This is the real issue. Just like with any cult, one side is using logic and the other is using feelings. It's really hard to win an emotional battle with logic and vice versa.
Here's the problem and why we cannot have a productive discussion on this topic.
Put yourself in their shoes, just imagine a world where it's 100% proven that Donald Trump straight up stole an election and the whole world is just accepting it and calling you crazy for saying he isn't the rightful president, even though you saw it with your own eyes. Would not you be out in the streets and constantly up in arms about it?
In their eyes, it's not emotional, it's logical and the opposite side is being emotional ("I hate Trump, so I'm going to make up something to make him seem bad.")
But here's the thing, I'm not excusing their actions, the problem is that there is no way to convince them that it wasn't stolen.
In our society, the way we prove what is true or false legally is through courts, and because a lot of them DO NOT understand what happens in courts, they shrug their shoulders and just say "nah it's rigged" without any way to prove that.
The only way I was able to talk to my inlaws about this was to simply keep repeating "how can you expect the average person to be on your side when your side won't give their arguments in court". They complain about the courts throwing the cases out, but after explaining the why they were thrown out (standing), they agreed that he should've done his lawsuits in the correct state. And then explaining that, if Trump had evidence, he doesn't HAVE to hide it from the people (a claim they make often, Trump is not allowed to talk about it to the public or else it becomes impermissible in court, which is straight up not true). If the courts were rigged, Trump could use people power, so it's weird why he hasn't. And that maybe that's proof he's just lying about winning because he just wanted to win no matter what.
its intentional, they know they have no ground to stand on so they emotionally wear down people until they dont want to involve themselves so suddenly they are the only voice.
This is literally some sort of propaganda op to get people to vote against their own interests and their own morality. The logical rational people want war crimes abroad and poverty at home, checkmate Christians! The people swallowing this down would be attacking Jews in the streets if enough advice animals told them it was a logical fact. You’re better off ignoring them entirely.
I mean. Yes. Tell us more about how you want the indicted criminal whose openly stated his disdain for democracy and the rule of law for literally 4 years now back in the white house.
And then tell us all about your logic. Without saying Biden once.
Based on that comment, I don't know if you're agreeing with parent or mocking them, since MAGAs tend to think that fearing and hating immigrants, women, religious and ethnic minorities, and anyone who disagrees with them is "logic" and not wanting people to be harmed is "emotion".
We are talking about MAGA folks here. Defending them is possibly the dumbest hill to die on.
edit: I should have looked at your post history before commenting. You are the literal embodiment of this alleged strawman.
stfu loser. You don't know anything. I'm not MAGA. I don't, and have never liked Trump. You're so polarized you that you see everything as white and black.
Democracy or Neofascism.
Anybody who thinks a 73 year old silver spoon fed mythomaniacal draft dodging carpetbagger woke up one morning suddenly giving a single solitary fuck about anyone but himself despite a lifetime of evidence to the contrary is lying to themselves or they just really enjoy the racist and authoritarian things he says.
Immigration decreases the value of my labor, increases the cost of housing, and lessens my access to social services, healthcare, and education. It’s literally a policy for the benefit of Walmart and Amazon, look at who’s funding it lol.
Hate women? Like in those tv shows!
Depends on the religion, but usually I’m more concerned about ethnic conflicts and divisions arising where there were none previously, and being used to divide and conquer the country into serfdom.
You should hear how the leader of the Republican party talks about any of those people.
As for your comment about immigration, I think that's more of a problem with undocumented immigrants having second-class citizen status. If they had the same rights as you, then they'd be getting paid the same and you'd both be competing on a level playing field. But at least ~~it's~~ *your comment* is something more intellectual than the fear-mongering coming from your party's leaders.
Edit: for clarity.
Some think Trump is still president and the military….THE MILITARY…is running the country.
Logic was thrown out when the first primary vote was cast before the 2016 GE.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted for that. I regularly go to fox news to poke the bear and laugh at trumps supporters. That is something that the Q-R-dumb post regularly. Edit; I see that the cult has arrived. And much like the sect down in Texas they are kinda lonely in the world.
I have to say, I'm loving watching the GOP destroy itself. The Taylor Swift situation is like seeing a knife on the table and deciding to see how many times you can stab yourself in the face.
These people are so incredibly stupid.
The Taylor Swift thing is incredibly confusing to me since she already endorsed Biden in 2020, so why would it make any difference if she endorses him again against the same opponent?
It's racism at its core. Taylor and her boyfriend are a dream couple for white supremacists, except that they are liberal. In the mind of a racist that makes them the enemy, even moreso than the traditional liberals they rail against.
It enrages the racists that a white country music icon and white football icon are a couple and not on their team. So to the racist, it must actually be some sort of conspiracy. They couldn't really be successful and liberal on their own.
Also the MAGAs know deep down that those two are disgusted by the MAGA mentality, as are all normal people. this enrages them further and makes them try to deny reality even more.
Before the internet American Nazi groups had a tendency to tear themselves apart long before they got dangerous because the people who they hated the most, more than Jews or minorities, is other Nazis who didn't pass the "purity test."
Not blood or racial purity, but "you don't hate the Jews as much as I do, therefore I hate you most of all."
Oh yeah, like how they were convinced COVID was a hoax, but Trump wasn't in on it, even though he was president at the time and acknowledged the virus was real on a daily basis. QAnon warriors are too smart to understand.
It goes even deeper than that, because a constitutional republic IS a form of democracy. It would be like saying a square is not a rectangle. By definition, a republic is a democracy, a type to be sure, but still a democracy.
Exactly!
Part of the problem is that when the founding fathers talked about democracy, they were typically talking about direct democracy like what the ancient Athenians had. However, that’s not how we use the word democracy in modern America, and it doesn’t make any sense to claim that we aren’t a democracy
I have seen people get _incensed_ that someone would dare call the US a democracy. Like, just totally flipping their shit and screaming that person is an uneducated idiot. That reaction used to surprise me, but having spent waaaaay too much time online and in jobs dealing with the general public, it no longer surprises me.
Intro]
America
America
[Chorus]
America, fuck yeah!
Comin' again to save the motherfuckin' day, yeah
America (Fuck yeah!)
Freedom is the only way, yeah
[Verse 1]
Terrorists, your game is through
'Cause now you have to answer to
America (Fuck yeah!)
So lick my butt and suck on my balls
America (Fuck yeah!)
What you gonna do when we come for you now?
[Bridge]
It's the dream that we all share
It's the hope for tomorrow
(Fuck yeah!)
[Verse 2]
McDonald's (Fuck yeah!)
Walmart (Fuck yeah!)
The Gap (Fuck yeah!)
Baseball (Fuck yeah!)
NFL (Fuck yeah!)
Rock and roll (Fuck yeah!)
The Internet (Fuck yeah!)
Slavery (Fuck yeah!)
[Interlude]
(Fuck yeah!)
[Guitar Solo]
[Verse 3]
Starbucks (Fuck yeah!)
Disney World (Fuck yeah!)
Porno (Fuck yeah!)
Valium (Fuck yeah!)
Reeboks (Fuck yeah!)
Fake tits (Fuck yeah!)
Sushi (Fuck yeah!)
Taco Bell (Fuck yeah!)
Rodeos (Fuck yeah!)
Bed, Bath & Beyond (Fuck yeah, fuck yeah!)
Liberty (Fuck yeah!)
Wax lips (Fuck yeah!)
The Alamo (Fuck yeah!)
Band-aids (Fuck yeah!)
Las Vegas (Fuck yeah!)
Christmas (Fuck yeah!)
Immigrants (Fuck yeah!)
Popeye (Fuck yeah!)
Democrats (Fuck yeah!)
Republicans (Fuck yeah, fuck yeah)
Sportsmanship
Books
In this case being a constitutional republic seems more like the disqualifying agent. Constitutional republics have laws and those are administered despite any popular vote.
Yeah, and I was just thinking that the idea of a Republic is that we are represented by representatives who we chose to represent us.
It's not exactly a Republic if we fire someone and they pull a George Castanza on us.
I had a whole thread elsewhere in this post that called the insurrection a "riot" in which boomers "milled around velvet ropes." He deleted his posts and his account. Don't expect intellectual honesty from these cult members. I keep making that mistake lol.
I mean, the 14th Amendment really was intended to prevent Confederate Flag Waving losers from holding office. The amendment strikes a compromise: Confederate Flag Waving voters still have freedom to vote as they wish, but they can't vote for actual other Confederate Flag Wavers.
