Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Open Club  ·  46 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

Donald Trump thread v2.0


Muda69

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Bobref said:

When has that ever mattered? 😉

It has to eventually.

The Democratic party’s bullpen is damn near empty.

They keep trotting this poor old bastard out there…he has no clue what planet he is on.

They are gonna have to resort to the “at least it’s not Trump” mantra just like 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Is the public actually noticing the fact that Trump was impeached for allegedly asking ("quid pro quo" according to the left) Ukraine to help investigate the Biden crime family for precisely what is starting to come to the surface now involving the former Vice President and his "formerly" drug-addicted artist son?  Or is everything still Trump's fault?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, swordfish said:

Is the public actually noticing the fact that Trump was impeached for allegedly asking ("quid pro quo" according to the left) Ukraine to help investigate the Biden crime family for precisely what is starting to come to the surface now involving the former Vice President and his "formerly" drug-addicted artist son?  Or is everything still Trump's fault?

The latter.  It’s 2023 man, American’s won’t admit they could have been wrong.

Orange man bad…no other explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a newsletter regarding the most recent Trump indictments:

 

Quote

Here we go again. More Trump indictments. Before we get going, I will remind you that I believe a) that Joe Biden, for whom I did not vote, won the election, and b) that Trump behaved utterly disgracefully in the post-election aftermath, especially on January 6, and that I supported his second impeachment over that.

And yet, I find myself where about half of the American people are: so disgusted with the ruling class and institutions of American society that I can at least contemplate voting for a dirtbag like Donald Trump as someone who is corrupt, but less so than the incumbent president, who will be on the 2024 ballot. My unshakable belief is that if 2024 is a second Trump-Biden showdown, then the only real choice is between which form of wretched decline America will take.

First, let’s look at the indictment. The New York Times has posted the full text, with annotations by its reporters explaining key passages. There’s no way around it: Trump behaved with reckless disregard for the practices foundational to our democracy. Reading it as a layman, the only real defense he seems to have against many (maybe all?) of these charges is that he is such a narcissist out of touch with reality that he did not believe all the people gathered around him who said there was no serious evidence of meaningful election fraud. In fact, as I read further, the recollection of the facts in the case made me physically uncomfortable, with the brazenness of Trump’s lies and machinations laid bare. So many of these details slipped my memory. The prosecution brings them all back into focus.

Reading it, you realize how the integrity of the election depended to a significant degree on the refusal of some elected state officials — pro-Trump Republicans — to live by Trump’s lies. That is, they put their duty to the truth, and to the public good, over their loyalty to a corrupt chief executive who had behind him the power of a mob.

Here’s an example of the annotation, which shows you the level of helpful detail it provides:

  https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama  

You can read the whole thing for yourself. It is sickening. But does it amount to criminality? The editors at National Review don’t think so. They acknowledge that Trump behaved disgustingly, but say that building a criminal case on his actions is flimsy. You don’t have to be a legal expert to wonder how on earth they are going to make stick a violation of federal civil rights law stick to Trump (the theory is that by trying to obviate some votes, Trump broke civil rights law — a sign that the prosecutor is throwing whatever he can at Trump, hoping to make it stick).

I’m going to have to go deeper into the indictment and its allegations before I can form a confident opinion on it. But one thing is clear to me now: Donald Trump is a cretin who should never have risen so high in American public life. The fact that he has done so, and might take back the White House, is a giant flashing neon sign of our nation’s decadence.

And yet, the question that so many elites never seem to ask themselves: why is it that despite everything we know about Trump, half the country prefers him as president to Joe Biden?

You can say, “people are stupid,” or “people have been tricked,” or whatever. There’s some of that, surely. But that is too self-serving. I ask myself: why, despite everything I know and believe about Trump’s corruption, would I consider voting for him as the lesser of two great evils?

Joe Biden is in fact a good symbol of the corruption of the American ruling class. He has spent his entire life near the pinnacle of power in the imperial city. As president, he has never been particularly popular, but he has been a lot more effective than you would think, because he knows how to use power. This is something Trump diehards refuse to understand: owning the libs is no substitute for effective conservative governance. Joe Biden doesn’t stiffen the giblets of liberals like Obama did, but he gets things done. If I were a liberal, I would be grateful for that.

