I confess to back pedaling into Trump territory when I wanted to leave discussions about him in the garbage can. My thread on the read-only break room site has 9,600 replies so I thought I'd bring up a new one.
He's not going away.
Haberman's book is out based on interviews. I won't read it, but the excerpts are interesting. Especially what he says about McConnell, a description that's against the Terms of Service here, but I actually don't disagree with. LOL
Quote
“At one point, Trump made a candid admission that was as jarring as it was ultimately unsurprising. ‘The question I get asked more than any other question: “If you had it to do again, would you have done it?”’Trump said of running for president. ‘The answer is, yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.’ … Reflecting on the meaning of having been president of the United States, his first impulse was not to mention public service, or what he felt he’d accomplished, only that it appeared to be a vehicle for fame, and that many experiences were only worth having if someone else envied them.”
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
It doesn't point to a conviction being required. That backs up my point. It's vaque. And was written at a time when people succeeded from the country, formed their own military, and took up arms to fight against the US. Actual insurrectionists, who then rejoined our country.
The language seems pretty straightforward to me.
You must think that the events of January 6th didn't amount to Americans fighting against the US government to install a man into the presidency who lost his election. Most Americans disagree with that Trumpist analysis of what happened. Lots of people are in jail because they participated in that attack and attempt to undermine our peaceful transfer of power. We have current members of congress who participated in the planning of that attack on the Capitol. The amendment is perfect for dealing with this specific Trumpian ambition.
Quote
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
Can you be specific about which language is dangerously vague?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
He makes good points. That is, if you gloss over the fact that the court determined without any due process that Trump engaged in insurrection. It's notable that the 14th Amendment doesn't even define what insurrection is or what constitutes engaging it in. Also, keep in mind insurrection is a federal crime that he has not been charged with let alone guilty of.
So, the court subjectively defined it then decided Trump was guilty of it, and then took away his right to run for President. All without any due process.
Did you watch the video I included with my post? Where do you disagree with his analysis?
You should at least read the dissenting opinions of the CO Supreme Court justices. Samour's in particular.
Are you unsure of the definition of the term "insurrection"? Merriam Webster defines it this way;
"insurrection
noun
in·sur·rec·tion ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən
Synonyms of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government"
Maybe you don't want to call that violent uprising on 010621 against our government an insurrection because you don't think it was violent enough to be called a insurrection. Some definitions include violence as a portion of the definition.
Since the amendment doesn't require an indictment or conviction for insurrection, the fact that Trump hasn't been specifically charged for that is irrelevant.
Can you show us where the Colorado courts redefined the term "insurrection" or is this just another Trumpian claim that has no basis in reality?
Yes, I listened to Turley (the guy who testified under oath that there is no evidence with which to impeach Biden). Is it difficult to understand where our opinions differ? You should at least acknowledge that I already said that I read the dissent.
We'll just have to wait and see what happens with the Supreme Court. Will Thomas recuse himself since his wife was part of the January 6 planning team? Will Gorsuch evolve his opinion on the jurisdiction? Will the SCOTUS tell us that Jan 6 wasn't an insurrection or that Trump had nothing to do with the violent gathering? Or will they tell us that the POTUS not an officer of the government and isn't subject to this disqualifier that applies to other elected positions who swear an oath to the constitution?
Lots of people are in jail because they participated in that attack and attempt to undermine our peaceful transfer of power.
And not one of them named Donald Trump.
You say him not being charged or convicted in related to the insurrection is irrelevant, but point to the fact that others are as evidence of the insurrection. Trying to play it both ways?
toomuchbaloney said:
Can you be specific about which language is dangerously vague?
Already covered this, and will touch on it again in my next post.
Are you unsure of the definition of the term "insurrection"? Merriam Webster defines it this way;
Doesn't matter what my or your, or Websters is. It matters how the Consitution defines it. Which, it doesn't.
We probably both agree on what murder is. What matters though is how the state defines it. Every state statute related to murder includes a definition of what it is.
toomuchbaloney said:
Can you show us where the Colorado courts redefined the term "insurrection" or is this just another Trumpian claim that has no basis in reality?
They didn't redefine it. In absence of a definition to guide them, to find Trump guilty of it they must have formulated their own.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
And not one of them named Donald Trump.
You say him not being charged or convicted in related to the insurrection is irrelevant, but point to the fact that others are as evidence of the insurrection. Trying to play it both ways?
Already covered this, and will touch on it again in my next post.