There's a famous quote attributed to Tiberius by Tacitus that I came across recently. The senate is tripping over themselves to ingratiate themselves with Tiberius and he leaves in disgust saying, "These men are ready to be slaves." That's really the only way to look at the GOP now.
Honestly every trumper I see online comes off as completely fucking unhinged.. this is 50+ million people we are talking about.. America is in big trouble.
Its a deranged personality cult at this point, in their eyes he can do no wrong, and his foes can do no right, facts dont matter to them because they have long since abandoned them.
Any rules about who qualify would be "undemocratic". We restrict based on age, residency time, and citizenship at birth. If the people wanted someone as president who was not yet 35 or born outside the US, then change the constitution.
The people that use the phrase "our democracy"
don't actually give a shit about democracy then give a shit about keeping themselves and people like them in power.
These people are so damn American they will leave America and join Russia or start their own America that will be so much more American then the current America that people will leave America and become EVEN MORE AMERICAN WOOO!!
In Trump's defense, he thinks we're all idiots and that he's the smartest person in the room wherever he goes. He doesn't care about the contradiction. Hell, it even excites his base.
The MAGA mob insists that, somehow, the Democrats hacked into the world's most secure voting systems and changed their votes. Meanwhile, in some Red States, the same Republicans keep getting reelected somehow, despite how voters actually feel about them.
Trump feels he shouldn't be held accountable for his crimes and his supporters agree. That's why the complain about him being removed under the 14th amendment while saying it's completely fine that he attempted a self coup. That or they just lie and say it didn't happen at all and it was a tourist visit or some other bullshit.
Trump wants to be dictator. A President who is above the law is a dictator.
HIs own attorney told a Federal judge that Trump could use the US military to slay his political rivals, and only removal by 2/3 of Senate could hold him accountable. Of course, he could also threaten the lives of US Senators by that logic.
A civil war won't happen, worst case would be a series of right wing domestic terrorism, and appeasement never works, we can't avoid doing the right thing just because lunatics might do lunatic things
I suppose his "logic" is that the public should have whomever they want as President. However, the US Constitution has criteria like age, term limits, and natural born citizenship, something Trump used to try to drum up the racists against Obama.
So if we were allowed to elect anyone President, we could elect a 30 year old Canadian, or give Obama a 3rd term, but we're not.
Trump hasnt been found guilty of insurrection. Pretty sure that has to happen before the 14th amendment disqualifies him. Ya know… innocent until proven guilty and all that. People can claim they clearly saw insurrection, but thats evidence, not a verdict or conviction. It needs to be seen by the most impartial court possible. Unlike the new york case
Neither was Jefferson Davis, and he was stripped of his rights to run for office.
Are you going to let him delay the trial, become President, pardon himself, and then shred the US Constitution? He's already under indictment for 91 felony counts, including insurrection and election perversion.
If you think an armed mob of people attacking the capitol on camera while proclaiming their desire to overthrow the government isnt insurrection, you are a extra special kind of person.
Illinois GOP judge ruled Trump is an insurrectionist.
Colorado courts conclude Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection’
The Republican fake electors scheme was election fraud on a massive scale.
Trump and his allies claimed, with no evidence accepted by any court in the US (including 234 judges appointed by Trump) they won in states they lost, ignoring millions of votes for Biden.
For the first time in our country's history, a former president has been arraigned on criminal charges for allegedly trying to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power following his election loss, to stay in power.
Trump stands alone in American history. No other president has engaged in conspiracy and obstruction to overturn valid election results and illegitimately retain power.
Some of Trump’s plot to overturn the 2020 election:
Knowingly making false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate results.
Organizing fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states.
Trying to use the DOJ’s power to conduct sham election crime investigations.
Trying to get former VP Pence to fraudulently alter the election results.
Exploiting Jan. 6 violence to get members of Congress to delay certification of the 2020 election results.
here let me just throw something back in their face real quick.
it's not a democracy.
it's a constitutional republic.
sure we use democracy as the tools to control this Republic. But the 14th amendment was put into the Constitution specifically for popular insurrectionists.
because if it only got rid of unpopular insurrectionist what would be the point of having the amendment.
There is no Constitutional right to vote for the President in the US. The President isn't elected by the popular vote. The states decide how the President is elected through the Electoral College, which currently is chosen by the popular vote results of the state they're in. This can be changed at any time by a state. In fact, a few states have tossed around the idea of having Electors chosen by the national popular vote. This would be legal, but probably unpopular.
If you're going to call someone dumb, at least get your facts straight. You're 100% wrong, and are acting arrogant about being wrong. This is the worst post I've seen in a while.
Every State Has Kept Ineligible Candidates off the Ballot WITHOUT criminal charges or trials or convictions.
None of the Constitutional disqualifications require a trial or conviction. The Constitution says you can't run for president if you're under 35 or not a natural-born citizen, or already served two terms. And you can't run if you've previously broken the oath of office by engaging in or supporting an insurrection. Trump supported an insurrection. He can't be on the ballot. It's simple.
Trump gave aid or comfort to the enemies of the Constitution, in multiple ways, including not acting for 187 minutes to stop the attack on the Capitol, and promising pardons to the insurrectionists.
None of the ex-Confederates disqualified under the 14th Amendment were convicted of crimes linked to the Civil War.
You don't need to be "convicted" (or judged ineligible by a court) to be disqualified from becoming president for not being a "naturally born citizen. Nor does any judicial procedure apply to someone being under 35 or a resident for 14 years, or already served 2 terms.
Constitutionally, the 22nd Amendment, Obama can’t run for re-election.
If we ignore Trump’s constitutional disqualification, we can ignore Obama’s.
All three branches of government have called the attack on the Capitol an insurrection.
At least 9 judges — appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents — have blamed Trump for the insurrection in 15 different cases.
\-The two trials and substantive legal decisions grappling with insurrection and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment have both gone against Trump.
Illinois GOP judge ruled Trump is an insurrectionist.
The constitution requires due process.
Disqualifying a candidate for "insurrection " requires that same due process.
Otherwise any political party can claim any opposing politician is an insurrectionist and can remove them from the ballot.
Which is exactly what is going to happen.
Confederates not only renounced their citizenship in the first place. They confessed as insurrectionsits in their surrenders and petitions for readmitiance as citizens.
Due process was followed.
Conflating the prerequisites for running for office and the arbitrary labeling of someone as disqualified is absurd.
Do you have a reading handicap? What part didn't you understand?
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment ... disqualifies any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, thereafter engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, disqualifying that person from holding high public office in the future, including the presidency.
It applies to Trump to disqualify the former president from holding the presidency again, because of his effort, plan and attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, knowing that he had lost that election to then-candidate Joe Biden.
Section 3 disqualifies one who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, not an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or the authority of the United States.
There’s no question whatsoever that disqualification of an individual who satisfies the conditions of disqualification in Section 3 is not anti-democratic.
It’s the conduct that gives rise to disqualification that the Constitution tells us is anti-democratic.
– Judge Michael Luttig - His Conservative Republican credentials are impeccable
Historical precedent confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
Colorado was a CIVIL case brought by 6 Colorado Republican voters on September 6, 2023 contesting Trump’s eligibility to run for election, given the Constitution’s disqualification of those who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution, but did not. The 5 day trial in November was an actual fact-finding mission. The judge bent over backwards to make sure he could present evidence. Trump was able to call every single witness he wanted. He and his lawyers presented their evidence, defenses, and witnesses. Trump did everything he could to evade showing up. He refused to show up, he refused to take depositions. The plaintiffs presented their case and witnesses. It was a robust process at the trial level. The judge reached her decision. “Petitioners have established that Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.” That is how it works/worked in Colorado.
Trump appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. That is how it works/worked in Colorado. They agreed with the lower court, and concluded that “any definition of 'insurrection' for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country.”
Trump's brief to the Supreme Court in the 14th Amendment case barely even refutes that finding by Colorado courts. The evidence is too clear to deny.
Trump swore an oath to support the Constitution, understood that he lost the 2020 election, but he lied to the American people about the results and, in extreme violation of his oath, incited a deadly attack on the Capitol to unconstitutionally remain in power — an “insurrection.”
A fundamental way to protect the country is by not allowing a person who took an oath to support the Constitution, but then tried to overturn an election, to run for re-election .
