Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Bluebirdsonmyshoulder · 46-50, F
KunsanVeteran · 61-69, M
@Bluebirdsonmyshoulder Quad Indicted. The latest title he “earned.”
I think one reason why people seem to hate lawyers so much, is it seems often they're less interested in following the law, than interpreting it manipulatively for their ends. Any sane person who stops to think what that amendment is there for, won't be playing games with president not being explicitly mentioned. My worry is that we're about to reach an era in which the old US constitution's going to be shredded, if not literally, in practical terms. If the Supreme Court allows Trump to be on ballots, they've as much as done that, in my opinion, which doesn't count for much, but in the opinion of many whose should. If Jan 6th wasn't an insurrection, what the fuck else is an insurrection supposed to look like, I dread to think?
trollslayer · 46-50, M
@PhilDeep Agreed. The amendment was written for a reason. If this isn't the reason it was written for, I dare to think what is. Trump apologists claim this was just a "riot" much like an "antifa" riot. Wrong. Antifa has not stormed capitols trying to change election results. Antifa is not egged on by sitting presidents. And Trump apologists want to say that trump was in no way responsible for the actions of the Jan 6th folks. Again, wrong. All he had to do was call them off and tell them it was wrong. All he had to do was concede. He did neither. And promising to pardon Jan 6th folks? Well, that is giving comfort to insurrectionists and therefore immediately disqualifying. Any candidate that promises pardons for Jan 6th insurrectionists should also be removed from the ballot.
trollslayer · 46-50, M
@PhilDeep To me, any objective person would see this as a smoking gun. But few are capable of being objective. I tried my damnedest during the Trump presidency to view Trump's words and viewpoints though an objective viewpoint. And there are many times where I did not care for his tone, but his underlying message was valid (NAFTA for one). But there were so many times where I could not objectively rationalize Trump's words - and this was one of them.
Tastyfrzz · 61-69, M
Some say that the way the constitution was written excludes presidents but if he is commander in chief and sends young people off to die he effectively is wearing a military uniform. The leaders of all armies are the most garishly dressed. Even the heads of terrorist organizations don silk suits. Plus a silk scarf under the noose around their necks.