Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Braintree said:
1 hour ago, very honest said:

the first article notes the 14th amendment applies and is actively being considered. 

the second article doesn't mention it

It says this in the first article.

Quote

Despite these hurdles, with impeachment out of the way Trump is currently clear to stand for President again in 2024. The question now is: Will he?

And says this at the beginning of the second.

Quote

The impeachment by the House alone will not prevent Mr Trump from running for office a second time, as that decision rests with the US Senate.

Following a trial, the Senate needs a two-thirds majority of its 100 members to vote in favour of the conviction of the president and the penalty is removal from office.

If convicted, the Senate also has the option to vote to disqualify the president from holding public offices in the future, in which case he would be prohibited from running again in 2024.

they are talking about impeachment. talk about 14th amendment won't pop up until 2023, (if he tries to run).

22 minutes ago, ignatius said:
1 hour ago, very honest said:

the first article notes the 14th amendment applies and is actively being considered. 

the second article doesn't mention it

"considered" meaning they would have to vote on it for it to take effect. so, as of now he can run if he wants. if they are somehow able to bring it to a vote in the senate and get enough votes then he'd be barred from office. as of now he isn't. i think it would be difficult for them to get the votes needed.. especially since they are trying to do a big infrastructure bill and other things and don't want to distract away from that or further divide/burn any political capital they might have. 

but it's something they could do later. it's not like it expires. 

this is my understanding. i'm not sure if lawsuits or other mechanisms could also be a factor but yeah i think congress would have to invoke it and vote. they will wait to address this until they have to (2023/2024)

 

now, here's section 3 of the 14th amendment:

Quote

Section 3
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

 

 

i view this debate we are having this way: there is the law and there is enforcement. in my view, by law, he is disqualified. if congress fails to enforce that, that is another issue.

Edited by very honest
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

grandpa in the ICU .. doctors giving him a 50/50 chance. oof. miserable.

Well after 7 days in a row treating 40-odd patients daily without any available PPE I unsurprisingly came down with coronavirus symptoms on Monday. All feels a bit weird at home as my wife (who also

Thanks Jules!

Posted Images

50 minutes ago, Claudius t Ansuulim said:

Pfizer’s ex-Vice President and Chief Scientist:

 

I’m guessing just about everybody here has made up their minds about all this so I’m not sure who I’m posting it for. flame on 🔥

former vice president and chief scientific officer of Pfizer blowing the lid off globalistic population agenda

so, it's all lies? ok got it. as you were. he makes some assumptions and generalizations about people's behavior. 

anyway.. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

fucking bollocks to all of it that's what I say. can't be fucking arsed any more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, very honest said:

they are talking about impeachmemt. talk about 14th amendment won't pop up until 2023, (if he tries to run).

this is my understanding. i'm not sure if lawsuits or other mechanisms could also be a factor but yeah i think congress would have to invoke it and vote. they will wait to address this until they have to (2023/2024)

 

now, here's section 3 of the 14th amendment:

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/#:~:text=But neither the United States,be held illegal and void.

 

i view this debate we are having this way: there is the law and there is enforcement. in my view, by law, he is disqualified. if congress fails to enforce that, that is another issue.

I think the point is that he was accused (impeached) by the house and the senate acquitted. So without any further action from the senate, he can run again. The accusation on its own is not enough. The 14th amndmt. assumes more than just an accusation. At least, from a legal point of view, that makes the most sense. To me anyways. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Satans Little Helper said:

I think the point is that he was accused (impeached) by the house and the senate acquitted. So without any further action from the senate, he can run again. The accusation on its own is not enough. The 14th amndmt. assumes more than just an accusation. At least, from a legal point of view, that makes the most sense. To me anyways. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

two thirds supermajority is a very high threshhold. to US political observers, getting 7 GOP senators to vote to convict is damning. it means he did it, in the world of reality, and serious people know that.

if you've assumed that there is any formal connection between that vote and any upcoming 14th amendment vote then i think that's incorrect. it may come down to the party numbers in 2023.

even mcconnell said trump did it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, very honest said:

they are talking about impeachment. talk about 14th amendment won't pop up until 2023, (if he tries to run).

Trump can run for office again, as of right now. Whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to him, or if sometime in the future Congress chooses to bar him from office, he can still run for 2024 right now. That answers the question that was asked.

Edited by Braintree
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, very honest said:

two thirds supermajority is a very high threshhold. to US political observers, getting 7 GOP senators to vote to convict is damning. it means he did it, in the world of reality, and serious people know that.

if you've assumed that there is any formal connection between that vote and any upcoming 14th amendment vote then i think that's incorrect. it may come down to the party numbers in 2023.

even mcconnell said trump did it.

I really have a hard time making sense of your logic.

