Nope. I have been aware of the paradox of tolerance for awhile and its a little shoehorning to put this situation into it. Your talking about a case of allowing an elected official to take office not tolerating speech.
An elected official who repeatedly stated and demonstrated his intention of preventing any future elections and destroying democracy.
An elected official, therefore, who should never have been allowed to run for office in the first place (this isn’t the only reason he shouldn’t have been allowed, of course, in a sane country he’d also been unelectable due to his criminal record, lack of any semblance of mental health, and intellectual insufficiency, but it’s the most important).
Ill agree he should not have been able to run but that was a failure of congress or in other words other people elected under the democracy to office. Not allowing him to run would have been great but not allowing him to take office when elected would be disastrous.
not allowing him to take office when elected would be disastrous
It would have been many orders of magnitude less disastrous than the alternative.
Sure, cutting off your cancerous hand would’ve been traumatic. But survivable.
Now, however, said hand is so far up your arse that it’s ripped apart your colon in several places and you’re bleeding to death while experiencing horrible agony, and spraying all your neighbours with blood and feces.
You could have recovered from getting rid of Trump, but there’s no coming back from what you’ve allowed him to do to your country, and the world.
No. No it would not have. Your talking about doing something trump has not done yet. It would accelerate the problems by putting us at worse case in january of 2025 rather than in late 2026.
Congratulations, you just discovered the paradox of tolerance.
And, yeah, essentially, in order to survive, a democratic society cannot allow those who seek to destroy it to participate in the democratic process.
Nope. I have been aware of the paradox of tolerance for awhile and its a little shoehorning to put this situation into it. Your talking about a case of allowing an elected official to take office not tolerating speech.
An elected official who repeatedly stated and demonstrated his intention of preventing any future elections and destroying democracy.
An elected official, therefore, who should never have been allowed to run for office in the first place (this isn’t the only reason he shouldn’t have been allowed, of course, in a sane country he’d also been unelectable due to his criminal record, lack of any semblance of mental health, and intellectual insufficiency, but it’s the most important).
Ill agree he should not have been able to run but that was a failure of congress or in other words other people elected under the democracy to office. Not allowing him to run would have been great but not allowing him to take office when elected would be disastrous.
It would have been many orders of magnitude less disastrous than the alternative.
Sure, cutting off your cancerous hand would’ve been traumatic. But survivable.
Now, however, said hand is so far up your arse that it’s ripped apart your colon in several places and you’re bleeding to death while experiencing horrible agony, and spraying all your neighbours with blood and feces.
You could have recovered from getting rid of Trump, but there’s no coming back from what you’ve allowed him to do to your country, and the world.
No. No it would not have. Your talking about doing something trump has not done yet. It would accelerate the problems by putting us at worse case in january of 2025 rather than in late 2026.
Have you been living under a fucking rock‽
no. I have not he has not prevented elected officials from taking office.
🤦♂️