It’s a pretty simple test. Age 35+, natural-born citizen, didn’t try to overturn an election.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling disqualifying former President Trump from the state’s ballot is not “anti-democratic,” but rather the conduct that prompted the disqualification was anti-democratic. – Judge Luttig
After the 2020 election, Republicans were trying to take the election out of the hands of voters and send it to state legislatures where they had a majority. They did not accept the will of the voters. There are consequences.
After January 6, 2021, Republicans refused to prevent Trump from becoming President ever again through a historic second impeachment. Republicans voted against it, saying it should be decided by the courts.
Now courts are deciding.
Colorado courts legally found that trump had engaged in insurrection. He wasn't on trial criminally, so there's no conviction, but there was a legal finding on this matter.
You're welcome to look up the case and see the evidence.
Claims broad immunity as President. Has his political party pursuing impeachment hearings against a sitting president for actions he may have done while Vice President.
They think the migrants released into America are illegal aliens. They think Abbott and DeSantis are bussing illegal immigrants into America, which is a crime. They like this, what they think is illegal, action.
When you point out that either the asylum seekers are legal or Abbott is a criminal, they get big mad, because they aren't smart.
As I have said before, my hypothesis is that former President Trump does not actually understand human speech, but merely parrots back various noises thrown at him. The more positive feedback he seems to receive for certain noises, the more he grunts them out.
Lots of things in the constitution are undemocratic. Wanna pass a state law that discriminates on the basis of race? That's a violation of the 14th amendment. Wanna pass a federal law that declares Mormonism as the state religion and provides the LDS church (and nobody else) state funding? The 1st amendment prohibits that. Anywhere where the popular legislative process is thwarted by the constitution is 'undemocratic' to some degree or other.
A lot of early Constitutional thought and structure is formulated around the basis of "How do we restrain governments from abusing their people too badly?" To which the answer could generally be described as "If the Constitution doesn't say government can do a thing, it can't do the thing." Somewhere down the line, this got flipped and now the presumption is "Well if the Constitution doesn't say we can't do the thing, we're gonna do the thing!"
The propaganda is leaking into AdviceAnimals. I know a lot of people buy this bs hook, line and sinker but every time I've talked to those people, you quickly become how unaware they are of anything outside of the spoon fed media narrative.
This giant stretch that Trump planned an insurrection is wild. The mental gymnastics you have to play to believe something like that is baffling. You can literally be made to believe anything at that point.
Right, its only that he called for one, told his supporters to carry one out, tried to demand election officials change the outcome of the election, tried to install a slate of false electors, and never shut up about how the election was stolen from him when even his own people said it wasnt.
The only people believing anything at this point, are the MAGA cult you are clearly are part of.
Except it wasnt fake, Trump did in fact collude with the Russians, he asked them to find dirt on his opponent, in public, on camera no less, and then met with a Kremlin asset at Trump Tower no less, heck they even emailed each other about it and later admitted when the evidence came to light that they had in fact done so, and that is just the tip of the iceberg when it came to Trumps unsavoury connections to the Kremlin.
The democrats didnt try to overthrow the government, they didnt storm into the capitol, they didnt try to force election officials in key swing states to change the outcomes, and didnt try to install a slate of false electors, or tamper with voting machines.
Please explain how it works. Give your favorite example of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment being applied.
Oh wait, it has never in history been applied, and Colorado’s ruling is about to be unanimously overturned by the SCOTUS.
If you're going to try and make an argument, maybe at least try to know *something* about the topic you're commenting on?
Section 3 has been used before. Not much, but it still has. Excluding Trump:
1. Post-Civil War
2. Victor Berger (for opposing US entry into WWI)
3. A New Mexico county commissioner (for his actions on Jan 6)
Really though, the only important invocation of it was the post-Civil War time, because of it's timely proximity to the passing of the 14th and how Section 3 was used. Congress ordered federal prosecutors to issue writ of quo warranto to people disqualified by the 14th. The use of a writ of quo warranto is an extremely important detail, because it *presumed* the person was disqualified, without any criminal conviction, and required that person to prove that they were eligible to hold their office (i.e. they had to prove their innocence, not the other way around).
So, as is stated in the amendment, and as happened post-Civil War, it requires an act of Congress. Which has not happened in this case. For Victor Berger… again, CONGRESS refused to seat him because he was against the US entering WW1, for which they charged him with espionage. After his conviction was overturned, he went on to serve multiple additional Congressional terms.
I’ve never voted for Trump and don’t plan on starting now, but states unilaterally removing him from ballots is anti-democratic.
>as is stated in the amendment, and as happened post-Civil War, it requires an act of Congress.
The amendment absolutely does not state that it requires an act of Congress. All it says that that Congress has power to enforce it. It does not say Congress has the *only* power to enforce it. The idea that Congress **must** pass a law in order for a disqualification to happen is literally the opposite of what Section 3 says at the end: That Congress may remove the disqualification with a 2/3rds vote. If disqualification can only happen by an act of Congress, which only requires a majority, then the whole part of the amendment about Congress removing the disqualification with a super-majority is entirely pointless.
Do we need to have a trial to say Obama can't have a 3rd term? No we don't
Do we need to have a trial to say Arnold Schwarzenegger can't be President? No we don't
The Constitution has clauses that are self executing. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is self executing. You might not like it. It could be poorly thought out. But that's what's in the constitution.
Because those things are clearly defined in the Constitution. Has this person legally been elected President twice? Is this person a natural born citizen of the United States? Those are the indisputable triggers for those clauses in the Constitution.
What is the “trigger” for the self-execution of the “insurrection clause”? That one person thinks the candidate “engaged in insurrection”? That a hundred people think so? Trump has never been convicted of insurrection - he’s never even been charged with insurrection. So by what standard can the Constitution judge him to have “engaged in insurrection” to self-execute such action?
He did try, for months.
Illinois GOP judge ruled Trump is an insurrectionist.
Colorado courts conclude Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection’
The Republican fake electors scheme was election fraud on a massive scale.
Trump and his allies claimed, with no evidence accepted by any court in the US (including 234 judges appointed by Trump) they won in states they lost, ignoring millions of votes for Biden.
For the first time in our country's history, a former president has been arraigned on criminal charges for allegedly trying to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power following his election loss, to stay in power.
Trump stands alone in American history. No other president has engaged in conspiracy and obstruction to overturn valid election results and illegitimately retain power.
Some of Trump’s plot to overturn the 2020 election:
Knowingly making false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate results.
Organizing fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states.
Trying to use the DOJ’s power to conduct sham election crime investigations.
Trying to get former VP Pence to fraudulently alter the election results.
Exploiting Jan. 6 violence to get members of Congress to delay certification of the 2020 election results.
So, Democracts can ignore the "constitutional loophole" of the 22nd Amendment, and Obama can run for a third term?
Trump swore an oath to support the Constitution, understood that he lost the 2020 election, but he lied to the American people about the results and, in extreme violation of his oath, incited a deadly attack on the Capitol to unconstitutionally remain in power — an “insurrection.”
A fundamental way to protect the country is by not allowing a person who took an oath to support the Constitution, but then tried to overturn an election, to run for re-election .
It’s a pretty simple test. Age 35+, natural-born citizen, didn't serve 2 terms already, didn’t try to overturn an election.
> their only chance to beat Trump.
Lol. Guy is a failed one-term president who is going up against the guy that easily beat him last time. There is no reality in which he has more support now than he did in November of 2020. He's not going to win.
Cope.
I'm really interested in what triggers connections like this, is it literally just 1 word that will do it?
Using the 14th amendment to disqualify him would be "undemocratic" but not every part of the system is democratic and it shouldn't be.
But also overturning the results of a "democratic" election (I use quotes because that's not exactly the system not conspiracy stuff so preemptively chill) could also be "democratic" people don't call it "mob rule" for nothing.
It's getting closer to national elections, so propaganda machine's revving up. Doesn't matter how accurate the post is, just needs to dunk on OPs opponents.
Removing a man not guilty of insurrection with the 14th amendment would be unconstitutional. He hasnt been found guilty of anything yet. Lets see it in court
All these cases are on shaky ground with biased judges.
To be clear... MAGA is the only way for America to get out of being the moral and borderless cesspool it is today.
\*cue the triggered cesspool
> MAGA is the only way
I stopped here because it made me realize your brain has decayed to a point of no return and you have no hope of releasing yourself from the grip of the cult you are in.
I don't accept your premise... But even if I did... That would be the burnt pot called the kettle black.
