Trump 2024 — The second term

[BugI02]

The same leftists cannot fathom why some confederate generals were recognized by the Union post war…

Possibly because personal honor is a foreign concept to the hive

 

[KG1]

I am saying that I think Trump’s disqualifying act was the phony electors, not the riot.

I think the argument can be made that (at least some of) the J6 rioters did act to (attempt to) keep the duly-elected president-elect from taking office, and those acts arguably do rise to the level of attempted rebellion or insurrection…but I don’t think the argument that Trump was in control of that crowd has much merit.

In other words, I think Trump should be held accountable for his phony elector scheme, and I think the rioters should be held accountable for their actions during the riots…but I don‘t think Trump is criminally liable for the actions of the individual rioters.

Just to be clear we are talking specifically about "insurrection" as it applies to Trump.

I'm kinda getting a mixed message from you now in that it appears you do not feel that Trump should be accountable for the acts of the rioters that in your estimation could arguably rise to the level of attempted "rebellion or insurrection." which by the way none have been charged with and you are saying that the disqualifying insurrectionist act on the part of Trump is now that of a phony electors' scheme. So now Trump and the phony electors are "insurrectionists." of their own right.

If that's the case, we are really stretching the definition of "insurrection."

 

[jamil]

I already admitted I am not a student of Nazi history, and I made a mistake.

Now c'mon. That sounds a bit like a passive/aggreessive jab. Like something to be proud of? But anyway, you probably shouldn't talk about it then.

Hopefully you're not like the other Lefties who toss around "Hitler" and fascist references at conservatives. Most Lefties I've seen calling conservatives fascists wouldn't know a real ass fascist if they saw one looking back in the mirror.

 

[BugI02]

But, instead, he covers with federalism and Faucci being the one who recommended the policies. Trump should have directed Faucci not to recommend lockdowns. Not to recommend mask mandates. He didn't. I think that's a legitimate criticism of Trump that devout Trumpers cannot bring themselves to make.

But you never articulate WHY it is so important to you that we make the criticisms you so desperately want us to make. It's not like they're not being made. It isn't like you need our voices added to your chorus - so why IS that so important to you Tjamil?

You cannot save me. You can't even save yourself

 

[BugI02]

I get it, bug…you think Trump picks the best lawyers just like you think Hitler picked the best generals.

Godwin? Is that you?

 

[BugI02]

I'd be willing to bet that most ardent Trump supporters would be fine with their contributions going toward legal expenses for their candidate since Trump's campaign doesn't seem to be suffering right now due to lack of attention. It's not taking away from his campaign in other words.

Why should it be only 'ardent' Trump supporters?

DeSantis, super PAC accused of breaking campaign finance law in federal complaint

TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — A watchdog group has accused Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis of breaking campaign finance laws by coordinating with the Never Back Down PAC, according to a complaint filed with…

www.wfla.com

You'll have a chance to prove your opinion isn't just about Trump. DeSantis has been accused by a 'watchdog group' (read: partisan NGO) of violating election law by illegally co-ordinating with his superPAC. Will you also be critical of DeSantis if he begins using campaign funds to hire legal talent and defend himself against the allegations? If so, then perhaps what you mean to say is Trump is doing what any other conservative politician would be expected to do when victimized by lawfare

And incidentally (not directed at you, KG) that fact that law fare against DeSantis is already ramping up should disabuse ABTs of the notion that if Trump were off the ballot we would magically return to elections being conducted on the merits and all cheating would be passé

 

[KG1]

I am saying that I think Trump’s disqualifying act was the phony electors, not the riot.

Let me add this to support my point.. Does what you think should be the disqualifying act fit the definition of insurrection?

"An “insurrection,” by definition, is a “violent uprising against an authority or government.”

 

[Route 45]

 

[jamil]

But you never articulate WHY it is so important to you that we make the criticisms you so desperately want us to make. It's not like they're not being made. It isn't like you need our voices added to your chorus - so why IS that so important to you Tjamil?

I have. It's a bit sanity check, when you pull out all the stops to rationalize even the most minor criticism. I think most people can find some good and bad about anything. When you discover someone who can't, well. Why can't you?

Do you think Trump is perfect? Do you think he's beyond reproach? Do you think he made zero mistakes while in office? I can't see any evidence from your posts that you'd answer "no" to any of those. Mike either. Here's one that I don't remember who answered this way, but I don't think it was you.