First you say this:

Quote

in my view, by law, he is disqualified.

And now you say that there's a number of people that think he did it. A majority but not the required 2/3s. By law that means he's acquitted. Instead of disqualified. That's how US law works, right?

The threshold was put there for a reason. You can't just move it aside when it suits your view. If you say by law, you should follow the law. An impeachment is not much more than an accusation. The jury was the senate. And they acquitted. Acquitted by law.

If there's any article of some legal expert making the opposite argument, be sure to post a link. And I'm not looking for legal experts who argue there's a strong case for Trumps playing a role in this insurrection. The argument is about the implications of the acquittal. Not whether or not there's a strong case that Trump is guilty of insurrection. That's a separate issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

re: @Satans Little Helper @Braintree

as i said, i view it as a question of enforcement.

 

here's an analogy. let's say the rules are that you can't lifeguard if you have one leg. i have one leg. am i disqualified? or do we wait and see if the beach owners enforce the rule?

 

trump is disqualified because he participated in insurrection. if congress wants to subvert that constitutional amendment then that's another problem.

 

edit: i don't really have 1 leg

Edited by very honest
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, very honest said:

trump is disqualified because he participated in insurrection

It's just an accusation. There's a difference between a missing leg (easily verifiable) and an accusation of insurrection. I think you're getting ahead of your skies. This is more like that OJ Simpson case, where you know he did it, but he was acquitted anyways. Or whatever the outcome was zillions years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, very honest said:

re: @Satans Little Helper @Braintree

as i said, i view it as a question of enforcement.

 

here's an analogy. let's say the rules are that you can't lifeguard if you have one leg. i have one leg. am i disqualified? or do we wait and see if the beach owners enforce the rule?

 

trump is disqualified because he participated in insurrection. if congress wants to subvert that constitutional amendment then that's another problem.

Our point is that it's irrelevant to his question. So speculate all you want, but as of right now Donald J. Trump can run for office again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Satans Little Helper said:

It's just an accusation. There's a difference between a missing leg (easily verifiable) and an accusation of insurrection. I think you're getting ahead of your skies. This is more like that OJ Simpson case, where you know he did it, but he was acquitted anyways. Or whatever the outcome was zillions years ago.

the fact that conclusions take proving does not mean that rules don't exist until enforcement happens. he is disqualified and congress should say so.

 

9 minutes ago, Braintree said:

Our point is that it's irrelevant to his question. So speculate all you want, but as of right now Donald J. Trump can run for office again.

 

here we agree but the original question was if he is disqualified and i don't think i've been proven wrong that he is disqualified, albeit while a detestable congress neglects their duty.

Edited by very honest
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Satans Little Helper said:

No, the original question was whether he could run again. You argued he couldn't. Disqualified by law, or something along those lines. 

He could run again in 2024. And possibly win.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-is-free-to-run-for-president-again-but-can-he-win-152047510.html

 

 

it's a question of enforcement and semantics.

 

if someone tells me i can't plant flowers in a stranger's lawn and i say "yes i can" and i do, without being convicted of trespassing, maybe we were both right.

Edited by very honest
  • Big Brain 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In a - what I would argue - normal world he would have been convicted by the senate and (then) you would have been right. But that's just not the world we're living in. No need to jump into the weeds of semantics here. Just accept the reality of being wrong. For once. 😜

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Satans Little Helper said:

In a - what I would argue - normal world he would have been convicted by the senate and (then) you would have been right. But that's just not the world we're living in. No need to jump into the weeds of semantics here. Just accept the reality of being wrong. For once. 😜

i believe in conceding when one is wrong. it is an act of strength.

  • Burger 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

At this time, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has barred him from running for office again, so he can still run. End of story.

Edited by Braintree
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Claudius t Ansuulim said:

Pfizer’s ex-Vice President and Chief Scientist:

 

I’m guessing just about everybody here has made up their minds about all this so I’m not sure who I’m posting it for. flame on 🔥

5:20 "... only people who are ill and have symptoms are really strong infectious risks to other people..."

6:20 "... asymptomatic transmission... not one of those things is supported by the science..."

Are fucking kidding me? Besides indeed being scientific consesus i experienced exactly that in numerous cases first fucking hand. I work in a retirement home and we found out about our first case merely by chance through a standard test without ANY suspicion, no fucking symptoms anywhere to be seen. Mere days later the whole place was infected, including numerous colleagues. Almost half of the residents who lived in that living area fucking died (around 14 people) without being able to say goodbye. Despite immediately being quarantined after said positive test the virus soon spread to other floors as well...

