General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe thing that has my head absolutely spinning is this:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the insane thing is, none of what's going on with tfg prevents him from running for POTUS. Nor does it prevent him from being sworn in, should he actually win, from his prison cell. It's possible. Hopefully it's not probable.
One thing the 2016 election taught me is to never underestimate how many stupid, corrupt and delusional people live in this country and how much damage they can cause just by voting.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cilla4progress
(26,525 posts)As well as how someone with his "resume" was ever able to ascend to the presidency in the 1st place!
If the parties won't responsibly vet their own candidates, then there should be systemic change.
Fat chance of that ever happening (either option).
Maybe whatever arises from the current R party will be a better version of themselves...
SMDH...
MayReasonRule
(4,099 posts)Charbroiled fascists?
The complete and utter dissolution of the GOP is direly needed. Be done with it.
RICO the GOP!
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)and how much damage they can cause just by voting." It is concerning and frightening. I think far too many somehow think the US just chugs along, never to change, and they don't need to pay attention and some can't be bothered to vote. What really irks me are those that sit home and piss their pants feeling warm and comfy, that think they are protesting because they don't like the candidate that won their party's primary. I've seen that happen with democrats ... and then the hateful and grotesque republicans win.
Model35mech
(2,047 posts)Imagining a President so far out-of-order seems to have been beyond the scope of their imagination.
And that's surprising considering they were the primary force behind the essays known as the Federalist Papers
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)like are in it to make all the money they can off of the crackpots and their delusions. Rupert Murdoch and similar have done grave and serious damage to the US. I think many in the early days of the US thought most were interested in forming the country and just never explored something like Trump coming along ... well, and all of those colluding with him to overthrow the US government.
Model35mech
(2,047 posts)The Teahadists are belligerent, mostly because they confuse authority, and power with being bullies.
They only thing they demand from a candidate is that the candidate be a tough-guy/super bully constantly threatening a fight against "the system". That's exactly what Trump offers, even though for Trump that's a very personal thing.
Moreover, being against the feds is exactly what his campaign needs to sell, he is fighting the system because it is persecuting him and thru him his maggats. He offers them hope that he will work to destroy at least the DOJ and the FBI.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)inthewind21
(4,616 posts)They are fighting the system to become the system. Does that make one ounce of sense? Government is bad! Politicians are bad! Elect me so I can be a politician and part of the government! 
Model35mech
(2,047 posts)The states, like Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma want to be little fiefs with petty dictators that control a single independent state under State's Rights but then they encourage Trump's Hitler envy and his apparent desire to be the great leader of a national central authority.
They seem to me to be full of unresolved contradictions.
Lonestarblue
(13,477 posts)the means to do so with impeachment and conviction by Congress. Republicans have now taken impeachment of anyone in their party off the table, which means we now have no viable means of removing a future corrupt Republican president who is able to commit crimes with impunity unless Democrats hold significant majorities in Congress, an unlikely scenario in our divided country.
Republicans in Congress failed to live up to their oath to follow and protect the Constitution when it was clear after January 6 that Trump had committed crimes and was unfit ever to be president again. They did nothing but make a mockery of the Constitution during the impeachment and the Senate trial. McConnell could have swayed enough Republicans for conviction but he feared losing the MAGA vote in 2022 and so traded a few future election for a longer-term disaster. Trump is that disaster, and back in 2021 McConnell could have prevented him from even running for president.
wnylib
(26,008 posts)He just doesn't like Trump's style of authoritarianism. The two have been in a power struggle against each other over which one would control Congress and ultra RW power.
malthaussen
(18,567 posts)Or, you know, they could have imagined it, and said "Well, then we're screwed." Because ultimately, nothing can be 100% foolproof.
They probably thought, in line with common political philosophy at the time, that the Administrative and Legislative branches were natural adversaries, and would never work in unison to overthrow the government. It does seem quite improbable that an entire political party would sell out to a wannabe-tyrant, but here we are.
That the system they carefully set up to avoid a demagogue being swept into office by an ignorant majority of the citizens is in jeopardy because the people they thought would watch over it have sold out is an unfortunate circumstance, one which no amount of planning could have avoided.
