How is it that persons who openly admit that

[Mme. Defarge]

they will not accept the election’s result's if they lose ARE ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE?!? Why is this not disqualifying?

[TwilightZone]

1. Because there are very few requirements to meet to run for office.

[ColinC]

5. I am in favor of there being few requirements

But perhaps this should be one of the few.

[madaboutharry]

2. Because one major political party has devolved into a cult and

the American media is run by billionaires who benefit from not calling it out. The entire system is corrupted and broken from top to bottom.

[onecaliberal]

3. Because it is no ones job to protect elections from people who mean to interfere in them.

Please don’t tell me there is nothing to be done. The white men in charge refuse to do anything of note, with scant exception. Apparently people think the oaths are for shits and giggles. The oath exists for a reason. In my opinion their “belief” and I use the term very loosely is the only belief allowed to exist in their psychotic trance.

[Roy Rolling]

4. Yes

It should be a requirement of registering as a candidate.

[Skittles]

6. I AGREE

if you do not accept the results of a legitimate election YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN AMERICA and should NOT be allowed to run again

[markodochartaigh]

7. In 2015 the

Republicans were going to have a brokered convention to choose another candidate. But they realized that because Trump was so wildly popular with the 80% of their base who are authoritarians they could not win without him. So they put party before country and chose an authoritarian Strong Leader who was not committed to democracy. Still, some party leaders refused to support him. They knew what they were doing.
For a democracy to be functional there must be at least two viable parties committed to democracy. We only have one. Until the corporate Republicans take back control of their party from the 80% of their base who want a Strong Leader, or develop a viable alternative party committed to democracy, democracy in the US will be one election away from failure.

[SMadl9ck]

10. Who knows

I watched RNC convention and this is the first place I've read about the GOP wanting to replace Trump, if they tried that there would be a war, I'm independent but it looks to me like the Democrat elite are the ones that have contempt for their voters ,all I see is headlines of party heads trying to get Biden to step down , I may be wrong but it looks to me like they want Newsome and Mrs Obama anyway it's going to get interesting , also it's hard to believe a thing the news media reports this is easy to see if you are like me and don't pick sides, anyway I liked your comment , my reply is just my opinion.

[markodochartaigh]

11. Well it was in 2015 before Trump was the nominee

that the Republicans thought about the brokered convention. Since then there has been occasional weakening of support. Right after the 2 trillion dollar tax cut for billionaires there were Republicans politicians wavering in their support, they had already gotten the main thing that they wanted. And of course after the failed coup Trump's support among Republican voters dropped, I think more because the coup failed than because it was attempted, but his approval climbed back to the baseline of about 80% among Republican voters. And corporations and Republican politicians kowtowed their way back to Trump's kkkamp. I'm not under the impression that many of the Democratic elite donors have much respect for the hoi-polloi, but a lack of respect is far from seeing other human beings as beneath them and mere tools to be used for their own ends as Republican elite donors and maga politicians do. And it makes no difference whether the plebeian is one of their supporters or not, to authoritarian Strong Leaders, we are all grist to be ground up in their mill.

[Warpy]

8. Thinking some ass is speaking for gawd almighty

means forgiving that ass any disloyalty to the country.

Goldwater warned us all, those people do not compromise on anything, ever.

[markodochartaigh]

13. Fifty years ago if I had told my

Grandmother that I agreed with Goldwater on anything I still wouldn't be able to sit on my behind. In our guts we knew he was nuts, but he was correct about that.

[Warpy]

14. He was a wily old bugger when it came to people

who once said what Falwell needed was a good ass kicking. At that point, I knew I'd probably like him even if that was the only thing I'd ever agree with him about.

ETA: My dad allowed only one political bumpersticker on his car for the whole 59 years I knew him. I can't remember where I found it for sale, but I didn't think much of the choice, so I gave it to him:

VOTE JOHNWATER

[lees1975]

9. In some states, convicted felons can't vote.

If you can't vote, doesn't it stand to reason that you shouldn't be eligible for public office?

[markodochartaigh]

12. Other than Massachusetts, and Hawaii

are there any states where a Republican judge could not be found to convict a promising Democratic politician on trumped up felony charges?