The UN-Democrat Party Machine

[Stoic]

But what do you think about these mainstream media reports? Do you agree or disagree with the premise that it is the Democrat Party that is threatening our representative government by attempting to remove non-Democrat candidates from ballots?

I don't see any evidence that the Democratic party is threatening our representative government.

Making sure that everyone obeys the law certainly doesn't threaten out representative government.

[Ronson]

I don't see any evidence that the Democratic party is threatening our representative government.

Making sure that everyone obeys the law certainly doesn't threaten out representative government.

But that's not what they are doing - by their own admission. They want those candidates removed because they will take away votes from Democrats. Your "obeys the law" is just a means toward that end - and is only used against non Democrats.

Republicans aren't doing that. Third-party candidates aren't doing that. Only Democrats are trying to remove the competition. They are threatening our representative government by removing choice, just like communist governments do.

[Sam]

But that's not what they are doing - by their own admission. They want those candidates removed because they will take away votes from Democrats. Your "obeys the law" is just a means toward that end - and is only used against non Democrats.

Republicans aren't doing that. Third-party candidates aren't doing that. Only Democrats are trying to remove the competition. They are threatening our representative government by removing choice, just like communist governments do.

I'm sorry for not remembering exactly but wasn't there a recent thread regarding the Trump campaign's efforts to keep Hayley off the Indiana primary ballot?

Source: ‘Literally off his rocker’: Why Trump is fixated on Indiana. Adam Wren. Politico. 2024.02.06

The actual crux of the issue is pretty straightforward. For days, Trump has been suggesting that Haley failed to qualify for the Indiana primary ballot, saying she was “scrambling in Indiana with democrat county clerk offices to ‘verify’ signatures” after the fact, or even that she had “forgot to apply.” He has gone so far as to have his campaign’s attorney threaten litigation to challenge Haley’s ballot status.

But Trump’s allegation is based on a distortion of Indiana law. While signatures to get ballot access were due by Jan. 30, the filing deadline isn’t until this Friday, meaning that Haley is still on track to qualify for the state’s ballot.

© Copyright Original Source

And we just had the thread about the transgender candidate who was removed for not supplying their previous name.

If candidates don't meet the lawful requirements to hold a particular office or appear on a particular ballot, it's not undemocratic to apply the law. The law itself is the product of democratic governance.

-Sam

[Ronson]

I'm sorry for not remembering exactly but wasn't there a recent thread regarding the Trump campaign's efforts to keep Hayley off the Indiana primary ballot?

Source: ‘Literally off his rocker’: Why Trump is fixated on Indiana. Adam Wren. Politico. 2024.02.06

The actual crux of the issue is pretty straightforward. For days, Trump has been suggesting that Haley failed to qualify for the Indiana primary ballot, saying she was “scrambling in Indiana with democrat county clerk offices to ‘verify’ signatures” after the fact, or even that she had “forgot to apply.” He has gone so far as to have his campaign’s attorney threaten litigation to challenge Haley’s ballot status.

But Trump’s allegation is based on a distortion of Indiana law. While signatures to get ballot access were due by Jan. 30, the filing deadline isn’t until this Friday, meaning that Haley is still on track to qualify for the state’s ballot.

© Copyright Original Source

Then Trump is/was a bad actor for trying to get Haley removed. It's not his job to police the other candidates - just like it's not the Democrats' job.

And we just had the thread about the transgender candidate who was removed for not supplying their previous name.

Didn't see it.

If candidates don't meet the lawful requirements to hold a particular office or appear on a particular ballot, it's not undemocratic to apply the law. The law itself is the product of democratic governance.

Are you a lawyer by trade? You really get into the legalities of everything.

[Sam]

Then Trump is/was a bad actor for trying to get Haley removed. It's not his job to police the other candidates - just like it's not the Democrats' job.



Didn't see it.



Are you a lawyer by trade? You really get into the legalities of everything.

The argument was that this is a Democratic-only phenomenon. It is, rather, a form of ballot-shaping pursued by both major parties every election cycle.

Is it your contention, then, that Trump was wrong to contest the 2020 election results in court?

Obviously, the legalities here matter: we can argue that legal restrictions and obstacles to candidacy and elections (e.g., Voter ID, Electoral College, Age Requirements) are undemocratic by nature ... but it'd be awful foolish to argue that automatically equates to anti-democratic or wrong. If a candidate doesn't meet the legal requirements for appearing on a ballot, we can certainly question the merit of the restrictive law ... but the way to fix that is to change the law, not ignore it.

-Sam

[Stoic]

But that's not what they are doing - by their own admission. They want those candidates removed because they will take away votes from Democrats. Your "obeys the law" is just a means toward that end

And it's a perfectly legal means.

- and is only used against non Democrats.

And that's perfectly legal also.

Republicans aren't doing that.

Trump's party would absolutely do that, if there was a third-party candidate who they thought would take more votes from Trump than from Biden. (This is why I said we need more conservative third-party candidates.)

Third-party candidates aren't doing that. Only Democrats are trying to remove the competition. They are threatening our representative government by removing choice, just like communist governments do.

Working against third-party candidates doesn't threaten our representative government. If it did, then it might make sense to make it illegal. But you would probably have to get rid of the first amendment to do it.