When we talked about Trump claiming that he saved 100 million lives with his covid policies (lockdowns and vaccines). And then one of the Trumpers, who has already been all over the vaccine thread ****ing all over vaccine efficacy and safety, was basically trying to claim Trump was right. That's not rational.

It's why I've said, I don't know why you guys fight so hard to deny things like that. As if it's anathema to you to admit it. Like you can't do it or it's blaspheme. That's straight up where I'm coming from on that. It's okay if Trump's not perfect. It's okay if he has faults. Everyone has them. You. Me. Everyone.

You cannot save me. You can't even save yourself

This convinces me that you don't understand. I have no interest in saving you. From what? We go around and around, even though we probably agree 90% on politics. That 10% is pretty much where I point out some legitimate criticisms of Trump, which you reject all, ever. I find that odd.

Well. Okay, we disagree on cyclists too. So maybe only 85%. But most of the cyclist stuff I post about is like pineapple on pizza. Just having some fun with it. The cyclist thread was supposed to be in fun, but then a couple of guys took it more serious than was intended.

 

[KG1]

Why should it be only 'ardent' Trump supporters?

DeSantis, super PAC accused of breaking campaign finance law in federal complaint

TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — A watchdog group has accused Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis of breaking campaign finance laws by coordinating with the Never Back Down PAC, according to a complaint filed with…

www.wfla.com

You'll have a chance to prove your opinion isn't just about Trump. DeSantis has been accused by a 'watchdog group' (read: partisan NGO) of violating election law by illegally co-ordinating with his superPAC. Will you also be critical of DeSantis if he begins using campaign funds to hire legal talent and defend himself against the allegations? If so, then perhaps what you mean to say is Trump is doing what any other conservative politician would be expected to do when victimized by lawfare

And incidentally (not directed at you, KG) that fact that law fare against DeSantis is already ramping up should disabuse ABTs of the notion that if Trump were off the ballot we would magically return elections being conducted on the merits and all cheating would be passé

If you re-read and comprehend the point of my entire post, I am not being critical of staunch Trump supporters that I feel most likely do not have an issue with their donations going toward legal expenses. Maybe I'm wrong. IDK maybe you do have an issue with it. I certainly don't if that's what they want.

 

[foszoe]

Is there like a 3rd new moon this month?

 

[Ingomike]

Did you raise money to pay for his campaign or his legal bills? Do you think it is right for a billionaire to use donor money on legal bills?

Lawyers, Trump and money: Ex-president spends millions in donor cash on attorneys as legal woes grow

Trump’s Save America political action committee has paid nearly $37 million to more than 60 law firms and individual attorneys since January 2022, records show.

apnews.com

At this point the lawfare and campaign are one and the same. If he was not a candidate none of this legal maneuvering would be attempted…

 

[DadSmith]

Now c'mon. That sounds a bit like a passive/aggreessive jab. Like something to be proud of? But anyway, you probably shouldn't talk about it then.

Hopefully you're not like the other Lefties who toss around "Hitler" and fascist references at conservatives. Most Lefties I've seen calling conservatives fascists wouldn't know a real ass fascist if they saw one looking back in the mirror.

I agree millions of leftist voted in Newsom.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Just to be clear we are talking specifically about "insurrection" as it applies to Trump.

I’m really sorry, but I am having a hard time following this next part:

I'm kinda getting a mixed message from you now in that it appears you do not feel that Trump should be accountable for the acts of the rioters that in your estimation could arguably rise to the level of attempted "rebellion or insurrection." which by the way none have been charged with and you are saying that the disqualifying insurrectionist act on the part for Trump is that of an phony electors' scheme. So now Trump and the phony electors are "insurrectionists." of their own right.

If I correctly understand what you are asking…yes, I think Trump’s phony elector scheme alone should be enough to disqualify him from holding elected office ever again.

If that's the case, we are really stretching the definition of "insurrection."

I agree that definitions are important, and I agree that “insurrection” can be defined narrowly enough to exclude Trump’s elector scheme from consideration.

I don’t think it should be, though…I think both justice and liberty are likely better served by a definition that includes attempts to disrupt the lawful transfer of power in the concept of insurrection.

 

[Route 45]

 

[Ingomike]

I am saying that I think Trump’s disqualifying act was the phony electors, not the riot.

