scenario where the GOP and its Almighty Head Cancerous Tumor do not scream fraud

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 54 points 4 weeks ago

hes got a reason. this guy doesnt flip on things like this unless its to his benefit

something tells me some of his polls arent going as well as expected

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 43 points 4 weeks ago

This one was always him shooting himself in the foot. He needs to attack mail-in because it's the best line he has for pushing his fraud narrative.

But who uses the most mail-in? The elderly.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/who-votes-mail

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

I'm with you on this.

I also expect Putin to not miss any opportunity to destabilize the US. This seems like another vector and he can do it with any kind of votes.

[-] knova@infosec.pub 50 points 4 weeks ago

lets see if my father in law changes his opinion on mail in voting now, conveniently

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 weeks ago

Nope. It was unsafe and full of fraud then. But republicans have made it safe now. See? You can't win.

[-] masinko@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Nonono, you see, it was always safe to do, it's the best, really. But when those crooked blue districts do it, that's when you run into FAKE results. Those blue districts don't send their best. /s

[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 19 points 4 weeks ago

Trump is ONLY doing this because Mail in Voting is RIPE with DEMOCRAT FRAUD and the ONLY way to Win is to Fight Fraud with Fraud! And also THE ELECTION IS RIGGED but ONLY by Democrats even though we're trying to fight Fraud with our OWN Fraud!

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 18 points 4 weeks ago

They now want to completely shut down in person voting as they have already done in large metro areas. Election interference as much as possible! It’s the Republican way.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 weeks ago

Oh NOEZ! Now the election will be full of 2000 Mules-style fraud and there's no way to trust the results! Blah blah, sob sob, something or other stolen eRection. Wait… is that why Trump is so angry? Does his dick not work? I'm not claiming to know for sure, but I definitely think so.

Give me back my erection, sleep joe brandon!

this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
354 points (98.6% liked)

News

21721 readers
3265 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS