- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution bans anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the U.S. from holding office.
A Florida lawyer is suing Donald Trump in an attempt to disqualify his current run for president. Lawrence A. Caplan’s Thursday lawsuit claims that the ex-president’s involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot would make him ineligible to run again, thanks to the Constitution’s 14th Amendment—a Civil War-era addition aimed at preventing those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the U.S. from holding office. “Now given that the facts seem to be crystal clear that Trump was involved to some extent in the insurrection that took place on January 6th, the sole remaining question is whether American jurists who swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution upon their entry to the bench, will choose to follow the letter of the Constitution in this case,” the lawsuit says, also citing Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. Legal experts say it’s an uphill battle to argue in court, since the amendment has hardly been exercised in modern history. “Realistically, it’s not a Hail Mary, but it’s just tossing the ball up and hoping it lands in the right place,” Charles Zelden, a professor of history and legal studies at Nova Southeastern University, told the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
archive link to South Florida Sun Sentinel article: https://archive.ph/1BntD
You must log in or register to comment.
Florida men doing their thingA Florida Man with a functioning brain.
Let’s say this works and Trump is bad from holding office.
Would Trump consider paying the baton to Don Jr or Eric Trump? Is he capable of giving them that boost?
Then the bigger question is would the Kool aid drinkers accept the different Messiah?
Hah. No. He’d never let someone else shine.
Don Jr, although lauded by the right, also doesn’t have what Trump has: an unerring ability to devote himself to the most simplistic and repetitive dogma in the face of all evidence and disagreement.
Part of Trumps success is to unwavering believe something, regardless of how misinformed, even when informed. Examples: “I use spray deodorant it didn’t affect the climate that day”, “I can change the weather report with a sharpie”, “windmills cause cancer”, “inject bleach to cure covid”, “health insurance only costs $20 a month.”
It’s part of DeSantis’ problem too that he couldn’t say something like “blueberry jam makes you a better lover in bed and strawberry jam makes democrats have more abortions” and mean it.
The groups that are calling for Trump to be disqualified are acting like a lynch mob. Think about the end result and how it could be used by nefarious future leaders who want to snuff out their competitors.
The very premise of “blocking Trump from running” is saying let’s give a judge - perhaps only a single judge (!) - authority to tell voters who they can and cannot vote for.
I’ll be the first to say that Trump should be in jail if he’s convicted for his crimes. But I don’t want any court to take away my right to put any name I want on that bllot, for any reason.
There are rules about who can and can’t run. It’s not an open ballot.
These are black and white rules, not easily subject to debate. If you qualify, you qualify.
14th amendment, section 3. That’s not black and white.
Yes that’s what most of the discussion revolves around, and the idea of who defines what an insurrection is and who’s guilty, because the amendments don’t define this. Some dictionary definitions seem to include minor behavior as mundane as running a protest or making a public statement of disagreement with the current government, which would likely vacuum up any person you’d ever want to vote for.
In the comment you replied to, I was thinking about these constitutional requirements:
-Be a natural-born citizen of the United States -Be at least 35 years old -Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years
Which I think we can agree are either true or false for Amy given candidate and difficult to argue factually. That isn’t true, however, of the 14th amendment concept, which is, in my argument, better left to the voters to decide rather than a small number of judges and lawyers.
I don’t think it’s good to resort to the election to determine a complex legal ruling. It wouldn’t simply be ruling him eligible it not as the case would be in court. It would just make him president if enough people want him. There are many reasons that people pick who they vote for. I would prefer a ruling on the 14th amendment issue to be based only in that and made by people who understand constitutional law.
I understand your reservations about leaving that jn the hands of the judiciary, but for that type of thing I don’t think just letting the election decide is the appropriate course of action.
And if you don’t, you don’t. That’s precisely the point.
removed by mod
You can put whatever you want on your ballot. However, states have rules about which names they will print on the ballots as suggested potential votes. Having the legal process keep an enemy of the state off of a bunch of states’ ballots is a precedent I am totally cool with. Though I get what you’re saying because of course republicans will try to get the Democrat nominee disqualified if they think it’s at all possible.
It will be interesting to see how many write-ins he gets if he’s not on the ballot in various states. Or hell, even if he’s not the nominee in the first place.
He led an insurrection. It’s in the constitution that you can’t run for office if you lead an insurrection.
Yes, he probably did, and that alone disqualies him from getting my vote and hopefully the majority too.
But consider that the founding fathers were insurrectionists. Consider that many figures in world history object to the ruling party’s ideas and are labeled insurrectionists because of it. It’s a tool of oppressors.
In fact, some might label any protestor who does a sit in or some other rebellious or obnoxious activity as insurrection. One of the dictionary definitions of insurrection is “The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.” The constitution of the US doesn’t offer a definition.
In many countries, politicians are suppressed by accusations of insurrection solely because they oppose whoever is in power at the time.
My argument is not that Trump is worthy of the job (he’s not), rather that I want this kind of decision in the hands of the voters, not a handful of lawyers and judges.
This is wonderful rhetoric and I’m glad you said it.
In many other countries, insurrection gets you a nice brick wall and a blindfold. In America, you get to run for President (again).
or a one-way trip from a window on the 10th storey of a building all the way down to the ground.
Not all countries are barbaric. Some just offer a long term stay in federal hospitality.
deleted by creator
Only if you can’t buy your way out.
Except the trial for the insurrection is just barely starting, not to mention all the other indictments. Yes, he wasn’t immediately locked up and should have been. Yes, he’s being treated differently because he’s rich, but it’s not like nothing is happening.
For real. I’m really jealous that the courts in Brazil have already banned Bolsanaro from running for office for the next 10 years and Pakistan’s parliament ousted Khan for being ungenerous to the Ukraine conflict and then later the police arrested him for bribery. Those are supposedly developing countries but they are doing a better job of controlling their tyrannical despots than we are. Fortunately, like I keep saying, Trump has too much work cut out for him to effectively campaign with so many charges. He’s been in the lead, but I don’t know if he can stay that way.
Those are supposedly developing countries but they are doing a better job of controlling their tyrannical despots than we are.
That’s… Really interesting tbh.
You’re equating being a developed nation with the best thing ever, and expecting that if you’re the most developed nation you are also the best at treating social issues, and are therefore a bit confused when you see how other less developed countries can treat these issues better.
But when we get right down to it, development has no real reason to also mean “just” or “lawful”, right? I mean - “developed” means having a good economy, right? And when googling about it, the Human Development Index(HDI) comes up as well. But if we break it down, having money doesn’t mean you’re a better person. We can all think of countries with money but with a bad track record in human rights, like Saudi Arabia. And regarding the HDI, the US is 20th in that, right between South Korea (who are constantly faced with a nuclear threat along the border) and Israel (who are currently involved in stealing another countries’ land and constantly persecuting that country’s people). So what does developed mean in this context? Because it sure doesn’t mean these countries should be able to sleep at night because they have no problems.
But skipping all that, what’s weird to me is that this mentality of “we’ve got a lot of money therefore we have a great country and society and we only make good decisions” is so ingrained in you, that it actually surprises you when your country is surpassed by other countries in some aspects.
And it’s nothing to do with you, sorry if I made it seem like I’m attacking you or something, because I’m really not. For lack of a better way to describe this, to someone from the outside it looks like you’re a victim of a cult who is slowly starting to recognize that not everything the cult leader has been saying is actually true. I guess what I’m saying is - the American/capitalist propaganda machine does such a good job of pushing the “best country in the world” narrative, that it’s really interesting to see the ramifications it has on people’s way of thinking about the US.
It’s crazy that anyone would think he can and should be allowed to run for President again. The 14th Amendment is quite clear. And the man incited a violent insurrection to install himself as a dictator during what was a purely symbolic procedure. Trump lost, Biden won. Counting the electoral votes on 1/6 was a formality. There was no actual way for him to remain in office so he betrayed the nation by attempting to destroy democracy as we know it in this country. The only place he belongs in 2024 is ADX Florence.
The question is how to enforce the 14th amendment. This suit looks like a decent attempt at it, that doesn’t require Congress to act. (Congress has way too many Republicans right now, who will not enforce the 14th amendment against one of their own.)
The problem is that he did everything he could to use language to make it arguable that he was saying things that incite
So now we’ll have a supreme court ruling that what Trump did was not an insurrection. Great.
If it gets to the SCOTUS, and that’s a very big if, they can easily make a ruling favorable to Trump without ever touching the question of whether or not he engaged in insurrection. I’m not any kind of expert, but as a long time amateur SCOTUS-watcher I think that’s almost certainly what the conservative majority would do. You’d only see the question of insurrection mentioned in the dissenting opinion.
Sounds like someone similar to Trump does not want to run against him.
I think a lot of people would just be happy to see Trump cut out of the race for good. There will be no majority for DeSantis, because the Trump disciples will shun him, cutting down any possible Non-Trump REP candidate.
In that scenario I imagine there would be a large number of maga goons who would still write in Trumps name. I can also see people angrily crossing out Bidens name or otherwise defacing their ballot, spoiling their vote.
This next election is going to be an absolute shit show.
Well, let them. It just invalidates their vote. I am more afraid of MAGA brains trying to vote with their guns instead.
defacing their ballot, spoiling their vote.
That probably will not be counted in favour of any candidate.
Yes, it is referred to as vote spoiling.
It is equal to not going to election station in first place.*
*unless there is quorum requirement
If it’s true then it should be fine for non fascists.
I mean, felons can’t even vote.
This is what I’ve been saying. He’s a felon! Over 90 felonies! He’s can’t run for election.
He hasn’t actually been convicted of any yet… technically not a felon until he’s sentenced, if I’m not mistaken
Felon upon conviction even before sentencing but otherwise correct.
I’m glad we have some educated people left in this world like you. Conservatives love worshiping law breaking facist pedophiles like Trump and backing Corporate conservative corporations that enable behavior like his. The Home Depot actively encouraged child molestation in the stores in Montana between their child trafficking high managers. I saw a store manager crack a bullwhip at one of his victims in Helena, while the HR and District manager laughed.
This is going to get rejected pretty fast. Even if true, he doesn’t have the standing in court.
I will admit I find standing baffling because often, when you think someone has standing, they don’t or vice versa.
Standing could be as simple as “it harms the American people to allow him to run.” The lawyer doesn’t have to be directly injured, since class action lawsuits are brought on behalf of entire groups all the time.
Not that it’s a slam dunk reason, but I would hope and think the lawyer in question knows that they have to prove some amount of standing.
Just to be clear, I am not a lawyer. I just find standing is not always what it seems.
Just by reading other court cases of similar types, they often say they don’t have standing and congress or someone else would have to sue. To me it’s a BS answer when they want to avoid a case.
ETA: I am still shocked you can be a felon and still run for and be president. That is something new I learned.
Yep. Basically the 14th is the quickest path to disallowing his run. But he can get multiple life sentences for murdering a million people and still run.
ETA: I am still shocked you can be a felon and still run for and be president. That is something new I learned.
Many of our laws are based on people being at bare minimum reasonable. Election laws especially are written so that the electorate can decide.
Should a federal conviction for having marijuana plants prevent someone from running for office? Or should the citizens be able to make that decision when voting?
The problem is that because many of our laws lack specificity some modern assholes are attempting to use those loopholes and trying to politicize absolutely everything. Combined with the fact that many people no longer have the time to properly research things on their own (assuming they even have proper critical thinking education now), a decent segment of the population no longer is getting unbiased or minimally biased factual information from “news” sources due to the repeal of laws requiring that over the decades.
