hachyderm.io is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Hachyderm is a safe space, LGBTQIA+ and BLM, primarily comprised of tech industry professionals world wide. Note that many non-user account types have restrictions - please see our About page.

Administered by:

Server stats:

9.8K
active users

Heavens forgive me, I’m going to use a sports metaphor here:

Suppose there’s a great athlete, and an opposing team tries to get that player forbidden from play over some arcane technicality. Folks would say “Stop it! Defeat them on the field!” And they’d be right to say it.

Now suppose they’re •not• a great athlete, but they brought a can of gasoline to the last game and tried to set the opposing team, the refs, the stadium, and the crowd on fire after losing.

Suddenly, trying to get that player kicked out is not only reasonable but •necessary•.

1/

This is a post about people who say “We have to defeat Trump at the ballot box, not in the courts.”

Yup, we already did that. And when that happened, he tried to set everything on fire.

Failing to disqualify somebody who tries to •end democracy• when they lose at democracy is grossly irresponsible. We have to do that. It’s the necessary precondition of democracy.

2/

Paul Cantrell

Politics is not a sport, and heaven help me, I cringe at using sports metaphors for elections. But in this case, the metaphor is apt.

The unspoken ground assumption of checkers is “we are playing checkers.” If somebody pulls a knife during a game of checkers, then it’s not checkers anymore.

Can our legal system handle this? Possibly: the legal groundwork is there. But the law is not crystal clear, and with a nakedly partisan and corrupt Supreme Court….

3/

Let’s just run with the checkers metaphor:

When Donald loses the checkers tournament, he pulls he a knife and tries to stab people. Chaos ensues.

Players ask the checkers association to bar him from the next tournament. (In the meantime, Donald publicly seeks out a bigger knife.) But people say:

“No, defeat him at the checkers table!”
“We can’t bar him, or he might become violent!”
“Disarm him by playing checkers harder!”

Do you •hear• how ridiculous all that sounds?

/end

@inthehands i agree it's correct and needed to disqualify him from running, but he'll probably bring the gazoline and try to set everything on fire anyway, he'll also use the fact he was barred from "competing" as a justification for it.
Of course it's in bad faith, and of course not barring him would be worse.
But I think the discussion should be after how and what when he does start a fire anyway.

@tshirtman It’s both/and. Yes of course barring him does not stop him from inciting violence. But failing to bar him officially makes anti-democracy violence and sabotage an acceptable electoral strategy.

Going with the checkers tournament metaphor: of course you have extra security — •and• you don’t hold the door wide open for the knife-wielder.

@inthehands

Not to mention the 43 complicit Republican Senators. They knew he was guilty of the crimes for which he was impeached, but they either supported the insurrection outright, or were too unprincipled to do what is right. Either way: complicit. Vote them out. #VoteBlue