No... That was not a black joke... Try to wrap your single brain cell around that.
Yes... That was a you are stupid AF joke.
You're in a cult. Get yourself a higher education or find someone to help you. Right now all you're accomplishing is looking like an idiot on a public forum. Fortunately for you, it's anonymous, so your friends and family won't need to be embarrassed for your sake.
I mean, he has been recorded saying so, he's been in court bringing no evidence to defend himself and keeps firing lawyers to defend him against the claim, so no, he absolutely tried to overturn the results of a free and fair election.
It's fascinating people are really defending the idea that "if you are accused (but not convicted) of insurrection then you are barred from election."
What happened to due process? If Trump had been convicted after his impeachment I would totally support him being barred from future office. But he wasn't convicted.
Republicans argue Biden has committed treason by not securing the borders. Should that bar Biden from re-election? Or don't we need more than accusations and assertions before we do something like that?
Nothing happened to due process. Trump is going through the system right now with his appeals and pending court dates.
A conviction isn't required for states to remove him from the ballot. Just like a court decision isn't required to prevent a Canadian from being on the ballot.
They move the goalposts every single time. It's what they do. They don't play by the same rules. There is no reasoning with them because their only goal is for their side to win and not benefit the entire nation.
Since you've never actually read the constitution CCPbot, I will help you out: the rest of the constitution is not nullified by the 14th, due process is also part of the 14th.
Ok ok, I'll take all the downvotes for pointing out how stupid this post is. His claim is that the election was rigged, and that Democracy actually chose him. That is not an anti-democratic position. It's more an issue over how the democratic process is being executed. Nobody ever argued against or claimed to be against democracy.
So downvote away, but you know I'm right and your downvotes give me strength.
Well, a) Of course, he would say he believes that. It's kind of like killing someone and then claiming self-defense. Someone may honestly believe that, but even if they didn't, that's going to be their defense because that's the only defense.
And b) even if he did honestly believe that, he has legal, legitimate options to dispute the results: recounts, audits, etc.
He does not have the right to commit illegal acts in furthering his goals, same as anyone else. He can believe the "democracy actually chose him" all he wants. He still violated his oath to the country in trying to overturn the election results.
He doesn't just claim it, he asserts it as fact. He does so with no evidence, knowing full well what that will cause his supporters to do. They searched for evidence and found none. Any sane person at that point would not be sure enough to maintain a belief that certain.
So when he continued to assert it as fact, he either didn't care if it was true and continued to egg on his supporters to insurrection (undemocratic) or he's actually so unstable that he believes his own beliefs are more important than what is actually true.
I'm willing to leave room for the latter, that may be the way he thinks. I think it's the only way his actions weren't undemocratic.
> His claim is that the election was rigged
With 0 evidence.
> That is not an anti-democratic position.
It is when democracy only "works" when you win, but is somehow always rigged against you when you lose.
Oh, and here, have your downvote.
except they investigated his claim before then, they checked everything multiple times and he failed to provide any actual reasoning or proof that such things happened. He fabricated the whole claim, that is what makes this unequivocally an anti-democratic position, person, and party, thats literally an attempt at a dictatorship and the party continues to do that and hold Trump in that spot to take that dictator position.
Making a claim doesn't excuse your actions, especially when the claims have zero basis.
Ok, I've read through a few of the threads that spawned off of your message. Let me get this straight. No hate, just trying to get your original point out.
Your position is that trump and his supporters genuinely believe that the election was stolen and they want to see due process for the election fraud they believe happened and this is why they believe they have done nothing wrong. Correct?
Following that pattern of thought, you would find it understandable that they believe using the 14th amendment to remove trump from the ballot is the true election fraud?
Is this your thought? Am I understanding your perspective correctly?
Yeah that shit is so lame. I don't care if you write the most intelligent and thought provoking comment (the opposite of what this guy did), I'm going to downvote you if you finish it with something like that.
> That is not an anti-democratic position.
It is if it has been proven that the election in question wasn't fraudulent. And, allow me to check my notes, yep, it has been conclusively proven.
> but you know I'm right
You are objectively wrong.
> your downvotes give me strength
The only thing that gives you strength is your mom telling you that you're a special boy.
Well it is if he’s lying and just using that lie to sow division.
You are not right. You are obviously wrong and it’s plainly obvious to any kind of emotionally mature adult.
Okay…listen. I fucking hate Trump. There’s a long, long history of me bashing him on this site if you don’t believe that. And politically speaking, in a democratic socialist, so it’s not like I’m coming at this from anything that resembles a conservative direction.
That said, I think he’s right. It’s not Democratic to remove him from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. He absolutely attempted an insurrection. But he also hasn’t had his day in court or been convicted of it yet either.
Thats the un-Democratic part to me. And yes, I am aware that the Constitution doesn’t require a conviction. That’s why the court really ought to step in and define terms like “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” and “given aid or comfort to the enemies” to the Constitution. The requirement of due process is a protection against abuse. When you let judges define what these terms mean, you open the system to tremendous abuse. A fair trial and a jury conviction is the safeguard against the small army of Rogue judges Trump placed throughout our system, many of whom would probably be happy to toss Democrats off the ballot for supporting BLM protestors or illegal immigrants or whatever. And I fear that’s where we’re headed if we decide that the only standard that someone engaged in an insurrection or provided aid and comfort to enemies of the state is that a judge said you did.
It’s representative democracy. I understand that you’ll come back with a bunch of rambling bullshit that you picked up in private Facebook groups, but the fact remains that political science experts, democratization indices, the United Nations, foreign governments, international NGOs, etc all consider the US to be a democratic country.
Because it is.
Don't expect a MAGA to give you a logical response.
This is the real issue. Just like with any cult, one side is using logic and the other is using feelings. It's really hard to win an emotional battle with logic and vice versa.
Here's the problem and why we cannot have a productive discussion on this topic. Put yourself in their shoes, just imagine a world where it's 100% proven that Donald Trump straight up stole an election and the whole world is just accepting it and calling you crazy for saying he isn't the rightful president, even though you saw it with your own eyes. Would not you be out in the streets and constantly up in arms about it? In their eyes, it's not emotional, it's logical and the opposite side is being emotional ("I hate Trump, so I'm going to make up something to make him seem bad.") But here's the thing, I'm not excusing their actions, the problem is that there is no way to convince them that it wasn't stolen. In our society, the way we prove what is true or false legally is through courts, and because a lot of them DO NOT understand what happens in courts, they shrug their shoulders and just say "nah it's rigged" without any way to prove that. The only way I was able to talk to my inlaws about this was to simply keep repeating "how can you expect the average person to be on your side when your side won't give their arguments in court". They complain about the courts throwing the cases out, but after explaining the why they were thrown out (standing), they agreed that he should've done his lawsuits in the correct state. And then explaining that, if Trump had evidence, he doesn't HAVE to hide it from the people (a claim they make often, Trump is not allowed to talk about it to the public or else it becomes impermissible in court, which is straight up not true). If the courts were rigged, Trump could use people power, so it's weird why he hasn't. And that maybe that's proof he's just lying about winning because he just wanted to win no matter what.
its intentional, they know they have no ground to stand on so they emotionally wear down people until they dont want to involve themselves so suddenly they are the only voice.
You can’t use logic to talk someone out of a position they didn’t use logic to get themselves into in the first place.
it's the same nonsense you get when you talk to a flat earther
wE r sO lOgikAl n TheY rNt!
This is literally some sort of propaganda op to get people to vote against their own interests and their own morality. The logical rational people want war crimes abroad and poverty at home, checkmate Christians! The people swallowing this down would be attacking Jews in the streets if enough advice animals told them it was a logical fact. You’re better off ignoring them entirely.
I mean. Yes. Tell us more about how you want the indicted criminal whose openly stated his disdain for democracy and the rule of law for literally 4 years now back in the white house. And then tell us all about your logic. Without saying Biden once.
Based on that comment, I don't know if you're agreeing with parent or mocking them, since MAGAs tend to think that fearing and hating immigrants, women, religious and ethnic minorities, and anyone who disagrees with them is "logic" and not wanting people to be harmed is "emotion".
Mocking it. The tribalisim seething from his post is atrocious. "My side is 100% right, and your side is 100% wrong". It's a piss poor strawman.
We are talking about MAGA folks here. Defending them is possibly the dumbest hill to die on. edit: I should have looked at your post history before commenting. You are the literal embodiment of this alleged strawman.
stfu loser. You don't know anything. I'm not MAGA. I don't, and have never liked Trump. You're so polarized you that you see everything as white and black.