Couldn't be arsed to watch beyond that. Add some "Everything they told you is a lie" rethoric (well he actually says exactly that quite literally) and you have a perfect example of something that is indeed "rubbish". If this asshole has indeed all the degrees he so proudly mentions right in the beginning he must have won them in a fucking tombola.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, jaderpansen said:

5:20 "... only people who are ill and have symptoms are really strong infectious risks to other people..."

6:20 "... asymptomatic transmission... not one of those things is supported by the science..."

Are fucking kidding me? Besides indeed being scientific consesus i experienced exactly that in numerous cases first fucking hand. I work in a retirement home and we found out about our first case merely by chance through a standard test without ANY suspicion, no fucking symptoms anywhere to be seen. Mere days later the whole place was infected, including numerous colleagues. Almost half of the residents who lived in that living area fucking died (around 14 people) without being able to say goodbye. Despite immediately being quarantined after said positive test the virus soon spread to other floors as well...

Couldn't be arsed to watch beyond that. Add some "Everything they told you is a lie" rethoric (well he actually says exactly that quite literally) and you have a perfect example of something that is indeed "rubbish". If this asshole has indeed all the degrees he so proudly mentions right in the beginning he must have won them in a fucking tombola.

Who the hell is this fella?

https://fullfact.org/online/yeadon-covid-vaccine/

https://www.heraldbulletin.com/opinion/kelly-hawes-column-sorting-the-crazies-from-the-experts/article_995440d2-9e46-11eb-8aea-7b58d9367019.html

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pfizer-chief-scientist-vaccines/

''Yeadon's title was not "chief scientist of Pfizer," "chief scientific officer of Pfizer," or "vice president of Pfizer." The division he ran had nothing to do with vaccines or infectious disease and at the time of its closure in 2011, was focused on developing compounds that targeted asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.''

Edited by thefxbip
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got shot numero dos, Pfizer variety. 
 

I’m now 100% into dudes. Gotta go break it to the GF.
 

No side effects tho

  • Like 7
  • Haha 2
  • Burger 1
  • Farnsworth 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, Braintree said:

At this time, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has barred him from running for office again, so he can still run. End of story.

are you an american citizen? do you grant him that immunity? are you conceding to the trumpist fight before they even have to make it? we have 3 years to set the tone and these conversations are the game in electoral activism. influence spreads exponentially when you strike something resonant so why not sound the argument for what is right?

the political arena gets ugly and it's also really weird. there is influence and impact that is possible, particularly with the advantage of time. the idea behind this crazy beast of a government is that the politicians are supposed represent us. people should know that trump is fucking disqualified and congress should do their jobs.

i think i clarified how we are using the same idea in different ways here

1 hour ago, very honest said:

 

it's a question of enforcement and semantics.

 

if someone tells me i can't plant flowers in a stranger's lawn and i say "yes i can" and i do, without being convicted of trespassing, maybe we were both right.

3 years is a long time and we do not know that, when the time comes, he will be able to run. he probably won't try. though he will raise money for 3 years

Edited by very honest
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, very honest said:

are you an american citizen? do you grant him that immunity? are you conceding to the trumpist fight before they even have to make it? we have 3 years to set the tone and these conversations are the game in electoral activism. influence spreads exponentially when you strike something resonant so why not sound the argument for what is right?

the political arena gets ugly and it's also really weird. there is influence and impact that is possible, particularly with the advantage of time. the idea behind this crazy beast of a government is that the politicians are supposed represent us. people should know that trump is fucking disqualified and congress should do their jobs.

i think i clarified how we are using the same idea in different ways here

Are you having a stroke?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Braintree said:

Are you having a stroke?

Yeah I didn't edit that one. There's some good stuff in there though. i'm talking about political will and there being many futures.

 

I don't want to keep shiting up this thread but I think you've got a tautological argument where you posit that the next 3 years will play out in a certain way and then argue, based on that assumption, "don't you agree that the next 3 years will play out this way?"

 

Maybe we are both wrong. I can't say that he can't and you can't say that he can. We don't know what's going to happen. Maybe the correct way to say it is we will see

 

it doesn't make sense to say "right now, in the future he can"

Edited by very honest
Link to post
Share on other sites

So Sweden just caught up with the US in number of cases relative to population.

image.thumb.png.c6a0852236edca4c88b7ba897ba03828.png

  • Sad 2
  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2021 at 2:38 PM, Braintree said:

I feel that California is opening too fast. Feels like they've set some arbitrary time and are doggedly adhering to that goal. SF is in the yellow tier (least restrictive tier) starting this week, and I think LA is moving there soon, so maybe I'm wrong.

It's probably true that places are opening too fast after vaccines. The social psychology of it is understandable, but the risk is ridiculous.

For me I'm getting my first shot on the 17th (either Moderna or Pfizer) so that will be somewhat of a relief. Hopefully as Canada increases its supply of vaccines the wait for the second shot will decrease.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...