-- Mal
Shipwack
(3,063 posts)The Founding Fathers had their faults. One of which was that they (though not all) felt the country should, and would, be ruled by well-to-do white men. That’s one of the reasons we have an electoral college instead of a the president being directly elected. They trusted each other not to be a mad bomb thrower. If an undesirable did try to become President, they trusted that the system they made would keep them out too.
That didn’t last too long. In 1829, Andrew Jackson was an outsider who clawed his way into the White House. He horrified many people in his day as Trump has. He too, was a wrecker of norms and stability.
Model35mech
(2,047 posts)That was necessary because there were not uniform voting rules across the separate states. So each state had to resolve and submit it's influence on the presidential elections in terms of the uniform standards used to assign its allotted number of electors. It wasn't a matter of popular vote.
A state's electors, once chosen had 2 votes to caste for different candidates, one of whom must not be from the state of the electors. hat rule was to prevent a state from producing both the president and vice president in a particular election. distribution of power was quite an issue.
When the states' had cast their votes, the number of votes and the names of the candidates getting those votes was reported to the President of the Senate at the seat of the Government.
Then the various states' votes were then pooled and counted. Two majority winners were then looked for among the vote tallies. The person with the largest vote was designated the president elect, the person with the next largest majority was designated vice president elect. But each winning candidate HAD TO HAVE A MAJORITY among the pooled electors' votes. If that didn't happen Congress had to make the choices despite the outcome of the electors votes.
So what was going on, really was an issue to create one final process out of what was potentially myriad different approaches the many states might use to select electors.
So.
You can make it be about rich white people, because there is no doubt the people with political power at that time were mostly rich white men. But the reality is that those various rich white men who were writing and voting on the Constitution were themselves competitively struggling amongst each other to make sure that their own states weren't cheated of influence compared to other states. The disparities between wealth and size of the states was already quite apparent and was a thorny problem to resolve.
The EC and the various census rules were intended to resolve that competition for power. Historically, the 12th amendment trashed the original rules of how it worked back in 1804. That amendment created new rules that have been what we work under ever since then.
People regularly complain about the EC, mostly when their parties aren't winning presidential elections. No substitute has been fuond because resolving the competing points of view has proven to be just as difficult across the decades as it was when the 12th amendment was finally ratified.
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)Political parties in the US. Political parties like the Tories and the Whigs in England had caused terrible infighting and secret plots to overthrow the powerful influencers.
By allowing the vote for 2 separate slates, it would force any party formation to learn how to get along or compromise.
Unfortunately, the 12th amendment put an end to that.
GoodRaisin
(10,922 posts)about “bamboo steamers” and the such. So, along came Donald Trump and then I knew. He exposed all the rocks.
The number of stupid and/or ignorant people or just plain politically apathetic people in this country is alarming.
berksdem
(921 posts)it is completely mind-boggling that he could win and serve. And as you said about 206 - never underestimate the stupid and delusional voters in this country.
OrangeJoe
(559 posts)Debs was imprisoned when he ran for president in 1920. He was convicted under The Sedition Act of 1918 which made it a crime to “willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States government” or to discourage compliance with the draft or voluntary enlistment into the military.
OK class compare and contrast this with Trump's alleged crimes and see the difference between left wing politicians and right wing assholes.
orthoclad
(4,728 posts)Debs was a hero.
Compare and contrast...
Oopsie Daisy
(6,670 posts)"Eugene Victor Debs was an American socialist, political activist, trade unionist, one of the founding members of the Industrial Workers of the World, and five-time candidate of the Socialist Party of America for President of the United States."
BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)Same here. Rec.
IbogaProject
(5,911 posts)He should've been impeached either time if a few R had gotten the Senate vote to 51, he'd have been barred for life from federal office.
mobeau69
(12,374 posts)IbogaProject
(5,911 posts)Only 51 votes to be barred for life from federal office.
mobeau69
(12,374 posts)IbogaProject
(5,911 posts)Mitch probably didn't allow for the second vote to simply have a lifetime bar from holding any future Federal office, which by Senate Rules only requires a simple majority vote.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/us/trump-senate-presidency.html
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/49-judgment-removal-and-disqualification.html
Article II, section 4 provides that officers impeached and convicted “shall be removed from office”; Article I, section 3, clause 7 provides further that “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” These restrictions on judgment, both of which relate to capacity to hold public office, emphasize the non-penal nature of impeachment, and help to distinguish American impeachment from the open-ended English practice under which criminal penalties could be imposed.
