Trump Voter Claims He Is Still President, But Can't Articulate How

[cnm]

But yeah, you keep running with the notion that they all believe Trump is POTUS.

I mean if they really thought that they'd say it out loud in public and on tv.

 

[cnm]

You Lefties claim our diversity is our strength but you can’t articulate how.
You Lefties claim we are better for our multiculturalism but you can’t articulate how.
You Lefties claim we need more of Mexico’s people but you can’t articulate why.
You Lefties claim men can become women but you can’t articulate how.
You Lefties claim homosexuals are good for a moral society but you can’t articulate how.
You Lefties claim a Godless society is a better society but you can’t articulate how.

Ah, my favourites, straw men.


From freshly cut hay by the smell of them.

 

[cnm]

Yes, I'm going to talk about issues.

Like why you support rioters protesting cheating police.

 

[para bellum]

It absolutely does not.

It doesn’t state what organization can declare a candidate ineligible.

It only says that Congress can undo it

Wrong. They said Congress has "long given effect" to Section 3 with legislation.

"Instead, it is Congress that has long given effect to Section 3 with respect to would-be or existing federal officeholders. Shortly after ratification of the Amendment, Congress enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870. That Act authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative office—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3 a federal crime. §§14, 15, 16 Stat. 143–144 (repealed, 35Stat. 1153–1154, 62 Stat. 992–993). In the years following ratification, the House and Senate exercised their unique powers under Article I to adjudicate challenges contending that certain prospective or sitting Members could not take or retain their seats due to Section 3. See Art. I, §5, cls. 1, 2; 1 A. Hinds, Precedents of the House of Representatives §§459–463, pp. 470–486 (1907). And the Confiscation Act of 1862, which predated Section 3, effectively provided an additional procedure for enforcing disqualification. That law made engaging in insurrection or rebellion, among other acts, a federal crime punishable by disqualification from holding office under the United States. See §§2, 3, 12 Stat. 590. A successor to those provisions remains on the books today. See 18 U. S. C. §2383."

 

[cnm]

This is the kind of insanity we’re dealing with here folks.

I wonder how much of it is the fault of all those lead water lines.

 

[cnm]

Congress enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870. That Act authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative office—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3 a federal crime

So all that is needed is a federal court ruling on a civil action about Trump's eligibility bought by a federal da.

Seems as though the Justices haven't read the law that you have.

 

[para bellum]

So all that is needed is a federal court ruling on a civil action about Trump's eligibility bought by a federal da.

Seems as though the Justices haven't read the law that you have.

Seems as if you haven't read the decision. To answer your question- the practice of quo warranto was in the Enforcement Act of 1870, and that provision was not transferred over to 18 USC 2383. The Confiscation Act of 1862 did not use quo warranto.

Today, there is only 2383, and that requires a Federal prosecutor to charge the crime. 2383 is based on the provisions of the Confiscation Act, so Congress made that decision during the process of recodification in 1948. The provisions of the Enforcement and Confiscation Acts were incorporated into Titles 18 and 52.

Quo warranto is not used much anymore, but it's still on the books. If a someone is found guilty of violating 18 USC 2383, a judge could still issue a writ of quo warranto to force the person out of office.

There is no offense of "civil insurrection" like New York's "civil fraud" law. If you want to find someone guilty of insurrection you have to do it the hard way.

edit: sorry for the shifting text, I had to correct a couple transposition errors.

 

[Mac1958]

Exactly. That’s why quite a few posters only deserve ridicule. They shit on the floor and expect everyone to seriously discuss the merits of doing so while unaware that they just shit on the floor.

It's such a weird feeling, watching them gain influence through sheer numbers.

It's like we're on a bus on a freeway, and the bus is being driven by a toddler. It most likely won't end well, and all we can do is hope the damage isn't too severe.

MTG is essentially the analog for this. Angry, aggressive, profoundly shallow, ignorant and mal-informed, and on a mission.

 

[cnm]

The oldest trick in the leftwing book is to interview 100 people, throw out the 97% who didn't give you what you wanted, then broadcast the three who who did, and present them as the majority. Stupid people believe it.

We see their doppelgängers on this message bored.

 

[cnm]

There was nothing to fix when Trump was in office.

It was all gone by April.

 

[cnm]

Seems as if you haven't read the decision. To answer your question- the practice of quo warranto was in the Enforcement Act of 1870, and that provision was not transferred over to 18 USC 2383. The Confiscation Act of 1862 did not use quo warranto.

So why cite it if it's not applicable?

Oh well.

Not a Trump lawyer by any chance, are you?

 

[Lesh]

Section 5.​

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Do you see where it says the SOLE POWER to do so?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Yeah, it's funny, but it's also sad and alarming because as the person who posted this interview on X pointed out she is hardly alone. My first real foray into politics was when Mitt Romney ran for governor in 2002. I had voted for the first time in 2000 for Al Gore because in Boston everyone was pretty much a Democrat and I never paid much attention, but a friend of mine got me involved in the Romney campaign and then after 9-11 I gravitated over to the Republicans during the Bush administration. This was when the Republicans were the adults in the room and it was the Democrats who used to throw fits and make a spectacle of themselves in the media and on the floor of Congress. Bush got reelected because the party won the debate on policy and treated people, even the media who beat him up daily, with respect. Reagan had a successful eight years because he too, won the debate on policy and treated people with kindness and respect. He won 49 states on his reelection and only lost the 50th state by half a point. Reagan welcomed a big tent party. Today this is what the GOP is catering to:



Today's party is night and day from just 20 years ago. Now, the Republican Party is being led by an egocentric narcissist who does nothing but sew division throughout our country. They want to make his daughter-in-law a fixture in the RNC and are already touting his son for 2028. The party platform is now rife with paranoid warnings of conspiracies around every corner. A majority of Republican primary voters still believe the 2020 election was stolen despite that theory being thoroughly debunked, even by Trump's own appointed judges and former staff. It is now the Democrats, even with their share of extremists, who are taking on the role of "Dad." They are coming across as more reasonable and palatable to the electorate which is why they have been largely successful in the last three election cycles. The Republicans will not survive as a party if these people continue to make up their base.

There is a host of these videos on the net.
I do take them with a pinch of salt. And I suspect they interview a lot of people and pick the dumbest. They are usually wearing an American flag to remind themselves where they come from.
But when I read the trumpers comments on here it just reinforces the video clips.
There are a lot of trumpers with low self esteem and low intelligence.

 

[Blaster]

Biden is a travesty as President. The economy sucks, our southern border is being overrun and our foreign policy is weak. Enough said.

 

[22lcidw]

It's such a weird feeling, watching them gain influence through sheer numbers.

It's like we're on a bus on a freeway, and the bus is being driven by a toddler. It most likely won't end well, and all we can do is hope the damage isn't too severe.

MTG is essentially the analog for this. Angry, aggressive, profoundly shallow, ignorant and mal-informed, and on a mission.

You will see when you need togetherness as a nation when it is needed what you wrought.

 

[Mac1958]

You will see when you need togetherness as a nation when it is needed what you wrought.

 

[para bellum]

So why cite it if it's not applicable?

They were explaining that Congress addressed Section 3 a long time ago, and used those examples because they are the predecessor to the current law 2383.

 

[BS Filter]

The Police were cheating. Using lethal control techniques. Pleased to hear you're all in with BLM because of that.

That's funny shit.

 

[BS Filter]

Do you see where it says the SOLE POWER to do so?

Yes, I do. Take that argument to the Supreme Court and tell us how it works out. Idiot. People like you are the problem.

 

[d0gbreath]

If DJ is still president, then he can't run for a third term.