Trump barred from running?

[Rogue AI]

It mentions anyone that swore an oath to the US government. That means Trump.

Nonsense, it applies to offices defined in section 1. Which specifically excludes the presidency.

 

[Lisa558]

Didn’t dream up the 14A and it doesn’t just apply to the Civil War.

It doesn’t apply to Trump, either. Find a decent Democrat to run instead of using cheating ways to rob Republican and independent citizens of their voice by eliminating their first choice.

 

[Auld Phart]

I guess your hero is safe....for now.

my hero?

If I had a TARDIS, I'd go back to the mid 60s and put bullets between the eyes of Trump, Biden, Hillary, and Bill Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer, Boehner, GW Bush, and 20-30 other politicians.
I'd like to take out Teddy Kennedy before he had a chance to kill MaryJo.

So many politicians, so few bullets, and no TARDIS.

My hero?

 

[toobfreak]

"Former President Donald Trump isn’t covered by the disqualification clause, and he is eligible to be on the ballot in the 2024 presidential election,” Calabresi wrote. “I am correcting the public record on this important issue by sending you this letter.”
Thoughts? Whines?

Fact. Not only doesn't the law not cover nor include the president based on the grounds sought by the democrats but the J6 Committee actually inadvertently proved Trump guiltless of any insurrection upon which they'd need to base it on!

I wish I could link you to the details, but the argument was laid out by a law expert on TV so I don't remember it all, but believe me, the democrats realize it now, are kicking themselves in the ass, and that is why progs are so angry and pissed now.

Further, the idea of trying 18 defendants all at once in a courtroom with up to 91 indictments is so brazenly over the top that it'll never fly. At best, it would take until 2026 just to get underway, making it nothing but a KGB-style abusive show trial only meant to try to drain Trump of money while interfering with his election--- that too failing as it has only instead called attention to the left's evil and corrupt abuse of the law drawing more sympathy and votes for Trump instead.

 

[Hellbilly]

my hero?

If I had a TARDIS, I'd go back to the mid 60s and put bullets between the eyes of Trump, Biden, Hillary, and Bill Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer, Boehner, GW Bush, and 20-30 other politicians.
I'd like to take out Teddy Kennedy before he had a chance to kill MaryJo.

So many politicians, no few bullets, and no TARDIS.

My hero?

I guess that would explain why you constantly defend him.

 

[Auld Phart]

I guess that would explain why you constantly defend him.

I guess that would explain why you constantly defend him.

I guess a moron, or a partisan fool would see it like that.
(You're overqualified)

 

[Lisa558]

Fact. Not only doesn't the law not cover nor include the president based on the grounds sought by the democrats but the J6 Committee actually inadvertently proved Trump guiltless of any insurrection upon which they'd need to base it on!

I wish I could link you to the details, but the argument was laid out by a law expert on TV so I don't remember it all, but believe me, the democrats realize it now, are kicking themselves in the ass, and that is why progs are so angry and pissed now.

Further, the idea of trying 18 defendants all at once in a courtroom with up to 91 indictments is so brazenly over the top that it'll never fly. At best, it would take until 2026 just to get underway, making it nothing but a KGB-style abusive show trial only meant to try to drain Trump of money while interfering with his election--- that too failing as it has only instead called attention to the left's evil and corrupt abuse of the law drawing more sympathy and votes for Trump instead.

And the Dems are so arrogant that they cannot face that they are wrong, and keep heaping it on against Trump - and making his victory more likely.

 

[konradv]

It doesn’t apply to Trump, either. Find a decent Democrat to run instead of using cheating ways to rob Republican and independent citizens of their voice by eliminating their first choice.

Why doesn’t it apply to Trump?

 

[Lisa558]

Why doesn’t it apply to Trump?

Because there was no insurrection. Duh.

 

[toobfreak]

And the Dems are so arrogant that they cannot face that they are wrong, and keep heaping it on against Trump - and making his victory more likely.

Progs are like moths to a flame, driven on pure impulse. There is no conscious mind there.

They are like wolfen, with a singular desire to see Trump destroyed so they can feed on the bloody red meat of his corpse while they light torches and dance over the body.

When Trump is reelected next year, they will freak out unable to cope or comprehend and go on a bloody rampage of violence across the country. That'll be the time for all good people to step in from the presidency down and stamp out this plague.

Then work on undoing and mending all of the incalculable harm done by this manchurian candidate.

 

[Rogue AI]

It mentions anyone that swore an oath to the US government. That means Trump.

First off, if it applied, and it doesn't, the disqualification can be waived, which requires the person to first be elected. Which makes this an even greater folly.

 

[Hellbilly]

I guess a moron, or a partisan fool would see it like that.
(You're overqualified)

Don’t quit your day job, Chibon

 

[Magnus]

Your opinion on 14A is irrelevant.

LOL And yet, you asked for it. Try to be consistent, retard.

 

[konradv]

First off, if it applied, and it doesn't, the disqualification can be waived, which requires the person to first be elected. Which makes this an even greater folly.

The folly would be to elect him first. Fitness must be determined. I believe some states will apply 14A, at the first felony conviction. It stands, unless someone sues and wins.

 

[Auld Phart]

Don’t quit your day job, Chibon

My 'day job' is watching tv and posting, I retired 32 years ago from the military, and 10 years ago from the state.

 

[konradv]

If Trump, or anyone else can be barred from being placed on the ballot prior from being convicted of any crime, then millions of voters will be able to be disenfranchised from voting based on who they previously voted for.
For example; That guy(and millions of others) voted for Trump, Trump is an insurrectionist and is banned, ergo that guy(and millions of others) are banned from voting. We win!
That looks like the plan, far-fetched has it sounds, that looks like the plan.

Speedy trials all around.

 

[Independent thinker]

LOL And yet, you asked for it. Try to be consistent, retard.

I always know when I've won an argument when you have to resort to name calling. Apparently that's the best you've got.

 

[Lisa558]

The folly would be to elect him first. Fitness must be determined. I believe some states will apply 14A, at the first felony conviction. It stands, unless someone sues and wins.

It would be raced to the SCOTUS, and ruled unconstitutional. Why should DEMOCRATS be the ones to decide whether their #1 political opponent, likely to beat them, is “fit” to be on the ballot? What a joke.

 

[Lisa558]

I always know when I've won an argument when you have to resort to name calling. Apparently that's the best you've got.

That particular poster calls everyone retard. Reminds me of elementary school.

 

[Hellbilly]

My 'day job' is watching tv and posting, I retired 32 years ago from the military, and 10 years ago from the state.

Didn't ask.