Quote:
Originally Posted by DownInFlames
The 12th Amendment states:
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
|
However...
Twenty-Second Amendment
Section 1
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It says "shall not be elected to the office" not "ineligible to hold the office".
That might seem like a technicality, but it's all this SC needs. They'll be able to say Trump can be president again via the VP loophole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
OK, so it isn’t really about whether people vote or some test of whether they support the causes they actually support and what is “right,” it’s literally just “voting Democrat.”
I would caution taking that attitude. I think that attitude encourages and enables the same on the side you disagree with, and it’s pretty difficult to overcome.
People should give their vote to the party who they feel has earned it, and that goes for both sides. If that means they don’t vote for anyone, that should be encourage. That actually teaches parties that they have to understand what it is people actually care about, instead of extreme elements being able to run away with the party with little resistance.
Your attitude (and Lanny’s) enable Trump.
|
Consider this analogy... if you were walking down the street and someone were to randomly start attacking you, would you refuse to defend yourself because you don't want to promote a culture of violence?
The thing is, Trump is getting huge numbers of votes from people who don't think he's earned their vote, but they're voting for him anyway because they've been fed mountains of disinformation, and have been fear mongered into thinking Democrats and immigrants are plotting to ruin their lives.
But here's the key difference between the right wing and the left/center coalition... the right wing actually
does have a plan to ruin America and the world in fundamental ways, including silencing their political opponents, slamming the brakes on the energy transition, and giving more tax cuts to the ultra rich while hugely increasing the cost of living for most people. (Project 2025)
The right wing constantly uses projection to confuse and terrify the American people, because they don't want an informed electorate to see what they're up to. That's why it's disingenuous to say "both sides are using fear to promote their messaging". One side is warning about real dangers, the other is demagoguing and peddling fake dangers to create chaos and confusion.
So the choices for the anti-Trump coalition are: 1) unite behind Harris and prevent the US from becoming a fascist dictatorship, or 2) stay home and let Trump and his sychophants destroy the futures of you, everyone you care about, and humanity as a whole.
I wish those weren't the only two choices. I really, really wish they weren't. But they are.
As for the earn my vote mentality... here's the thing about that. The other side doesn't have that mentality, and they probably never will. Protesting the democratic party and preventing them from winning this election won't cause a huge portion of Trump voters to suddenly go "oh golly gee, look at how principled those guys on the left are! I'm gonna be like them and withhold my vote until the Republican party changes and gives me exactly I want".
And here's the other thing. You (from what I gather) are disappointed that Harris isn't promising an arms embargo against Israel. So you feel like your vote hasn't been earned. But think for a minute about pro-Israel Harris voters... how disappointed do you think they would feel if she promised an arms embargo? Suddenly they would be the ones would feel like their votes haven't been earned, and some of them would probably not vote.
So if you're Harris in this situation, what do you do? The answer is, you do what gives you the best chance to win the election. With the stakes this high, winning the election is of utmost importance.
So what it comes down to is (IMO), everyone who understands the danger (it is not hyperbole to describe it as unprecedented danger) of a 2nd Trump presidency should vote for Harris, even if they have serious disagreements with her regarding Israel/Gaza. After all, letting Trump win won't save any Palestinian lives, and will likely result in a worse situation for them.