qaz@lemmy.worldM to NonCredibleDiplomacy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · edit-21 day agoTariffslemmy.worldimagemessage-square76fedilinkarrow-up1388arrow-down17file-text
arrow-up1381arrow-down1imageTariffslemmy.worldqaz@lemmy.worldM to NonCredibleDiplomacy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · edit-21 day agomessage-square76fedilinkfile-text
minus-squarepiccolo@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·13 hours agoMore like resetting the election forcing both parties to pick new candidates.
minus-squareMothmanDelorian@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·13 hours agoWhich we don’t do either unless there is demonstrable proof that the election was fraudulent and we don’t have. You keep making the authoritarian/dictatorial choice that doesn’t align with the rule of law. Why?
minus-squarepiccolo@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·9 hours agoBecause the “rule of law” failed and allowed authoritarian to take over. Why is that so hard to understand?
More like resetting the election forcing both parties to pick new candidates.
Which we don’t do either unless there is demonstrable proof that the election was fraudulent and we don’t have.
You keep making the authoritarian/dictatorial choice that doesn’t align with the rule of law. Why?
Because the “rule of law” failed and allowed authoritarian to take over.
Why is that so hard to understand?