The amendment doesn't require that Trump be charged or convicted of insurrection to be disqualified. It's already been established that Trump's rally attendees engaged in rebellion against the federal government on Trump's behalf. The Colorado courts ruled that Trump participated in that rebellion or that he gave comfort and support to those insurrectionists. Maybe you are disputing that finding. We all are aware of Trump's involvement although there's many who try to deny it.
Beerman said:
Doesn't matter what my or your, or Websters is. It matters how the Consitution defines it. Which, it doesn't.
We probably both agree on what murder is. What matters though is how the state defines it. Every state statute related to murder includes a definition of what it is.
They didn't redefine it. In absence of a definition to guide them, to find Trump guilty of it they must have formulated their own.
We might agree about the definition of murder, but if it's related to Trump, we might not. It might be exactly like you not agreeing about the definition of rape as related to Trump's conduct. It's weird that you insist that the court must have formulated a different definition of insurrection for this ruling rather than use the common definition, and then didn't include it in their documents. Like it's a secret.
Similarly, I'm wondering why you might think that there is some special secret definition of insurrection that must be used to interpret the language of the 14th Amendment. I wonder why you think that if the authors of the amendment wanted people to use a specific definition which differed from the common definition, but didn't clarify that. Do you have an opinion as to why they wouldn't include the special definition in the amendment if the common definition wasn't sufficient? It seems so randomly illogical and frivolous of those very serious men. Don't you think?
Violence, threats of violence and talk of civil war have been normalized by Trump and Trump loving conservatives.
Quote
To extremism researchers who monitor online spaces for indications of planned violence, the uptick is not surprising. Since Trump left the White House and as he has come under greater legal pressure relating to his personal businesses and the events of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, these spikes have become somewhat predictable and more frequent.
"Each incident, each indictment of former President Trump, every negative development that's related to him, every time even something happens with President Biden or the Democratic Party, where people think that the Bidens have gotten away with it, has contributed to this environment [where his supporters think] that the current government is out to get supporters of Trump," said Katherine Keneally, who heads threat analysis and prevention at the nonprofit Institute for Strategic Dialogue-U.S., which monitors the threat landscape online.
Keneally said the most incendiary posts were found on alt-tech platforms such as Gab, Truth Social and Patriots.win. But Jones said it was also worth noting that some of the chatter bled onto X, formerly known as Twitter.
"We're seeing the normalization of violent rhetoric, the dehumanization, this idea that democracy is broken," he said.
Will people be afraid to vote. Will the threats of violence suppress the voice of We the People?
Violence, threats of violence and talk of civil war have been normalized by Trump and Trump loving conservatives.
I think this bothered me the most about the article. It was expected and they weren't surprised after the Colorado announcement, because it's the norm.
Also, it's not "a court of educated and experienced judges made this decision and maybe it needs to go the Supreme Court", it's "they are out to get Trump and keep him from being President, and we're not going to stand for that".
It's fair to be outraged by a higher court's decision. I've been outraged many a time in my lifetime but at the end of the day, I don't make threats and I believe in Democracy and our system that's been intact for a few centuries now.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Tweety said:
I think this bothered me the most about the article. It was expected and they weren't surprised after the Colorado announcement, because it's the norm.
Also, it's not "a court of educated and experienced judges made this decision and maybe it needs to go the Supreme Court", it's "they are out to get Trump and keep him from being President, and we're not going to stand for that".
It's fair to be outraged by a higher court's decision. I've been outraged many a time in my lifetime but at the end of the day, I don't make threats and I believe in Democracy and our system that's been intact for a few centuries now.
This is a very dangerous time for our republic. Trump won't think twice about inciting violence if he thinks it will benefit himself. He's done it before.
This is a very dangerous time for our republic. Trump won't think twice about inciting violence if he thinks it will benefit himself. He's done it before.
And those people are rotting in jail. How does he sleep at night?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Tweety said:
And those people are rotting in jail. How does he sleep at night?
Trump's social media accounts have always reflected a man who is awake at odd hours of the night. He told interviewers early on in his presidency that he only sleeps 4-6 hours/night.
Do you honestly think that a malignant narcissist like Trump would lose sleep over other people going to jail for him? I don't.
Specifically, I find that the declaration on his candidate consent form is false because he is not qualified to hold the office of the President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
toomuchbaloney
16,104 Posts
The language seems pretty straightforward to me.
You must think that the events of January 6th didn't amount to Americans fighting against the US government to install a man into the presidency who lost his election. Most Americans disagree with that Trumpist analysis of what happened. Lots of people are in jail because they participated in that attack and attempt to undermine our peaceful transfer of power. We have current members of congress who participated in the planning of that attack on the Capitol. The amendment is perfect for dealing with this specific Trumpian ambition.
Can you be specific about which language is dangerously vague?