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.”
Yes. The constitution tells us who is qualified to be president.
You don't think he should be on the ballot, but write-ins should be allowed? That sounds like you're not sure if the decision is right, but as long as he's severely disadvantaged its OK with you.
Anyway, if the Colorado decision holds, write-in's will not be counted per the court's ruling. I'm surprised with all the research you've done and opinions that youve shared that you aren't aware of that.
I don't believe I stated an opinion about whether or not Trump should appear on the Colorado ballot. Frankly, I don't care because I don't live in that state. I stated that the judge in the district court found Trump guilty of insurrection.
How does keeping Trump off the primary ballot of a blue state severely disadvantage him? They only have 10 electoral votes.
91 felony charges and being ruled guilty of fraud and sexual assault hasn't disadvantaged him.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
chare said:
Should someone be disqualified based solely on the claim that he or she participated in an insurrection? All that's necessary is for someone to make a claim? And the accused doesn't have her or his day in court, with the opportunity to defend themselves? Is this really where you want our judicial system to take?
As for the intent. Yes, the intent was clear, that's why it had been used so many times outside of the Civil War era, and it wasn't to "keep out of office people who try to break our constitution." The intent was to punish the Confederates after the Civil War.
I could agree with that argument if there was nothing more than a claim that Trump participated in an insurrection or only a claim that he gave comfort to those who did. We all know that there is much more than simply a claim that Trump participated and that he gave aid or comfort to those who did.
Trump had the opportunity to argue in court that what happened on 010621 wasn't an insurrection and that he wasn't giving comfort to the insurrectionists when he told them that they were special and he loved them or that he would pardon them. That seems like a weak argument.
The reason that it hasn't been used so many times is because no president in our history tried to retain lost power by extra-constitutional means until Trump came along. I don't agree about punishment as the intention. If there was punishment the amendment would require some punitive action. This has the intention of insulating and protecting the constitution from people who don't value it by disqualifying those who would rebel against it.
Perhaps the State of Texas will file a suit to keep Biden off the ballot? They could claim he's breaking our constitution by not defending border. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy by letting terrorists and criminals in.
After the precedent is set, all that's needed is the claim and the clear evidence as it exists in the eyes of a right wing judge.
Perhaps Texas will try to keep Biden off of their ballot because of border policy disputes. It sounds like, unlike in Trump's situation, this could actually be justified as a logical application of the 14th Amendment in your mind. Is that true?
Perhaps Texas will try to keep Biden off of their ballot because of border policy disputes. It sounds like, unlike in Trump's situation, this could actually be justified as a logical application of the 14th Amendment in your mind. Is that true?
No, both are illogical.
However, if you're going to say one is logical, to be consistent you'd have to believe the other scenario is too.
The voters picked Biden last time over Trump. And elected Obama twice before Trump. And Dems always like to point out that Trump lost the popular vote (thanks to group-think and zero Trump campaigning in CA and NY) in 2016.
So, if it's soooo obvious Trump was responsible for a insurrection AND Biden is doing such a bang-up job as president, you should hope, wish, and pray that Trump is on the ballot. It should a cake walk over him.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
No, both are illogical.
However, if you're going to say one is logical, to be consistent you'd have to believe the other scenario is too.
The voters picked Biden last time over Trump. And elected Obama twice before Trump. And Dems always like to point out that Trump lost the popular vote (thanks to group-think and zero Trump campaigning in CA and NY) in 2016.
So, if it's soooo obvious Trump was responsible for a insurrection AND Biden is doing such a bang-up job as president, you should hope, wish, and pray that Trump is on the ballot. It should a cake walk over him.
Why are Dems so scared of him?
No, I don't have to say disqualifying Biden from the general election ballot over border policy disputes is logical. It is logical to apply the language of the 14th Amendment to all candidates for public office.
Yes, Trump lost the popular vote twice.
Yes, it is likely that Biden will win the head to head contest against Trump again. No presidential election is a cakewalk, IMV.
