• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    9
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    He had his many days in court, with his own appointed justices, was unable to find any evidence of significant election fraud, and still he chose to lie about it anyways. To this day. He tried to subvert the people’s will himself and refused to exercise a peaceful transfer of power, threatening and manipulating state leadership and his vice president to alter the results.

    Just because he was unsuccessful, and he managed to brainwash a large enough group of people with his lies to maybe get elected again and to avoid conviction, doesn’t mean we give him a chance to try again. That is a perfectly fine precedent to set.

    That’s not even counting the voter suppression that a state court probably wouldn’t even consider, and his base absolutely refuses to hear. Encouraging voter intimidation, lying about well-established voting methods that are more likely to be used by the other party in some states, priming his base to reject the results with his “its me or its fraud” rhetoric leading up to the election, daring voter fraud within his own party and his followers to turn out and “stop the count” or “count the votes” wherever the results are turning out of his favor. The way I see it this is just beating him at his own game. He already set the precedent, we are mitigating its consequences.

    • SatansMaggotyCumFart
      link
      -311 months ago

      No it’s bad precedent.

      Colorado barely had a majority on the decision, three other states ruled differently and Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything yet in Congress or in court.

      Do we want the pre-election period filled with both sides trying to disqualify the other side’s nominee just because they have a majority in their state’s Supreme Court?