[Starlight]

Whenever the Left claims that Trump is a "threat to democracy", they exhibit absolutely no introspection.

If an average Leftist in the US thinks Trump is a threat to democracy, that seems reasonable. His followers kind of stormed the capital following his repeated false claims to have Really Totally Won an election that he didn't.

When Democratic Party elites claim Trump is a threat to democracy though, I can't take them seriously. If they legitimately thought Trump was a real threat, their party would have had allowed an open primary to select the best candidate against Trump. They wouldn't have forced decrepit genocide Joe on the voters if beating Trump was what they really cared about.

When conservatives turn the tables on them and mention how Democrats are trying to remove Trump from the ballot - very undemocratic of them

Conservatives in this forum vigorously assert that the US isn't a democracy and is a constitutional republic whenever that general topic comes up.

Part of being a constitutional republic is having a constitution, which happens to say that people who have broken their oath to uphold the constitution by committing insurrection are barred from running again. In that sense the constitution sets out who's allowed to run for office, and it isn't everyone (e.g. must be over 35 years in age), and it's Trump's own fault if by his own actions he's put himself in breach of its rules for running for office.

The Democrats are trying to eliminate all non Democrat candidates. They are the supreme anti-democracy party.

I agree that the people who run the internals of the US Democratic Party are generally awful. The internal party structure needs a fire-everyone event.

[Diogenes]

I don't see any evidence that the Democratic party is threatening our representative government.

Making sure that everyone obeys the law certainly doesn't threaten out representative government.

Seeing as Biden won Arizona within the margin of people who voted without proof of citizenship thanks to the Democrat NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT and that Democrats in NYC want non-citizens to be allowed to vote, yes the Democratic Party is a threat to the very foundation of the polis. They also objected to the citizenship question not eh census which is the basis of how the funds of the citizenry (aka taxpayer dollars) are distributed.

[Ronson]

The argument was that this is a Democratic-only phenomenon. It is, rather, a form of ballot-shaping pursued by both major parties every election cycle.

Is it your contention, then, that Trump was wrong to contest the 2020 election results in court?

Obviously, the legalities here matter: we can argue that legal restrictions and obstacles to candidacy and elections (e.g., Voter ID, Electoral College, Age Requirements) are undemocratic by nature ... but it'd be awful foolish to argue that automatically equates to anti-democratic or wrong. If a candidate doesn't meet the legal requirements for appearing on a ballot, we can certainly question the merit of the restrictive law ... but the way to fix that is to change the law, not ignore it.

It must be mostly a Democrat phenomenon since its allies, the mainstream media, is indicating as much.

No, I don't object to Trump challenging the 2020 results since he believed/believes there was intentional rigging going on. That's a little bit different than intentionally trying to eliminate your opponent on technicalities.

[Ronson]

And it's a perfectly legal means.

And that's perfectly legal also.

If Trump had lawyers chasing after Biden to notify the states whenever he jaywalked, we'd hear about it in the media. Just because something is "perfectly legal" doesn't make it ethical.

Trump's party would absolutely do that, if there was a third-party candidate who they thought would take more votes from Trump than from Biden. (This is why I said we need more conservative third-party candidates.)

Working against third-party candidates doesn't threaten our representative government. If it did, then it might make sense to make it illegal. But you would probably have to get rid of the first amendment to do it.

It does threaten it, since third-party candidates normally would not have the means to fight back. Only the powerful and wealthy would be among our choices. I'm still a registered Libertarian and I see the practice as a threat.

[rogue06]

Clearly, what we need is more conservative third-party candidates.

We need a none-of-the-above option.

[rogue06]

But what do you think about these mainstream media reports? Do you agree or disagree with the premise that it is the Democrat Party that is threatening our representative government by attempting to remove non-Democrat candidates from ballots?

C'monman! We need to destroy democracy in order to save it. [*leans in and creepily whispers*] I love the smell of napalm in the morning True story! Almost as much as Johnson's Baby Shampoo.

[rogue06]

I don't see any evidence that the Democratic party is threatening our representative government.

Making sure that everyone obeys the law certainly doesn't threaten out representative government.

When did they start doing that? They have established a very obvious two-tiered justice system.

[rogue06]

If Trump had lawyers chasing after Biden to notify the states whenever he jaywalked, we'd hear about it in the media. Just because something is "perfectly legal" doesn't make it ethical.

Selective enforcement -- such as we see with the classified documents -- is hardly "perfectly legal."

[Sam]

It must be mostly a Democrat phenomenon since its allies, the mainstream media, is indicating as much.

No, I don't object to Trump challenging the 2020 results since he believed/believes there was intentional rigging going on. That's a little bit different than intentionally trying to eliminate your opponent on technicalities.

Your thought process lacks an empirical grounding: "It must be this way because look at the sentences I pulled from a few articles" is not a way to build a reasoned argument.

Likewise, arguing that Trump was justified in challenging an election because he believed there was unlawful activity rests on the same premise as challenging a ballot because someone believes a candidate's appearance there would be unlawful. If Trump had ever actually found proof that Obama was actually born in Kenya to non-citizen parents, that'd be a technicality. And yet, it would have been not only justifiable but necessary to disqualify Obama.

-Sam