Should Donald Trumps' name still be on the general election ballot if

@independentone Most public all gender restroom in America.

@LordShadowfire for #1 and #2!!!

@fanuc2013 [quote]The FBI has already stated the Jan.6 was not an insurrection. That term is being used by political opponents.[/quote]
And what word would you use to describe a group of people who intentionally broke into the Capitol for the purpose of overturning legitimate election results? Don't let somebody else do your thinking for you. Use your own words.

@fanuc2013 please provide a source?
Thanks.

@fanuc2013 none of the indictments pending include insurrection. Per washington post. The fbi hasnt said shit though.

@samueltyler2 I am just telling you what they are arguing. I’m on Trumps side. Their side of the argument sounds plausible.

@specman i realize what side you are on. Why do you say they are arguing, it is you who is blind to what tTump tried to do. He continues to try, his platform for re-election shows it. He is a failed businessman, lied about that, he is twice impeached, indicted four times for over 91 crimes. He robs from the poor to pay the rich. Wake up before it is too late

@samueltyler2 he keeps trying to what?

@22Michelle Those who are skeptical of invoking the 14th amendment are not all Trump partisans.

I think it is good to remember the adage "be careful of what you wish for." I think we will have utter chaos if each state were able to define "insurrection" as it pleased. (The prevailing legal opinion is that it would take an act of Congress to declare someone guilty of insurrection.) If any state excluded Trump from the ballot, and that decision held up in court, I am confident that other states would rule Biden to be an insurrectionist for "encouraging an army of rapists and murders to invade our southern border and to threaten the American way of life." And some whacko court filled with Trump-appointed judges would uphold the ruling. (I can hear the arguments now: "how many attacked the capital? Compare that with how many have crossed the border!")

It's easy to get a blood-lust for expressing outrage against a candidate we despise, but let's remember that every legal ruling is a two-edged sword.

We have already entered the era of "dueling impeachments" in this country. I would hate to usher in an era of "dueling insurrectionists."

@DrWatson To be honest I think, like much of the Constitution it is written for its time, and for a class of people who saw themselves as being the rulers ofvthe USA. Determining insurrection would have been simple back then. I just find it amusing that it's always those who say they hold the Constitution as being inviolate who tie themselves in knots trying to find ways if should not be applied to them. See the "well regulated militia" provision of the second amendment. Add in the cry of " you can't amend the Constitution" when we're debating amendments to the Constitution and you realise how insane the debate is. The USA, like the UK needs to bring it's electoral and legal processes and provisions into the 20th let alone the 21st century.

@DrWatson

must.
shall.
will.
have (to)
need.
ought (to)

@whowasthatmaskedman agreed

@exchrist that really isn't true. It might prevent someone from working some jobs, etc.

@samueltyler2 as it should but here in nys i doubt his shit will be permitted to fly.

@samueltyler2 such as president yes

@LordShadowfire I consider the Supreme Court’s ruling a reliable source.

@specman Okay, so you don't want to think for yourself.

@trollslayer They are still terrified of him.

@LordShadowfire pussies

@IM5688 the 14th amendment does not say that.

@CountScrofula i know, you made no sense whatsoever earlier lol but I still gave you th3 thumbs up. One of these situations when I node my head while I don't understand.

@BittersweetPotato Here's a better way of putting it.

Indigenous people in Canada are treated very, very badly by police and often unfairly arrested and convicted. This is especially true for political activists.

Those political activists should have the right to run for public office.

@CountScrofula Now that makes sense lol

@sstronaut Honestly, anything that doesn't have to do with betraying his government should be overlooked as a disqualifying factor.

@LordShadowfire I think taking him off the ballot would play into his bases hands. It would make him look like he is being persecuted. I would rather him be on the ballot and get quashed at the polls.