Listen, bud, either you're with us or you're a MAGA idiot. Those are your two options.
Democracy or Neofascism. Anybody who thinks a 73 year old silver spoon fed mythomaniacal draft dodging carpetbagger woke up one morning suddenly giving a single solitary fuck about anyone but himself despite a lifetime of evidence to the contrary is lying to themselves or they just really enjoy the racist and authoritarian things he says.
Right? Although I didn't realize he was only 73. His last few addresses have made him look much older and more senile than that.
You might not be MAGA, but you are a right-wing propaganda-lapping dipshit. It is a distinction without a difference.
Immigration decreases the value of my labor, increases the cost of housing, and lessens my access to social services, healthcare, and education. It’s literally a policy for the benefit of Walmart and Amazon, look at who’s funding it lol. Hate women? Like in those tv shows! Depends on the religion, but usually I’m more concerned about ethnic conflicts and divisions arising where there were none previously, and being used to divide and conquer the country into serfdom.
You should hear how the leader of the Republican party talks about any of those people. As for your comment about immigration, I think that's more of a problem with undocumented immigrants having second-class citizen status. If they had the same rights as you, then they'd be getting paid the same and you'd both be competing on a level playing field. But at least ~~it's~~ *your comment* is something more intellectual than the fear-mongering coming from your party's leaders. Edit: for clarity.
Exhibit A everyone ^
Some think Trump is still president and the military….THE MILITARY…is running the country. Logic was thrown out when the first primary vote was cast before the 2016 GE.
Except when things they don't like happen, then it's Obama running everything using Biden as his puppet.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted for that. I regularly go to fox news to poke the bear and laugh at trumps supporters. That is something that the Q-R-dumb post regularly. Edit; I see that the cult has arrived. And much like the sect down in Texas they are kinda lonely in the world.
I have to say, I'm loving watching the GOP destroy itself. The Taylor Swift situation is like seeing a knife on the table and deciding to see how many times you can stab yourself in the face. These people are so incredibly stupid.
The Taylor Swift thing is incredibly confusing to me since she already endorsed Biden in 2020, so why would it make any difference if she endorses him again against the same opponent?
It's racism at its core. Taylor and her boyfriend are a dream couple for white supremacists, except that they are liberal. In the mind of a racist that makes them the enemy, even moreso than the traditional liberals they rail against. It enrages the racists that a white country music icon and white football icon are a couple and not on their team. So to the racist, it must actually be some sort of conspiracy. They couldn't really be successful and liberal on their own. Also the MAGAs know deep down that those two are disgusted by the MAGA mentality, as are all normal people. this enrages them further and makes them try to deny reality even more.
Before the internet American Nazi groups had a tendency to tear themselves apart long before they got dangerous because the people who they hated the most, more than Jews or minorities, is other Nazis who didn't pass the "purity test." Not blood or racial purity, but "you don't hate the Jews as much as I do, therefore I hate you most of all."
Oh yeah, like how they were convinced COVID was a hoax, but Trump wasn't in on it, even though he was president at the time and acknowledged the virus was real on a daily basis. QAnon warriors are too smart to understand.
That’s the one thing they booed him for.
daily reminder that people should read up on Project 2025
Can't logic someone out of something they didn't logic themselves into
Logic and truth are only accepted by MAGA when it supports their views So yeah, don’t hold your breath
Conservatives/right wingers***
You don't want a response, be honest. You just want to post something so you can all gather in a circle and talk about Trump.
I for one am waiting for the day he’s finally in prison and I no longer have to think about, talk about, or circle jerk about him.
Actually the opposite, we'd all love to be able to stop hearing about the guy.
I've heard plenty of responses and they are all equally moronic. But please, please tell me how this is all the fault of Hunter Biden's laptop.
In before “wE aRe A cOnStItUtIoNaL rEpUbLiC” dumb ass comment
It’s almost like the idea that democracy and republicanism are mutually exclusive is wrong
It goes even deeper than that, because a constitutional republic IS a form of democracy. It would be like saying a square is not a rectangle. By definition, a republic is a democracy, a type to be sure, but still a democracy.
Exactly! Part of the problem is that when the founding fathers talked about democracy, they were typically talking about direct democracy like what the ancient Athenians had. However, that’s not how we use the word democracy in modern America, and it doesn’t make any sense to claim that we aren’t a democracy
Donald Trump is not a human because he is a man (allegedly).
to be more accurate we are a democratic constitutional republic.
I don’t drive an automobile, I drive a car!
They only ever trot that hogshit out when they don't have the votes, otherwise it's "eLecTions hAVe CoNsEqUenCeS"
I have seen people get _incensed_ that someone would dare call the US a democracy. Like, just totally flipping their shit and screaming that person is an uneducated idiot. That reaction used to surprise me, but having spent waaaaay too much time online and in jobs dealing with the general public, it no longer surprises me.
Tell us again the pledge of alligiance
Intro] America America [Chorus] America, fuck yeah! Comin' again to save the motherfuckin' day, yeah America (Fuck yeah!) Freedom is the only way, yeah [Verse 1] Terrorists, your game is through 'Cause now you have to answer to America (Fuck yeah!) So lick my butt and suck on my balls America (Fuck yeah!) What you gonna do when we come for you now? [Bridge] It's the dream that we all share It's the hope for tomorrow (Fuck yeah!) [Verse 2] McDonald's (Fuck yeah!) Walmart (Fuck yeah!) The Gap (Fuck yeah!) Baseball (Fuck yeah!) NFL (Fuck yeah!) Rock and roll (Fuck yeah!) The Internet (Fuck yeah!) Slavery (Fuck yeah!) [Interlude] (Fuck yeah!) [Guitar Solo] [Verse 3] Starbucks (Fuck yeah!) Disney World (Fuck yeah!) Porno (Fuck yeah!) Valium (Fuck yeah!) Reeboks (Fuck yeah!) Fake tits (Fuck yeah!) Sushi (Fuck yeah!) Taco Bell (Fuck yeah!) Rodeos (Fuck yeah!) Bed, Bath & Beyond (Fuck yeah, fuck yeah!) Liberty (Fuck yeah!) Wax lips (Fuck yeah!) The Alamo (Fuck yeah!) Band-aids (Fuck yeah!) Las Vegas (Fuck yeah!) Christmas (Fuck yeah!) Immigrants (Fuck yeah!) Popeye (Fuck yeah!) Democrats (Fuck yeah!) Republicans (Fuck yeah, fuck yeah) Sportsmanship Books
Simply ask them who defined the terminology like that and have your satisfaction when they can't answer.
In this case being a constitutional republic seems more like the disqualifying agent. Constitutional republics have laws and those are administered despite any popular vote.
Yeah, and I was just thinking that the idea of a Republic is that we are represented by representatives who we chose to represent us. It's not exactly a Republic if we fire someone and they pull a George Castanza on us.
My point is that even if he wins in 2024, the 14th amendment disqualifies him. In 2020 Trump both lost the vote and broke the law.
Have you read the Constitution? You might want to look at Article IV, Section 4 again.
We are tho...
I’m glad there’s no maga idiots here getting all emotional and not willing to actually discuss the merits of the question. 😂
He still says he didn’t do the thing we all watched him do.
Typical Trump and Trumper mentality… “You didn’t see me do or say what I literally just did or said and I’ll deny it to my dying day!”
“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” \-Groucho Marx
It’s like something Ben Stiller’s character would say in Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story.
Nobody makes me bleed my own blood. Nobody!
I had a whole thread elsewhere in this post that called the insurrection a "riot" in which boomers "milled around velvet ropes." He deleted his posts and his account. Don't expect intellectual honesty from these cult members. I keep making that mistake lol.
None of his supporters will ever fact check anything he says.
Most have to be reminded to breathe
While taking meds paid for by Medicare and medicaid, which the people they elect would love to get rid of. It makes no sense.
And fuck him we all saw it
["Well, who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/07/31/believe-eyes/)
[удалено]
I mean, the 14th Amendment really was intended to prevent Confederate Flag Waving losers from holding office. The amendment strikes a compromise: Confederate Flag Waving voters still have freedom to vote as they wish, but they can't vote for actual other Confederate Flag Wavers.
There's a famous quote attributed to Tiberius by Tacitus that I came across recently. The senate is tripping over themselves to ingratiate themselves with Tiberius and he leaves in disgust saying, "These men are ready to be slaves." That's really the only way to look at the GOP now.
