If anyone thinks you could go back in time,

[berg80]

explain Trump to the Founders, and that they would believe such a man could be elected to the presidency, they are mistaken.

History suggests to think otherwise was inconceivable. So very many aspects of Trumpery were not contemplated at the founding. A time when patriotism, not self-importance, was pre-eminent. Additionally, there were no national political parties in the late 1700's. The tribal behavior we see now was completely foreign to them on a conceptual level.

They certainly would not have, and did not, make it virtually impossible to prosecute a prez for illegal acts. Their focus was not to give the executive branch too much power after the experience of living under a monarchy. Presidential immunity, permanently, from crimes committed while in office is entirely a construct of this radical court.

They did not predict the possibility of a candidate for the presidency who tried to steal an election. Nor one that would ask the SC for immunity from crimes committed in that pursuit. Or that the SC would grant his request. Such things were antithetical to their very soul.

I am of the belief the Constitution can't credibly be a stagnant document, making us slaves to anachronistic past beliefs borne of ignorance. But there are things, at its core, that resonate with modern times, that are eternal. Primary among them being to always put the country first. If Donald Trump accepted that noble goal he would have acknowledged his defeat in 2020 and gracefully welcomed the next prez. His hubris and temperament did not allow him to do so. That alone is reason enough not to vote for him in Nov. There are hundreds more.

 

[kyzr]

OMG. BERG works late with his TDS threads!!

The dems don't have a viable candidate. Oh dear...

 

[Godboy]

explain Trump to the Founders, and that they would believe such a man could be elected to the presidency, they are mistaken.

History suggests to think otherwise was inconceivable. So very many aspects of Trumpery were not contemplated at the founding. A time when patriotism, not self-importance, was pre-eminent. Additionally, there were no national political parties in the late 1700's. The tribal behavior we see now was completely foreign to them on a conceptual level.

They certainly would not have, and did not, make it virtually impossible to prosecute a prez for illegal acts. Their focus was not to give the executive branch too much power after the experience of living under a monarchy. Presidential immunity, permanently, from crimes committed while in office is entirely a construct of this radical court.

They did not predict the possibility of a candidate for the presidency who tried to steal an election. Nor one that would ask the SC for immunity from crimes committed in that pursuit. Or that the SC would grant his request. Such things were antithetical to their very soul.

I am of the belief the Constitution can't credibly be a stagnant document, making us slaves to anachronistic past beliefs borne of ignorance. But there are things, at its core, that resonate with modern times, that are eternal. Primary among them being to always put the country first. If Donald Trump accepted that noble goal he would have acknowledged his defeat in 2020 and gracefully welcomed the next prez. His hubris and temperament did not allow him to do so. That alone is reason enough not to vote for him in Nov. There are hundreds more.

Yeah? What do you think they would say about Bidens policies and woke hires? What do you think they would say about his senility, or the current democrat party that would support such a corrupt and feeble old man? Every great leader in history would support Trump over Biden.

 

[MarathonMike]

explain Trump to the Founders, and that they would believe such a man could be elected to the presidency, they are mistaken.

History suggests to think otherwise was inconceivable. So very many aspects of Trumpery were not contemplated at the founding. A time when patriotism, not self-importance, was pre-eminent. Additionally, there were no national political parties in the late 1700's. The tribal behavior we see now was completely foreign to them on a conceptual level.

They certainly would not have, and did not, make it virtually impossible to prosecute a prez for illegal acts. Their focus was not to give the executive branch too much power after the experience of living under a monarchy. Presidential immunity, permanently, from crimes committed while in office is entirely a construct of this radical court.

They did not predict the possibility of a candidate for the presidency who tried to steal an election. Nor one that would ask the SC for immunity from crimes committed in that pursuit. Or that the SC would grant his request. Such things were antithetical to their very soul.

I am of the belief the Constitution can't credibly be a stagnant document, making us slaves to anachronistic past beliefs borne of ignorance. But there are things, at its core, that resonate with modern times, that are eternal. Primary among them being to always put the country first. If Donald Trump accepted that noble goal he would have acknowledged his defeat in 2020 and gracefully welcomed the next prez. His hubris and temperament did not allow him to do so. That alone is reason enough not to vote for him in Nov. There are hundreds more.

The Founding Fathers would say "Dayum! We didn't think you could have anyone as bad ass as Trump in 2024. God Bless America!"

 

[Billiejeens]

explain Trump to the Founders, and that they would believe such a man could be elected to the presidency, they are mistaken.

History suggests to think otherwise was inconceivable. So very many aspects of Trumpery were not contemplated at the founding. A time when patriotism, not self-importance, was pre-eminent. Additionally, there were no national political parties in the late 1700's. The tribal behavior we see now was completely foreign to them on a conceptual level.

They certainly would not have, and did not, make it virtually impossible to prosecute a prez for illegal acts. Their focus was not to give the executive branch too much power after the experience of living under a monarchy. Presidential immunity, permanently, from crimes committed while in office is entirely a construct of this radical court.

