Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 05:52:39 JST Paul Cantrell

   Heavens forgive me, I’m going to use a sports metaphor here:

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 06:02:49 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     Suppose there’s a great athlete, and an opposing team tries to get that player forbidden from play over some arcane technicality. Folks would say “Stop it! Defeat them on the field!” And they’d be right to say it.

     Now suppose they’re •not• a great athlete, but instead they brought a can of gasoline to the last game and tried to set the opposing team, the refs, the stadium, and the crowd on fire.

     Suddenly, trying to get that player kicked out is not only reasonable but •necessary•.

     1/

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 06:07:08 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     This is a post about people who say “We have to defeat Trump at the ballot box.”

     Yup, we already did that. And when that happened, he tried to set everything on fire.

     Failing to disqualify somebody who tries to •end democracy• when they lose at democracy is grossly irresponsible. We have to do that. It’s the necessary precondition of democracy.

     2/

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 06:10:49 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     Politics is not a sport, and heaven help me, I cringe at using sports metaphors for elections. But in this case, the metaphor is apt.

     The unspoken ground assumption of checkers is “we are playing checkers.” If somebody pulls a knife during a game of checkers, then it’s not checkers anymore.

     Can our legal system handle this? Possibly: the legal groundwork is there. But the law is not crystal clear, and with a nakedly partisan and corrupt Supreme Court….

     /end

     GreenSkyOverMe (Monika) repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 06:12:52 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Adam F. Lawton

     @Adam_Cadmon1 Sadly, what’s obvious has very little to do with what the law actually ends up being in practice. And that’s true even when we don’t have a judiciary stacked with partisans.

   • Embed this notice
     Adam F. Lawton (adam_cadmon1@mastodon.online)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 06:12:53 JST Adam F. Lawton

     in reply to

     @inthehands Seems obvious enough to me and yet...

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 06:14:29 JST Paul Cantrell

     • Camilo

     @cam Yup. And look, I’m very sympathetic to the idea that the bar should be very, very high for removing somebody from the ballot via the courts. That’s dangerous. I agree.

     But not doing it is also dangerous. As you and I understand, but people lose sight of that.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 06:15:27 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Jonathan Wight

     @schwa I’m most worried in this particular post about the process people, who loathe him but are (rightly!) reluctant to use court power to remove him. This surely includes some of the judges who will be deciding these cases.

   • Embed this notice
     Jonathan Wight (schwa@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 06:15:28 JST Jonathan Wight

     in reply to

     @inthehands his people don’t care. Seem to think all of his behavior is acceptable. They’re loving and applauding this.

     And there’s enough folks who see what he’s doing , loathe it and yet still prefer him to any democrat. They’re the scarier imo.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 06:44:09 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     Let’s just run with the checkers metaphor:

     When Donald loses the checkers tournament, he pulls he a knife and tries to stab people. Chaos ensues.

     Players ask the checkers association to bar him from the next tournament. (In the meantime, Donald publicly seeks out a bigger knife.) But people say:

     “No, defeat him at the checkers table!”
     “We can’t bar him, or he might become violent!”
     “Disarm him by playing checkers harder!”

     Do you •hear• how ridiculous all that sounds?

     /end

   • Embed this notice
     David J. Atkinson (meltedcheese@c.im)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 06:52:37 JST David J. Atkinson

     in reply to

     • Martin Vermeer FCD
     • Camilo

     @cam @martinvermeer @inthehands It is the enforcement that worries me.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 06:52:37 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Martin Vermeer FCD
     • David J. Atkinson
     • Camilo

     @meltedcheese @cam @martinvermeer Before we even get to the enforcement, I’m worried about the law — because the sad reality is that ••the law is whatever the legal system decides it is••. Not what makes sense. Not what’s good or just. Not what’s rational. Not even what the literal text of the law says! No, the actual reality of law in practice is the output of a complex human process. And that process is both untested in this question, and currently severely compromised.

   • Embed this notice
     Martin Vermeer FCD (martinvermeer@fediscience.org)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 06:52:39 JST Martin Vermeer FCD

     in reply to

     • Camilo

     @inthehands @cam He is not being removed from the ballot 'by the courts'. He removed himself by engaging in disqualifying behaviour. The role of the courts is limited to formally observing that this happened. Or so it should be with a non-kangaroo court.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 07:47:10 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Gabriel Pettier

     @tshirtman It’s both/and. Yes of course barring him does not stop him from inciting violence. But failing to bar him officially makes anti-democracy violence and sabotage an acceptable electoral strategy.

     Going with the checkers tournament metaphor: of course you have extra security — •and• you don’t hold the door wide open for the knife-wielder.

   • Embed this notice
     Gabriel Pettier (tshirtman@mas.to)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 07:47:11 JST Gabriel Pettier

     in reply to

     @inthehands i agree it's correct and needed to disqualify him from running, but he'll probably bring the gazoline and try to set everything on fire anyway, he'll also use the fact he was barred from "competing" as a justification for it.
     Of course it's in bad faith, and of course not barring him would be worse.
     But I think the discussion should be after how and what when he does start a fire anyway.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 07:48:24 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Martin Vermeer FCD
     • David J. Atkinson
     • Camilo

     @meltedcheese @cam @martinvermeer Leaving aside the compromised and partisan judiciary, just on that question of the law says, the latest episode of Learn Con Law was really good on where the legal gaps lie in the 14th amendment:
     https://learnconlaw.com/78-the-disqualification-clause

   • Embed this notice
     David J. Atkinson (meltedcheese@c.im)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 07:48:25 JST David J. Atkinson

     in reply to

     • Martin Vermeer FCD
     • Camilo

     @cam @martinvermeer @inthehands Agreed. The situation is precarious and unpredictable. The law, as you define it, may not be sufficient.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 07:49:26 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     P.S. When I say “the law is not crystal clear” on this question, I’m thinking of the latest episode of this excellent podcast:
     https://learnconlaw.com/78-the-disqualification-clause

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 10:25:53 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Jack Rosenquist

     @hornet1936 Ha, way to cross the metaphorical and the literal!

     Re the anti-parliamentarianism: I appreciate that, and I wish more people were able to simultaneously hold in their minds both the direction of their own ideal social structures and what is effective in the reality of extant structures. That’s in general, but especially regarding voting.

   • Embed this notice
     Jack Rosenquist (hornet1936@kolektiva.social)'s status on Friday, 05-Jan-2024 10:25:54 JST Jack Rosenquist

     in reply to

     @inthehands
     In fact, trying to get that player kicked out is not only reasonable but necessary––even if you don't like the sport but are affected by what happens in the stadium. (Speaking here (1) as an anti-parliamentarian who finds that sometimes it becomes necessary to engage opponents on their terms rather than one's own, and (2) someone who used to clean the Metrodome)