• theprogressivist @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Cry some more. The constitution was used to remove him. If you have problems with that, then take it up with the founding fathers. Per the 14th amendment, NO CONVICTION is required. Removing a proven insurrectionist from the ballot is DEMOCRACY.

    • Yondoza
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Removing a proven insurrectionist from the ballot is DEMOCRACY following the rule of law in the United States. Exempting individuals from the rule of law is anti-democratic.

      All people having representation and subject to the rule of law are fundamental principles of democracy.

      • theprogressivist @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Not if you’re a fucking insurrectionist. Refer to the 14th amendment. No conviction is required. Plain and simple.

      • StinkyOnions@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Removing a proven insurrectionist from the ballot is DEMOCRACY following the rule of law in the United States. Exempting individuals from the rule of law is anti-democratic. All people having representation and subject to the rule of law are fundamental principles of democracy.

        So, per your own logic, the fundamental principles of Democracy require people to have representation and are subjected to the rule of law. So, with Trump being removed from the ballot using the 14th amendment, which, in your own words he is being subjected to the rule law. Which makes his removal Democratic? No?

        • Yondoza
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Yes, I’m being nit-picky. All I was trying to say was the original phrasing was “democracy at large says an insurrectionist cannot run for office” which is untrue. It is a US implementation of democracy specific case.

          Another country could have no restrictions on candidates and it would be completely democratic for an insurrectionist to run for office.