I mean morally or ethically. Constitutionally, sure, why not.
Why does it seem silly – or high-horsey – to you? I can’t speak for the people who propose these tax return measures, which haven’t passed in any states yet. So the “tu quoque” move you’re pulling here seems, to me, to be dodging the issue, which is whether GOP elected officials (including Trump) are remotely serious about winning elections in a free and fair way going forward.
I suspect you don’t actually take this argument you’re making very seriously. Hey, prove me wrong! Show me how, generally speaking, the GOP is better on free and fair elections than the Democrats.
Just want to remind everyone that this whole subdiscussion is just another verse of that old song “there’s this thing that democrats are doing that’s bad, which means that republicans can do literally whatever they want no matter how criminal and it’s okay. Complaints about republican potential for criminal activity is not to be refuted with counterarguments, but by pointing at the dems and calling them criminals!”
They are not currently proposing state laws targeted to remove the 2020 Dem candidate from the ballot.
…and the fact they’re not doing this one thing means that literally every other thing they are doing or might do is okay.
No, they are trying to remove the ability to vote from certain voters who don’t lean Republican.
LOL! One minute prior to this post, you wrote “Complaints about republican potential for criminal activity is not to be refuted with counterarguments, but by pointing at the dems and calling them criminals!”"
Literally one minute later you adopt the strategy you just decried, responding to an accusation of Democrats misdeeds, not with counterarguments, but by pointing at the Republicans.
No one is proposing any measures designed to keep candidates off the ballot. Force candidates to release their tax returns, sure – but that’s not keeping anyone off the ballot at all, any more than forcing candidates to collect signatures, or pay application fees, or any other administrative requirement.
I can’t speak for other Republicans but I still think free and fair elections are of the utmost importance. When candidate Trump hesitated to say he would accept the results of the election during the debates, I correctly thought “he should not have hesitated.” When he tweeted to the contrary (I don’t remember if this was before or after), I correctly thought “he does not embody the principles I want our country to stand for”.
I don’t approve of his whining after Mr. Trump won the election. I would not approve of Mr. Trump’s whining if he lost the election. Neither do I think other conservatives would, but my opinion is my own.
~Max
I think the Republican-Democrat slapfest goes back a long ways and is not worth pursuing.
~Max
I suspect the Supreme Court is going to see right through that “administrative requirement” fig leaf. What do you think?
And in case you actually think you’re providing a solid argument here, then: ‘No one is proposing any measure designed to keep voters from voting. Forcing voters to return a postcard, sure — but that’s not keeping anyone from voting, any more than forcing voters to register, or sign their name, or any other administrative requirement’
Eh, Ajit Pai (Chairman of the FCC) would probably say, “Sure, the Republican is eating the baby right now, but let’s just see where this is going…”
Part of the problem is that whites who score high on authoritarianism have almost all become republicans now.
And people who score high on authoritarianism do not respect things like science or democracy. So I really disagree about conservatives, I think most conservatives are content with the war on democracy going on. And now sadly the democrats are doing it too by trying to keep Trump off the ballot in blue states (which if the democrats pass the interstate compact, will make presidential elections very questionable). I wish the fucking SCOTUS would just overturn gerrymandering nationwide and congress could pass a new voting rights act. But thats not going to happen anytime soon.
The idea that the FCC could react swiftly enough to “shut down the broadcast within seconds” is the most laughably unrealistic part of that whole hypothetical.
There’s no point in hoping or expecting that Republican officials, or even Republican voters, will turn on monstrous/irrational/anti-Democratic behavior from Trump. And barely more from the SCOTUS, which becomes more of a discredited and possibly even irrelevant institution by the week, IMO. The only possibility of change will come from getting Trump and the party in his thrall out of power, and others in power. Even that’s a relatively faint hope, considering how rotten our system and most of its players are, but at least there is some reasonable hope for a non-zero amount of honor and decency within the Democratic party (and its supporters) these days.
I say this as someone who cast his first vote for President in 1972 and has never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. I don’t agree with you. Even post-1964 there were decent, honorable Republicans. They’re just hiding because they fear they’ll be primaried out.
Yeah, I suppose the Republicans could run Condoleeza Rice. She’ll only be 70 in 2024, and I’ll guess by then most voters would have gotten over her role in George W. Bush’s foreign policy. On paper she’d be an incredibly appealing candidate.
But, starting right now, I will bet anyone on this board $100 American cash (or at least PayPal) money that if Condoleeza Rice ever runs for President, she will not have a first ballot majority of delegates going into the Republican Convention. Furthermore I will let the better choose whether to limit the results to all delegates, or only delegates from states with closed Republican primaries and caucases.
Sure, it’s five years away, but I expect I’ll still be alive. Who’s up for a little action?
Who wants to predict what would happen to Trump’s hard-core, never say die support if he replaces Pence with Rice on the 2020 ticket?
I predict they’d vote for him again. Just curious, what do you think the overlap is between “Trump’s hard-core, never say die support” and people who approve of Justice Clarence Thomas?
I feel bad insulting you by assuming you didn’t realize this, but I was merely continuing your statement to say what I believe you sincerely think. The ellipsis should have been your first clue.
But I’ll concede, I’m not terribly worried about the mote in the democrats’ collective eye, because they’re not trying to keep Trump off the ballot and anyone who says otherwise is either stupid or lying. What they’re trying to do is force him to reveal that which he does not want to reveal. Why doesn’t he want to reveal it? Hell if I know. Probably because crimes or something, but maybe just ego. But even if this law passed he could still take a simple action to qualify for the ballot and everybody who wanted to vote for him could. (Actually they could vote for him even if he wasn’t on the ballot, but let’s not complicated things for the poor simple souls.)
What republicans want to do is disenfranchise people entirely, robbing them of their right and ability to vote. But who cares about that, right?
I’m not terribly worried about the mote in the [Republicans]’ collective eye
Yep.