GOP Official: Voters don't choose the nominee, we do - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963550]Where the hell do you see me calling for a banning of political parties? Now you're flat out putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said we should ban a PARTY from running or nominating candidates I'm saying DONALD TRUMP should be barred from running.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963458][B]I don't give a shit how close to pseudo-democratic dictatorship level 'approved candidates' we get with this, fucking get Trump out of the race. In this case I will 100% support any level of government or organization flat out banning Trump from running for president, be it the GOP's officials, the senate, the house, whoever and whatever. Get this thing out of the running.[/B][/QUOTE] When you can ban a person for being disagreeable then the gate is open. I think it's you that needs to read more about WW1-WW2 German history.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963500]Which would you prefer, Laferio? Setting a precedent that someone wholly unqualified to be president be blocked from running despite a popular backing based on racist and classist sentiment, or Donald Trump as President of the United States? Because it's looking like those are the only two options at this point. Trump is picking up a huge wave of momentum. The GOP has already shown that none of their other candidates can stop him. And if it comes down to Trump v Hillary or Trump v Sanders, I don't have much faith that either of the Democratic candidates can beat him.[/QUOTE] You either support the principles of democracy, or you want to undermine them to disqualify Trump. This is not a two-way street. You're either in favour of free elections which include a potential Candidate Trump, or you would prefer democracy have minimum levels of "acceptability" which is [B]not democracy[/B]. [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963514]Trump meets the technical criteria, yes. That doesn't make him a fit president. That doesn't make him a good choice. He is an EXTREMELY BAD choice. He will fuck this country over[/QUOTE] You don't just get to suspend democracy because you don't like the results. And that's literally what you are proposing. [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963545]The general public is not always right. They are being manipulated by his rhetoric. Whipped into a frenzy and made to hate and blame the wrong people for the current state of our nation and world. They are not thinking properly, they're voting with their hatred and fear. The same thing happened on a much worse scale in the Weimar Republic when Hitler was allowed to take power and begin his horrid machinations against the 'enemies of the state', the same people he whipped into a frenzy against (the jews, the gays, the immigrants) to win his seat of power. The Weimar Republic was not THAT different from America's democracy. It obviously had more parties and was on a smaller scale, but look what it got turned into.[/QUOTE] I'm calling it. Godwin AND Dunning-Kruger. BINGO!

[QUOTE=Thlis;49963562]When you can ban a person for being disagreeable then the gate is open.[/QUOTE] Bolding something I said doesn't change the meaning. If you somehow construed "Get Trump out of the race" as "Ban a particular political party from nominating candidates for president" I don't know what to tell you. My meaning was crystal clear.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963571]Bolding something I said doesn't change the meaning. If you somehow construed "Get Trump out of the race" as "Ban a particular political party from nominating candidates for president" I don't know what to tell you. My meaning was crystal clear.[/QUOTE] Your meaning being crystal clear to you doesn't mean you comprehend the greater consequences of what you are suggesting. You clearly do not understand how banning politicians because you disagree with them is the first step to banning parties because you disagree with them.

This argument is moving too fast for me to really add any input, but I feel it worth saying that Snoberry is proposing the following concept: What if Trump were to manipulate the public and achieve all of his promises? Forcing citizens to identify their religion, interning Muslims into camps? In the scenario under which Trump is "literally hitler", would you, years later, wish you could go back in time and do [I]anything[/I], no matter how undemocratic, to prevent that state of affairs? Snoberry is assuming this is what would come to pass, and under that knowledge, advises pre-emptive measures. It only works of course, if you truly [I]know[/I] yourself to be preventing such a fate.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963545]The general public is not always right. They are being manipulated by his rhetoric. Whipped into a frenzy and made to hate and blame the wrong people for the current state of our nation and world. They are not thinking properly, they're voting with their hatred and fear. The same thing happened on a much worse scale in the Weimar Republic when Hitler was allowed to take power and begin his horrid machinations against the 'enemies of the state', the same people he whipped into a frenzy against (the jews, the gays, the immigrants) to win his seat of power. The Weimar Republic was not THAT different from America's democracy. It obviously had more parties and was on a smaller scale, but look what it got turned into.[/QUOTE] Something like that will not happen in today's interconnected world were we can learn about what's happening on the other side of the planet within minutes of it occuring

