I don’t like the idea of governments banning access to a website, unless its like CSAM.

reddit.com/r/EyeBlech

Yea you mentioned divide and conquer then put images of the parliament with and without FPTP. Its easily misinterpreted to say that proportional representation is somehow “divide and conquer”.

Cant tell if you are pro FPTP or against FPTP 🤔

T.E.L.L? Did you watch Travelers? I think thats the only place where I heard that term. Man, I loved that show, a shame they cancelled it.

Maybe they only managed to send two time-travellers before they got raided by the gestapo. 🤷‍♂️

Welp now we get to be in a dystopian movie

not even just a movie, we got a whole series with possibly multiple seasons

I have a feeling I’m one of the side characters that’s gonna get killed soon.

Just steer a huge asterioid into the planet.

I think of people who vote for bad politicans as useful idiots.

The average voter actually believe trump will make things better. There are people to somehow still believe trump isnt a racist. I don’t know whats going on with their brains.

Like, of course there are those who are bigots and want more bigotry in government, but there are also many who are not exactly hateful racists or misogynists, they simply aren’t that smart and easily get swayed by social media posts.

Think of them as victims of a scam (well, except that this is a on a much bigger scale and have more serious consequences 🙁)

I mean I don’t expect people to forgive them for what they voted for, I mean I personally would have a hard time being around those types of people, but like, would you tell your grandparents: “It’s your fault you got scammed”

I feel like a hypocrite for saying this, because on an emotional level, I hate hate everyone who voted for the fascist. But then when I think about the situation with my rational part of my brain, I realize people are just idiots and fall victim to the fascist scam. Its not necessary the person, but its that this is what our species is. A biological machine that although capable of rational thought, can still be easily manipulated.

Yelling at a person and telling them that they are stupid isnt gonna get them out of the scam, but talking to them might.

We aren’t in a civil war yet, there might still time for dialogue.

Shitty time travelers and their stormtrooper aim.

Somebody definitely fucked up the timeline and they send these untrained time-travellers to try and fix it (and failed miserably).

Now we get Black Mirror robot dogs.

I remember reading some headline that reads:

“alt-right women frustrated at alt-right men about their misogyny. seeks change within the movement”

or something like that.

Leopard. Face. Etc…

Maybe they dont want to fall out windows. Remember who people voted for.

mass mail-in voting, which has the same downsides as online voting

What exactly do you mean, the same downsides?

Mail ballots require physical presence to tamper with, so if you have armed guards + security cameras watching the drop box, most tampering threats can be prevented, at the same time, no one knows who the voter really voted for since envelopes are sealed.

In contrast, internet connections are really easy to tamper with. Most people just blindly click past https warnings, and thats just the most basic attacks, there are more sophisticated attacks. Not to mention, you dont even need physical presense. Anyone, anywhere around the world can hack an online vote.

You mean people have to actually go outside? 😱

Nah I rather in my echochambers no thank you.

“Expat” because the person’s country of origin is “better” than their new country.

“Immigrant” because the person’s country of origin is “worse” than their new country.

At least, that is my assumption on the reason behind different labels.

Because I assume the person labeled as an “Expat” would go back to their country of origin if there is, say, civil unrest in the new country. Whereas a person labeled as an “immigrant” probably would have to stay since their country of origin might be worse than their new country even considering any civil unrest.

As an anecdote, my country of origin is China. And I’ve immigrated to the US, and have become a US Citizen. Despite the US going through democratic backsliding with the 2016 and 2024 elections, the US still probably isnt much worse than China (at least in non-red states). Whereas a person from like Norway would probably not have taken US Citizenship in the first place and would pack their bags and leave after the 2024 election. In contrast, there is nowhere for me to go. According to Chinese law, they revoked my citizenship immediately after I obtained US citizenship. Not to mention, its not like leaving a autocracizing democracy into a full dictatorship is any better.