I always thought elected officials could not be felons. Why I found that shocking. That is something I remember from high school but obviously, I remembered it incorrectly.
No comment on this lawyer’s standing, but class action suit’s standing, claim that the class members have been injured in the same or similar ways as the lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff is suing for a direct injury.
I would think anyone who is an American citizen has standing to do this. The overturning of a fair election and the destruction of the peaceful transfer of power has horrible consequences for us all.
It’s not the simple. Maybe a lawyer can stop by and explain it.
The recent cases about student loans is a perfect example. Many were overturned over standing.
I get the basics of standing but the way the courts use it often leaves me confused since they take a very narrow stance.
I’m not a lawyer (yet) as I haven’t taken the bar exam, but I remember learning this in law school.
I can’t find the original court filing that all these news articles are reporting, but presumably, this is a special kind of suit seeking a “declaratory judgment” - a suit asking the court to prevent a harm before it happens.
Cornell Law School discusses it in a somewhat lengthy read but put “simply”, for standing in this kind of case, the court would want to see:
a concrete controversy (as opposed to a hypothetical one, e.g. you can’t seek a declaratory judgment “in case my neighbor decides to hit me”),
between adverse parties (some random citizen can’t sue you for breaking a promise you made to your grandma),
that is ripe (where enough has already happened that a decision right now wouldn’t require much speculation),
not moot (has to be able to affect the current case, for example, declaratory judgment isn’t appropriate to determine “should he have done that?”), and
the court’s decision is needed to prevent imminent harm (has to be relatively certain that a party would be adversely affected if the court doesn’t prevent it from happening).
Here there could be issues of ripeness: the court might not want to act on the mere possibility that Trump will be found guilty of insurrection etc. Courts don’t like to tell people what they can and can’t do unless a real situation makes it necessary, otherwise the court would risk encroaching on powers that belong to the other branches of government.
Good break down and thank you. This is the interaction I like.
Thank you for bringing rigour and structure to the discussion as opposed to sheer speculation. Take my upvote pretty please.
That case is also an example of this working. The case in front of the Supreme Court had no standing since is was fake plaintiffs.
That was a different case. That was about a web developer not wanting to do gay marriage websites or some crap. The plaintiff was fake but the courts still ruled on it which I found confusing.
The Supreme Court doesn’t think separation of church and state is worth preserving and will do every it can to dismantle it. That is why we are getting state funded religious schools and prayer is creeping back in.
I am an atheist and I don’t mind state funding private schools through vouchers. I can’t speak for all religious schools but when I was growing up, those were the most highly rated schools. We need to fix our schools and competition is a good thing. The other option is we ban all private schools. I can’t remember which country did that and they had good results but they do find religious schools the same.
You do understand the voucher thing is an attempt to remove funding from public education right ?
Who do you think would have standing?
Fuck if I know. I think the courts will avoid this like the plague and say congress has to do something. Most of their recent rulings have been that. Roe Vs Wade was basically released stating the courts should have never created law and this is an act of congress. That is paraphrasing it. Same with student loan debt. Basically it was not the right of the president but congress. While those may be technically true, congress just sits with their thumbs up their ass. I would like to see a bill to make abortion legal at a federal level and yet, nothing.
The reason that there isn’t a national law that codified Row v Wade is REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTION.
The system is set up to make it extremely difficult to pass anything, and the Republican party has enforced mandatory party unity on abortion and gun rights for the last four decades.
The Democrats have not even tried to propose one in the last 50 years. So while it’s easy to blame the Republicans (and they do deserve heavy criticism here), the Democrats have done nothing as well. It is interesting to note, Rudy was a liberal Republican when he was mayor. That means he was pro-choice. I can’t think of a single Republican who is currently pro-choice openly. Even Rudy backed off the claim, not that his opinion matters anymore but just as a reference.
You may be right, I am not a lawyer either, but regardless, I would be very hesitant to accept anything said about it here. Let’s just say that the “Lemmy Bar Association” doesn’t exactly have a great record with legal analysis.
