ADVERTISEMENT

MAGA will turn to 'bloodshed' if Trump's crimes exclude him from ballot

What would be the basis for removing orange man from the ballot if he's the nominee?

Side note: Matt Gaetz is so bad that I actually voted for Rebekah Jones...who's also a nut bag.

Good times in the 1st district...
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Kelsers and JupiterHawk
binsfeldcyhawk2 said:
What would be the basis for removing orange man from the ballot if he's the nominee?

Side note: Matt Gaetz is so bad that I actually voted for Rebekah Jones...who's also a nut bag.

Good times in the 1st district...
Click to expand...
He led an insurrection, which is prohibited by the 14th amendment????

I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I am just throwing out some possibilities here. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: CRazzle, HawkMD, spiderland and 16 others
binsfeldcyhawk2 said:
What would be the basis for removing orange man from the ballot if he's the nominee?

Side note: Matt Gaetz is so bad that I actually voted for Rebekah Jones...who's also a nut bag.

Good times in the 1st district...
Click to expand...
Multiple conservative constitutional originalists are saying his violation of the 14th amendment prohibits Trump from being on the ballot.

It seems like just a matter of time before this will end up at the Supreme Court. The first legal challenge to his candidacy has already been filed in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkMD, TheCainer, ItsinourDNA and 9 others
binsfeldcyhawk2 said:
Has he been charged with insurrection? I don't believe he has...which might put a wrench in that argument.
Click to expand...
Have you been paying attention?

Maybe I am just totally optimistic here, but I think that given the charges against DJT, he just might be charged with some more serious things than jay-walking.

Could be wrong though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80 and mattymoknows
TheCainer said:
He led an insurrection, which is prohibited by the 14th amendment????

I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I am just throwing out some possibilities here. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
He's already been convicted through due process or congressional decree? I guess I missed that.

If it's proven in a court of law that Trump is guilty, throw the book at him. Until then, it's purely opinions and speculation.

On the other hand, the argument could be made that Biden gave comfort or aid to the enemy by leaving millions worth of arms and ammunition in Afghanistan for the Taliban which is also a violation of section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It had to be known they were being left and who's hands they would end up in.

There again, purely opinions and speculation.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SocraticIshmael, mnHawk8, McLovin32 and 1 other person
Hawkeyenuts66 said:
He's already been convicted through due process or congressional decree? I guess I missed that.

If it's proven in a court of law that Trump is guilty, throw the book at him. Until then, it's purely opinions and speculation.

On the other hand, the argument could be made that Biden gave comfort or aid to the enemy by leaving millions worth of arms and ammunition in Afghanistan for the Taliban which is also a violation of section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It had to be known they were being left and who's hands they would end up in.

There again, purely opinions and speculation.
Click to expand...
This post is a perfect example of how we got here. Rs are fvcked up people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80, Thunderlips71, SocraticIshmael and 11 others
Hawkeyenuts66 said:
He's already been convicted through due process or congressional decree? I guess I missed that.

If it's proven in a court of law that Trump is guilty, throw the book at him. Until then, it's purely opinions and speculation.

On the other hand, the argument could be made that Biden gave comfort or aid to the enemy by leaving millions worth of arms and ammunition in Afghanistan for the Taliban which is also a violation of section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It had to be known they were being left and who's hands they would end up in.

There again, purely opinions and speculation.
Click to expand...
You've probably missed a lot, an awful lot.

If what you are proposing is true, Nixon/Ford should have been shot after Vietnam.

LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80, THE_DEVIL, mattymoknows and 2 others
This is ridiculous, do they think this will intimidate everyone into not doing the right thing?

We didn’t come all this way for our kids and grandkids to live in bizzaro Trump kingdom. I think there are a lot more reasonable Americans than the loud minority of MAGA. They need to shut up and sit down.

The real silent majority has about had enough.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Thunderlips71, Obviously Oblivious, SocraticIshmael and 9 others
binsfeldcyhawk2 said:
Has he been charged with insurrection? I don't believe he has...which might put a wrench in that argument.
Click to expand...

Some of his charges may be insurrection adjacent enough to be considered giving aid and comfort . . . maybe. But I've said before I think this is all pre-mature because unless he's convicted of something you can't realistically remove him from the ballot.

To me this is sort of the liberal version of when Texas sued Pennsylvania about their voting laws.. A lot of hope put into a law suit with very little chance of success.

Might have more success if it was taking place after Trump had been convicted of something. But before the conviction, meaningless. You are essentially asking a judge or the courts to unilaterally declare in a civil suit without proper trial, defense or recourse that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection.

That simply is not going to happen. As a citizen who detests Donald Trump and believe he did engage in insurrection, I don't even want that to happen. What I want to happen is for him to be found guilty of insurrection or insurrection adjacent laws in a court of law, sent to prison for those crimes and then have the courts declare that he's constitutionally ineligible to hold public office.

The idea that a court could otherwise just declare in a civil suit that a person engaged in insurrection is a terrible precedent and would allow the courts to not just make partisan decisions but become political actors themselves, throwing themselves into decisions in which they have no business being a part of.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2
Hoosierhawkeye said:
Some of his charges may be insurrection adjacent enough to be considered giving aid and comfort . . . maybe. But I've said before I think this is all pre-mature because unless he's convicted of something you can't realistically remove him from the ballot.

To me this is sort of the liberal version of when Texas sued Pennsylvania about their voting laws.. A lot of hope put into a law suit with very little chance of success.
Click to expand...
Hoosier...if you're going to remove him from the ballot for "aiding and abetting" a insurrection. It'd be helpful to have someone...anyone charged and found guilty of insurrection.
 
