Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
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.
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?