Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)L

lemonmelon

@ lemonmelon @lemmy.world

Posts
0
Comments
262
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Kamala Harris Launches Presidential Bid: ‘My Intention Is to Earn and Win This Nomination’

    Jump

  • Then it's option two for you, is it? The one where we allow bad actors to dictate because we believe they won't play fair?

    If that's the case, you don't have anything to worry about because all is already lost. "Despair is a narcotic. It lulls the mind into indifference."

    Or is this one of those situations where you've already seen that you're wrong, but you're too stubborn to admit it and compulsively need to have the last word?

  • Kamala Harris Launches Presidential Bid: ‘My Intention Is to Earn and Win This Nomination’

    Jump

  • I addressed what you're alluding to. Second paragraph, third sentence. If we reach a point where precedent doesn't matter regarding eligibility, all bets are off anyway.

    I said nothing at all about how the courts would rule, only that we have prior examples of how eligibility has been determined.

    If we want to talk about a sane world where rules matter, the question is settled. If you instead prefer to lament the possibility that those rules will be ignored, twisted, or rewritten, then it logically follows that any candidate will be subject to bad faith jurisprudence. At that point, all bets are off anyway, and the "question" of AOC's eligibility as a candidate has no bearing.

    Fret and panic if you feel that it's your best course of action, but poisoning the discourse with that sort of nonsense is counterproductive.

  • Kamala Harris Launches Presidential Bid: ‘My Intention Is to Earn and Win This Nomination’

    Jump

  • The three basic requirements are clearly laid out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Neither the 14th or 22nd Amendments apply.

    It's cut and dried, with precedent. There is nothing remotely questionable about her eligibility. If the concern is that the opposition party doesn't care about precedent, then the rulebook is completely tossed out anyway and we're dealing with a different conversation altogether.

    Anyone pushing the narrative that she does not meet the basic requirements is either engaging in pointless hand wringing, expressing ignorance about the requirements, or actively spreading a falsehood.

  • ‘The Squad’ Is Coming Around to Kamala Harris for President

    Jump

  • Or you might not be.

  • Kamala Harris Launches Presidential Bid: ‘My Intention Is to Earn and Win This Nomination’

    Jump

  • AOC is eligible. She would meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution at the time of her inauguration.

    People continue to spread misinformation about her eligibility.

  • Joe Biden ends re-election campaign

    Jump

  • You're misinterpreting the simplified version of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. I don't know if it's by way of malice or of ignorance, but the end result is that you're confidently wrong.

    The requirements set forth in the Constitution say nothing about any arbitrary cutoff date to gain ballot access. Don't believe me or the Constitution?

    How about The Hill:

    "First: Yes, she is old enough to run. The minimum age to be president is 35. Ocasio-Cortez will celebrate her 35th birthday roughly three weeks before Election Day 2024."

    Or maybe you will believe it from Oliver Willis:

    "Can she run? AOC was born on October 13, 1989, which would make her 35 years old on November 5, 2024, which will be election day. To run for president, the Constitution requires a candidate to be 35 years old or older. AOC would be constitutionally eligible to run for president in that year."

    If those don't tickle your fancy, how about Fox News:

    "However, Ocasio-Cortez would be eligible to serve as president or vice president in the 2024 campaign cycle, narrowly making the age cutoff. She will have turned 35 by Inauguration Day on January 20, 2025."

    If you still need further sources, maybe ABC can provide both information and precedent for you:

    "Does the age rule apply from election day, or inauguration day?

    It applies on inauguration day — which these days is usually January 20, in the year following the election.

    That means a candidate can campaign in a primary race, be nominated as their party's candidate, and even be elected to the presidency at 34 years old — as long as they'll be 35 by the date they take office.

    Back in the 1972 election, one virtually unknown Delawarean senator-elect reached this age minimum by the tightest of margins.

    Joe Biden was 29 when he was elected, and had just turned 30 by the time he was sworn in."

    She's eligible, and you're propagating a lie whether you intend to or not.

  • Joe Biden ends re-election campaign

    Jump

  • So you find it acceptable throw a tantrum about humor and memes while tossing around terms like "cheetolini" and "drumpf"? Do you see the inherent lack of consistency involved?

  • Joe Biden ends re-election campaign

    Jump

  • Can we put that misinformation to bed, please? Her birthday is before the election, which by definition is before inauguration day. Unless you think she's going to suddenly Benjamin Button, she meets the qualification.

  • Utah to use pentobarbital to execute man instead of three-drug combination

    Jump

  • It's in the context of someone moving the conversation from "a cannibus overdose is impractical as a means of execution" to "there is no such thing as a cannibus overdose".

  • Utah to use pentobarbital to execute man instead of three-drug combination

    Jump

  • You can definitely take too much and have a bad time

    You've just alluded to a toxic reaction due to overdose. The term overdose does not exclusively refer to the median fatal dose, nor does it hinge on the risk of lethality.

  • What's your list of banned brands?

    Jump

  • I agree with your list, but I also have to point out the irony of throwing in a "for the 'muricans" in reference to an American multinational company.

  • False Dichotomy Rule

    Jump

  • What do I get?

  • Ad blocker blocker blocker blocker…..

    Jump

  • If they had infinite resources, they wouldn't need to worry about adblockers.

  • Removed Locked

    Man Sentenced to Four Months in Prison for Carrying a 6-Inch Master Sword in Public

    Jump

  • Yes, but you must:

    1. Be immortal
    2. Have inside you blood of kings
    3. Have no rival (no man can be your equal)

  • Can Biden be replaced as Democrat nominee? Who could replace him?

    Jump

  • My guess is that they're conflating "stubbornly contradictory" with "hostile," which isn't accurate. Being labeled as or treated as hostile when you're not is frustrating, and it leads to poor communication. That goes both ways, though, and I can see where you'd both be able to infer hostility that may or may not be intended by the other party.

    Also, I'd suggest that if you no longer feel that you should "make an effort" then the best course of action is exactly that - cease engaging.

  • Can Biden be replaced as Democrat nominee? Who could replace him?

    Jump

  • Then how does "needlessly argumentative" strike you? You misinterpreted the other poster's point entirely, and then entered a cycle of doubling down without making any further effort to understand.

  • Ironing

    Jump

  • You wear wrinkly clothes to the return of Jim?

  • Removed

    All of the bases in DNA and RNA have now been found in meteorites

    Jump

  • A cosmic gumbo, kinda moves to the beat of jazz

  • Adult entertainment industry sues again over law requiring pornographic sites to verify users' ages

    Jump

  • You're implying that you believe I've resorted to "personal attacks" while simultaneously ignoring the very clear point I am making.

    Explain how browser history is the key to resolving the issue. Explain how legislation that could, and therefore would, be used against progressivism is a solution. Explain how public dissection of candidates has ever helped anyone other than the right.

    I'll answer your question with others: how many candidates campaigning on progressive platforms with ties to such organizations and societies do you believe exist? How many secret Nazis are out there running on an agenda with equality as a core tenant? How many KKK sleeper agents do you think there are who are seeking office under the pretense of being left-leaning? These people out themselves, they have little interest in subterfuge during the best of times. We are not in the best of times.

    We are operating in a day where the worst among us are far from hidden, yet you're seeking to create a bogeyman even while our monsters parade around in broad daylight. The onus lies with you to justify what you've proposed. So far, you have not. Unless you have anything to say that doesn't default back to trying to discover that which is already exposed, I believe it's safe to say that this discussion has run its course.