Joes Place said:
Again: Not required

14th also uses the term "rebellion", which is precisely what 1/6 was.
And refers to Oath of Office in upholding the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Whoa...if there was a "rebellion" I'd think insurrection indictments would be flying around.

"Rebellion" 😆
 
binsfeldcyhawk2 said:
Hoosier...if you're going to remove him from the ballot for "aiding and abetting" a insurrection. It'd be helpful to have someone...anyone charged and found guilty of insurrection.
Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that some charges are close enough that they don't have be be actual insurrection. For example I believe some of the Jan 6th defendants have been charged with crimes that were classified as acts of terrorism against the government.

Now I don't know about you but I would conclude that something classifed "An act of terrorism against the government" is close enough to insurrection to qualify with the spirt and the original meaning of the 14th amendment.

The head of the proud boys has been convicted of "seditious conspiracy"

US code defines seditious conspiracy as "If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

Now if you ask me that sounds close enough to insurrection. Remember that the 14th amendment was written in the 1860's. If you read that definition to a person in the 1860's they would probably tell you that was the same thing as insurrection.

So I'm a believer that if you are looking at the original intent of the amendment when it was written, what it ment to someone in the 1860's, I would argue that in the 1860's the US code's definition of seditious conspiracy would mean the same thing to them as insurrection. And that therefore the head of the proud boys right now is ineligible to ever hold public office and anyone convicted of aiding him in this would by definition also be ineligible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SocraticIshmael, nu2u, Tom Paris and 3 others
Hoosierhawkeye said:
I'm of the opinion that some charges are close enough that they don't have be be actual insurrection. For example I believe some of the Jan 6th defendants have been charged with crimes that were classified as acts of terrorism against the government.

Now I don't know about you but I would conclude that something classifed "An act of terrorism against the government" is close enough to insurrection to qualify with the spirt and the original meaning of the 14th amendment.

The head of the proud boys has been convicted of "seditious conspiracy"

US code defines seditious conspiracy as "If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

Now if you ask me that sounds close enough to insurrection. Remember that the 14th amendment was written in the 1860's. If you read that definition to a person in the 1860's they would probably tell you that was the same thing as insurrection.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

I think it's a stretch..
 
binsfeldcyhawk2 said:
Fair enough.

I think it's a stretch..
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a stretch. Remember that when you look at the constitution you can't be overly literal. Even conservative justices would tell you that you need to try to base it on what the meaning would have ment to people at the time it was drafted.

Do you really think that if you went back to the 1860's, talked to a member of congress back then and read out the definition of "seditious conspiracy" to them and asked is that what you mean by insurrection that they would say "no". They would absolutely call that an insurrection. They would likely tell you that it was the very definition of insurrection!

So while I think you have to get some actual criminal convictions first. There are likely some charges in there that could be considered "aiding and abetting" an insurrection by the 14th amendment's standards. I think requiring the specific charge of insurrection would be too literal of a reading. But I think any charge that sums up to by force opposing the authority of the lawful government could probably be considered insurrection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nu2u
Hawkeyenuts66 said:
He's already been convicted through due process or congressional decree? I guess I missed that.

If it's proven in a court of law that Trump is guilty, throw the book at him. Until then, it's purely opinions and speculation.

On the other hand, the argument could be made that Biden gave comfort or aid to the enemy by leaving millions worth of arms and ammunition in Afghanistan for the Taliban which is also a violation of section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It had to be known they were being left and who's hands they would end up in.

There again, purely opinions and speculation.
Click to expand...
You're an idiot.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: lucas80, doughuddl2, McLovin32 and 2 others
All this stupid shit coming from Republicans is intended to muddy up and clog up the justice system to prevent DJT from being prosecuted.
Create additional chaos and overwhelm law enforcement.
Be easier to just shoot them at the slightest hint of violence.
 
Tom Paris said:
You're an idiot.
Click to expand...
Obviously you and the other moronic buttfvcks can't comprehend that the dipshit Trump has yet to be through any official proceedings regarding 1/6. I don't give a shit what happens to him; but it needs to happen after he has been found guilty. Even as big of an asshole as he is, he is still entitled to due process.

I get that you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty unless it benefits your side; but there are still some of us that don't have our heads shoved up our asses.

A gym teacher calling someone an idiot is quite ironic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rolfey
Hawkeyenuts66 said:
Obviously you and the other moronic buttfvcks can't comprehend that the dipshit Trump has yet to be through any official proceedings regarding 1/6. I don't give a shit what happens to him; but it needs to happen after he has been found guilty. Even as big of an asshole as he is, he is still entitled to due process.

I get that you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty unless it benefits your side; but there are still some of us that don't have our heads shoved up our asses.

A gym teacher calling someone an idiot is quite ironic.
Click to expand...
Wrong but thanks for making my point. You have added simpleton thinker to your resume also. It's comical how some of you MAGA boys think me doing a job I love working with and coaching kids makes me dumb. I'm pretty sure I have more education than you do.

Not to mention, I didn't vote for a conman like you did. Idiot.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: HawkMD, doughuddl2, unsubstantiated and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Morrison71

Trump Cabinet nominees targeted in attacks ranging from ‘bomb threats’ to 'swatting’

Replies
30
Views
738
Off Topic
Hans81
H
cigaretteman

MAGA monster comes for Joni Ernst

Replies
14
Views
566
Off Topic
joelbc1
joelbc1
cigaretteman

GOP self-interest can protect us from the MAGA agenda

Replies
0
Views
116
Off Topic
cigaretteman
cigaretteman
cigaretteman

Trump’s creaking Cabinet — and how much it could hurt him

Replies
0
Views
249
Off Topic
cigaretteman
cigaretteman
Morrison71

The People Who know Trump Best Won’t Support Him, Why Should You?

Replies
10
Views
457
Off Topic
Rifler
Rifler
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back