Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Gorsameth]

Section 3 has never been addressed by any SCOTUS, so I guess we're probably gonna find out. If they take the case, at least we'll get a definitive answer about it. If they don't, I get the sense that it's gonna be yet another tool of government that's gonna be used by the GOP as an act of revenge.

To use section 3 for revenge you first need to actually prove they committed insurrection.

If the SC says "We don't rule on Trump having committed insurrection or not because section 3 doesn't apply to him as a former President so its a moot point." then we're back to 0. Nothing has changed about its use except that an insurrectionist President can run for office again, a very niche case to try a revenge play on.

If they do find section 3 applies to Trump then the SC is faced with having to answer if Trump is guilty of insurrection or not, and from my laymen knowledge I would assume that the SC finding Trump to be guilty (or not guilty) of insurrection would have massive repercussions for every other election related lawsuit he is currently engaged in.

- - - Updated - - -

You say this but he was already on tape talking about taking guns from people without due process... people still defended him...

leopard eating face party.

Trump wants to take libtard guns, not proud patriotic (nazi) Republican guns.
Thats why these people still defend him, because they believe he wouldn't ever be talking about them.

Same thing when poor Republicans on social security shout about wanting to cut social security. Surely they won't cut my SS, just those lazy hippy dems.

[Orange Joe]

To use section 3 for revenge you first need to actually prove they committed insurrection.

If the SC says "We don't rule on Trump having committed insurrection or not because section 3 doesn't apply to him as a former President so its a moot point." then we're back to 0. Nothing has changed about its use except that an insurrectionist President can run for office again, a very niche case to try a revenge play on.

If they do find section 3 applies to Trump then the SC is faced with having to answer if Trump is guilty of insurrection or not, and from my laymen knowledge I would assume that the SC finding Trump to be guilty (or not guilty) of insurrection would have massive repercussions for every other election related lawsuit he is currently engaged in.

- - - Updated - - -


leopard eating face party.

Trump wants to take libtard guns, not proud patriotic (nazi) Republican guns.
Thats why these people still defend him, because they believe he wouldn't ever be talking about them.

Same thing when poor Republicans on social security shout about wanting to cut social security. Surely they won't cut my SS, just those lazy hippy dems.

That wasn't what it was. It was in no way framed that way. It was to prevent mass shooters.

[Gorsameth]

That wasn't what it was. It was in no way framed that way. It was to prevent mass shooters.

Trump doesn't need to frame it that way, his cultists do that for him.

[Orange Joe]

Trump doesn't need to frame it that way, his cultists do that for him.

except NO ONE framed it that way. It was brushed off as Trump being Trump.

[Lenonis]

Republicans will do anything for Trump. They won't need or use solid ground to start kicking the other party.

They've already shown willingness to mess with the elections and ignore voter outcomes - so why does this change anything about what they will or won't do? Because let's face it - if they thought they could toss Biden off the ballot they would have done so already.

- - - Updated - - -

Everything the Dems have done to him has simply backfired.

On what planet exactly? I don't see Trump sitting in office right now.

This is the problem with weaponizing government

Oh, so NOW you are concerned about weaponizing the government huh?

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...ere-rcna130417

Trump's lawyers. led by former Missouri Solicitor General Dean John Sauer, argued in the filing that Smith has given "no compelling reason" why the Supreme Court should immediately step in without waiting for the appeals court to act.

Smith, Sauer wrote, "confuses the 'public interest' with the manifest partisan interest in ensuring that President Trump will be subjected to a months-long criminal trial at the height of a presidential campaign where he is the leading candidate and the only serious opponent of the current administration."

Defendant with a vested interest in delaying their court case ask the SCOTUS not to take up Jack Smith's request to rule on whether Donald enjoys broad immunity from prosecution for literally anything and everything he did while POTUS, even if those weren't official duties, ask the court to wait for the appeals court to rule so the defendant can waste more time appealing instead of going straight to the final arbiter.

Shocking stuff, more at 11.

[Somewhatconcerned]

They've already shown willingness to mess with the elections and ignore voter outcomes - so why does this change anything about what they will or won't do? Because let's face it - if they thought they could toss Biden off the ballot they would have done so already.

- - - Updated - - -

On what planet exactly? I don't see Trump sitting in office right now.

Oh, so NOW you are concerned about weaponizing the government huh?

We should all be. The floodgates have been opened, no telling what Trump will now do once he's back in power.

[Odinfrost]

We should all be. The floodgates have been opened, no telling what Trump will now do once he's back in power.

If he comes back in power.

[Somewhatconcerned]

If he comes back in power.

Biden's approval rating is at like 34% and becoming unpopular even with factions within the Democrat party.

He will get hammered on the border and economy. He could still win, but Biden should be considered a massive underdog at this point.

[Lenonis]

We should all be. The floodgates have been opened, no telling what Trump will now do once he's back in power.

THIS is where the floodgates have been opened? Have you been in a coma? Care you comment on the four million inquiries into Hillary?

- - - Updated - - -

Biden should be considered a massive underdog at this point.

This is so incredibly dishonest...

What is Trump's approval rating again?

[Odinfrost]

Biden's approval rating is at like 34% and becoming unpopular even with factions within the Democrat party.

He will get hammered on the border and economy. He could still win, but Biden should be considered a massive underdog at this point.

Just because democrats and many independent voters don't approve of Biden, they dislike Trump more.
Just like how many republican and independent voters don't approve of Trump, but they prefer him to Biden.
This is why approval ratings measure fuck all in this election.

[Orange Joe]

Why are we back to trusting polls again?


