acquitted in the Senate

Factually incorrect, either you don’t know what is going on, or you’re lying. The Senate failed to remove him as president, that is all. There is an ongoing criminal case during which Trump was indicted this past year. There has been no acquittal, contrary to your claim.

Just because your feelings say you really don’t want a particular person, it doesn’t mean you have a constitutional right to exclude them.

I agree 100%. I don’t want Biden or any of the other GOP candidates either. And yet, none of them have so far staged and supported an insurrection. I only think candidates should be discluded based on law.

I’m logically consistent, which is something you are not capable of understanding.

Consider how violent Trumpers could get if they couldn’t vote.

Well, Trumpers are extremely delusional and very stupid. So, they will get very violent, even though Trumpers have the most to lose and least to gain from an actual Civil War 2.

One massive trumper delusion is that they are the only ones with guns. In reality, leftists, anarchists, anti-fascists, and communists have a ridiculous amount of firepower stored.

The big difference is that Trumpers paint a big target on themselves and their homes, flying Trump flags and wearing trump merch. Trumpers are not ready to fight a war against an enemy they can’t find. They’re like the Redcoats of the American Revolution, they are big loud and meant to intimidate, they are not ready to fight an actual bloody war of attrition against an enemy they cannot see.

1. Are you aware the Constitution sets out requirements for eligibility for president? Just because your feelings say you really want a particular person, it doesn’t mean you have a constitutional right to vote for them. For example, maybe I really want Arnold Schwarzenegger for president. Just because I prefer Arnold that does not mean he can be president.

2. Trumpers could vote for Trump in 2020 and they still staged a violent insurrection. So your point is both stupid and moot.

Laws are important, I’m sure if someone broke into your home and stole all your stuff you wouldn’t want the law to just shrug and go who cares.

maybe a good lawyer can equate them

It’s interesting that you consider a swampy dishonest lawyer to be a “good” lawyer.

How are MAGA voters losing the democratic options to express themselves?

There’s lots of good reasons to be anti-Biden.

BUT PER THE LAW, Biden is eligible to run and Trump is not.

This has nothing to do with feelings or even policy. Nothing to do with sides.

This is just the straight up facts. Trump has engaged in insurrection. Biden has not. The 14th Amendment is clear that insurrectionists are not eligible for office.

If you want to be eligible for office, dotn engage in insurrection. It’s not fucking complicated.

Trump also said “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

If you shake someone’s hand and also punch them, does the handshake cancel out the punch?

You’re being slimy and dishonest again. Trump is a politician, he talks out both sides of his mouth. Talking out both sides of your mouth does not cancel out.

I’ll give an hyperbolic example. “Instagram star breaks DC window” = followers are insurrectionists. Anyone liking a post is barred from the ballot.

You can’t tell the difference between double tapping an Instagram post and offering a presidential pardon?

Whose democratic options to express themselves is being taken away?

Statistically it is non-white people, so why is it white people who are turning to violence?

You should actually be more worried that violent insurrection becomes the norm.

Violent storming of the Capitol is insurrectionalist and obvious (like assault)

That was not your original statement but it’s a lot more correct now, and if we can agree that an obvious insurrection is an insurrection, that’s a very good start.

We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore

I don’t see any honest case to be made that this isn’t incitement of insurrection.

Additionally, the 14th Amendment does not require you to prove it was an incitement, it’s enough to provide aid or comfort to the insurrectionists. Of which there are numerous examples, including Trump repeatedly offering to pardon the insurrectionists.

That’s like if you assaulted someone, and then claiming you didn’t assault them because you think assault isn’t strongly defined.

It’s just a very stupid and slimy way of saying you think laws shouldn’t apply to you.

It’s not vague at all. Engage in an insurrection, you can’t hold office. Trump incited an insurrection that was broadcast on national television.

Biden hasn’t incited an insurrection, but if he did, he would also be ineligible for office.

The problem with Republicans is they actually don’t give the smallest shit about the law or the US Constitution. They’re fascists, the don’t have integrity or values, except to value seizing and maintaining power, by any means necessary.

“how much land you own” lmfaooo remind them how much land Bill Gates owns and watch them trip over their own feet trying to amend that statement.

deleted by creator

They ruled that people acting together have all the same rights that they would have acting individually

Bullshit, corporations are not “people acting together”, they’re autocratic command structures where one or few people hold all the power.

preventing someone from spending money on producing and promoting their speech effectively prevents them from being heard

Also total bullshit, unless you agree that allowing people to be poor is a violation of the first amendment, because being poor effectively prevents them from being heard. Which you won’t.

Which are both perfectly true, common-sense statements

I’m already confident you don’t have a single ounce of common sense in your empty head after reading those two sentences.

Maybe you should have thought of that before you became peasants.

CU vs FEC was specifically about campaign financing, but yeah basically ruled that organizations like corporations are protected by 1A, and money counts as free speech.

Which is obviously bullshit on every level, but just one way that a SCOTUS with a few corrupt individuals can destroy democracy for an entire country.

Communists today are using all the same materials and asking people to read works like The State and Revolution, the Manifesto, and so on. I’m not sure what you think is so different about messaging today from the messaging in the past.

The difference is that we live in the present, not the past, and the present is a lot different than the past.

The communist manifesto was brilliant because Marx and Engels wrote it specifically for the average working class people of their time. It wouldn’t have worked if they wrote it for people almost 200 years past.

Let go of the history and tradition. I’m not asking anyone to write a new communist manifesto of the 21st century, but talk to people like you live in 2023, not a cult of tradition. Embrace modernity.

but the fact that most people in the west have been generally happy to keep capitalism and ignore its problems

Lol, no. Open your eyes up, Westerners hate capitalism, they mostly just don’t know yet that it’s capitalism at the source of their problems. People are exhausted at the idea of the iPhone 16 Max Pro Plus X Series, they just want to make a fair living wage to provide for their family, and have time to spend with their family. If you can offer a home, healthy food, medical care, and education at 32 work hours per week, you are sold to almost everyone in the US.

Your two quotes are referring to two different survey counts. Let me explain how this works: it’s impossible to get an exact count down to every individual, you survey a population sample and then make estimates based on your population sample. This can be done by both government and private agencies.

Here are the two different surveys from the article broken down:

The NSSO survey, done by the Indian government, not officially released, but leaked to the media. All this article tells us about the results of this survey is that “poverty had increased”. No years, no numbers, no percentages. Just three words.

The CMIE survey, done by a private company, used by the World Bank. We at least have the numbers for this survey, which says poverty has more than halved from 2011 to 2019. However, the World Bank already assumed that poverty would be decreasing rapidly, and put out global poverty estimations based on rapidly decreasing poverty before

When you quoted the World Bank as saying

The global poverty headcount in 2018 is revised slightly up from 8.7 to 8.9 per cent

That was referring to CMIE survey results being less optimistic than original World Bank projections.

I did make a mistake, I didn’t credit you for the NSSO survey, which did indeed support your point. I think that’s why you misread the conclusion of the CMIE survey. I think it’s sus af the government won’t release it, but I’m also a scientist. All we have from it is, “poverty had increased”. Imagine I presented to you a new article that said nothing about poverty rates in China except “poverty had increased”, how much would you value that piece of information?

Let’s be honest, you would’ve been saying that communist messaging sucks when the Soviet revolution happened too.

Absolutely not, and the Communist Manifesto was a brilliant piece of writing. These are communists who knew how to speak to people’s frustrations and desires.

So I amend my claim, I was wrong. Communists in the past were great at messaging, communists alive today suck at messaging.