853
The plain language of section 4 seems to require removal from office upon conviction, and in fact the Senate has removed those persons whom it has convicted. In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote.854
This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote,855 the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.856
853 See discussion supra of the differences between English and American impeachment.
854 3 Deschler’sprecedents Of The United States House Of Representatives ch. 14, § 13.9.
855 See Michael J. Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional And Historical Analysis 77–79 (2d ed. 2000).
856 The Senate imposed disqualification twice, on Judges Humphreys and Archbald. In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible, 3 Hinds’ Precedents Of The House Of Representatives § 2397 (1907), and in the Archbald trial the Senate imposed judgment of disqualification by vote of 39 to 35. 6 Cannon’sprecedents Of The House Of Representatives § 512 (1936). During the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, a parliamentary inquiry as to whether a two-thirds vote or a simple majority vote is required for disqualification was answered by reference to the simple majority vote in the Archbald trial. 3 Deschler’sprecedents ch. 14, § 13.10. The Senate then rejected disqualification of Judge Ritter by vote of 76–0. 80 Cong. Rec. 5607 (1936).
SouthernDem4ever
(6,619 posts)That stupid ass.
Conjuay
(3,067 posts)That Moscow Mitch gives a shit.
SouthernDem4ever
(6,619 posts)mobeau69
(12,374 posts)
whopis01
(3,919 posts)If the Republicans had one or two more seats in the Senate, they could disqualify Biden (or any other Democratic President) with a simple majority vote.
With the wording being “disqualification to hold”, that would imply that it necessitated removal. As opposed to be disqualified to run for office. So a sitting President could be removed with a simple majority vote.
Based on McConnell’s past behavior of having wildly different standards for what votes are allowed under a Republican vs Democratic President, I have little doubt that they would attempt such a thing.
unblock
(56,198 posts)Their coverage in 2016 was reprehensible. They gave Donnie 75+% of the airtime, and most of the time they gave to Hillary was smearing her with the non-scandals of email and Benghazi.
And just compare the media these days vs. then. In Hillary's case, every email story dripped with hints that her career could be over if they find one sufficiently damaging email. Yet Donnie's been indicted on multiple fronts, including blatantly stealing and refusing to return a ton of very clearly labeled classified information, and the media says gosh, looks like he's still a major contender so whatevs.
Yes there are a lot of stupid, corrupt, and delusional people out there. But most of them got that way because the people they trust constantly lie to them, and the rest of the media *still* has a tepid response that plays into the propaganda instead of calling it out.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)
jmowreader
(53,193 posts)The coverage Trump got was them fawning over him. If they would have asked him about ANY of the crap he pulled before 2016, mentioned how awful he is with money, reminded people how closely tied he is to Russia and Saudi Arabia, or even pointed out that his whole empire is basically him being a landlord, Hillary would probably have won.
unblock
(56,198 posts)They took the word of a well-established liar and exaggerator that he was successful and a billionaire.
He ran what is basically a large (and convoluted) personal business that was never audited. This is was not a Ross Perot situation. He could (and surely did) cook the books.
Plus he blatantly abused the legal system to screw, well, basically everyone.
All this was known before 2016.
Look at the standards applies to republicans vs to democrats. The bias is astounding at this point.
Dave says
(5,425 posts)orthoclad
(4,728 posts)Bottom line, baby! Corporate media at its finest!
Auggie
(33,148 posts)Physical and/or mental. I'll also take (or instead of) an act or crime so egregious that even he can't get out of it.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)for him ... perhaps even more of a break from reality. ... as he goes dangerously unhinged.
malthaussen
(18,567 posts)I believe there is no regulation barring dead people from being on a ballot; in fact I seem to remember a fairly recent incident in one of the flyover states where a candidate died, but there was no mechanism for removing him from the election.
-- Mal
littlemissmartypants
(33,579 posts)What's the point of a meltdown? It's all theater created to keep his believers whipped into a lather. They're more likely to meltdown than he.
orthoclad
(4,728 posts)Emotions won't get him. Cheeseberders will.
