Possibly because personal honor is a foreign concept to the hiveThe same leftists cannot fathom why some confederate generals were recognized by the Union post war…
Possibly because personal honor is a foreign concept to the hiveThe same leftists cannot fathom why some confederate generals were recognized by the Union post war…
Just to be clear we are talking specifically about "insurrection" as it applies to Trump.I am saying that I think Trump’s disqualifying act was the phony electors, not the riot.
I think the argument can be made that (at least some of) the J6 rioters did act to (attempt to) keep the duly-elected president-elect from taking office, and those acts arguably do rise to the level of attempted rebellion or insurrection…but I don’t think the argument that Trump was in control of that crowd has much merit.
In other words, I think Trump should be held accountable for his phony elector scheme, and I think the rioters should be held accountable for their actions during the riots…but I don‘t think Trump is criminally liable for the actions of the individual rioters.
Now c'mon. That sounds a bit like a passive/aggreessive jab. Like something to be proud of? But anyway, you probably shouldn't talk about it then.I already admitted I am not a student of Nazi history, and I made a mistake.
But you never articulate WHY it is so important to you that we make the criticisms you so desperately want us to make. It's not like they're not being made. It isn't like you need our voices added to your chorus - so why IS that so important to you Tjamil?But, instead, he covers with federalism and Faucci being the one who recommended the policies. Trump should have directed Faucci not to recommend lockdowns. Not to recommend mask mandates. He didn't. I think that's a legitimate criticism of Trump that devout Trumpers cannot bring themselves to make.
Godwin? Is that you?I get it, bug…you think Trump picks the best lawyers just like you think Hitler picked the best generals.
Why should it be only 'ardent' Trump supporters?I'd be willing to bet that most ardent Trump supporters would be fine with their contributions going toward legal expenses for their candidate since Trump's campaign doesn't seem to be suffering right now due to lack of attention. It's not taking away from his campaign in other words.
Let me add this to support my point.. Does what you think should be the disqualifying act fit the definition of insurrection?I am saying that I think Trump’s disqualifying act was the phony electors, not the riot.
I have. It's a bit sanity check, when you pull out all the stops to rationalize even the most minor criticism. I think most people can find some good and bad about anything. When you discover someone who can't, well. Why can't you?But you never articulate WHY it is so important to you that we make the criticisms you so desperately want us to make. It's not like they're not being made. It isn't like you need our voices added to your chorus - so why IS that so important to you Tjamil?
This convinces me that you don't understand. I have no interest in saving you. From what? We go around and around, even though we probably agree 90% on politics. That 10% is pretty much where I point out some legitimate criticisms of Trump, which you reject all, ever. I find that odd.You cannot save me. You can't even save yourself
If you re-read and comprehend the point of my entire post, I am not being critical of staunch Trump supporters that I feel most likely do not have an issue with their donations going toward legal expenses. Maybe I'm wrong. IDK maybe you do have an issue with it. I certainly don't if that's what they want.Why should it be only 'ardent' Trump supporters?
DeSantis, super PAC accused of breaking campaign finance law in federal complaint
TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — A watchdog group has accused Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis of breaking campaign finance laws by coordinating with the Never Back Down PAC, according to a complaint filed with…www.wfla.com
You'll have a chance to prove your opinion isn't just about Trump. DeSantis has been accused by a 'watchdog group' (read: partisan NGO) of violating election law by illegally co-ordinating with his superPAC. Will you also be critical of DeSantis if he begins using campaign funds to hire legal talent and defend himself against the allegations? If so, then perhaps what you mean to say is Trump is doing what any other conservative politician would be expected to do when victimized by lawfare
And incidentally (not directed at you, KG) that fact that law fare against DeSantis is already ramping up should disabuse ABTs of the notion that if Trump were off the ballot we would magically return elections being conducted on the merits and all cheating would be passé
At this point the lawfare and campaign are one and the same. If he was not a candidate none of this legal maneuvering would be attempted…Did you raise money to pay for his campaign or his legal bills? Do you think it is right for a billionaire to use donor money on legal bills?
Lawyers, Trump and money: Ex-president spends millions in donor cash on attorneys as legal woes grow
Trump’s Save America political action committee has paid nearly $37 million to more than 60 law firms and individual attorneys since January 2022, records show.apnews.com
I agree millions of leftist voted in Newsom.Now c'mon. That sounds a bit like a passive/aggreessive jab. Like something to be proud of? But anyway, you probably shouldn't talk about it then.
Hopefully you're not like the other Lefties who toss around "Hitler" and fascist references at conservatives. Most Lefties I've seen calling conservatives fascists wouldn't know a real ass fascist if they saw one looking back in the mirror.
Just to be clear we are talking specifically about "insurrection" as it applies to Trump.
I'm kinda getting a mixed message from you now in that it appears you do not feel that Trump should be accountable for the acts of the rioters that in your estimation could arguably rise to the level of attempted "rebellion or insurrection." which by the way none have been charged with and you are saying that the disqualifying insurrectionist act on the part for Trump is that of an phony electors' scheme. So now Trump and the phony electors are "insurrectionists." of their own right.
If that's the case, we are really stretching the definition of "insurrection."
I am saying that I think Trump’s disqualifying act was the phony electors, not the riot.
I think the argument can be made that (at least some of) the J6 rioters did act to (attempt to) keep the duly-elected president-elect from taking office, and those acts arguably do rise to the level of attempted rebellion or insurrection…but I don’t think the argument that Trump was in control of that crowd has much merit.
In other words, I think Trump should be held accountable for his phony elector scheme, and I think the rioters should be held accountable for their actions during the riots…but I don‘t think Trump is criminally liable for the actions of the individual rioters.
If the electors were chosen in a manner other than how the legislature of the individual state directed are they not fraudulent electors?
Well, the 14th amendment also lists rebellion and treason as disqualifying. Trump wasn't involved in an insurrection. It wasn't Treason, although some nutty people might want to believe that. I suppose LG might like to say it was a rebellion.Let me add this to support my point.. Does what you think should be the disqualifying act fit the definition of insurrection?
"An “insurrection,” by definition, is a “violent uprising against an authority or government.”
Cannot answer the question?
What you think "should" be included in the definition of "insurrection" is not in reality.I’m really sorry, but I am having a hard time following this next part:
If I correctly understand what you are asking…yes, I think Trump’s phony elector scheme alone should be enough to disqualify him from holding elected office ever again.
I agree that definitions are important, and I agree that “insurrection” can be defined narrowly enough to exclude Trump’s elector scheme from consideration.
I don’t think it should be, though…I think both justice and liberty are likely better served by a definition that includes attempts to disrupt the lawful transfer of power in the concept of insurrection.
Explain how Trump trying to use his lawyers legal theory to switch electors equates to Trump having "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."I am saying that I think Trump’s disqualifying act was the phony electors, not the riot.