| LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO on 17:24 - Dec 20 with 988 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO on 08:21 - Dec 20 by Zapers |
I agree, way too early, only a fool would write Trump off at this stage.
Underestimate him at you peril, he's unfortunately very powerful.
'He who laughs last, laughs loudest. |
Biden’s approval ratings are unsurprisingly in the tank, 34% I believe. That’s incredibly low for someone going into an election year. Harris isn’t viewed any more favorably really. It will be nine years ago next June that Trump first walked down those escalators. Yet the Democrats answer is still a rather uninspiring DC lifer.
No one in the United States really has an appetite for Biden Trump part 2 but here we are! |  | |  |
| LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO on 18:03 - Dec 20 with 944 views | Herbivore |
| LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO on 17:24 - Dec 20 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
Biden’s approval ratings are unsurprisingly in the tank, 34% I believe. That’s incredibly low for someone going into an election year. Harris isn’t viewed any more favorably really. It will be nine years ago next June that Trump first walked down those escalators. Yet the Democrats answer is still a rather uninspiring DC lifer.
No one in the United States really has an appetite for Biden Trump part 2 but here we are! |
Have they thought about having a better political system? |  |
| |
| LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO on 18:41 - Dec 20 with 919 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO on 18:03 - Dec 20 by Herbivore |
Have they thought about having a better political system? |
Or finding more electable candidates. | | | |
| LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO on 18:48 - Dec 20 with 910 views | Herbivore |
| LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO on 18:41 - Dec 20 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
Or finding more electable candidates. |
Dysfunctionality seems largely baked in though. A two party system, always producing old white men as candidates (with only about two notable exceptions) where the person likely to succeed is the one with the biggest warchest. The weird and outdated electoral college system which means a candidate that lost the popular vote by a decent margin can still end up as president. Political appointments to the legislature. Most presidencies hamstrung by at least one chamber being controlled by the opposition party and such partisan politics meaning compromise is hard to achieve. It's all pretty fooked, mate. | |
| |
| LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO on 18:54 - Dec 20 with 896 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO on 18:48 - Dec 20 by Herbivore |
Dysfunctionality seems largely baked in though. A two party system, always producing old white men as candidates (with only about two notable exceptions) where the person likely to succeed is the one with the biggest warchest. The weird and outdated electoral college system which means a candidate that lost the popular vote by a decent margin can still end up as president. Political appointments to the legislature. Most presidencies hamstrung by at least one chamber being controlled by the opposition party and such partisan politics meaning compromise is hard to achieve. It's all pretty fooked, mate. |
Not sure we always see eye to eye on here but I don’t disagree with most of that. | | | |
| LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO on 21:42 - Feb 8 with 686 views | DJR |
| LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO on 15:25 - Dec 20 by DJR |
Speaking as a lawyer myself, it is interesting to note that the provision doesn't actually say "give aid or comfort to those engaged in insurrection or rebellion". Instead it says "give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof", the word "thereof" appearing to refer to the Constitution of the United States or perhaps the United States itself. The question would then appear to turn on whether the rioters were such enemies, and also whether Trump had "given aid and comfort to" them, which may have a more restricted meaning than one might think at face value.
As an aside, it is interesting to note that none of the 6 January rioters was actually charged with insurrection, presumably because from what I have read insurrection charges are considered difficult to prove. This itself perhaps makes it difficult to prove that such people were "enemies thereof" however reprehensible their actions, as well as making it difficult to regard Trump himself as engaged in insurrection or rebellion for the purposes of the provision in question.
Having read the provision, I can also see the argument (which I think I read has been advanced) that the provision does not apply to the office of President itself because it does not refer to that office as such whilst it does refer to Senator, Representative and an elector of President. Perhaps it was just not thought necessary.
All in all, there seems plenty of wriggle-room for the US Supreme Court to throw out the case.
EDIT: I would just add that I haven't read the Colorado court judgment, so these are only my initial observations. [Post edited 8 Feb 2024 21:38]
|
Interesting to see from the following that it looks like the Supreme Court is going to throw out the case against Trump, as I suspected. And its not just the conservative judges who are sceptical.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/08/us-supreme-court-donald-trump-el [Post edited 8 Feb 2024 21:44]
|  | | |
| LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO on 22:59 - Feb 8 with 608 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/08/biden-classified-documents-speci
“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” Hur wrote.
“Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.” |  |
| |
| LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO on 07:48 - Feb 9 with 504 views | DJR |
| LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO on 22:59 - Feb 8 by BanksterDebtSlave |
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/08/biden-classified-documents-speci
“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” Hur wrote.
“Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.” |
That is completely damning, and you only have to see him in action to realise this is true.
If re-elected, what the hell is he going to be like in four years time? And how one earth have the Democrats allowed this to happen? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