All patriots are alarmed and concerned about Trump and the hold he has on republican politics. That's why some of the people behind the Colorado ballot challenge are republican. Patriots recognize that Trump doesn't represent a threat to liberals or democrats, he is a threat to the rule of law and our constitution.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
The media is buzzing with the Epstein name dropping document releases. That news reminded me that Trump elevated the guy who gave Epstein that sweetheart deal (while snubbing his victims) to Secretary of Labor. That kind of made sense, since Trump and Epstein were friends for years. Acosta resigned in 2019 because his judgement related to Epstein appeared so flawed. He resigned the same year Epstein went to prison for his sex crimes and died. Interesting coincidence.
No, I don't have to say disqualifying Biden from the general election ballot over border policy disputes is logical. It is logical to apply the language of the 14th Amendment to all candidates for public office.
Yes, Trump lost the popular vote twice.
Yes, it is likely that Biden will win the head to head contest against Trump again. No presidential election is a cakewalk, IMV.
All patriots are alarmed and concerned about Trump and the hold he has on republican politics. That's why some of the people behind the Colorado ballot challenge are republican. Patriots recognize that Trump doesn't represent a threat to liberals or democrats, he is a threat to the rule of law and our constitution.
Why aren't you concerned about Trump?
Some support state courts and secretary of states, and other unelected bureaucrats taking it upon themselves to come up with the legal standard of insurrection and then deeming Trump guilty of it and removing him from ballots. Taking away his right to run and taking away others right to vote for or against him.
It's amusing to hear those same folks express concern about threats from others upon our constitution.
Why are you so concerned about people having the right to vote for him? After all, Biden beat him last time. And now we have the knowledge that Biden was a much better president and that Trump is a traitor. Should be no contest. That is, if all that was the truth.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Some support state courts and secretary of states, and other unelected bureaucrats taking it upon themselves to come up with the legal standard of insurrection and then deeming Trump guilty of it and removing him from ballots. Taking away his right to run and taking away others right to vote for or against him.
It's amusing to hear those same folks express concern about threats from others upon our constitution.
Why are you so concerned about people having the right to vote for him? After all, Biden beat him last time. And now we have the knowledge that Biden was a much better president and that Trump is a traitor. Should be no contest. That is, if all that was the truth.
The legal standard? They aren't prosecuting Trump for inciting an insurrection or for giving comfort to insurrectionists, they are determining if he participated or comforted them. Do you see the distinction? We all know what insurrection means. We all know that an angry mob, invited to the Capitol by Trump, descended upon the building and temporarily (but intentionally) stopped the peaceful transfer of power.
We all know that the states are the entities which administer the elections for national offices like the presidency, or congressional seats. We know that they use the federal constitution and the state constitutions to determine who is eligible for various offices and who is not. People have a right to run for the presidency now? It's not a privilege, it's a right?
Can you explain how applying constitutional language to all political candidates is a threat to our constitution?
I don't have a concern about people having a right to vote for Trump, I have a concern that "conservatives" don't seem to think that laws or the constitution apply to Trump. I have a concern that millions of American voters are indoctrinated in a cult centered around Trump.
The legal standard? They aren't prosecuting Trump for inciting an insurrection or for giving comfort to insurrectionists, they are determining if he participated or comforted them. Do you see the distinction? We all know what insurrection means. We all know that an angry mob, invited to the Capitol by Trump, descended upon the building and temporarily (but intentionally) stopped the peaceful transfer of power.
We all know that the states are the entities which administer the elections for national offices like the presidency, or congressional seats. We know that they use the federal constitution and the state constitutions to determine who is eligible for various offices and who is not. People have a right to run for the presidency now? It's not a privilege, it's a right?
Can you explain how applying constitutional language to all political candidates is a threat to our constitution?
I don't have a concern about people having a right to vote for Trump, I have a concern that "conservatives" don't seem to think that laws or the constitution apply to Trump. I have a concern that millions of American voters are indoctrinated in a cult centered around Trump.
No, they aren't prosecuting him. But it is a legal issue. Not all legal issues are about prosecutions.
We're talking about what the constitution says. The constitution is the foundation of our laws. Trump himself has called it the Supreme law. So, yes. What is the legal standard to determine if a insurrection took place? You say we all know what one is. Well, seems like we actually disagree on what one is. So, absent of a legal standard, who gets to decide?
You don't need to be concerned about Trump supporters or "the cult". It's those in the middle who are going to decide the election. Democrats and folks like you sure seem concerned that the middle isn't very enamored with Biden and don't agree with everything you believe about Trump.