Block dem arteries!
Auggie
(33,148 posts)Something that makes him look undeniably weak and/or decrepit.
littlemissmartypants
(33,579 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 3, 2023, 06:21 PM - Edit history (1)
It is unlikely they will meltdown. Everything he does that might resemble a meltdown is just theatre. It's the FUD approach that keeps him afloat.
He most likely after every display, turns to the first available flunkie and asks "How did that look? Wasn't it great?" Psychopaths are cunning, premeditated and will never admit to wrong doing. They thrive on chaos.
He's acting out to keep his base stoked. He's more likely to have an unexpected health event than a meltdown.
Auggie
(33,148 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)perfectly normal to him.
orthoclad
(4,728 posts)his term, with the impeachment, but he's immune it seems.
I think you have to have a certain amount of sensitivity to suffer from stress, or even feel it. As a sociopath, he doesn't care. He understands force and power, and we have to exercise that over him.
hmm. mockery might bother him a little. "LOSER!"
3825-87867
(1,938 posts)From the 14th Amendment 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.
No person shall hold any office. Not just Senators, Reps etc.
NO where does it state that someone must be CONVICTED of anything! Just that they "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion..."
That's pretty broad and should cover any rep or senator or legislator or even president or vice president (which may explain Pence flipping) etc. They do not have to be convicted, just that they engaged.
If Alito and Scalia can reinterpret things, we can also.
Trump engaged as did some Senators and Representatives.
Seems pretty clear, doesn't it?
malthaussen
(18,567 posts)Laws matter little, if the will to enforce them is not present. And right now, the House has no will to enforce such an interpretation.
-- Mal
Orrex
(67,111 posts)We should stop wondering what will finally turn them away from him, because nothing will.
They could catch him violently sodomizing their own children, and they’d still mortgage their homes to pay for his legal defense.
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)the government from a Georgia prison cell.
Or even run for office from there.
And he wouldn't be able to pardon himself.
PortTack
(35,820 posts)jmowreader
(53,193 posts)pnwmom
(110,260 posts)
Katinfl
(814 posts)Incredible that so many can be so stupid and ignorant......and they vote! 2024 is so important for our future as a country and I am scared. After 2016 I just assume anything can happen.
Texin
(2,851 posts)colorado_ufo
(6,251 posts)
dchill
(42,660 posts)"What's in it for ME? Make it worth my while and I'll say ANYTHING!"
Liberal In Texas
(16,270 posts)Live from the BIG HOUSE!
But it ain't going to happen.
CaptainTruth
(8,199 posts)...based on Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment. They're targeting some key states he would need to win the presidency. If successful, his name wouldn't appear on general election ballots, although voters could still write him in.
Who knows how successful they will be.
Also, I don't believe there's any way to stop him from RUNNING, as opposed to HOLDING OFFICE. Those are 2 different things yet people seem to often conflate them.
The actions of running (appearances, rallies, speeches, signs etc) are all protected 1st Amendment speech & from I understand, preventing anyone from engaging in those activities would be unconstitutional, a violation of their 1A rights.
However, there are several reasons why someone would be prevented from holding the office, & not just Sec 3 of the 14A. Every election cycle about 2,000 people run for president, including high school kids who do it as a joke & couldn't hold office because they don't meet the age requirement in the Constitution. There are also always people who run their dog or cat. As long you fill out the forms, file them, & pay the fee, you (or your pet) are officially running, even though none of those kids or pets could ever hold the office.
Now, the big question I have is: What happens if a person has been disqualified from holding the office, but they run & win (perhaps they're disqualified from ballots in some states but they still get enough write-in votes to win)?
Then what happens? I'm not sure our Constitution addresses that situation & it could potentially lead to a tumultuous & violent outcome.
If anyone knows the answer to my big question, please let me know.
Recycle_Guru
(2,973 posts)they openly or tacitly condone Trump continuing to run.
Regardless of who gets GOP nomination, biggest threat is third party getting on battleground state ballots.
Warpy
(114,614 posts)all his attention will be directed toward staying out of prison and there is no way he could perform his duties if the US distributes enough stupid pills to Republicans to elect him. If he's in prison (unlikely), he won't be sworn in and the VP would automatically ascend to the throne.
