Trump 2024 — The second term

[Ingomike]

So, disagreeing with anything Trump says makes you an idiot and not a Republican? Paired with not agreeing with Trump making you a RINO, this has some incredible expectations of admiration and loyalty. Those boots must taste amazing.

You might not be a republican if you say the same things the leftists do.

Seems clear to me…

 

[jamil]

I think Turley got it right when he said that what happened on J6 was not an insurrection but rather a political protest that became a political riot. Others swear it was an "insurrection"

Having people on the inside in some way or other, ushering protestors into the Capitol, while others outside the Capitol were telling people to go into the Capitol, I think some things were made to look a lot more insurrectiony than it actually was.

As long as there are differing opinions Trump should not be barred based on political interpretations of what constitutes "insurrection." for political purposes.

I think before Trump could be barred, he would have to be convicted by a court of insurrection. At this point they're removing him from the ballot because of not much more than just their whim. I think that if it stands, Red states should remove Biden's name from the ballot for having "engaged in given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" over the way he conducted the withdrawal from Afghanistan. And having secret business dealings with the Chinese.

It's my opinion that Biden is guilty of 14th amendment violations. So using the same reasoning CO used to remove Trump, red states can remove Biden.

 

[Ingomike]

I think before Trump could be barred, he would have to be convicted by a court of insurrection.

And that point presumes a President can even be charged with that. Others in government have a different oath than the President so there is that unlitigated issue first.

 

[KG1]

I think before Trump could be barred, he would have to be convicted by a court of insurrection. At this point they're removing him from the ballot because of not much more than just their whim.

I believe this was basically the dissenting opinion of three Justices on the Colo. Supreme court. They basically saw it as disbarment without due process of being convicted of insurrection.

 

[jamil]

JD Vance explained what Trump obviously meant.

Sen. JD Vance, a Republican from Ohio, lashed out at a reporter asking about Trump’s “poisoning the blood” comments, defending them as a reference to overdoses from fentanyl smuggled over the border.

“You just framed your question implicitly assuming that Donald Trump is talking about Adolf Hitler. It’s absurd,” Vance said. “It is obvious that he was talking about the very clear fact that the blood of Americans is being poisoned by a drug epidemic.”

My complaint about Trump saying it is not about what he actually meant. It's that he continually makes these unforced errors.

Trump said he hasn't read Hitler's manifesto. Well. It's not a bad thing to be well read into world history when you're the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, and you're campaigning to be that again. The reason why he says things stupidly is that he genuinely doesn't know how people take it. Especially detractors will say it means something nefarious.

After the kerfuffle by the media, he should have at least tweeted, "President Biden's open borders policy is causing the blood of Americans to be poisoned with fentanyl. The blood of Americans who die from fentanyl overdoses every day is on the hands of Joe Biden and Democrats who support open borders."

 

[Ingomike]

Having people on the inside in some way or other, ushering protestors into the Capitol, while others outside the Capitol were telling people to go into the Capitol, I think some things were made to look a lot more insurrectiony than it actually was.


I think before Trump could be barred, he would have to be convicted by a court of insurrection. At this point they're removing him from the ballot because of not much more than just their whim. I think that if it stands, Red states should remove Biden's name from the ballot for having "engaged in given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" over the way he conducted the withdrawal from Afghanistan. And having secret business dealings with the Chinese.

It's my opinion that Biden is guilty of 14th amendment violations. So using the same reasoning CO used to remove Trump, red states can remove Biden.

The 14th was for its own time, the aftermath of the civil war, not even applicable to the events of today…

 

[jamil]

So in essence you're saying that Trump was an insurrectionist but the J6 riot wasn't an insurrection.

Nah. Can't be bro. How can you incite an insurrection without an insurrection?

 

[jamil]

What's it called if every comment Trump makes is interpreted in the best possible way to make Trump look good or a honest....

Troof. That's why it's called, "troof social". Because Trump can't say anything but troof.

 

[jamil]

A counter to the idiots.

And another. Channeling my inner Jeff Foxworthy again;

You might not be a republican if you say the same things the leftists do…

Who made you definer of all things Republican? I mean if anyone disagrees with you, you just say they're saying what Democrats say. I dunno. Democrats breathe, you breathe. That make you a democrat? Isn't that how Trumpian guilt by association works?

 

[jamil]

I'm betting that CNN anchor wasn't expecting Bolton, a more that staunch Trump critic, to respond the way that he did.

Well, it's true. SCOTUS should rule against. If not, like I said, Republicans have the same cause against Biden. Rip that mother****ers name off the ballot in all red states. **** 'em.

 

[jamil]

And that point presumes a President can even be charged with that. Others in government have a different oath than the President so there is that unlitigated issue first.

I think a former president could lead a rebellion even while in office after he's been defeated in an election. So I think there should not be any immunity for that. But, they have to have it adjudicated or it's just not real. Or giving aid and comfort. When still in office, obviously that's subject to an impeachment process to determine.

 

[jamil]

I believe this was basically the dissenting opinion of three Justices on the Colo. Supreme court. They basically saw it as disbarment without due process of being convicted of insurrection.

 

[KG1]

The 14th was for its own time, the aftermath of the civil war, not even applicable to the events of today…

 

[jamil]

The 14th was for its own time, the aftermath of the civil war, not even applicable to the events of today…

I suppose that's one way to interpret it. Completely wrong. But one way. There's nothing indicating that parts or all of the 14th amendment expire any sooner than any of the other amendments. This is the same reasoning anti-gun zealots use for the 2A. They claim it was for that period and it is not even applicable to the events of today. You can't just explain away the parts of the constitution that you don't like.

 

[jamil]

Time to write letters to your red state legislators. Let's start working to get Biden's name off the ballot. That should get the party started. That's what they want.

 

[indyblue]

This is the same reasoning anti-gun zealots use for the 2A. They claim it was for that period and it is not even applicable to the events of today. You can't just explain away the parts of the constitution that you don't like.

In this case,

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

You might not be a republican if you say the same things the leftists do.

Seems clear to me…

But you've declined to offer any instance where you are willing to criticize Trump and implied that even Republicans who don't like Trump have "TDS" or implied left-wing views.

I'm not saying I disagree with Trump 100%. My issue with Trump isn't disagreeing with him on that much, although he has had some more moderate/left views (PP, take the guns first, lockdowns) that I don't like. My issue is generally his tactics, delivery, staff choices, toxic image, self>party approach, and how well he delivers.

That said, it appears to some that he is the standard bearer and the guiding light to all MAGA.
It doesn't matter who he is criticizing or what stance he takes; MAGA falls in line.
His people can say something clearly stupid, and MAGA falls in line.
It's a weird Trump addiction. I can't think of anyone, especially in politics, that walks on water to so many or above criticism.

 

[jamil]

Mike, please list for me the parts of the 14th amendment that expire, and where I can find the expiration date(s) therein.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

 

[Ingomike]

Who made you definer of all things Republican? I mean if anyone disagrees with you, you just say they're saying what Democrats say. I dunno. Democrats breathe, you breathe. That make you a democrat? Isn't that how Trumpian guilt by association works?

You might not be a republican if you say the same things the leftists do…

That is defining republicans?

 

[KG1]

I think a former president could lead a rebellion even while in office after he's been defeated in an election. So I think there should not be any immunity for that. But, they have to have it adjudicated or it's just not real. Or giving aid and comfort. When still in office, obviously that's subject to an impeachment process to determine.

Trump wasn't convicted of insurrection in the impeachment process and thus far he hasn't been convicted of "insurrection" in a court of law.