He might be a senescent, woke ambulatory cabbage, but he makes things happen. Once upon a time, you might have thought a center-left guy like Joe Biden would govern with moderation. Nope. He has gone all-out to institutionalize transgender radicalism, and the destructive lies of critical race theory. On the social conservatism front, which is what I care most about, it is hard to imagine any Democratic president delivering more results for progressives.

....

Last point: it is a real tragedy that in Ron DeSantis, Republican primary voters could choose a candidate who, whatever his flaws, has proven that he can govern effectively, and do so advancing putatively Trumpian policy goals. He has the focus and intelligence of a Viktor Orban, without the boxcars of baggage and drama that Trump does. But far too many conservative voters prefer the spice of Trump, even at the cost of effective government, to the relative blandness of DeSantis, despite the fact that DeSantis has shown he can get things done, and despite that fact that DeSantis would likely mop the floor with Biden by winning over many independents and the anti-Trump Republicans.

I mean, look: in the new NYT/Siena poll, 17 percent of Republicans say Trump has committed serious crimes, but support him anyway. Think about that.

Americans are living through the end of a world. It’s probably the end of THE world, but it’s definitely the end of a world. Nobody knows what comes next, but of this I’m sure: whether the next president is Joe Biden 2.0, or a restored Donald Trump, the country will continue to decline and tear itself apart.

Sorry, I can never, ever support the mental machinations required to somehow justify the thought of voting for the lesser of two evils, in this case Trump vs. Biden.    Both are evil, bad, choices.  Therefore I will choose neither.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

From a newsletter regarding the most recent Trump indictments:

 

Sorry, I can never, ever support the mental machinations required to somehow justify the thought of voting for the lesser of two evils, in this case Trump vs. Biden.    Both are evil, bad, choices.  Therefore I will choose neither.

My sentiments exactly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the article SF is amazed by how cavelier the term "Ruling Class" is used and readily accepted by everyone.  If there were not a Donald Trump elected President, would we ever see the depths of this "Ruling Class" like we are now? 

This "Ruling Class" is so dead set on keeping the likes of another non-member of that ilk, they are dedicated to absolutely ruining this man as an example to anyone who would ever attempt to try breaking them up again.  This also means there will never be a third party candidate that will ever garner enough support to break into that block.  So vote your convictions and feel good about it, but just know that action will never amount to anything except your feeling good about it.

You can like him or dis-like him, but nobody can deny the overtly political motivation behind these latest charges especially in the face of the obvious criminality that is absolutely evident in the Biden family up to and including the current President immediately after Hunter Biden crime partner Devon Archer testified before congress.

 

 

Edited by swordfish
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

So vote your convictions and feel good about it, but just know that action will never amount to anything except your feeling good about it.

Under the circumstances, that’s good enough for me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

So vote your convictions and feel good about it, but just know that action will never amount to anything except your feeling good about it.

 

And my conscience will be clear.  Will yours I wonder?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://mises.org/power-market/united-states-vs-donald-j-trump

Quote

It’s official. It is now The United States of America v. Donald J. Trump.

That is the name of the latest criminal indictment from Special Counsel Jack Smith, charging the US government’s leading political opponent with crimes against democracy. For peak rhetorical flair, the indictment evoked Section 241 of Title 18 of the US Code, more commonly known as the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act. This marks the greatest fulfillment of a personal fantasy New York Times subscribers have enjoyed ever since Barack Obama sent a thrill up their legs.

The aforementioned “newspaper of record” summarized the indictment as such:

[A]s the indictment methodically documented, Mr. Trump was told over and over again by his own advisers, allies and administration officials that the allegations he was making were not true, yet he publicly continued to make them, sometimes just hours later.

He was told they were not true by not one but two attorneys general, multiple other Justice Department officials and the government’s election security chief — all his appointees. He was told by his own vice president, campaign officials and the investigators they hired. He was told by Republican governors and secretaries of state and legislators. As one senior campaign adviser put it at the time, it was “all just conspiracy” garbage “beamed down from the mothership.”

