On the ballot - preemptive election deniers

@techsouth said
Certainly. Challenge accepted.

[i]If you cannot agree to accept the outcome of an election, and you are denying the legitimacy of prior elections (without substantiating evidence), then you should be disqualified from running for public office.

Who is the idiot that said that?
Sounds like something that the dooshes here would say.

@jj-adams said
Who is the idiot that said that?
Sounds like something that the dooshes here would say.

We should not be unfair to them. He did specify that this only applies when it is without substantiating evidence. The average person has no way to decide when this rigorous legal standard has been attained.

What we could do to reach a compromise is have the party in power appoint a Minister of Substantiating Evidence. Or more in line with US vernacular, it would be the Secretary of Substantiating Evidence. That person would decide when the legal bar has been met such that disagreements are no longer tolerated. If someone has an opinion that does not meet the threshold of having enough Substantiating Evidence, then the minister appointed by the president will have the power to censor and censure. All social media platforms would also be expected to censor as well.

That doesn't sound too unreasonable does it? I don't see what could go wrong. And this seems like a good plan to prevent fascism from taking root in our country. The alternative of having someone with a different opinion holding public office sounds too terrifying to risk.

@techsouth said
Certainly. Challenge accepted.

If you cannot agree to accept the outcome of an election, and you are denying the legitimacy of prior elections (without substantiating evidence), then you should be disqualified from running for public office.

There I said it.

(They're like flat earth astronauts)

This is an example of someone wanting to strip rights away from someone because they don't have an approved opinion. It got 7 'likes' so far.

I thought you were going to cite someone in a position of power, not folks posting on the web.

@wildgrass said
They agree to rules before the election. There are legally defined channels for contesting election results. In a close election with the possibility for error, by all means use these. All politicians are aware of the rules before they decide to play. Play within the rules. Whining that the rules were unfair after the elections been decided should be grounds for a permanent ban.

Legally defined channels to contest? Then why file all the lawsuits that y'all are preparing, as we speak. So, they are ignoring your calming idea of using proper channels. They the Dems, are doing the whining already.
Can you come back on that one?

@no1marauder said
I thought you were going to cite someone in a position of power, not folks posting on the web.

I'm curious. Do you feel like it would be a challenge for me to find examples?

And what constitutes a person in a "position of power"? Would major journalists count?

Also, I must say. In a thread where the exact claim was made, receiving resounding approval, I find the possible defense of "yeah, but no one in power agrees with us" to be a curious tact.

@wildgrass said
I guess we will see boss. I'm not a wizard.

Over 100 republicans running for office are election deniers. If you're right about the Dems we will have voted in a Congressional majority that doesn't believe in elections.

And yet you're still puzzled by claims that democracy is in peril?

Can you enlighten me where repubs want to do away with elections? No Fluff, No Opinions . You are getting like Sonhouse.
No capital letters, just a calm few sentences to prove that to me, and I will have to re-consider my vote of course.
I do not believe you. Can you make me believe you? Who else here says that ? Is that what Sonhouse has tried to say but never said. He stopped short at 'losing democracy' I never knew what he meant. Is that what he meant? This will be my best issue of the day.

@techsouth said
I'm curious. Do you feel like it would be a challenge for me to find examples?

And what constitutes a person in a "position of power"? Would major journalists count?

Also, I must say. In a thread where the exact claim was made, receiving resounding approval, I find the possible defense of "yeah, but no one in power agrees with us" to be a curious tact.

Perhaps you should review your post; you specifically mentioned the "party in power" stripping away "legal rights".

@techsouth said
Certainly. Challenge accepted.

If you cannot agree to accept the outcome of an election, and you are denying the legitimacy of prior elections (without substantiating evidence), then you should be disqualified from running for public office.

There I said it.

(They're like flat earth astronauts)

This is an example of someone wanting to strip rights away from someone because they don't have an approved opinion. It got 7 'likes' so far.

A few big holes in your argument. I am not a Democrat. I have no power over anything. Running for office isn't a legal right.