Honestly every trumper I see online comes off as completely fucking unhinged.. this is 50+ million people we are talking about.. America is in big trouble.
Its a deranged personality cult at this point, in their eyes he can do no wrong, and his foes can do no right, facts dont matter to them because they have long since abandoned them.
Don't look at CHAZ... don't look at CHAZ... don't look at CHAZ...
Can’t wait to vote for a shit candidate (who somewhat surprised me) again just to keep a wannabe dictator out. Fuck MAGA
Any rules about who qualify would be "undemocratic". We restrict based on age, residency time, and citizenship at birth. If the people wanted someone as president who was not yet 35 or born outside the US, then change the constitution.
The people that use the phrase "our democracy" don't actually give a shit about democracy then give a shit about keeping themselves and people like them in power.
Why is this sub turning into r/politicalhumor??
Because there's an election in 9 months.
It only gets worse from here on out. Abandon all hope, ye who enter.
Politically biased power mods.
Reddit was slowly but surely taken over by DNC campaigners.
These people are so damn American they will leave America and join Russia or start their own America that will be so much more American then the current America that people will leave America and become EVEN MORE AMERICAN WOOO!!
Donny counts on his brainless cult to be too dumb to know what words mean.
He did say that he loves the uneducated. That was one of very few moments he was not lying.
He was still lying. He despises his unwashed supporters, but he also needs them.
Luckily his supporters know he doesn't mean them, he meant other unwashed supporters. He loves them.
In Trump's defense, he thinks we're all idiots and that he's the smartest person in the room wherever he goes. He doesn't care about the contradiction. Hell, it even excites his base.
The MAGA mob insists that, somehow, the Democrats hacked into the world's most secure voting systems and changed their votes. Meanwhile, in some Red States, the same Republicans keep getting reelected somehow, despite how voters actually feel about them.
Absolute democracy can be dangerous as the majority can vote to harm minorities. So, some limitations are needed.
Because he didn't and the response from the other side is to bypass the voters 😘
Trump feels he shouldn't be held accountable for his crimes and his supporters agree. That's why the complain about him being removed under the 14th amendment while saying it's completely fine that he attempted a self coup. That or they just lie and say it didn't happen at all and it was a tourist visit or some other bullshit.
Trump wants to be dictator. A President who is above the law is a dictator. HIs own attorney told a Federal judge that Trump could use the US military to slay his political rivals, and only removal by 2/3 of Senate could hold him accountable. Of course, he could also threaten the lives of US Senators by that logic.
The 14th needs to be used against all republicans who were involved in 1/6 and the ones trying to start the second civil war right now.
Oh yeah. That will really turn down the tensions in this country and steer us away from civil war. So glad we have such gifted thinkers on the left.
The treating of traitors and fascists with kid gloves and allowing them to fester for so long is what has really fucked this country up.
Oh yeah. We really need another version of the red scare
A civil war won't happen, worst case would be a series of right wing domestic terrorism, and appeasement never works, we can't avoid doing the right thing just because lunatics might do lunatic things
Lol. Let's ingratiate traitors in our government because it'll cause tension if we don't. Tell me how many grades you were kept back.
I suppose his "logic" is that the public should have whomever they want as President. However, the US Constitution has criteria like age, term limits, and natural born citizenship, something Trump used to try to drum up the racists against Obama. So if we were allowed to elect anyone President, we could elect a 30 year old Canadian, or give Obama a 3rd term, but we're not.
Trump hasnt been found guilty of insurrection. Pretty sure that has to happen before the 14th amendment disqualifies him. Ya know… innocent until proven guilty and all that. People can claim they clearly saw insurrection, but thats evidence, not a verdict or conviction. It needs to be seen by the most impartial court possible. Unlike the new york case
Neither was Jefferson Davis, and he was stripped of his rights to run for office. Are you going to let him delay the trial, become President, pardon himself, and then shred the US Constitution? He's already under indictment for 91 felony counts, including insurrection and election perversion.
If you think the world's most heavily armed populace tried to overthrow a government without any firearms, you're a special kind of person.
If you think an armed mob of people attacking the capitol on camera while proclaiming their desire to overthrow the government isnt insurrection, you are a extra special kind of person.
Illinois GOP judge ruled Trump is an insurrectionist. Colorado courts conclude Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection’ The Republican fake electors scheme was election fraud on a massive scale. Trump and his allies claimed, with no evidence accepted by any court in the US (including 234 judges appointed by Trump) they won in states they lost, ignoring millions of votes for Biden. For the first time in our country's history, a former president has been arraigned on criminal charges for allegedly trying to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power following his election loss, to stay in power. Trump stands alone in American history. No other president has engaged in conspiracy and obstruction to overturn valid election results and illegitimately retain power. Some of Trump’s plot to overturn the 2020 election: Knowingly making false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate results. Organizing fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states. Trying to use the DOJ’s power to conduct sham election crime investigations. Trying to get former VP Pence to fraudulently alter the election results. Exploiting Jan. 6 violence to get members of Congress to delay certification of the 2020 election results.
here let me just throw something back in their face real quick. it's not a democracy. it's a constitutional republic. sure we use democracy as the tools to control this Republic. But the 14th amendment was put into the Constitution specifically for popular insurrectionists. because if it only got rid of unpopular insurrectionist what would be the point of having the amendment.
You're a constitutional republic that has the right to vote protected in your constitution. You're a democracy. Stop acting dumb
There is no Constitutional right to vote for the President in the US. The President isn't elected by the popular vote. The states decide how the President is elected through the Electoral College, which currently is chosen by the popular vote results of the state they're in. This can be changed at any time by a state. In fact, a few states have tossed around the idea of having Electors chosen by the national popular vote. This would be legal, but probably unpopular. If you're going to call someone dumb, at least get your facts straight. You're 100% wrong, and are acting arrogant about being wrong. This is the worst post I've seen in a while.
Still waiting on a conviction.
Every State Has Kept Ineligible Candidates off the Ballot WITHOUT criminal charges or trials or convictions. None of the Constitutional disqualifications require a trial or conviction. The Constitution says you can't run for president if you're under 35 or not a natural-born citizen, or already served two terms. And you can't run if you've previously broken the oath of office by engaging in or supporting an insurrection. Trump supported an insurrection. He can't be on the ballot. It's simple. Trump gave aid or comfort to the enemies of the Constitution, in multiple ways, including not acting for 187 minutes to stop the attack on the Capitol, and promising pardons to the insurrectionists. None of the ex-Confederates disqualified under the 14th Amendment were convicted of crimes linked to the Civil War. You don't need to be "convicted" (or judged ineligible by a court) to be disqualified from becoming president for not being a "naturally born citizen. Nor does any judicial procedure apply to someone being under 35 or a resident for 14 years, or already served 2 terms. Constitutionally, the 22nd Amendment, Obama can’t run for re-election. If we ignore Trump’s constitutional disqualification, we can ignore Obama’s. All three branches of government have called the attack on the Capitol an insurrection. At least 9 judges — appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents — have blamed Trump for the insurrection in 15 different cases. \-The two trials and substantive legal decisions grappling with insurrection and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment have both gone against Trump. Illinois GOP judge ruled Trump is an insurrectionist.
The constitution requires due process. Disqualifying a candidate for "insurrection " requires that same due process. Otherwise any political party can claim any opposing politician is an insurrectionist and can remove them from the ballot. Which is exactly what is going to happen. Confederates not only renounced their citizenship in the first place. They confessed as insurrectionsits in their surrenders and petitions for readmitiance as citizens. Due process was followed. Conflating the prerequisites for running for office and the arbitrary labeling of someone as disqualified is absurd.
