Smart. Even if there's nothing the Government and Democrats can legally do to stop these individuals and oil corporations from donating to Trumps re-election, within egregiously corrupt and simple ways currently allowed by the "corporations are people my friend" laws, it's a shot across the bow some might think twice about before propping up the Orange Hitler.
Ehhh, that article sounds pretty biased. Yes, Jewish students don’t deserve to be persecuted, and yes, people who break the law should be arrested, but that’s true everywhere. Everything else in the article is just fearmongering.
Oh, so, what, the guy who ordered the illegality to happen is some kind of . . . what . . criminal now? Pffft. I'm gonna have to check with the fox 'n friends on that one.
They're only just now figuring this out? In CA the GOP party is toxic. Only very limited areas vote for them in any meaningful way any more. No GOP candidate has held a state-wide office for years.
My hope is that this will become a national trend.
I agree it's probably true, but he hasn't been convinced of insurrection (yet), has he? The sixth amendment to the Constitution guarantees a fair trial, no?
So the sitting government decided their opponent is guilty of "The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government", and then told you and everyone else you're not allowed to vote for him. Could that not be applied to all opposition?
That's not concerning? What if it's switched next time?
The article talks about how presidential candidates (and some other office candidates) get secret security information before they are actually elected. And it says that Donald Trump should not receive that information.
Shouldn't candidates have to apply for a security clearance, if they want this info before they are elected? This could make it a nonpartisan issue, while achieving the same result (since Trump would not be eligible for a security clearance, due to his history of mishandling documents).
The main argument against making mandatory tests or additional subjective criteria, is introducing gatekeeping into the election. Who approves the clearance? Who double checks it? Who do they report to? Are you going to trust the current administration when they say that someone doesn't have clearance and can't run? The system is set up so that the people are in charge of the government, and not the government being in charge of the government. The issue that we are running into though is when the people are absolute morons.
Lemmy.org - Politics
Active