Oh god no I would never just accept anything I read here about Trump and the law. The bias of this place is insane. They want to pretend there is a magical situation where Trump will be denied the chance to run and put in prison. Most legal experts have said he’s no not going to prison and this whole 14th amendment talk is distracting.
I just want Trump to drop out and go away. He won’t because he’s an attention vampire.
I don’t think it will even get as far as standing.
The difference between Trump and the other guy removed from office because of 1/6:
Is that that guy had actually been convicted. Hasn’t happened for Trump… yet.
My expectation would be that because Trump’s case has not yet been adjudicated, he still has the premise of innocent until proven guilty, and until such time, he’s still qualified.
deleted by creator
Well according to the theory of the case the 14th amendment is self-executing, so it doesn’t require that Trump be convicted. It remains to be seen how well that stands up in court however.
The trick is the language of the 14th:
Forbids anyone from holding office who “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
What does “shall have engaged” mean? Who decides if they actually engaged or not? This is why we need a court decision, as we had in the other guy who was removed. He was convicted of conspiring to overthrow the government, he got removed from office.
Trump and his ilk are going to argue that they were the legitimate rulers, that the rebellion was AGAINST THEM. That’s why we can’t just kick them out without a ruling.
The Supreme Court, under these lunatic Republicans, have shown that standing is whatever they want it to be.
However, there are election officials in every state, and perhaps every county, that determine which candidates are qualified to appear on a ballot. Each of them has not just the right, but the DUTY to disqualify Trump for his role in the insurrection.
deleted by creator
the supreme court doesn’t seem to care about standing anymore. they literally rewrote the rules to toss student loan forgiveness.
Standing doesn’t seem to be a thing anymore. In the same year we had an atheist being told that they couldn’t get upset about prayers to Jesus in a government meeting of his town that was open to the public and that a website design company can refuse to be involved in a gay marriage despite having no gay clients.
On one side we have someone upset about an government eastablishment of a church in their local government on the other we have a hypothetical.
Let the people decide his fate through a free and fair election
Is it your opinion that nobody should ever be disqualified from running for any elected office, for any reason?
Correct. The will of the people is integral to our democracy.
Felons aren’t allowed to vote bootlicker.
I’m sorry to hear you can’t vote, however, my point stands. If you don’t like democracy you shouldn’t live in a democratic nation.
Rule of law and peaceful transition of power are also pretty important to your democracy.
Do you support suspending the constitution to allow someone disqualified from election to take office?
Or do you just support amending the constitution?
If someone is constitutionally disqualified then they obviously can’t run for office. Trump has not been charged with insurrection or rebellion as per the 14th Amendment so he can still run.
What is the process for establishing if someone is barred from office by the 14th amendment?
Would they not have to be convicted of insurrection or rebellion?
Are those specific felonies?
Hey not to harrass you or anything, but you may find this comment chain informative:
https://kbin.social/m/[email protected]/t/400592/-/comment/1969045
Cheers from America’s hat.
I never saw this amount of energy to disqualify someone of a presidential election. (What is in this case good) It shows issues in the state itself and how the laws are made. It’s already systemic.
Unfortunately our system was not designed in the anticipation of someone like Trump together with the complete siloing of information ecosystems made possible by modern technology.
What we’re seeing is new in kind because both Trump and our information ecosystems are new in kind.
The founders also lived in a much more honor-based society wherein dueling was still very much a thing. Someone like Trump, a notorious liar and loud-mouthed braggart would have almost certainly been run through with a small-sword or shot while dueling. If he declined to accept a challenge to a duel, he would have been ostracized from polite society and effectively cut off from public office.
In other words, they expected that things like honor and decorum and the risk of being killed in a duel would provide for consequences not enumerated in the Constitution.
And they were right for over 200 years, then along came Trump and it turned out that such “customs and norms” were not enough.
