- Dec 28, 2011
- 58,794
- 52,114
- 3,600
Johnson is Deep State or he would not be speaker.MAGA Mike Johnson is a Christian Nationalist - so I'm guessing he's loving this!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Johnson is Deep State or he would not be speaker.MAGA Mike Johnson is a Christian Nationalist - so I'm guessing he's loving this!
You are clearly uneducated.
The majority of the US is Christian. Of course we should have laws based on religion.There is absolutely no reason to overturn Griswold. If you want the gov't to be in charge of every tiny facet of our lives, this would be a good way to start.
Can anyone offer a valid reason to overturn Griswold, that does not come from religious dogma?
The majority of the US is Christian. Of course we should have laws based on religion.
Bullshit! Show us the law that would prevent someone running for or serving as president if convicted. My only question is ...are you that stupid or do you think that we are stupid?There's already a law on the books. Should a candidate be found guilty of that crime by a court of law, he/she would be disqualified to run for office.
Neither do youRandom internet keyboard jockeys don't get to make that determination for everyone else.
Let's apply some logic here. I know, it's too early for some to exercise logic, but try anyway.Bullshit! Show us the law that would prevent someone running for or serving as president if convicted. My only question is ...are you that stupid or do you think that we are stupid?
Then it's a good thing I'm not doing that, isn't it?Neither do you
Hmmm, let's take a closer look, shall we?Jesus was all about doing more for the poor so I hope that's what is done. Prosperity and Christianity are not compatable.
Anything to make sure that there is a steady supply of pure white babies to fill the ranks of thw white supremicists, Right Lenny?Griswold and Loving need to be overturned.
Thank you for answering my question about stupidity even as you avoid the question abot some non existent law that would prevent someone from serving as presidentLet's apply some logic here. I know, it's too early for some to exercise logic, but try anyway.
"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."
Now, using logic, how are you going to get everyone to agree that someone has indeed "engaged in insurrection or rebellion", or "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" unless you have a trial, put forth all the evidence and obtain a conviction? You don't simply allow random internet keyboard jockeys to declare someone unfit for office because reasons and feelz and they got the ick. Heck, even Orange Man Bad isn't sufficient. It just doesn't matter how mad they get or how long they hold their breath.
Yes, I did post the 14th amendment because you asked for a law that would preclude someone from serving as president, and I pointed out that, logically speaking, you're not going to gain agreement that TRUMP! should be taken off the ballot without a trial and finding of guilt. Random internet keyboard jockeys shrieking, "Orange Man Bad" don't cut it.Thank you for answering my question about stupidity even as you avoid the question abot some non existent law that would prevent someone from serving as president
All that you did was to post the 14th amendment without that SCOTUS just ruled on
The vast majority of Christian females believe in Griswold. Your type of Christianity is held by 30% of them.The majority of the US is Christian. Of course we should have laws based on religion.
The vast majority of Christian females believe in Griswold. Your type of Christianity is held by 30% of them.
Don't have an abortion. Don't use contraception. Leave everyone else alone.
OK slick! Lets back up hereYes, I did post the 14th amendment because you asked for a law that would preclude someone from serving as president, and I pointed out that, logically speaking, you're not going to gain agreement that TRUMP! should be taken off the ballot without a trial and finding of guilt. Random internet keyboard jockeys shrieking, "Orange Man Bad" don't cut it.
Or doesn't the Constitution rise to the status of law?
You have inadvertently stumbled on the crux of the matter. No, you will never get universal approval of keeping a candidate off the ballot, but having a full trial, complete with all the evidence, followed by a conviction is the best we can do. My point still stands, random internet keyboard jockeys don't get to simply declare a candidate ineligible to run because reasons. Let's just say it this way, if a candidate is tried and found guilty of insurrection, rebellion, or giving aid and comfort to an enemy, would that candidate not be kept off the ballot as a result of the 14th amendment, or would such a trial be meaningless?OK slick! Lets back up here
YOU stated that (Post 313) “There's already a law on the books. Should a candidate be found guilty of that crime by a court of law, he/she would be disqualified to run for office.”
Knowing that is bullshit. I called you on it. Then you posted the 14th Amendment that says NOTHING about a criminal conviction and leaves open the question of how and under what circumstances someone can be deemed an insurrectionist. In the recent SCOTUS ruling that left Trump on the ballot, they said that that decision is the purview of congress and still said nothing about the need for a trial or a conviction
No you are not going to get everyone to agree on the question , even with a trial, but that is not the point. Then point is that there is no clear mechanism for invoking the 14th in the case of insurrection, and the 14th cannot disqualify a candidate who has been convicted of charges that do not come under insurrection
In conclusion, even if Trump were to be convicted of all 91 crimes that he is accused of, he would still not be automatically disqualified. That is due , in part to the fact that he has not been specifically charges with insurrection and also because now, in light of the recent ruling from SCOTUS, it would require congress to act. So, I don’t know what the fuck you are jabbering about and you don’t seem to either . You are not coming across as the sharpest tool in the shed
I do not inadvertently stumble. Unlike you I know what I’m talking about . I jiust clearly laid out the reasons why the 14th Amendment –in the absence of further interpretation by the courts and /or legislation is wholly inadequate for keeping a candidate from office. However, that all seems to be lost on your thick skullYou have inadvertently stumbled on the crux of the matter. No, you will never get universal approval of keeping a candidate off the ballot, but having a full trial, complete with all the evidence, followed by a conviction is the best we can do. My point still stands, random internet keyboard jockeys don't get to simply declare a candidate ineligible to run because reasons. Let's just say it this way, if a candidate is tried and found guilty of insurrection, rebellion, or giving aid and comfort to an enemy, would that candidate not be kept off the ballot as a result of the 14th amendment, or would such a trial be meaningless?
Ah, that is the crucial determinant, isn't it? I've been talking about what the 14th bars and you're chasing weather balloons. Of course, there's nothing barring someone from running for office despite a criminal record, as long as that record doesn't rise to the level of the 14th.I do not inadvertently stumble. Unlike you I know what I’m talking about . I jiust clearly laid out the reasons why the 14th Amendment –in the absence of further interpretation by the courts and /or legislation is wholly inadequate for keeping a candidate from office. However, that all seems to be lost on your thick skull
To answer your inane question, the trial in the case you described would not be meaningless because there would be a record of the conviction and penalties . HOWEVER it is unclear who have the final say in that persons eligibility for office. INADDITION as I pointed out, there is NO LAW or provision of the constitution that would bar someone from the presidency if convicted of crimes not related to insurrection.
Actually, the SC just laid out who can take candidates off the ballot, and that's Congress, not the individual states. The bottom line remains that, despite hysterical bloviating from the usual suspects, TRUMP! will remain on the ballot in all the states, unless he voluntarily leaves the campaign trail.So you clearly lied in post 313, or you’re just extremely confused