Ultimately the charge against Trump comes down to an unwillingness to share the public opinion of advisers and various government officials. A refusal to respect the sanctity of the American political process. To share, or perhaps fuel, the rage of the majority of his base.

This particular indictment of Trump embodies the irreconcilable divide within America today. 

On one side, Smith can be fairly viewed as a defender of longheld political norms, a champion for the belief that even presidents can be held liable for their actions, and a rare man of action in a time where most political rhetoric only serves as a means to grift off the passions of outraged voters. Trump weaponized his cult of personality against the hallowed grounds of the US capitol and sought to maintain a hold over political power after the people soundly rejected him in the ballot box.

On the other, you have an America that views Smith as a mere agent of an evil regime, trying to destroy a man for the crime of awakening millions to an illusionary political reality that has captured American life. Any claims to “enforcing the rule of law” are made all the more absurd by the extensive immunities offered to the degenerate son of the sitting president who was responsible for being a key source of “the big guy’s” non-official income. While it is true that Sidney Powell found no Kraken, the powers at be did boast publicly about their “fortification” campaign to ensure Donald Trump’s electoral defeat in a once-important national publication.

In the eyes of Washington, including many whose paychecks rely upon the approval of Trump voters, taking any of this seriously makes you an insurrectionist deserving of being crushed.

The ever-growing list of legal indictments against the former president poses great risks to Donald Trump, the man; the continual legal escalation from Biden’s prosecutors and their state-level allies, however, has greater significance for the political realities of modern America.

Given Trump’s lingering unpopularity with a large swath of the voting public, it is not unreasonable to view each new criminal charge as an in-kind donation to the former president’s current presidential campaign. Polling trends show indicate that nothing did more to stall the national aspirations of his leading rival, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, than the willingness of the feds to act against their boss’s predecessor. It is quite possible that the only candidate that could lose to Joe Biden is Donald Trump. While no doubt the same Democrat consultants that embraced the “pied piper” strategy in 2016  — and more successfully in 2022 — view this prospect as an additional win, the regime’s reaction should be viewed as sincere rather than cynical. 

As Rothbard illustrated in Anatomy of the State, any powerful state requires the perception of legitimacy by its populace. Ludwig von Mises defended the mechanism of democracy as a means to promote political stability by allowing for a clash of political visions to be heard via the electoral process. Trump’s attack on the integrity of the entire process, which resonates to this day with tens of millions of Americans, is a unique danger to the domestic power of the regime.

This does not mean Washington is more impotent now in imposing its will on civilians than it was before Biden, however. An insecure regime is a dangerous one, which explains both the increasingly militant optics and radical language from the beltway, as well as the escalation in terms of domestic surveillance, censorship, financial warfare, and other measures by the feds and their corporate proxies. But the gradual erosion of legitimacy has resulted in declining rates of military enlistment, increased promotion of state’s rights from Republican governors, decreased confidence in federal authorities, and broadening recognition that America’s elites are capable of truly horrific evils.

America is just over a year away from its next presidential election. Already, the political season has devolved into the sort of unserious political theater that has become normalized in national democracy. The noise and stupidity that will capture screen time of the declining corporate press and social media are likely to serve the dull the senses and create widespread political exhaustion for those who are serious about the real issues plaguing the nation.

Politics in America, however, is no longer simply about electoral kayfabe. One side is really at war with the other. Only time will tell as to whether those opposed to the current regime are capable of doing anything meaningful about that fact.

 

Edited by Muda69
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump’s attack on the integrity of the entire process, which resonates to this day with tens of millions of Americans, is a unique danger to the domestic power of the regime.

It's not the "integrity of the entire process", it's the integrity of the 2020 process.  Something that is ignored (at the basis of Trump's election arguments) is the fact that the Governors (using COVID as an excuse) in many of the red states enacted Executive Orders that superseded states election laws and allowing for the mostly unchecked mail-in ballots that (according to his arguments) gave those states the ability to accept more ballots that would have normally been disqualified.  That is why since the 2020 election, many states legislatures have bolstered the laws to keep Governors in check when it comes to election laws.  Again - SF can't plausibly see how anyone would actually believe that Joe (hidin) Biden could have somehow/someway (legally) garnered more votes than any President in history.