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49963563]You either support the principles of democracy, or you want to undermine them to disqualify Trump. This is not a two-way street. You're either in favour of free elections which include a potential Candidate Trump, or you would prefer democracy have minimum levels of "acceptability" which is [B]not democracy[/B]. You don't just get to suspend democracy because you don't like the results. And that's literally what you are proposing. I'm calling it. Godwin AND Dunning-Kruger. BINGO![/QUOTE] It most certainly is a two-way street. You can very easily disqualify candidates like Trump with one simple and single addition to the qualifications. "No candidate to the office of the President of the United States may during any portion of their running for office nor during tenure incite any form of hate speech or defamation against another race, class, creed, sexual orientation, disability, etc. Doing so immediately disqualifies the individual from candidacy to the position and, if already elected, will result in immediate impeachment proceedings" Bam. It's not setting a malevolent precedent.

[QUOTE=Killer900;49963591]Something like that will not happen in today's interconnected world were we can learn about what's happening on the other side of the planet within minutes of it occuring[/QUOTE] yes this is why we stopped Turkey from invalidating its supreme court and other such heinous atrocities against democracy [editline]oh nevermind that never happened[/editline] oh wait [editline]a[/editline] i never thought that America could seriously vote for someone who blatantly paints himself as a dictator, but here we are

[QUOTE=bitches;49963601]yes this is why we stopped Turkey from invalidating its supreme court and other such heinous atrocities against democracy[/QUOTE] Turkey is not America

Banning Trump is an extremely slippery slope which will just be used to ban anyone anti-establishment or who doesn't fall in line behind the corporations who run the government. The will of the people is massively flawed, I fully agree. The problem is, until a super-intelligent impartial AI is created, it's still far better than basically the only other option of vesting all of the power in some group of people who will be corrupted by money.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963571]Bolding something I said doesn't change the meaning. If you somehow construed "Get Trump out of the race" as "Ban a particular political party from nominating candidates for president" I don't know what to tell you. My meaning was crystal clear.[/QUOTE] Here's how you get Trump out of the race: he quits on his own, or he loses the general election. The issue here is that due to the way the American political system is fucked up, there is a loophole that would make the most democratically favorable candidate not win a democratically elected position. The democracy has worked so far through the broken political system, but if it no longer does then democracy fails, and that is a cause for a revolution/rebellion/whatever. The GOP is threatening to invoke this by not nominating Trump even if he is the preferred candidate for voters.

[QUOTE=Killer900;49963591]Something like that will not happen in today's interconnected world were we can learn about what's happening on the other side of the planet within minutes of it occuring[/QUOTE] It happens literally every day in less stable portions of the world. It's happening right now in the Middle East with ISIS and in Turkey with Kurdish rebels. Ignorant people whipped into a frenzied hatred of the wrong people who have been blamed for their problems at home. The world being 'interconnected' doesn't stop shit. It makes it easier to pretend to be informed and pretend to care about it, but there are still shootings in Ireland, still car bombings in Belfast, still stabbings in Sweden, still terrorist attacks in Turkey. And I'm not saying that Trump being president will turn American citizens into terrorists, that's not my point. My point is that inter-connectivity of the world doesn't necessarily mean bad shit can't/won't happen.

[QUOTE=Killer900;49963603]Turkey is not America[/QUOTE] very informative

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963592]It most certainly is a two-way street. You can very easily disqualify candidates like Trump with one simple and single addition to the qualifications. "No candidate to the office of the President of the United States may during any portion of their running for office nor during tenure incite any form of hate speech or defamation against another race, class, creed, sexual orientation, disability, etc. Doing so immediately disqualifies the individual from candidacy to the position and, if already elected, will result in immediate impeachment proceedings" Bam. It's not setting a malevolent precedent.[/QUOTE] You can argue that the promotion of LGBT rights is considered defamatory to certain religious groups. Should those that support LGBT rights be automatically impeached? If a politician criticized a religious organization for being anti-same-sex-marriage would that be defamation?

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49963604]Banning Trump is an extremely slippery slope which will just be used to ban anyone anti-establishment or who doesn't fall in line behind the corporations who run the government. The will of the people is massively flawed, I fully agree. The problem is, until a super-intelligent impartial AI is created, it's still far better than basically the only other option of vesting all of the power in some group of people who will be corrupted by money.[/QUOTE] what happens when all of the power is in a [I]system[/I] corrupted by money, that denies the interest of the commoners?