They did not predict the possibility of a candidate for the presidency who tried to steal an election. Nor one that would ask the SC for immunity from crimes committed in that pursuit. Or that the SC would grant his request. Such things were antithetical to their very soul.

I am of the belief the Constitution can't credibly be a stagnant document, making us slaves to anachronistic past beliefs borne of ignorance. But there are things, at its core, that resonate with modern times, that are eternal. Primary among them being to always put the country first. If Donald Trump accepted that noble goal he would have acknowledged his defeat in 2020 and gracefully welcomed the next prez. His hubris and temperament did not allow him to do so. That alone is reason enough not to vote for him in Nov. There are hundreds more.

You realize President Trump is going to win in an electoral landslide yes?

 

[Oddball]

 

[Billiejeens]

The Founding Fathers would say "Dayum! We didn't think you could have anyone as bad ass as Trump in 2024. God Bless America!"

Si'

 

[whitehall]

The Founding Fathers were geniuses but they didn't envision a day when the 1st Amendment protection of free speech would lead to the protection of a political power structure.

 

[berg80]

The Founders did not contemplate a figure like Trump and therefore made no constitutional provisions to preclude such a man from public service. They put their faith in the people and the goodwill of the prominent people of the time. Not having anticipated a large swarth of the population could be persuaded to think a charlatan is a savior.

 

[initforme]

The founding fathers would say "wow this is the best you have? Then they'd laugh incessantly.

 

[berg80]

The founding fathers would say "wow this is the best you have? Then they'd laugh incessantly.

I don't disagree. But one candidate is a threat to subvert the principles the republic was founded on and one is not.

 

[initforme]

I don't disagree. But one candidate is a threat to subvert the principles the republic was founded on and one is not.

We've hit the bottom of the barrel.

 

[rampart]

The Founders did not contemplate a figure like Trump and therefore made no constitutional provisions to preclude such a man from public service. They put their faith in the people and the goodwill of the prominent people of the time. Not having anticipated a large swarth of the population could be persuaded to think a charlatan is a savior.

the founders lived under a dueling code. trump would never have lived to be immune from that.

the founders were officers and members of the militia. trump was only saved from fragging by that tragic case of bone spurs.

get 'em, berg.

none of their pundits seem concerned that biden may turn immunity on them, do they.

i've been thinking of this in tolkien kind of terms. it would be nice if we could get viggo mortenson to play biden, but since he is not available, we "men of the west" need to stand with joe.

 

[Sunni Man]

The Founders did not ........anticipated a large swarth of the population could be persuaded to think.....

That the Demtards have persuaded half the population that our mentally disabled President is in perfect health.

 

[initforme]

I love watching each side fend their guy. Great entertainment. Keep it going. american politics at its very best.

 

[Rogue AI]

I don't disagree. But one candidate is a threat to subvert the principles the republic was founded on and one is not.

The Founders never intended a puppet to sit in the White House. Good catch.

 

[blackhawk]

I don’t think the Founding Fathers would be impressed by any of today’s politicians right or left.

 

[struth]

explain Trump to the Founders, and that they would believe such a man could be elected to the presidency, they are mistaken.

History suggests to think otherwise was inconceivable. So very many aspects of Trumpery were not contemplated at the founding. A time when patriotism, not self-importance, was pre-eminent. Additionally, there were no national political parties in the late 1700's. The tribal behavior we see now was completely foreign to them on a conceptual level.

They certainly would not have, and did not, make it virtually impossible to prosecute a prez for illegal acts. Their focus was not to give the executive branch too much power after the experience of living under a monarchy. Presidential immunity, permanently, from crimes committed while in office is entirely a construct of this radical court.

They did not predict the possibility of a candidate for the presidency who tried to steal an election. Nor one that would ask the SC for immunity from crimes committed in that pursuit. Or that the SC would grant his request. Such things were antithetical to their very soul.

I am of the belief the Constitution can't credibly be a stagnant document, making us slaves to anachronistic past beliefs borne of ignorance. But there are things, at its core, that resonate with modern times, that are eternal. Primary among them being to always put the country first. If Donald Trump accepted that noble goal he would have acknowledged his defeat in 2020 and gracefully welcomed the next prez. His hubris and temperament did not allow him to do so. That alone is reason enough not to vote for him in Nov. There are hundreds more.

You nominated a senile man to be president, and have attempted to jail his political rival

Nobody takes you seriously

 

[berg80]

OMG. BERG works late with his TDS threads!!

The dems don't have a viable candidate. Oh dear...

Trump remains viable for a singular reason. Repubs have uniformly coalesced around a morally bankrupt, incompetent, convicted criminal having no hesitation over his monumental shortcomings.

 

[berg80]

You nominated a senile man to be president, and have attempted to jail his political rival

Nobody takes you seriously

I haven't done any of those and neither have Dems as the nominating process has not formerly begun.

One person is responsible for the legal jeopardy your Dear Leader finds himself in. The guy who broke the law, not the people trying to hold him accountable.