I think the argument can be made that (at least some of) the J6 rioters did act to (attempt to) keep the duly-elected president-elect from taking office, and those acts arguably do rise to the level of attempted rebellion or insurrection…but I don’t think the argument that Trump was in control of that crowd has much merit.

In other words, I think Trump should be held accountable for his phony elector scheme, and I think the rioters should be held accountable for their actions during the riots…but I don‘t think Trump is criminally liable for the actions of the individual rioters.

If the electors were chosen in a manner other than how the legislature of the individual state directed are they not fraudulent electors?

Cannot answer the question?

 

[jamil]

Let me add this to support my point.. Does what you think should be the disqualifying act fit the definition of insurrection?

"An “insurrection,” by definition, is a “violent uprising against an authority or government.”

Well, the 14th amendment also lists rebellion and treason as disqualifying. Trump wasn't involved in an insurrection. It wasn't Treason, although some nutty people might want to believe that. I suppose LG might like to say it was a rebellion.

This part of the 14th amendment was to prevent office holders who, after leaving office, participated in the Civil War, to be elected to offices listed therein. For example, they certainly did not want Jefferson Davis running for POTUS after being the president of an illegal state in active bloody rebellion against the US. Secession was all three. It was an insurrection. It was treason against the US. It was a rebellion against the US.

Okay, so contrast the basis for the 14th amendment with what Trump did. He tried to get a different slate of electors so he could be declared the winner, based on some cockamamie legal theory. It was idiotic. But it wasn't a crime. People try to use novel legal theories all the time. Usually to get around parts of the law they don't like. And then you fight it out in court. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. But this wasn't any of those 14th amendment disqualifications, and the CO SC was absolutely partisan in this decision.

Now. I get it. Some people are fighting mad that he even tried it. Fair enough. But to claim that this act somehow involved Trump in an insurrection, treason, or rebellion, is nonsense. None of the legal definitions of those things fit what happened.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Cannot answer the question?

What question, Mike? I can’t make heads or tails of the word salad you posted.

Every state provided a certificate of ascertainment for the 2020 election that listed the final vote count for their state and the names of the electors who would be representing them in the electoral college. Each certificate of ascertainment was individually validated with the official state seal and the signature of the Governor of the issuing state.

We can easily identify fraudulent electors because they did not have valid certificates of ascertainment.

Does that answer your question?

 

[KG1]

I’m really sorry, but I am having a hard time following this next part:



If I correctly understand what you are asking…yes, I think Trump’s phony elector scheme alone should be enough to disqualify him from holding elected office ever again.



I agree that definitions are important, and I agree that “insurrection” can be defined narrowly enough to exclude Trump’s elector scheme from consideration.

I don’t think it should be, though…I think both justice and liberty are likely better served by a definition that includes attempts to disrupt the lawful transfer of power in the concept of insurrection.

What you think "should" be included in the definition of "insurrection" is not in reality.

The disqualifying act that they are trying to pin on Trump is one of "insurrection" as defined. An “insurrection,” by definition, is a “violent uprising against an authority or government.” which you yourself said that Trump should not be held accountable when it comes to the acts of individual rioters.

I can't think of hearing your notion of what should be a disqualify "insurrectionist" act anywhere else which doesn't fit the actual definition that you want to shoehorn in there.

 

[jamil]

I am saying that I think Trump’s disqualifying act was the phony electors, not the riot.

Explain how Trump trying to use his lawyers legal theory to switch electors equates to Trump having "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

What legal definition of insurrection, or rebellion, or treason fits what Trump engaged in. I know you're uber mad about it. Powerful angry. I'm sorry it isn't as illegal as you want it to be. Here's how you get to hold Trump accountable.

When you fill in your mail-in ballot, first wait for the blue haired girl to show up. Get your...you know. Then when she asks for the ballot, tell her you already have it filled out for not-Trump. That's how you hold him accountable. Trying to apply words that don't fit to justify disqualifying Trump from the ballot is purely partisan, and should not work.

I only say "should not work" because I'm not 100% sure SCOTUS will knock CO SC down. I mean I think Roberts, Kavanaugh, possibly Barret, might avail themselves of the opportunity to just end the the whole Trump 2.0 experiment. But a just ruling would be, "get that **** outta here!"