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963610]It happens literally every day in less stable portions of the world. It's happening right now in the Middle East with ISIS and in Turkey with Kurdish rebels. Ignorant people whipped into a frenzied hatred of the wrong people who have been blamed for their problems at home. The world being 'interconnected' doesn't stop shit. It makes it easier to pretend to be informed and pretend to care about it, but there are still shootings in Ireland, still car bombings in Belfast, still stabbings in Sweden, still terrorist attacks in Turkey.[/QUOTE] There's always going to be terrible shit happening in the world, but something like America turning into Nazi Germany will not happen [QUOTE=bitches;49963611]very informative[/QUOTE]Thanks, isn't it.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49963604]Banning Trump is an extremely slippery slope which will just be used to ban anyone anti-establishment or who doesn't fall in line behind the corporations who run the government. The will of the people is massively flawed, I fully agree. The problem is, until a super-intelligent impartial AI is created, it's still far better than basically the only other option of vesting all of the power in some group of people who will be corrupted by money.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963592]"No candidate to the office of the President of the United States may during any portion of their running for office nor during tenure incite any form of hate speech or defamation against another race, class, creed, sexual orientation, disability, etc. Doing so immediately disqualifies the individual from candidacy to the position and, if already elected, will result in immediate impeachment proceedings" Bam. It's not setting a malevolent precedent.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963592]It most certainly is a two-way street. You can very easily disqualify candidates like Trump with one simple and single addition to the qualifications. "No candidate to the office of the President of the United States may during any portion of their running for office nor during tenure incite any form of hate speech or defamation against another race, class, creed, sexual orientation, disability, etc. Doing so immediately disqualifies the individual from candidacy to the position and, if already elected, will result in immediate impeachment proceedings" Bam. It's not setting a malevolent precedent.[/QUOTE] First Amendment says hi, never mind that that's a very narrow and conveniently specific condition that's being tailored to apply to one candidate, which is hardly better. Good fuck did you skip Civics for the entire semester?

[QUOTE=bitches;49963613]what happens when all of the power is in a [I]system[/I] corrupted by money, that denies the interest of the commoners?[/QUOTE] You otherthrow the system, unfortunately we're all much to lazy and apathetic to do something like that.

[QUOTE=Thlis;49963612]You can argue that the promotion of LGBT rights is considered defamatory to certain religious groups. Should those that support LGBT rights be automatically impeached?[/QUOTE] Religious groups who support hateful rhetoric against other humans should not be protected. Freedom of Speech protects your right to say something stupid. It doesn't protect you from the consequences of saying it. [editline]19th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49963619]First Amendment says hi, never mind that that's a very narrow and conveniently specific condition that's being tailored to apply to one candidate, which is hardly better. Good fuck did you skip Civics for the entire semester?[/QUOTE] See my latest post. The first amendment only protects people from censorship from the government. It does not protect anybody from censorship or retaliation from other people. Since political parties are NOT arms of the government they are not bound by the first amendment. Requiring a political candidate to curtail their rhetoric and not use hate speech at all is not a violation of the constitution of the united states.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963628][B]Religious groups who support hateful rhetoric against other humans should not be protected.[/B] Freedom of Speech protects your right to say something stupid. It doesn't protect you from the consequences of saying it.[/QUOTE] So, technically under that notion we could have politicians propose deporting fundamentalist muslims?

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963628]Religious groups who support hateful rhetoric against other humans should not be protected. Freedom of Speech protects your right to say something stupid. It doesn't protect you from the consequences of saying it.[/QUOTE] while this is true, it was not Thlis's point he is pointing out that it isn't the truth that matters for the stability of a social system, but what the people see as the truth if the majority of citizens thought that LGBT rights infringed upon religious rights, the LGBT community would not have rights his implication is that such a stipulation in our politics, while well-meaning, will be used against minorities if the view of the populace changes or in short, you can't [I]force[/I] the people to believe something via laws all you can do is educate and hope they vote for the right ideals ...not that I wouldn't personally enjoy anti-democratic practices fucking over Trump in the shadows, as a bright side of the action

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963628]Religious groups who support hateful rhetoric against other humans should not be protected. Freedom of Speech protects your right to say something stupid. It doesn't protect you from the consequences of saying it. [editline]19th March 2016[/editline] See my latest post. The first amendment only protects people from censorship from the government. It does not protect anybody from censorship or retaliation from other people. [B] Since political parties are NOT arms of the government they are not bound by the first amendment.[/B] Requiring a political candidate to curtail their rhetoric and not use hate speech at all is not a violation of the constitution of the united states.[/QUOTE] The Bill of Rights means that you can exercise these rights without being persecuted by the federal government, i.e. your other Constitutional rights, including your qualifications to run for presidency, will not be infringed by invoking the Bill of Rights. And yes what you said about political parties is true, but like I said earlier at the top of the page, [I]the issue is ensuring democracy prevails through the broken political system.[/I]

[QUOTE=Thlis;49963641]So, technically under that notion we could have politicians propose deporting fundamentalist muslims?[/QUOTE] If their rhetoric is violent and hateful and results in hate speech or crimes they should be subject to fines or jail time.

