Jump to content

US Politics Thread

Sharpshooter

By Sharpshooter
in Off-Topic

 Share

Recommended Posts

StrayDog Top 6

StrayDog

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, MidKnight Ego said:

 

I love how the democrats after trying to get Trump arrested for unconstitutionally trying to affect the election, are now doing the exact same thing.

 

doesnt matter whether you are a democrat or a republican you are a dumbass american inb my books.

 

Please elaborate on how the Democrats are trying to uncontitutionally affect the election in the same way Trump did.

This dumbass American would like to know.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bishopshodan All-Star

bishopshodan

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, MidKnight Ego said:

also as a another talking point,

 

I love how the democrats after trying to get Trump arrested for unconstitutionally trying to affect the election, are now doing the exact same thing.

 

doesnt matter whether you are a democrat or a republican you are a dumbass american inb my books.

 

Just WOW

Another talking point...

 

Then when asked what your talking about you dont want to talk about it.

 

15 minutes ago, MidKnight Ego said:

LOL... if you cant figure it out me explaining it wont help...

 

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeteyBOI All-Star

PeteyBOI

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Another talking point...

 

Then when asked what your talking about you dont want to talk about it.

 

 

 

discussing and explaining are two different things my friend.

 

if someone cant figure out why removing donald trump is unconstitutional then me explaining it will either be a waste of my time as they are a lost cause or they a stubborn liberal who is color blind to the world outside thier party...

 

its literally a lose lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StrayDog Top 6

StrayDog

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, MidKnight Ego said:

so i dont know what?

 

no i do know...

 

im just not explaining it to someone that cant figure it out on their own...

Doubling down on not knowing. Cool. Now what I know is your opinion has as much value as a Trump IOU.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bishopshodan All-Star

bishopshodan

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, MidKnight Ego said:

discussing and explaining are two different things my friend.

 

if someone cant figure out why removing donald trump is unconstitutional then me explaining it will either be a waste of my time as they are a lost cause or they a stubborn liberal who is color blind to the world outside thier party...

 

its literally a lose lose.

Or you could explain what you're talking about so that discussion could ensue.

 

I know, me and my wild ideas.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeteyBOI All-Star

PeteyBOI

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Or you could explain what you're talking about so that discussion could ensue.

 

I know, me and my wild ideas.

god dang it...

 

its a federal issue... not a State issue... if you are acting outside the State in a FEDERAL election its unconstitutional...

 

The State should be demanding answers, not fixing the elections

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
112 All-Star

112

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MidKnight Ego said:

discussing and explaining are two different things my friend.

 

if someone cant figure out why removing donald trump is unconstitutional then me explaining it will either be a waste of my time as they are a lost cause or they a stubborn liberal who is color blind to the world outside thier party...

 

its literally a lose lose.

but it's literally in the constitution that insurrectionists cannot hold office.

 

meanwhile, it's republicans filing to remove trump from the ballots as these rulings apply to the primaries. a democrat would not have standing to file against trump for the republican nomination.

Edited by 112
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rob Eh Franchise Star

Rob Eh

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, 112 said:

but it's literally in the constitution that insurrectionists cannot hold office.

 

meanwhile, it's republicans filing to remove trump from the ballots as these rulings apply to the primaries. a democrat would not have standing to file against trump for the republican nomination.

 

It's a grey area, it says if impeached of an insurrection, which he was but found not guilty, obviously, or he wouldn't be running.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
112 All-Star

112

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Rob Eh said:

 

It's a grey area, it says if impeached of an insurrection, which he was but found not guilty, obviously, or he wouldn't be running.

 

it says nothing about impeachment.

 

"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."

  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bishopshodan All-Star

bishopshodan

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, MidKnight Ego said:

god dang it...

 

its a federal issue... not a State issue... if you are acting outside the State in a FEDERAL election its unconstitutional...

 

The State should be demanding answers, not fixing the elections

Thank you my son,

 

I dont know squat about the US constitution but understand your point now. 

Poster112 seems to have some info. I thought it was dems doing this but he mentions repubs

 

I get the POTUS is a federal appointment but if that person is deemed a criminal  should the state have to support the primary ticket?...i dunno

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Arrogant Worms All-Star

The Arrogant Worms

Posted
Posted

Trump Said He Would Fight For Workers. He Fought For Business Lobbies Instead.

As president, the hotel mogul took the reins off employers at the expense of everyday workers. Now he wants another crack at it.
 
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
112 All-Star

112

Posted
Posted

interesting take, thought i'd share:

 

"Trump Should Not Be Disqualified by an Ambiguous Clause"

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/29/opinion/trump-section-3-14th-amendment.html

 

3 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Thank you my son,

 

I dont know squat about the US constitution but understand your point now. 

Poster112 seems to have some info. I thought it was dems doing this but he mentions repubs

 

I get the POTUS is a federal appointment but if that person is deemed a criminal  should the state have to support the primary ticket?...i dunno

 

I did a bit of reading on it, and apparently the Maine case was brought forth by a bipartisan group of former lawmakers. The Colorado case was brought forth by 6 Republicans iirc.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rob Eh Franchise Star

Rob Eh

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, 112 said:

it says nothing about impeachment.

 

"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."

Ask her slowly, very slowly. 

 

 

 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
112 All-Star

112

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Rob Eh said:

Ask her slowly, very slowly. 

 

 

 

 

why do you think it matters within the context of this decision whether trump has been charged/convicted? the court has jurisdiction to decide whether he engaged in insurrection or not.

Edited by 112
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...