We now see our old and very decrepit system --that was deliberately designed to be almost impossible to update – struggling with that fact.
I’ve never seen this amount of energy to run in the presidential election from an unqualified con-man. And I don’t disagree with you on this showing issues in the state itself, but I suspect we may have different ideas on what those issues are.
Well, Trump only stands accused of 91 felonies, it’s not like he attempted a coup d’état or som… Oh, wait…
It’s not wagner-style at least
Show me… potato salad!
Wouldn’t he need to be convicted first before this suit has a chance of winning?
The 14th Amendment is consider to be “self-executing” and public election officials can disqualify candidates when presented with a plausible argument.
Almost certainly, or else the suit could be dismissed on Double Jeopardy grounds. Even then, he would probably just appeal to the Supreme Court and get them to make up some reason to rule in his favor.
he would probably just appeal to the Supreme Court and get them to make up some reason to rule in his favor.
This would undoubtedly become the pinnacle of the Roberts Court being on the wrong side of history, though maybe they’d find a way to top that…
Anyone who says that the election was rigged, and insists on it after being proven false over and over again, well… if that doesn’t prove malice, then I don’t know what will.
To be fair, it’s more selfishness than malice.
Does the reason change the crime?
Yes. Mens rea
Malice isn’t what needs to be proven. I’ll get voted down for saying this but it’s far from proven that trump “engaged in insurrection”.
He just did everything he could to encourage it and then watched on TV for over an hour giddy that it was happening, refusing to make a statement to call them off, when everyone he knew was begging him to. Yep totally innocent.
Stop it. I’m not defending Trump.
How do you think the legal system works? The prosecutor just says “c’mon your honor he totally did it” and the judge and jury just say “yep, totally”?
I think the legal system works exactly that way for poor/black people but for white people you buy your way out of jail.
Probably because that’s been demonstrated a seemingly infinite number of times
And yeah what you wrote was a textbook defense, no only in the legal sense but in an everyday sense too.
What about rebellion?
The term you are looking for is mens rea and from what we already know from the January 6th committee, Jack Smith has Trump dead to rights in that respect.
He also almost certainly has additional evidence that the committee didn’t get and that we don’t know about yet.
It’s not looking good for Trump which is exactly why he’s desperate to delay the trial until after the election in hopes that he wins and can make it all go away.
I’m surprised I even have to say this as I thought it was common knowledge regardless of one’s political persuasion.
Also, I didn’t downvote your comment.
I am sure there was some fraud, as I suspect there is some in every election. I do not think there was enough to sway the election. Trump is a very unpopular man. I am a Republican; I didn’t vote for his ass either time. I didn’t vote.
I know more Republicans who voted for Biden than Trump. I know that is anecdotal data but it has me convinced the election was fair.
The election was the most secure in our country’s history, that is a fact, but Trump planted seeds of election interference in 2016, when he won, so there was no denying what his strategy would be in 2020 (and he started on it early in 2020). There were definitely people that voted fraudulently, but it seems the majority of them, that I have seen reported on, were Republicans (voting for dead family members,voting twice, etc).
What does your first thought about the “most secure election” even mean, and how do you prove it?
Not iBaz, but it’s the fact that every state that trumps legal team tried to sue had to double, triple, or further check the ballots has made it the “most secure election ever”. Basically the recounts that happened in Florida with Gore v Bush happend multiple times when trump attempted to dispute the election.
There were definitely people that voted fraudulently, but it seems the majority of them, that I have seen reported on, were Republicans (voting for dead family members,voting twice, etc).
Trump actually told people in North Carolina to vote twice.
Anecdotal data is wholly irrelevant when you have laws upholding the results and should have no bearing on convincing you of one or another thing.
Yes, we know that every election has some fraud. A lot of it is unintentional and a lot of it has been perpetrated by republican voters.