[QUOTE=Thlis;49963641]So, technically under that notion we could have politicians propose deporting fundamentalist muslims?[/QUOTE] Time to go lock up the entire Westboro Baptist Church and shut down any church, temple, mosque, or synagogue in which anyone says that homosexuality or gay marriage is a sin and gays go to hell. This is gonna be [I]great[/I]. This slippery slope starts with the FUN parts this time.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;49963512]Qualifications for running for presidency: Trump (like many Americans) meets this criteria, he is qualified to run. You can't make an exception for him because you disagree with him.[/QUOTE] We should however add a clause saying that the President has to demonstrate integrity and promote ideals which do not dismantle the constitution. He wants to substantially weaken the 1st amendment regarding Muslim citizens. He wants to abolish due process in cases investigating and interrogating them. He wants to, from the position of the highest power in the US Government, denounce a large portion of the country's population as enemies of the state, creating a new Red Scare - based on religion, not political or national affiliation. If we are to compare him to anyone other than Hitler, it should be McCarthy. He threatens to bring a new era of McCarthyism, with all of its profound negative impacts on anybody seen as 'the enemy.' Except in this case McCarthy would be the President, and in charge of appointing anybody who supports his agenda. He talks with great zeal of violating international law regarding prisoners of war and having a military that would not hesitate to do so if given the order. He talks of bullying our allies with our military might to achieve economic ends, and of cutting Japan off to fend for its own against Chinese intrusion on their territories, effectively making us in relation to the world everything that the North Korean regime aspires to be. He wants to promote a state of national chaos that would potentially allow him to suspend new elections and modify national law, with fear as the primary motivator for his supporters cheering him on as he dismantles everything that this country has developed since the 50's.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49963657]Time to go lock up the Westboro Baptist Church and shut down any church, temple, mosque, or synagogue in which anyone says that homosexuality or gay marriage is a sin and gays go to hell. This is gonna be [I]great[/I]. This slippery slope starts with the FUN parts this time.[/QUOTE] the WBC is not a good example to your point, considering that they are a group that exists strictly for harassing people, a crime

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;49963653]The Bill of Rights means that you can exercise these rights without being persecuted by the federal government, i.e. your other Constitutional rights, including your qualifications to run for presidency, will not be infringed by invoking the Bill of Rights.[/QUOTE] Exactly. The bill of rights means you can exercise them without interference by the [i]Federal Government[/i] Political parties do not represent the Federal Government. They are private entities and thus not bound to abide by the Bill of Rights. Just like a business can bar patrons from carrying concealed firearms on their property, a political party could bar potential candidates from inciting hate speech. It's not infringing on any rights because it's not the GOVERNMENT doing it.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963655]If their rhetoric is violent and hateful and results in hate speech or crimes they should be subject to fines or jail time.[/QUOTE] That's not the question though. You have already stated that [quote]Religious groups who support hateful rhetoric against other humans should not be protected[/quote] It's not a matter of what [B]should[/B] be done, it's a matter of what [B]can[/B] be done now by the politician. By your own rules, Trump can propose the deporting of fundamentalists. The only thing that your rules have done is ban "disagreeable" parties and inargueably harm the freedom of the public.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963592]It most certainly is a two-way street. You can very easily disqualify candidates like Trump with one simple and single addition to the qualifications. "No candidate to the office of the President of the United States may during any portion of their running for office nor during tenure incite any form of hate speech or defamation against another race, class, creed, sexual orientation, disability, etc. Doing so immediately disqualifies the individual from candidacy to the position and, if already elected, will result in immediate impeachment proceedings" Bam. It's not setting a malevolent precedent.[/QUOTE] Oh good, Clinton is disqualified then? [quote]reminds me of negotiating with the Iranians or the Communists. You know, there's no possible discussion[/quote] [url]http://www.progressivestoday.com/hillary-clinton-says-dealing-with-the-nra-is-like-negotiating-with-iran-or-communists-video/[/url] Heck, I bet you could find something to disqualify every single candidate given how general and far reaching that is.