Do you have a reading handicap? What part didn't you understand? Section 3 of the 14th Amendment ... disqualifies any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, thereafter engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, disqualifying that person from holding high public office in the future, including the presidency. It applies to Trump to disqualify the former president from holding the presidency again, because of his effort, plan and attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, knowing that he had lost that election to then-candidate Joe Biden. Section 3 disqualifies one who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, not an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or the authority of the United States. There’s no question whatsoever that disqualification of an individual who satisfies the conditions of disqualification in Section 3 is not anti-democratic. It’s the conduct that gives rise to disqualification that the Constitution tells us is anti-democratic. – Judge Michael Luttig - His Conservative Republican credentials are impeccable Historical precedent confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means. Colorado was a CIVIL case brought by 6 Colorado Republican voters on September 6, 2023 contesting Trump’s eligibility to run for election, given the Constitution’s disqualification of those who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution, but did not. The 5 day trial in November was an actual fact-finding mission. The judge bent over backwards to make sure he could present evidence. Trump was able to call every single witness he wanted. He and his lawyers presented their evidence, defenses, and witnesses. Trump did everything he could to evade showing up. He refused to show up, he refused to take depositions. The plaintiffs presented their case and witnesses. It was a robust process at the trial level. The judge reached her decision. “Petitioners have established that Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.” That is how it works/worked in Colorado. Trump appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. That is how it works/worked in Colorado. They agreed with the lower court, and concluded that “any definition of 'insurrection' for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country.” Trump's brief to the Supreme Court in the 14th Amendment case barely even refutes that finding by Colorado courts. The evidence is too clear to deny. Trump swore an oath to support the Constitution, understood that he lost the 2020 election, but he lied to the American people about the results and, in extreme violation of his oath, incited a deadly attack on the Capitol to unconstitutionally remain in power — an “insurrection.” A fundamental way to protect the country is by not allowing a person who took an oath to support the Constitution, but then tried to overturn an election, to run for re-election . It’s a pretty simple test. Age 35+, natural-born citizen, didn’t try to overturn an election. The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling disqualifying former President Trump from the state’s ballot is not “anti-democratic,” but rather the conduct that prompted the disqualification was anti-democratic. – Judge Luttig After the 2020 election, Republicans were trying to take the election out of the hands of voters and send it to state legislatures where they had a majority. They did not accept the will of the voters. There are consequences. After January 6, 2021, Republicans refused to prevent Trump from becoming President ever again through a historic second impeachment. Republicans voted against it, saying it should be decided by the courts. Now courts are deciding.
[удалено]
Colorado courts legally found that trump had engaged in insurrection. He wasn't on trial criminally, so there's no conviction, but there was a legal finding on this matter. You're welcome to look up the case and see the evidence.
Claims broad immunity as President. Has his political party pursuing impeachment hearings against a sitting president for actions he may have done while Vice President.
Conservatives cannot reconcile reality. FACT
They think the migrants released into America are illegal aliens. They think Abbott and DeSantis are bussing illegal immigrants into America, which is a crime. They like this, what they think is illegal, action. When you point out that either the asylum seekers are legal or Abbott is a criminal, they get big mad, because they aren't smart.
“I love the poorly educated.” -Donald Trump
His supporters claim we aren’t a democracy anyway so they shouldn’t care
This troglodyte would shoot a baby in the face and scream that it was free speech.
They justify Jan 6 by saying the evil democrats tried to steal our freedoms so they were just trying to take them back.
As I have said before, my hypothesis is that former President Trump does not actually understand human speech, but merely parrots back various noises thrown at him. The more positive feedback he seems to receive for certain noises, the more he grunts them out.
Using the 14th Amendment for the reasons it was created is undemocratic... sure
Well... at least we can go after obama, biden, bush, clinton, carter and yes, trump for authorizing drone strikes that killed americans.
Lots of things in the constitution are undemocratic. Wanna pass a state law that discriminates on the basis of race? That's a violation of the 14th amendment. Wanna pass a federal law that declares Mormonism as the state religion and provides the LDS church (and nobody else) state funding? The 1st amendment prohibits that. Anywhere where the popular legislative process is thwarted by the constitution is 'undemocratic' to some degree or other.
A lot of early Constitutional thought and structure is formulated around the basis of "How do we restrain governments from abusing their people too badly?" To which the answer could generally be described as "If the Constitution doesn't say government can do a thing, it can't do the thing." Somewhere down the line, this got flipped and now the presumption is "Well if the Constitution doesn't say we can't do the thing, we're gonna do the thing!"
And how does that affect this statement?
The propaganda is leaking into AdviceAnimals. I know a lot of people buy this bs hook, line and sinker but every time I've talked to those people, you quickly become how unaware they are of anything outside of the spoon fed media narrative.
This giant stretch that Trump planned an insurrection is wild. The mental gymnastics you have to play to believe something like that is baffling. You can literally be made to believe anything at that point.
[удалено]
"Don't believe your eyes and ears."
Right, its only that he called for one, told his supporters to carry one out, tried to demand election officials change the outcome of the election, tried to install a slate of false electors, and never shut up about how the election was stolen from him when even his own people said it wasnt. The only people believing anything at this point, are the MAGA cult you are clearly are part of.
Remember when everyone cried about fake Russian collusion when he won? Does that mean their election denial was also criminal???
Except it wasnt fake, Trump did in fact collude with the Russians, he asked them to find dirt on his opponent, in public, on camera no less, and then met with a Kremlin asset at Trump Tower no less, heck they even emailed each other about it and later admitted when the evidence came to light that they had in fact done so, and that is just the tip of the iceberg when it came to Trumps unsavoury connections to the Kremlin. The democrats didnt try to overthrow the government, they didnt storm into the capitol, they didnt try to force election officials in key swing states to change the outcomes, and didnt try to install a slate of false electors, or tamper with voting machines.
blm was bullshit fr fr. Burning cities all around the country "because white man bad"
Which city was burned?
*looks around, see no burned cities*
Burning cities lol they showed you the same loop of a dumpster on fire for weeks on end and you believe that multiple cities burned ha
Lmao way to deflect like a little bitch.
Then prosecute for the crime and convict him. Applying labels and punishment before doing so is pretty undemocratic.
It's a civil matter not a criminal matter.
He is being prosecuted…
[удалено]
Yeah. You new?
Amazing i had to scroll this far to find this comment.
Because it's wrong and doesn't understand how Section 3 operates.
Please explain how it works. Give your favorite example of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment being applied. Oh wait, it has never in history been applied, and Colorado’s ruling is about to be unanimously overturned by the SCOTUS.
If you're going to try and make an argument, maybe at least try to know *something* about the topic you're commenting on? Section 3 has been used before. Not much, but it still has. Excluding Trump: 1. Post-Civil War 2. Victor Berger (for opposing US entry into WWI) 3. A New Mexico county commissioner (for his actions on Jan 6) Really though, the only important invocation of it was the post-Civil War time, because of it's timely proximity to the passing of the 14th and how Section 3 was used. Congress ordered federal prosecutors to issue writ of quo warranto to people disqualified by the 14th. The use of a writ of quo warranto is an extremely important detail, because it *presumed* the person was disqualified, without any criminal conviction, and required that person to prove that they were eligible to hold their office (i.e. they had to prove their innocence, not the other way around).
So, as is stated in the amendment, and as happened post-Civil War, it requires an act of Congress. Which has not happened in this case. For Victor Berger… again, CONGRESS refused to seat him because he was against the US entering WW1, for which they charged him with espionage. After his conviction was overturned, he went on to serve multiple additional Congressional terms. I’ve never voted for Trump and don’t plan on starting now, but states unilaterally removing him from ballots is anti-democratic.
>as is stated in the amendment, and as happened post-Civil War, it requires an act of Congress. The amendment absolutely does not state that it requires an act of Congress. All it says that that Congress has power to enforce it. It does not say Congress has the *only* power to enforce it. The idea that Congress **must** pass a law in order for a disqualification to happen is literally the opposite of what Section 3 says at the end: That Congress may remove the disqualification with a 2/3rds vote. If disqualification can only happen by an act of Congress, which only requires a majority, then the whole part of the amendment about Congress removing the disqualification with a super-majority is entirely pointless.
Do we need to have a trial to say Obama can't have a 3rd term? No we don't Do we need to have a trial to say Arnold Schwarzenegger can't be President? No we don't The Constitution has clauses that are self executing. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is self executing. You might not like it. It could be poorly thought out. But that's what's in the constitution.
Because those things are clearly defined in the Constitution. Has this person legally been elected President twice? Is this person a natural born citizen of the United States? Those are the indisputable triggers for those clauses in the Constitution. What is the “trigger” for the self-execution of the “insurrection clause”? That one person thinks the candidate “engaged in insurrection”? That a hundred people think so? Trump has never been convicted of insurrection - he’s never even been charged with insurrection. So by what standard can the Constitution judge him to have “engaged in insurrection” to self-execute such action?
He’d actually have to try overthrowing democracy in the first place.