There were fewer than 475 cases of voter fraud found in the 2020 election. https://fortune.com/2021/12/14/trump-voter-fraud-investigation-biden-battleground-states-only-475-potential-voter-fraud-cases/
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/21/politics/fact-check-republicans-voter-fraud-kirk-hartle/index.html
The ultra-conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation has recorded just 1.438 proven instances of voter fraud going back to the 1990s.
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraudThere has been an attack on our country by a sitting president to destabilize the people’s trust in the principle element of democracy. It has worked extremely effectively as nearly everyone will now question how valid an election really is - the kernel of doubt has been sown. Yet there was zero Z.E.R.O. reason to question the results of the 2020 election.
Trump and his allies had claimed there was voter fraud because the polls prior to the election indicated he was in the lead while the results of the election contradicted the polls. There was also the previously known and reported and anticipated timing of events where mail in ballots were counted in bulk at odd times. Everyone knew the votes would be counted in chunks and that one candidate would quickly pull ahead of the other. We even knew that a lot of republicans weren’t going to vote because it was already anticipated (for no reason) that the election would be rigged. As entirely fictional reports of voter fraud made their way through the zeitgeist, they grabbed onto these stories and presented them as fact with zero evidence to back them up (looking at you pillow guy). The cases were thrown out of court because the lawyers had absolutely no evidence to present to the judges.
Anecdotal stories are irrelevant when the sitting president of the United States is known to have fucked this country over. He’s an evil narcissist and anyone who believes him to be anything else is a fool participating in his intentional dismantling of our democracy for his personal gain and pleasure.
You shouldn’t be “thinking” there wasn’t enough fraud to sway the election. You should know this to be 100% factually true just as you know it to be 100% factually true that the moon is a sphere. What’s on or inside the moon is certainly up for debate ;-)
So you agree the democrats are full of crap for claiming fraud in the 5 elections ?
I haven’t heard about that but I would say so, yes. Can you share these stories?
deleted by creator
These things don’t really seem to be equivalent. The idea in the 2020 election is that there were illegal votes cast and votes illegally purged and that allowed Biden to win. The idea in the 2016 election is more on misinformation on part of Russia and other sources. One is aledging illegal votes while the other is aledging misinformation. Those are pretty different things. And your first link is just about a few Democrats who are concerned about the security of voting machines and want to strengthen said security.
The vote manipulation is the same claim the democrat made in 2016 and also in Georgia.
It’s the same claim Trump made.
They’re the exact same argument. The difference is how Trump wouldn’t let it go.
Stacy Abraham is the queen of claiming election fraud.
Both sides needs to knock it off.
I’m almost to the point where if you claim fraud, you have 90 days to prove it or you go to jail.
Yeah people weren’t voting for Biden they were voting against trump. Biden is lame. I’m a democratic lol. I wish we both had better choices.
Biden is awful. He’s been awful for a long time.
I hate how the choices were Biden or Trump. Neither should have been there.
So far for the next election I feel we are in the same boat. I’m a republican and nobody is exciting me
Weren’t most cases of election fraud in 2020’s election committed by Republicans?
Our governor’s son tried to vote for him even though he was 17. He was turned away and then came back later that day and tried to vote again…
It’s always projection
Honestly all the cases I have heard of were from republicans. There wasn’t many but they were all republicans
As I said there is always fraud or mistakes. I just don’t think it’s large enough issue to sway the election. Nobody has found a large conspiracy to sway the elections
He could just argue that he’s such an idiot he thought it was true despite the evidence.
…except for statements about Pence being too honest which kind of show he knows he was trying to seize power illegally.
To reach that kind of level of Idiocy would be unthinkable, knowing that you have the power of a U.S. president.
It would have been before. Now, I’m not entirely sure.
My point is that it’s not idiocy. To be idiocy, it has to be extreme idiocy, and this is isn’t it.
This guy is not surrounded by noobs. I’m sure he asked the right people whether the elections were legitimate, and he didn’t like the answer. Or he was just following a soviet-era book of rules handed over to him by who knows who. In either case, it’s not idiocy. It’s malice.
