The Democrats are resorting to every dirty trick in the book to stop Trump running again. - the petitioners in Colorado were republicans.
Perhaps try to enlarge the Supreme court again - they absolutely should have
or get Trump sectioned ? Not a chance - haven't you seen his awesome cognitive abilities at work? Person, Woman, Man, Camera! WOW
Take everything Trump has done or said since 2015. Now imagine it was Hillary Clinton. Watch as Fox News cannot hang on to hosts because they have all died from massive heart attacks.
It's been interesting, if nothing else, watching Trump repeatedly cross the line on what's acceptable or normal and watch right-wing news media pull back on him for a moment, due to shock, but also due to needing time to put together an edgy angle.
I can only ask the question of Trump supporters whether there's anything he could do that would make him ineligible for election? I suspect that if he really did shoot someone on 5th Avenue, the opinion would soon emerge that the person had it coming.
Yawn, still pushing this crap. He incited an insurrection so it's fair to say he was failing to uphold the constitution. It has nothing to do with the Democrats, it's Colorado's supreme Court. Fascinating how you lob the judicial system even though they've based it on constitutional law.
Short memories Trump supporters have... LOCK HER UP!
Your claims are entirely without merit and foundation. Positive proof of this will be your complete inability to defend your claims against the multiple counter posts which shred your post to pieces. Your claims do not stand because they cannot be defended.
You're trying to defend a rapist and a wannabee dictator. To try to defend him on the grounds of democracy, given he tried to overthrow the democratically elected government, shows how morally and intellectually bankrupt your cause is. It is scoring an own goal.
Is there anything beneath Trump supporters at this stage?
Well, it's the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution that's being discussed. It's a core function of the SCOTUS to interpret that. They can't fob that off on each state. In effect each county thus could decide, which is mad. Now logically IWT Trump needs a conviction to really enforce a ban on him being on the ballot. The other argument, as per George Conway is that, their is nothing in the 14th Amendment about a conviction.
The other point is that Amendment bans officials etc and it's by logic that's extended to the POTUS.
Arrive
Stir the pot
Leave
E.T.T.D.
Not even hiding it
It is a parody account
It actually says parody in the account name. Jesus wept
The text of the 14th amendment, section 3 of the United States reads as follows,
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
So, it would appear that the argument against this applying to Trump would be a semantic one since 'President' is not explicitly named as an office, but 'officer' is, hence the question as to whether POTUS is an office of the United States.
And, to be fair, here is a lengthy article from The New York University Journal of Law & Liberty detailing an argument as to why POTUS is not an office of the United States.
So, it at least shows that it will be a point of contention between legal professionals, i.e. the Colorado justices and those who wrote the above article like Seth Barrett Tillman, an American constitutional lawyer, and someone who apparently currently lectures at Maynooth, interestingly.
For my own, I would have thought that the people who wrote the amendment would want it applied to the president if he'd gone rogue, but it's possible they never imagined someone as mental as Donald Trump emerging.
It's a parody account. You've been had.
Just shows how easy MAGA fans are fooled they even fall for it when it openly states it's a parody.
No wonder Trump has it so easy with them.
They don’t care, who needs to be right when you can just say crap and walk away.
Claiming it was a joke that’s some neck
It's all the same. "I'm not a *, but..."
* Trump fan, racist, Nazi, insert as appropriate.
Giuliani has just filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. Assets listed at between $1-10million & liabilities at $100-500million
Full on FAFO territory now.
As is tradition. Alex Jones tried the same trick to get out of paying damages to Sandyhook families. I wonder what percentage of big money lawsuits ever actually end up paying out the declared amounts?
Which would mean that if they went down the route of not having held one of the named positions, therfore Trump as president is immune from being charged... But Biden and the vast majority of previous presidents wouldn't be immune as they mostly served other positions before becoming president.
It wouldn't be making the position of president exempt from the amendment, it would be purely president Trump, or any subsequent celebrity presidents.
Both as bad as each other.
The Democrats have learnt well from the Republicans, they are much more subtle in their ways.
Republicans are more blatant and crude.
148m defamation settlement, 4th largest in US history, some circus US courts are now.
I wonder who appointed the judge in that trial.. was it a Democrat...
Lets see what a quick google finds
On July 14, 2010, Howell was nominated by President Barack Obama
Howell became the supervising judge for the grand jury working for special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[1] On October 25, 2019, she ruled in favor of the House Judiciary Committee, which had sought grand jury materials from the Mueller investigation, finding their impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump to be a judicial proceeding
Bingo !
Both sides? As tiresome as ever I see.
TBF the GOP are the ringmasters conducting the clowns
The amendment doesn't have anything to do with being charged with insurrection, but rather with the limitations placed upon those who are found to be insurrectionists.
Biden and others would have nothing to worry about since they have not participated in insurrection. A judge would have to be so bent that they'd resemble a pretzel before this could be in doubt.
In the opinion of the Colorado SC, the actions of Trump on Jan 6th, or maybe leading up to it as well, amounted to insurrection.
More of it.
erlichbachman threadbanned
A Trump diehard who supported the "stolen" election conspiracies and supported George Santos.
Her fanfic complaint is unlikely to be relevant tbh.
Not suggesting that Biden is an insurrectionist. Just that if the USSC finds that the 14th doesn't apply to Trump it would be only Trump that it doesn't apply to.
It would however apply to any future presidents who were previously also members of Congress first. Only celebrity presidents such as Trump and Regan would be exempt from it due to never holding another position which meant they had to swear to uphold the constitution.
I do wonder what it would take for this Both Sides fallacy to be dislodged altogether. Trump has never once made his intention quiet, has openly now spoken of dictatorship and egged on a wannabe insurrection - but oooOOOoooh, the Democrats. They're subtle.
Vying for the VP slot I see....
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/877aa92d1fda3704e03b5aa206affea2.svg)