https://ballotpedia.org/Executive_orders_issued_by_governors_and_state_agencies_in_response_to_the_coronavirus_(COVID-19)_pandemic,_2020

Edited by swordfish
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retribution, Deterrence, and the Case for Prosecuting Trump for Conspiring to Overturn the 2020 Election

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/02/retribution-deterrence-and-the-case-for-prosecuting-trump-for-conspiring-to-overturn-the-2020-election/

Quote

Donald Trump was recently indicted for his efforts to use fraud and coercion to overturn the result of the 2020 election and stay in power despite the fact that he had lost. The four counts in the indictment filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith all arise from various ways in which Trump conspired to nullify the election result through fraud and deception, including by conspiring to replace duly chosen electors with fraudulent ones, and pressuring state and federal officials—including Vice President Mike Pence—to illegally overturn election results.

Reason's Eric Boehm has a helpful summary of the charges:

The first charge is focused on the attempt, allegedly organized within the White House, to have Trump-friendly state lawmakers appoint alternate slates of electors to the Electoral College as part of a scheme that would see Trump named as the winner of states where President Joe Biden received more votes.

The second and third charges are aimed at Trump's (and his allies') behavior on and near January 6, 2021, when Congress was scheduled to certify the election results. That includes the pressure allegedly applied to Vice President Mike Pence, who refused to go along with the Trump-backed plot to discard the electoral votes from some states.

Finally, the third alleged conspiracy includes a civil rights charge that strikes at how Trump's machinations aimed to rob Americans of their right to choose the president.

More specifically, Trump is charged with:

a. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;

b. A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified ("the certification proceeding"), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k);

c. A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.

It is important to recognize that Trump isn't being charged simply because he wrongly claimed he won the election. In and of itself, that is no crime. Rather, he went far beyond that and organized a wide-ranging conspiracy to overturn the result using fraud and deception, and by attempting to enlist state and federal officials to assist him. The indictment goes into the means he and his co-conspirators used, in great detail.

It's worth taking a step back and asking why we punish crimes at all. The most widely accepted reasons are retribution and deterrence. In other words, we seek to punish criminals because they deserve it due to the heinous nature of their deeds, and because it's important to deter others from engaging in similar wrongdoing.

If these are the justifications for punishment, there are many situations where inflicting it is unnecessary or unjust, even if the defendant has violated the law. That may happen if the law in question is itself unjust, or if the violation is insignificant and there is little value to deterring it. Trump's indictment by New York prosecutors earlier this year may well be an example of such a dubious case. The later federal indictment for taking and refusing to return classified documents is a much more defensible prosecution.

Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election well deserves punishment from the standpoint of both retribution and deterrence. For the head of state in a democracy, there are few more serious crimes than using fraud to try to stay in power after losing an election. If successful, such action would transform the nation into a despotism, usually a deeply illiberal one to boot.  Subversion of the republic by the very person who has a special duty to defend it is obviously deserving of severe retribution, given the extraordinarily serious nature of the crime.

It is also important to deter future presidents and other high-ranking officials from similar misconduct in the future. Here too, there is a strong case for severe punishment, given the enormous magnitude of the harm this kind of crime can cause. Severe punishment is also justified by the need for sanctions great enough to outweigh the potential gains of this kind of criminal activity in the eyes of would-be perpetrators. Becoming dictator for life is a major prize for unscrupulous power-hungry politicians. To outweigh that temptation, we need an appropriately severe punishment, one that will strike fear in the hearts of even the kinds of ruthless risk-takers who too often reach high political office.

Trump's most obvious defense to these charges is that he didn't engage in fraud and deception because he honestly believed he had won the election, and that the Democrats had "stolen" it from him. If so, one could argue he didn't deserve retribution, because he didn't know he was doing anything wrong. And, likewise, there is arguably no point to trying to deter people who don't know they are committing a crime.

But the indictment recounts extensive evidence indicating that Trump in fact knew he had lost. Among other things, it notes numerous occasions when his own advisers, law enforcement officials, and election experts told him there was no fraud anywhere near large enough to change the election result. He also could have learned he lost from the numerous court decisions rejecting his legal challenges to the election results, including some issued by judges he himself had appointed.