Trying to keep him off the ballot reeks of desperation.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
No, they aren't prosecuting him. But it is a legal issue. Not all legal issues are about prosecutions.
We're talking about what the constitution says. The constitution is the foundation of our laws. Trump himself has called it the Supreme law. So, yes. What is the legal standard to determine if a insurrection took place? You say we all know what one is. Well, seems like we actually disagree on what one is. So, absent of a legal standard, who gets to decide?
You don't need to be concerned about Trump supporters or "the cult". It's those in the middle who are going to decide the election. Democrats and folks like you sure seem concerned that the middle isn't very enamored with Biden and don't agree with everything you believe about Trump.
Trying to keep him off the ballot reeks of desperation.
If it's not about a prosecution they aren't finding him guilty of anything, right? They are fact finding.
Yes, the constitution that says that by participating in an insurrection or giving comfort to insurrectionists people are then not eligible to hold office. Trump may have said it is the Supreme law, but he also suggested that we could just terminate the constitution to put him back in the Oval Office. That seems contradictory and dangerous, doesn't it?
Quote
"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump wrote.
Who gets to decide? In our country it will likely come down to the courts deciding. If the determination is that the amendment is self executing, then each state would decide according to their laws on generating ballots of qualified candidates for voters. If it's not self executing then I think that Congress has to do something with a super majority.
We do need to be concerned about cult members and Trump supporters who will go to great lengths to avoid holding Trump accountable. Some of those people are armed, dangerous, and under the impression that violence is the next inevitable step in their political movement.
I cannot imagine that any sane or country loving moderate would even consider voting for Trump by the time November rolls around. The public will be increasingly paying attention to the two candidates and the republican candidate will be getting lots of legal attention with a very full court docket. Biden will be actively campaigning and will not be preoccupied with legal troubles. Biden surrogates will be campaigning.
The exposure of those moderates and "middle" to the evidence that Trump tried to interfere in the 2020 election or that he took and concealed secret documents is not going to convince them that they should reelect him. IMV
Lying about election results and suggesting that the Constitution could be terminated to install Trump into the presidency doesn't seem desperate and un-American to you but applying the language of the Constitution to candidate Trump does seem desperate?
Sources said Scavino told Smith's investigators that as the violence began to escalate that day, Trump "was just not interested" in doing more to stop it.
Quote
Sources also said former Trump aide Nick Luna told federal investigators that when Trump was informed that then-Vice President Mike Pence had to be rushed to a secure location, Trump responded, "So what?" -- which sources said Luna saw as an unexpected willingness by Trump to let potential harm come to a longtime loyalist.
Quote
In his wide-ranging indictment against Trump, announced this past August, Smith accuses the former president of trying to unlawfully retain power by, among other things, "spread[ing] lies" about the 2020 election and pressuring Pence to block Congress from certifying the results when it convened on Jan. 6.
Quote
According to what sources said Scavino told Smith's team, Trump was "very angry" that day -- not angry at what his supporters were doing to a pillar of American democracy, but steaming that the election was allegedly stolen from him and his supporters, who were "angry on his behalf." Scavino described it all as "very unsettling," sources said.
At times, Trump just sat silently at the head of the table, with his arms folded and his eyes locked on the TV, Scavino recounted, sources said.
After unsuccessfully trying for up to 20 minutes to persuade Trump to release some sort of calming statement, Scavino and others walked out of the dining room, leaving Trump alone, sources said. That's when, according to sources, Trump posted a message on his Twitter account saying that Pence "didn't have the courage to do what should have been done."
Trump will need to defend himself in court, defend himself to his cult, and try to convince independent and moderate voters that he's their best option over the next 10 months. This kind of press is only going to get more common and more juicy as the factual evidence is revealed in these cases.
nursej22, MSN, RN
4,882 Posts
I don't believe I stated an opinion about whether or not Trump should appear on the Colorado ballot. Frankly, I don't care because I don't live in that state. I stated that the judge in the district court found Trump guilty of insurrection.
How does keeping Trump off the primary ballot of a blue state severely disadvantage him? They only have 10 electoral votes.
91 felony charges and being ruled guilty of fraud and sexual assault hasn't disadvantaged him.