Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    50,657
    Thanks (Given)
    36874
    Thanks (Received)
    28613
    Likes (Given)
    3792
    Likes (Received)
    11827
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    15
    Mentioned
    403 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475563

    Default Donald Trump Critics Push Plan to Block Him From Taking Power in DC Protest

    A political movement called "14th Now" has been holding protests in Washington, D.C., from Friday to Sunday, gathering at Franklin Park and the Lincoln Memorial.
    "Donald J. Trump, an adjudicated insurrectionist, remains constitutionally DISQUALIFIED from assuming the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress must honor their oaths by objecting to his electoral votes on January 6. Peacefully, WE THE PEOPLE demand that they do," a blurb from the movement's website reads.

    Donald Trump Critics Push Plan to Block Him From Taking Power in DC Protest
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    13,592
    Thanks (Given)
    8284
    Thanks (Received)
    8165
    Likes (Given)
    922
    Likes (Received)
    3134
    Piss Off (Given)
    8
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19919885

    Default

    Yeah the plan is disqualify his votes and install Harris

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    50,657
    Thanks (Given)
    36874
    Thanks (Received)
    28613
    Likes (Given)
    3792
    Likes (Received)
    11827
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    15
    Mentioned
    403 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Diamond View Post
    Yeah the plan is disqualify his votes and install Harris
    Doesn't say anything about Harris. Just protesting for Congress to refuse to certify Trump's votes. I don't see that happening but your statement is intriguing.

    What would happen if Congress refused to certify Trump's (or any winner's) votes? I don't think win defaults to the loser. Harris didn't have minimum required electoral votes to win that I recall.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    13,592
    Thanks (Given)
    8284
    Thanks (Received)
    8165
    Likes (Given)
    922
    Likes (Received)
    3134
    Piss Off (Given)
    8
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19919885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    Doesn't say anything about Harris. Just protesting for Congress to refuse to certify Trump's votes. I don't see that happening but your statement is intriguing.

    What would happen if Congress refused to certify Trump's (or any winner's) votes? I don't think win defaults to the loser. Harris didn't have minimum required electoral votes to win that I recall.
    Yeah lemme find the source for the perverted plan to install Harris. It involves repeating Raskin's crap from was it 9 months ago? +

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    13,592
    Thanks (Given)
    8284
    Thanks (Received)
    8165
    Likes (Given)
    922
    Likes (Received)
    3134
    Piss Off (Given)
    8
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19919885

    Default

    https://thehill.com/opinion/congress...qualification/





    The Constitution provides that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … 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.” This disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote in each House.

    Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel.

  6. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
  7. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    25,042
    Thanks (Given)
    5047
    Thanks (Received)
    5654
    Likes (Given)
    1801
    Likes (Received)
    1547
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    40
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9372915

    Default

    Stupid. But thinking of political pretzels how many trumpets were insistent that Pence could have refused to certify the vote 4 years ago. Comical.

    Besides, the Constitution, via SCOTUS made this go away months ago.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    50,657
    Thanks (Given)
    36874
    Thanks (Received)
    28613
    Likes (Given)
    3792
    Likes (Received)
    11827
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    15
    Mentioned
    403 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Diamond View Post
    https://thehill.com/opinion/congress...qualification/





    The Constitution provides that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … 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.” This disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote in each House.

    Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel.
    Simple question and point: Has Trump been convicted of insurrection? Opinions are not legal convictions.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  9. Thanks Black Diamond thanked this post
  10. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    13,592
    Thanks (Given)
    8284
    Thanks (Received)
    8165
    Likes (Given)
    922
    Likes (Received)
    3134
    Piss Off (Given)
    8
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19919885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    Simple question and point: Has Trump been convicted of insurrection? Opinions are not legal convictions.
    Nope. Didn't stop those idiots from promoting it. Amazing it didn't gain more traction.

  11. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
  12. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    25,042
    Thanks (Given)
    5047
    Thanks (Received)
    5654
    Likes (Given)
    1801
    Likes (Received)
    1547
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    40
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9372915

    Default

    All nine justices agreed ...
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/s...-insurrection/

    :facepalm:
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  13. Thanks Black Diamond, Gunny thanked this post
  14. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    13,592
    Thanks (Given)
    8284
    Thanks (Received)
    8165
    Likes (Given)
    922
    Likes (Received)
    3134
    Piss Off (Given)
    8
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19919885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    Yeah it was either in the article i posted or one discussing it that the scotus ruling or any ruling in the future re 2024 election is irrelevant: congress decides whether Trump is legitimate candidate. They also talked about beefing up security around Dems because "Maga will retaliate" Or something to that effect.

    Not sure i agree with the scotus not mattering.

  15. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
  16. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    50,657
    Thanks (Given)
    36874
    Thanks (Received)
    28613
    Likes (Given)
    3792
    Likes (Received)
    11827
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    15
    Mentioned
    403 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Diamond View Post
    Yeah it was either in the article i posted or one discussing it that the scotus ruling or any ruling in the future re 2024 election is irrelevant: congress decides whether Trump is legitimate candidate. They also talked about beefing up security around Dems because "Maga will retaliate" Or something to that effect.

    Not sure i agree with the scotus not mattering.

    The ruling definitely matters in that it shut down individual states from interfering in elections by disqualifying candidates without legal cause. If one state had been allowed, every blue state that could would have followed.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  17. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    13,592
    Thanks (Given)
    8284
    Thanks (Received)
    8165
    Likes (Given)
    922
    Likes (Received)
    3134
    Piss Off (Given)
    8
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19919885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    The ruling definitely matters in that it shut down individual states from interfering in elections by disqualifying candidates without legal cause. If one state had been allowed, every blue state that could would have followed.
    You bet they would have. But the two fools who came up with this idea (it's different from raskin because these guys want to retroactively disqualify or nullify trumps votes) think scotus has no jurisdiction in the matter and congress decides if trump is legitimate.

    I don't know that there would have been enough security detail to stop the shitstorm had Harris been installed.

  18. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    50,657
    Thanks (Given)
    36874
    Thanks (Received)
    28613
    Likes (Given)
    3792
    Likes (Received)
    11827
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    15
    Mentioned
    403 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Diamond View Post
    You bet they would have. But the two fools who came up with this idea (it's different from raskin because these guys want to retroactively disqualify or nullify trumps votes) think scotus has no jurisdiction in the matter and congress decides if trump is legitimate.

    I don't know that there would have been enough security detail to stop the shitstorm had Harris been installed.
    I think it's two different things.

    I haven't looked, but from reading what is already here, isn't Congress the presiding authority over a President accused of insurrection? I would assume a civilian would be charged and tried by the DC court?

    On the other hand, challenging a ruling by a state would go to Federal court which dead ends with the Supreme Court.

    I would have a different opinion if Trump had been convicted of insurrection. But there's no conviction.

    Raskin can go slide down a 50 ft razor blade for all I care about him. He is one vile, alleged humanoid.
    Last edited by Gunny; 01-07-2025 at 06:02 PM.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  19. Thanks Kathianne thanked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums