Christian nationalist Trump ally crafting plan to 'invoke Insurrection Act on Day One' and inject right-wing Christian nationalism into admin policies

[Lastamender]

MAGA Mike Johnson is a Christian Nationalist - so I'm guessing he's loving this!

Johnson is Deep State or he would not be speaker.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You are clearly uneducated.

Educate us

 

[lennypartiv]

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.

 

[WinterBorn]

The majority of the US is Christian. Of course we should have laws based on religion.

You are half right. The population is mainly Christian.

But the founding fathers made sure we are not a theocracy.

Overturning Griswold and Loving is simply thinly veiled hate.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

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?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Random internet keyboard jockeys don't get to make that determination for everyone else.

Neither do you

 

[hadit]

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?

Let'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.

 

[hadit]

Neither do you

Then it's a good thing I'm not doing that, isn't it?

 

[hadit]

Jesus was all about doing more for the poor so I hope that's what is done. Prosperity and Christianity are not compatable.

Hmmm, let's take a closer look, shall we?

From Luke 10:

30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

Now, what is notable in this story? Since you won't point it out, I will. The hero HAD WEALTH and used it to help the wounded man. He had oil and wine with him, both things that were costly for the average person, and enough money to not only pay for the man's lodging for an unknown number of days, but to also pay for extra expenses he required. He also had a beast of burden, something not everyone could afford. So, tell us again how Christ and prosperity are incompatible. Greedily hoarding wealth is one thing, but having and using wealth for God's glory is a completely different thing. You can't help someone else if you don't have anything to help them with.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Yep.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Griswold and Loving need to be overturned.

Anything to make sure that there is a steady supply of pure white babies to fill the ranks of thw white supremicists, Right Lenny?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Let'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.

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 IN TRUMPS FAVOR!

 

[hadit]

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

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.

Or doesn't the Constitution rise to the status of law?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

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.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

But he and his ilk want to control all sexual activity.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Or doesn't the Constitution rise to the status of law?

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

 

[hadit]

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

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?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

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. So you clearly lied in post 313, or you’re just extremely confused

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Hadit is confused. Good explanation, TPP.

 

[hadit]

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.

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.

So you clearly lied in post 313, or you’re just extremely confused

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.