Do you have any real examples?

@techsouth said
We should not be unfair to them. He did specify that this only applies when it is without substantiating evidence. The average person has no way to decide when this rigorous legal standard has been attained.

What we could do to reach a compromise is have the party in power appoint a Minister of Substantiating Evidence. Or more in line with US vernacular ...[text shortened]... tive of having someone with a different opinion holding public office sounds too terrifying to risk.

Haha. You're describing our legal system. Which already exists.

@wildgrass said
Running for office isn't a legal right.

Pretty sure it is.

@techsouth said
We should not be unfair to them. He did specify that this only applies when it is without substantiating evidence. The average person has no way to decide when this rigorous legal standard has been attained.

What we could do to reach a compromise is have the party in power appoint a Minister of Substantiating Evidence. Or more in line with US vernacular ...[text shortened]... tive of having someone with a different opinion holding public office sounds too terrifying to risk.

Judges decide that and they decided that in at least 60 cases that the insurrectionist lawyers raised in bad faith.
Do you really believe that there is no such condition as substantiated in relation to evidence.

@kevcvs57 said
Judges decide that and they decided that in at least 60 cases that the insurrectionist lawyers raised in bad faith.
Do you really believe that there is no such condition as substantiated in relation to evidence.

There was a wide variance in how cases were disposed. Trump had a very short window for discovery, filing, and resolution.

Consider this one case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Pennsylvania

It was dismissed for "lack of standing". That does not mean they thought it was filed in bad faith or that their claims didn't have merit.

@wildgrass said
A few big holes in your argument. I am not a Democrat. I have no power over anything. Running for office isn't a legal right.

Do you have any real examples?

You are in favor of people being stripped of the right to run for office.

You don't have the power to do it yourself, but you are in favor of some body making that decision. Someone would have to have the power to deny the right to run for office in your vision. It is not just a matter of getting a few thousand Tweets. Someone has to be empowered to say "no, you can't run for office".

And every time Democrats lose, they claim the elections were not conducted fairly for some reason (e.g. imaginary voter suppression). Obviously you have no problem with any of their claims. Somebody has to review the evidence and decide in one case, the person can't run for office in another case (e.g. Stacey Abrams), can run for office. And that person has to be given that power somehow.

So your contention is that designating a person or a body to can disqualify a person from running for office because that person has or had an opinion that is not a crime, but is an opinion not approved for them to have. And it is urgent we appoint such a person to stave off fascism. Naturally, the party in power would have to be responsible for appointing that body.

That is exactly what has been suggested here. Any denial of that is gaslighting.

"Equal Protection" is a legal right. Clearly the president cannot declare that Asian-Americans can't run for office.

And I just gave a real example. The OP has proposed exactly that. Violating equal protection by excluding people from running for office solely for having held an unapproved opinion, yet having violated no law. The OP is exactly that.

And this view is being touted by numerous journalists.

@wildgrass said
Haha. You're describing our legal system. Which already exists.

Our legal system requires it to be proved someone violated a law before they lose freedoms that other people retain.

Holding a popular opinion about an election does not violate a law, even though Democrats don't like it.

@no1marauder said
Perhaps you should review your post; you specifically mentioned the "party in power" stripping away "legal rights".

Two people living in the same area. Neither have violated the law. You are suggesting that one be disqualified from public office and the other not. That fulfills the definition of someone having "legal rights" stripped away. Any disagreement is just gaslighting.

How do you envision that happening? Do we pass a special law about the 2020 presidential election (of course the "party in power" would be doing that)? Or do you suggest a more general law that applies to anyone who disagrees with an election outcome? If the latter, how would we determine that Stacey Abrams can run but Donald Trump cannot? Someone has to be appointed to examine evidence and determine that Trump's allegations don't meet the threshold of being solid enough to be spoken aloud, while Abrams is free to proclaim from the rooftops she has been cheated.

And I am curious. What if someone DOES cheat in an election? Are we really staving off fascism by making it illegal to say so?