In addition, there are instances where Trump himself actually admitted he had lost. For example, the indictment notes an incident in which Trump berated Vice President Pence for being "too honest" after the latter noted there was no legal basis to overturn the results. The report of the January 6 Committee (pg. 20 of the executive summary) recounts how Trump told his chief of staff that "I don't want people to know we lost." That obviously implies Trump himself did know he lost, but was trying to hide that fact from the public.

Even if Trump did manage to delude himself into believing he had actually won the election, his conduct was still culpable. If I steal your valuable ring because I have persuaded myself (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that I am its true owner, I am still guilty of theft. The same logic applies here. Trump had every reason and opportunity to learn he had lost. If instead he chose to indulge in self-delusion, which he then used to justify his scheme to overturn the election, he is guilty for much the same reasons as the thief who—without any justification—imagines himself to be the rightful owner of the object he steals.

Perhaps that reasoning doesn't apply to a defendant who is simply incapable of understanding the truth, as in the case of people suffering from some types of mental illness. But Trump is not sick, just evil. Still, the option of pursuing an insanity defense is open to him, and perhaps he can attempt it at trial.

Some philosophers and legal theorists deny that either retribution or deterrence is a justifiable ground for punishment. If that's your view, I'm not going to suggest you make an exception for Trump. But if, like most people, you believe that prosecution and punishment are sometimes justified on one or both of these grounds, than this case is a particularly compelling one. Jack Smith is right to prosecute Trump over his schemes to overturn the 2020 election because the man deserves severe punishment, and because it is important to deter future leaders from following in his footsteps.

In a previous post, I have addressed claims that prosecuting Trump is an example of "banana republic" behavior, and the idea that it is wrong to go after him when others, such as Biden, Pence, and Hillary Clinton may also be guilty of wrongdoing. The points made there also apply to claims that it is wrong to prosecute Trump because President Biden's son Hunter Biden apparently got off lightly for his own offenses. Even if it is true that Hunter Biden got an unjustified sweetheart deal, that in no way justifies letting Trump off the hook for vastly more serious crimes.

I agree with Mr. Somin.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/8/2023 at 8:33 AM, Muda69 said:

Why was a 19th Century law quietly changed (added into the last major spending bill before Congress went Republican) to address January 6 if it were already illegal?

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-susan-collins-west-virginia-c9c15562ad910bbc0ba6ef1eecbfc158

WASHINGTON (AP) — In one of the last acts of the Democratic-led Congress, the House and the Senate are set to pass an overhaul of the Electoral Count Act, the arcane election law that then-President Donald Trump tried to subvert after his 2020 election defeat.

The legislation, which Democrats and Republicans have been working on since the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol, is the most significant policy response so far to the attack and Trump’s aggressive efforts to upend the popular vote.

Led by Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, along with members of the House Jan. 6 panel, the bipartisan legislation was added to a massive year-end spending bill that was unveiled early Tuesday and will be voted on this week.

The bill would amend the 19th century law that governs, along with the U.S. Constitution, how states and Congress certify electors and declare presidential election winners, ensuring that the popular vote from each state is protected from manipulation and that Congress does not arbitrarily decide presidential elections when it meets to count the votes every four years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump Is Disqualified from Being on Any Election Ballots

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/10/trump-is-disqualified-from-being-on-any-election-ballots/

Quote

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment bans anyone from holding any federal office who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and who then breaks that oath by engaging in "insurrection or rebellion against the same." Donald J. Trump is precisely such a person.

Trump took the Presidential oath of office at noon on January 20, 2017. Then, knowing that he had lost the 2020 election, he engaged in an "insurrection" on January 6, 2021.

Trump tried to persuade Vice President Mike Pence and Members of Congress not to count certain state electoral votes, which had been validly cast. He lied to the American people for years that the election had been stolen and continues to repeat those lies even to the present day.

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-enforcing. It is "the supreme Law of the Land" binding on each of the 50 State Secretaries of State and their subordinates who draw up primary or general election ballots.

State Secretaries of State and their subordinates may not list on their election ballots as candidates for President anyone who is not eligible to hold the office of President. To be eligible to hold the office of President, one must be: 1) a natural born Citizen; 2) thirty-five years or older; 3) a Resident of the United States for fourteen years; and 4) a person who has not broken their oath of office to support the Constitution by engaging "in insurrection or rebellion against the same."