My own guess says if the stupid band together enough to put him back into office, his first act will be to pardon himself, which will do nothing for him in either NY or GA, where investigations are by the states, not the Feds.
Martin68
(27,741 posts)discount the rule of law, and so stupid as to vote for someone indicted for felonious crimes to be President.
BSdetect
(9,048 posts)
bpj62
(1,067 posts)The founders believed that the political parties would make sure that scoundrels like Trump never ran for office. They never envisioned a political party completely backing a candidate with the moral and ethical failing that Trump has. Sadly certain parts of the Constitution need to be revised but that will never happen.
jmowreader
(53,193 posts)Alexander Hamilton’s theory was that if the voters chose the scum of the earth as their president, the electors would choose an honorable man to replace him.
There are two yooge problems with that quaint notion.
First is that most of our states have laws against faithless electors, so now it’s illegal to do that.
The other is that about 98 percent of anyone willing to run for office as a Republican is the scum of the earth.
PortTack
(35,820 posts)‘24 election more untenable for the gqp.
President Biden and the Dems are going to wipe the floor with their liars and failed candidates.
NewHendoLib
(61,857 posts)It's insane!
paleotn
(22,211 posts)Not necessarily stupid, just ignorant. They don’t know how government functions and don’t really care. And they’re supposed to make a rational decision every 4 years on who should be president? In their ignorance they’re easily misled. Add the true morons and racist, misogynistic homophobic assholes and you end up with Donnie the Dumbass in the white house. Emphasize the seriousness and importance of elections and maybe we’ll end up with fewer assholes in DC.
3Hotdogs
(15,367 posts)He was running for president.
IronLionZion
(51,267 posts)the founders didn't envision someone like Trump when they wrote the constitution
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(13,291 posts)Maybe he meant "strongman," which is defined as "a political leader who controls by force; dictator."
TFG's big fear is that people will view him as weak. (I guess he's got a new fear now that he's been indicted, and could spend the rest of his life in prison.)
My bet is that before he's arraigned tomorrow he'll hop on his campaign and fly to Russia, where he'll be safe from extradition. Ensconced in his sanctuary he'll be ranting on Truth Social and any rightwing media that will give him airtime.
Mopar151
(10,348 posts)Putin is clinging to shrinking hopes at this point. He'll keep backing Donny (for President) until there is ZERO chance of him becoming president! Apparently, Pootie somehow believes that if Trump gains power again, he will hand Ukraine over on a platter.
republianmushroom
(22,323 posts)
SKKY
(12,801 posts)...and the vast majority of Republicans will vote for him. Luckily, the center will stay with Biden, but the right will show what we've all grown to know over the past 7 years. Trump represents the Id for a very significant number of Americans. It's why he's so effective.
markodochartaigh
(5,545 posts)But, according to Thom Hartmann, unless Trump is actually convicted of sedition he can serve according to the Constitution. Apparently it is extremely rare to be convicted of sedition and the only recent instance is Couy Griffin in New Mexico who was convicted of sedition and removed from office as a county commissioner. It seems the Constitution forbids people convicted of sedition holding any public office, president or sewer inspector.
RANDYWILDMAN
(3,163 posts)and the forefathers fucked that up royally. (the senate is also garbage, idaho and montana, should not have more senators/votes then california and that was never the plan )
If we had a winner take all election, we would have won bush v gore(we did anuways), TFG vs hillary
Supreme court should be 6-3 liberals
AdamGG
(1,882 posts)There's a massive difference between going to trial before the primaries start vs. after he has already secured the Republican nomination.
Trump will get more fervent backing from his base protesting that his trials are political if they happen when he's the nominee, in the months preceding the election. His game plan is constitutional crisis.
Grasswire2
(13,849 posts)Siwsan
(27,834 posts)He had an ego the size of tfg's. There was a big bronze statue of him in front of his house.
During the Kerry campaign he offered them one of his 'named' buildings to use as their local headquarters which was very conveniently located, right down town Flint. The campaign respectfully declined. The reason? Williamson, although supposedly a Democrat, had been donating money to the Bush campaign.
CarolinaNC
(151 posts)His supporters is what makes my head spin. How they know he's dangerous but continue to follow him, send him money.
His supporters want dominance whatever the cost.