Didn't polls predict Trump losing the first time, and winning the second time?

[Teriz]

Murder is a general law, it doesn't specifically point at a certain weapon have to be used. If Murder was defined as "kill someone with a hammer" then killing someone with an axe would not be murder. Unfortunately for your argument the 14th amendment does specify who it applies to.
The President is not a member of Congress, a member of state legislature or an executive or judicial officer of a state, so that only leaves the Officer of the United States.

Which is mentioned in the Appointments Clause

So the President appoints Officers, but it doesn't say that the President is himself an officer of the united states.

Now you can say its just semantics, but that's basically what the entirety of law and the constitution is based around. Semantics.

But he's no longer president and he's running for president, and it says that said person shall hold no federal office, and that includes the presidency.

[Gorsameth]

But he's no longer president and he's running for president, and it says that said person shall hold no federal office, and that includes the presidency.

Correct, now go read the rest of the quote and pay particular attention to the bolded part.
Then come back and try again.

[Teriz]

Correct, now go read the rest of the quote and pay particular attention to the bolded part.
Then come back and try again.

And pretty much any legal scholar will tell you that the president is an officer of the United States. If you hold an office, you are an officer.

Here's one such example;

https://missouriindependent.com/2023...ry%20discourse.

[Somewhatconcerned]

THIS is where the floodgates have been opened? Have you been in a coma? Care you comment on the four million inquiries into Hillary?

- - - Updated - - -

This is so incredibly dishonest...

What is Trump's approval rating again?

So you agree that a zero sum game has been going on. Good.

Who cares what Trump's approval rating is? Biden hasn't even hit his floor yet. He's got another 11 months to continue to bleed support, which he will.

Biden will still win the popular vote, but it certainly won't be as large of a gap next time. This will translate into a comfortable EC win for Trump.

But let me guess, you got him THIS time, right?

[s_bushido]

THIS is where the floodgates have been opened? Have you been in a coma? Care you comment on the four million inquiries into Hillary?

- - - Updated - - -

This is so incredibly dishonest...

What is Trump's approval rating again?

The concern troll's name is literally "somewhat concerned." Ignore it and move on.



People haven't forgotten who Trump is and what he represents. Biden is polling low right now, yes. But saying you don't support Biden right now is literally meaningless. Saying you're willing to let a fascist back into office in 2024 is another matter entirely.

[AntiFascistVoter]

Biden's approval rating is at like 34% and becoming unpopular even with factions within the Democrat party.

He will get hammered on the border and economy. He could still win, but Biden should be considered a massive underdog at this point.

Remember the end of 2011?

• Obama's polling was an all-time low.
• New York Times Magazine published an "analysis" giving Obama a 17 percent chance to win reelection.
• Saudis were jacking up oil prices.
• GOP threatened to tank the economy <again> and forced shutdowns.
• Fox News was headlining border crises.
• Certain Left factions wanted to primary Obama. Threatened to withhold votes.
• Press spent most of the time crowning Romney.

Sure Jan...

[swiftowner]

And pretty much any legal scholar will tell you that the president is an officer of the United States. If you hold an office, you are an officer.

Here's one such example;

https://missouriindependent.com/2023...ry%20discourse.

Or, a popular Amendment that was brought up a LOT. 25th Amendment. https://constitution.congress.gov/br...e%20President.


Some key points would be that the “President” is the position of “office of the president”, and talking about one’s ability to perform the actions of the office. So it would appear that “President” is shorthand for “office of the president”, so yes, the president is an “officer”.


And quoting Cornell
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/offi...%20employment.

officer

In general, an officer is a person who has the obligation of carrying out the responsibilities and functions of an office, whether it be duty or charge, a position of trust, or the right to engage in public or private employment.

A public officer is typically described as someone who has been elected or appointed to perform the duties of an office for the public good.

So it’s not as ambiguous as it seems. It’s one of those situations where people are being disingenuous and saying, “he didn’t say ‘quid pro quo’ therefore he didn’t commit a crime”, so they use that logic to say, “this specific article didn’t say president, or call the president an officer, therefore it doesn’t apply.”

[Breccia]

The Lt. Gov. of Texas wants to kick Biden off the ballot because, basically, his snowflake feewings are hurt.

Seeing what happened in Colorado tonight … makes me think — except we believe in democracy in Texas — maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing 8 million people to cross the border since he’s been president, disrupting our state far more than anything anyone else has done in recent history

"Did he mention how many people crossed the border while Trump was in the WH?"

No.

"Was it more or less than 8 million?"

Well, for one, I think 8 million is made up. Actually, let me clarify. The NYTimes puts the number of illegal border crossings in 2022 at 2.2 million. So, I don't think it's been 8 million illegal crossings, especially not into Texas specifically. If he's talking about all crossings, including legal ones, then fuck that guy for his insinuations.

"He talked about the damage in recent history. Did he mention the time his state froze solid and people died?"

No.

"Did he mention COVID?"

No.

"Did he mention the 2015 Dallas Cowboys?"

No.

"Does anything in the 14th suggest that he has a case here?"

No, but the very fact that he's in Texas means they could probably do it anyhow. It would also need to go through SCOTUS, who would have to not only unpack everything Trump is already dealing with, but also, whether or not illegal crossings count towards the 14th when Texas recently signed into law the ability to attack the problem themselves directly.

Meaning, anyone considering this to be a slippery slope might have a point, but this appears to be the best they have so far -- random accusations and yelling things at cameras.

The Lt. Gov. of Texas can't kick Biden off the ballot. I'd like to see him try.