I’m gonna reiterate what I wrote in another comment:

Basically, the people who wrote the 14th amendment didn’t specify how the ineligibility clause is invoked. Because it could be interpreted in a lot of different ways. Is it:

A. If popular opinion deems a person commited an act of insurrection, they are inelligible.

B. Congress passed a resolution that deems a person have committed an act of insurrection, then they become inelligible.

C. The Supreme Court has ruled that a person have committed insurrection, then they become inelligible

D. The person gets charged with committing an act of insurrection, and they become inelligible.

E. The person gets convicted with committing an act of insurrection, and they become inelligible.

Because the problems are:

A is just dumb,

B would allow a republican controlled congress declare a democratic candidate inelligible. Basically its just partisan shenanigans.

C also allows partisan shenanigans

D is presuming someone guilty, bad idea.

E trump has only been convicted of state charges of fraud, not anything involving insurrection. Not to mention, it’d require enough evidence to convince a jury to convict for something serious like insurrection.

So yea they should’ve been more specific. Because the vagueness gives the supreme court the legitimacy to interpret it the way they want to.

Biden is dont do things that seems unlawful. Because in his mind, he doesnt want to set an example for future presidents to reference and use that example to justify doing the same thing.

Also, how do you even prevent someone that wins both the popular vote and electoral college from becoming president? trump supporters would riot and even non-maga military officials would have to recognize trump as the next president.

The thing about democracy is that we all agree to let the person winning take office. Otherwise its just civil war to determine who is the leader.

You seem to have the impression that the US is a Defensive Democracy like in modern day Germany than can ban anti-democratic parties, but the US is not that. The US is a “whoever wins takes office” type of democracy, whether they are pro-democracy or a fascist. We would need to change the whole US culture about democracy if we want to become a Defensive Democracy.

Lol they can bypass the vice president ineligibility part by chosing trump as speaker of the house and then run placeholder candidates for president and vice president, then get rid of them and trump becomes acting president for the rest of the term.

States run elections. Even if Biden were do try to prevent trump from appearing on the ballot, the states doesnt have to obey, especially if the supreme court’s decision is contrary to the president’s orders. And if trump appears on ballots, throwing him in prison wont do any good since if elected, as he did in our timeline, he becomes president on January 20th and can order the military to break him out of prison, whether state or federal prison.

And if the states somehow prevented trump from appearing on ballots, we’d be in a constitutional crisis and also a state vs federal government political crisis. Pro trump supporters will cite the supreme court decision as a rallying call to trump supporters around the country to protest, and use violence if necesary.

Well you might say, who cares what his supporters have to say. But the point is if the 14th amendment has a more clear procedures of how to invoke the part about insurrectionists being inelibible. trump could be barred from office and the prorests would’ve been minimal since the media would portay it as more legitimate. But unfortunately, the 14th amendment is so vague that the supreme court decision would paint a different picture in the media and in public opinion, making it seem like Biden is being tyrannical.

They can chose trump as the speaker of the house (who doesn’t need to be a representative) and then get the president and vp to resign, to be removed, or die, and trump becomes acting president for the rest of the term.

Does it even matter? trump can get convicted of insurrection but the supreme court can just decide that he hasnt committed an act of insurrection based on their interpretation.

Too bad people who wrote that didn’t specify what it meant.

Like does it mean:

A. If popular opinion deems a person commited an act of insurrection, they are inelligible.

B. Congress passed a resolution that deems a person have committed an act of insurrection

C. The Supreme Court has ruled that a person have committed insurrection

D. The person gets charged with committing an act of insurrection.

E. The person gets convicted with committing an act of insurrection.

Because

A is just dumb,

B would allow a republican controlled congress declare a democratic candidate inelligible. Basically its just partisan shenanigans.

C also allows partisan shenanigans

D is presuming someone guilty, bad idea.

E trump has only been convicted of state charges of fraud, not anything involving insurrection.

So yea they should’ve worded it better on what it means.