2024 Primary Elections.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...ueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Any chance he will cross the border into WV to do a campaign stop in a subway where he spanks a employee for watching Joe Rogan on his phone while making sammiches?

I know it is a long shot, but it would be fun.

https://x.com/katesullivandc/status/1743467335648690625?s=46&t=iYW3foyqIA6Tn8VWwn3nwQ

Trump: Obviously the Civil War was about slavery.

Also Trump: I will give my full-throated support to honoring the Confederacy.

One the one hand, he just made one of the most factually defensible statements that's ever come out of his mouth. On the other hand, the implications of it are ... well ...

https://bsky.app/profile/wizardkitten.bsky.social/post/3kiduch3fjd2g

Naturally, she has declared that she won't accept the results.

Bump. Do you care in the slightest about convincing anyone, or are you just a poo-flinging monkey?

Go read section 5 of the 14th amendment then get back to me.

Tell you what, since we’ve all read the 14th and all the sections, as well as the overview of the disqualification clause, please explain [to the judge since you want to pretend you are attempting to argue before the Supreme Court] why you think section 5 takes precedence over section 3. Because, you know, that’s what they do. They have to successfully argue the point. You have not done so.

I did. It cannot logically apply to section 3 without some serious logical and practical questions being answered. If you want anyone to take your theory that it does seriously, answer my questions.

Section 5 clearly says that through appropriate legislation an individual can be disqualified. The insurrection act would have to be applied and Trump would have to be charged with insurrection and found guilty. Then through appropriate legislation, Trump could be disqualified from running for President, but it requires a 2/3 vote of each house to do so.

No it doesn’t.

It only says that if the states aren’t following the amendment that congress has the ability to make laws to force them to.

And Section 3 says nothing about the Insurrection Act or any other criminal proceeding much less conviction.

It does not say anything at all about disqualification.

Was that the process that was used in previous disqualifications? A rhetorical question; the answer is No. So why is it different here? Were all of those disqualifications unconstitutional? If so, why didn’t SCOTUS say so?

How on Earth did you come up with that? The ⅔ vote of each house is to remove imposed disqualification.

I’m on my phone and away from my computer so I’m not going to respond with a long copy and paste from the Illinois law review I linked in the option piece linked below, but I’d recommend reading the conclusion they came to in the paper. They concluded that section 3 and section 5 are tied together.
https://www.justsecurity.org/91009/...-of-exhuming-section-3-of-the-14th-amendment/

What a waste of brain-time THAT article was. Leave aside that it ignores pretty much every question I posed, it’s framed as “How could SCOTUS remotely plausibly keep Trump on the ballot without actually getting involved.” It offers nothing in the way of precedent or history in support. This is a total creative invention (and I mean “creative” in thr legal, pejorative sense of the term). It doesn’t even advocate that it *should* be interpreted like this, just that it could be if SCOTUS was being particularly cowardly.

Edit: And on top of that it doesn’t say anything remotely like it would take a ⅔ vote to disqualify him.

Okay, I misread the 2/3 thing. I was wrong about that. Let’s suppose that you’re right. How would you feel about a Republican Secretary of State arbitrarily disqualifying Joe Biden? No conviction of aiding and abetting the enemy, you think that’s fair/ legal?

Oh god. It’s Federal Farmer, Esq.

Just going to leave this here.

I understand that the 14th Amendment doesn’t say anything about a conviction, so what is the process then? I agree that the Colorado case might make sense, but the Maine one is absurd. Do you not see the bad precedent it creates?

I also will absolutely go on record saying that if Donald Trump is found guilty of insurrection and Congress agrees and is disqualified from holding office then I will agree with that legislation or ruling as long as it follows the constitution.

Every branch of government has said he is an insurrectionist. Biden has said it. The Colorado Supreme Court has said it. The House said it twice -- once in the Jan 6 report where they asked DOJ to prosecute it, once in the impeachment. The Senate agreed 57-to-43. Not enough to convict but a majority.

Yet he was not convinced and hasn’t been charged with insurrection.

But he has been charged. That's what the second impeachment was all about. The House charged him with Insurrection. The Senate failed to convict him, the same way a jury failed to convict OJ Simpson of murder in his criminal trial. But I think we all can agree that OJ did murder Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. The stakes, however, are far higher in this instance.

Trump has said that he'll be a dictator from day one, if re-elected. I ask you, WTF could Biden do that would be worse? Point to something that Biden has said that is even remotely comparable to Trump declaring that he'll be a dictator from day one.

For those still confused :

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/shall#:~:text=Primary tabs,are mandatory, and not permissive.

Being accused of a crime and being convicted are two different things.

Right, and I think that we both agree people in elected office should be held to a higher standard than the general public. So, if a majority of the members of Congress think an elected official committed a crime, then perhaps we should say that that person is guilty of the crime, even if they haven't been convicted. Now, answer my question about what Biden could do that would be worse than Trump, who has said that he'll be a dictator from day one if re-elected.

Please, he wants Trump to be dictator so that the people he wants to see hurt will get hurt. The guy probably jerks off to the Project 2025 article on Wikipedia.

He squashed a little old lady drunk driving, and his mom's judge friend got him off, so he knows what he's talking about.

You’re right. And neither mean the same thing as actually being guilty of the crime.

Of course, in cases like this, there isn’t a smoking gun.

So, you’ve given us all the whole “innocent until proven guilty” and “I’m not a trump supporter”. So, how about this? What do YOU think regarding trump’s involvement.in the Jan 6 “attack” at the Capitol?