No jury verdict is required to determine whether a candidate who seeks to run for the presidency on a primary or general election ballot is: a natural born citizen, who is 35 years of age, and fourteen years a resident of the United States. Likewise, no jury verdict or act of Congress is required to keep a Secretary of States and their subordinates from printing ballots with the name "Donald J. Trump" on them.

Keeping Trump off the ballot after his conduct on January 6, 2021 does not deprive him of life, liberty, or property in the same way that a criminal or a civil jury verdict could. It is a privilege to be eligible to run for President of the United States and that privilege does not extend to constitutional oath breakers who engage "in insurrection or rebellion against the same."

Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English defines "insurrection" as follows:

INSURREC'TIONnoun [Latin insurgo; in and surgo, to rise.] 1. A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy, insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.

 

Donald J. Trump in a nationally televised debate with President Biden refused to renounce the Proud Boys and said: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by." Trump then falsely denied that he had lost the 2020 presidential election, urged his followers to assemble at noon on January 6, 2021 on the Ellipse outside the White House, and he then whipped a mob of some extremists, and many naïve conservatives, into a frenzy urging them to march on the Capitol as Congress was certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump told his followers: "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," he said.

Trump then watched the riot that he had had launched play out on national television without sending a Tweet or any other kind of similar message urging his supporters to behave peacefully. He did this even though one Tweet from him would have caused the insurrection he incited to stop—immediately ending, for example, the calls "to hang Mike Pence."

This meets the constitutional definition of "insurrection" even though so far Trump has not been criminally charged with inciting an insurrection. Remember that an insurrection is: "A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens." The Fourteenth Amendment bans either inciting an insurrection or a rebellion. Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection, even if he may not have meant to cause a rebellion.

Some will no doubt say that the voters should be the judges of Trump's insurrection, but that it not what the Constitution says. The Constitution says that only Presidents who follow their oath of office, which includes taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, are eligible to be on the ballot and to run for re-election.

The Constitution is undemocratic in preventing non-Native born Americans who are under the age of 35 on January 20, 2025 from being on the ballot for President next year. But, we live in a constitutional republic, not an Athenian democracy of mob rule.

Chris Christie is legally injured by Donald Trump's name being on the ballot. They draw from some similar voters. Christie should sue, if necessary, to get Trump's name off the ballot. Then the Supreme Court can open the dictionary and tell us what we all already know—that Trump incited an insurrection and is disqualified from being on any primary or general election ballots next year.

UPDATE: For much more detail on these matters, see Will Baude's & Michael Stokes Paulsen's The Sweep and Force of Section Three, forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

Looks pretty cut and dried to me.   It will be travesty, and a complete mockery of the U.S. Constitution, if the GOP and State Secretaries of State pub Mr. Trump on their presidential ballots in 2024.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Trump Is Disqualified from Being on Any Election Ballots

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/10/trump-is-disqualified-from-being-on-any-election-ballots/

Looks pretty cut and dried to me.   It will be travesty, and a complete mockery of the U.S. Constitution, if the GOP and State Secretaries of State pub Mr. Trump on their presidential ballots in 2024.

 

IF it were truly "Cut and Dried" the former President would already be behind bars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2023 at 10:04 AM, swordfish said:

IF it were truly "Cut and Dried" the former President would already be behind bars.

He very well may be behind bars before the 2023 election.  The wheels of justice turn slowly.

Would you vote for a convicted felon for POTUS?  Why or why not?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

He very well may be behind bars before the 2023 election.  The wheels of justice turn slowly.

Would you vote for a convicted felon for POTUS?  Why or why not?

 

What an interesting constitutional question! Can a person be elected President if convicted of an offense which was committed while he was President in a prior term, and which would have been an impeachable offense? I really hope we don’t have to find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2023 at 8:22 AM, Muda69 said:

He very well may be behind bars before the 2023 election.  The wheels of justice turn slowly.

Would you vote for a convicted felon for POTUS?  Why or why not?

 

Depends upon whom is his opposition...might be the lesser of two evils, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...