qaz@lemmy.worldM to NonCredibleDiplomacyEnglish · edit-21 month agoTariffslemmy.worldimagemessage-square85fedilinkarrow-up1450arrow-down18file-text
arrow-up1442arrow-down1imageTariffslemmy.worldqaz@lemmy.worldM to NonCredibleDiplomacyEnglish · edit-21 month agomessage-square85fedilinkfile-text
minus-squarepiccololinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 month agoNo it would not. It would be a wake up call for the senate to pull back the power of POTUS if anything.
minus-squareMothmanDelorian@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·1 month agoYes, it would because you have a candidate going out of their way to prevent a fair election from happening. This is intro level poli sci stuff that you are not getting here
minus-squarepiccololinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 month agoMore like resetting the election forcing both parties to pick new candidates.
minus-squareMothmanDelorian@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·1 month agoWhich we don’t do either unless there is demonstrable proof that the election was fraudulent and we don’t have. You keep making the authoritarian/dictatorial choice that doesn’t align with the rule of law. Why?
minus-squarepiccololinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 month agoBecause the “rule of law” failed and allowed authoritarian to take over. Why is that so hard to understand?
No it would not. It would be a wake up call for the senate to pull back the power of POTUS if anything.
Yes, it would because you have a candidate going out of their way to prevent a fair election from happening.
This is intro level poli sci stuff that you are not getting here
More like resetting the election forcing both parties to pick new candidates.
Which we don’t do either unless there is demonstrable proof that the election was fraudulent and we don’t have.
You keep making the authoritarian/dictatorial choice that doesn’t align with the rule of law. Why?
Because the “rule of law” failed and allowed authoritarian to take over.
Why is that so hard to understand?