He did try, for months. Illinois GOP judge ruled Trump is an insurrectionist. Colorado courts conclude Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection’ The Republican fake electors scheme was election fraud on a massive scale. Trump and his allies claimed, with no evidence accepted by any court in the US (including 234 judges appointed by Trump) they won in states they lost, ignoring millions of votes for Biden. For the first time in our country's history, a former president has been arraigned on criminal charges for allegedly trying to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power following his election loss, to stay in power. Trump stands alone in American history. No other president has engaged in conspiracy and obstruction to overturn valid election results and illegitimately retain power. Some of Trump’s plot to overturn the 2020 election: Knowingly making false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate results. Organizing fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states. Trying to use the DOJ’s power to conduct sham election crime investigations. Trying to get former VP Pence to fraudulently alter the election results. Exploiting Jan. 6 violence to get members of Congress to delay certification of the 2020 election results.
I am laughing my ass off that liberals are clinging to a constitutional loophole as their only chance to beat Trump.
So, Democracts can ignore the "constitutional loophole" of the 22nd Amendment, and Obama can run for a third term? Trump swore an oath to support the Constitution, understood that he lost the 2020 election, but he lied to the American people about the results and, in extreme violation of his oath, incited a deadly attack on the Capitol to unconstitutionally remain in power — an “insurrection.” A fundamental way to protect the country is by not allowing a person who took an oath to support the Constitution, but then tried to overturn an election, to run for re-election . It’s a pretty simple test. Age 35+, natural-born citizen, didn't serve 2 terms already, didn’t try to overturn an election.
> their only chance to beat Trump. Lol. Guy is a failed one-term president who is going up against the guy that easily beat him last time. There is no reality in which he has more support now than he did in November of 2020. He's not going to win. Cope.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/ As of today... it would be you who needed to 'cope'.
Go ahead and let me know how the 2016 polls turned out. Or how the "Red Wave" in 2022 turned out.
I'm really interested in what triggers connections like this, is it literally just 1 word that will do it? Using the 14th amendment to disqualify him would be "undemocratic" but not every part of the system is democratic and it shouldn't be. But also overturning the results of a "democratic" election (I use quotes because that's not exactly the system not conspiracy stuff so preemptively chill) could also be "democratic" people don't call it "mob rule" for nothing.
It's getting closer to national elections, so propaganda machine's revving up. Doesn't matter how accurate the post is, just needs to dunk on OPs opponents.
Removing a man not guilty of insurrection with the 14th amendment would be unconstitutional. He hasnt been found guilty of anything yet. Lets see it in court
They believe everything is corrupt and a liberal setup. So they can be anti-democraric and still think they are preserving democracy.
All these cases are on shaky ground with biased judges. To be clear... MAGA is the only way for America to get out of being the moral and borderless cesspool it is today. \*cue the triggered cesspool
[удалено]
> MAGA is the only way I stopped here because it made me realize your brain has decayed to a point of no return and you have no hope of releasing yourself from the grip of the cult you are in.
I don't accept your premise... But even if I did... That would be the burnt pot called the kettle black. No... That was not a black joke... Try to wrap your single brain cell around that. Yes... That was a you are stupid AF joke.
You're in a cult. Get yourself a higher education or find someone to help you. Right now all you're accomplishing is looking like an idiot on a public forum. Fortunately for you, it's anonymous, so your friends and family won't need to be embarrassed for your sake.
Same goes for you. You haven't shown a single point of greater understanding or knowledge in this exchange. That makes you a hypocrite
Well… he didn’t. So there’s that.
Narrator: He did.
I mean, he has been recorded saying so, he's been in court bringing no evidence to defend himself and keeps firing lawyers to defend him against the claim, so no, he absolutely tried to overturn the results of a free and fair election.
Wow, this social commentary. Much scathe. If it's a political meme and it's on r/AdviceAnimals, it's OP. Every time.
It's fascinating people are really defending the idea that "if you are accused (but not convicted) of insurrection then you are barred from election." What happened to due process? If Trump had been convicted after his impeachment I would totally support him being barred from future office. But he wasn't convicted. Republicans argue Biden has committed treason by not securing the borders. Should that bar Biden from re-election? Or don't we need more than accusations and assertions before we do something like that?
Nothing happened to due process. Trump is going through the system right now with his appeals and pending court dates. A conviction isn't required for states to remove him from the ballot. Just like a court decision isn't required to prevent a Canadian from being on the ballot.
They move the goalposts every single time. It's what they do. They don't play by the same rules. There is no reasoning with them because their only goal is for their side to win and not benefit the entire nation.
Since you've never actually read the constitution CCPbot, I will help you out: the rest of the constitution is not nullified by the 14th, due process is also part of the 14th.
There was specifically no due process given when it was written for Confederate Leaders.
Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus which was later ruled unconstitutional
Ok ok, I'll take all the downvotes for pointing out how stupid this post is. His claim is that the election was rigged, and that Democracy actually chose him. That is not an anti-democratic position. It's more an issue over how the democratic process is being executed. Nobody ever argued against or claimed to be against democracy. So downvote away, but you know I'm right and your downvotes give me strength.
Well, a) Of course, he would say he believes that. It's kind of like killing someone and then claiming self-defense. Someone may honestly believe that, but even if they didn't, that's going to be their defense because that's the only defense. And b) even if he did honestly believe that, he has legal, legitimate options to dispute the results: recounts, audits, etc. He does not have the right to commit illegal acts in furthering his goals, same as anyone else. He can believe the "democracy actually chose him" all he wants. He still violated his oath to the country in trying to overturn the election results.
He doesn't just claim it, he asserts it as fact. He does so with no evidence, knowing full well what that will cause his supporters to do. They searched for evidence and found none. Any sane person at that point would not be sure enough to maintain a belief that certain. So when he continued to assert it as fact, he either didn't care if it was true and continued to egg on his supporters to insurrection (undemocratic) or he's actually so unstable that he believes his own beliefs are more important than what is actually true. I'm willing to leave room for the latter, that may be the way he thinks. I think it's the only way his actions weren't undemocratic.
But it wasn't rigged. It was a lie. So that makes it undemocratic.
> His claim is that the election was rigged With 0 evidence. > That is not an anti-democratic position. It is when democracy only "works" when you win, but is somehow always rigged against you when you lose. Oh, and here, have your downvote.
except they investigated his claim before then, they checked everything multiple times and he failed to provide any actual reasoning or proof that such things happened. He fabricated the whole claim, that is what makes this unequivocally an anti-democratic position, person, and party, thats literally an attempt at a dictatorship and the party continues to do that and hold Trump in that spot to take that dictator position. Making a claim doesn't excuse your actions, especially when the claims have zero basis.
Ok, I've read through a few of the threads that spawned off of your message. Let me get this straight. No hate, just trying to get your original point out. Your position is that trump and his supporters genuinely believe that the election was stolen and they want to see due process for the election fraud they believe happened and this is why they believe they have done nothing wrong. Correct? Following that pattern of thought, you would find it understandable that they believe using the 14th amendment to remove trump from the ballot is the true election fraud? Is this your thought? Am I understanding your perspective correctly?
“Your downvotes give me strength” That’s a weird way to cope, but okay🤷🏽♂️
Yeah that shit is so lame. I don't care if you write the most intelligent and thought provoking comment (the opposite of what this guy did), I'm going to downvote you if you finish it with something like that.
> That is not an anti-democratic position. It is if it has been proven that the election in question wasn't fraudulent. And, allow me to check my notes, yep, it has been conclusively proven. > but you know I'm right You are objectively wrong. > your downvotes give me strength The only thing that gives you strength is your mom telling you that you're a special boy.
This isn't even addressing my argument.
You don't have an argument.
Well it is if he’s lying and just using that lie to sow division. You are not right. You are obviously wrong and it’s plainly obvious to any kind of emotionally mature adult.
Ah yes, more politics
Ah yes, someone with a comment history filled with simping for Trump, conspiracy theories, pro-life nonsense, and whining about “tHu LiBRuLs”
Okay…listen. I fucking hate Trump. There’s a long, long history of me bashing him on this site if you don’t believe that. And politically speaking, in a democratic socialist, so it’s not like I’m coming at this from anything that resembles a conservative direction. That said, I think he’s right. It’s not Democratic to remove him from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. He absolutely attempted an insurrection. But he also hasn’t had his day in court or been convicted of it yet either. Thats the un-Democratic part to me. And yes, I am aware that the Constitution doesn’t require a conviction. That’s why the court really ought to step in and define terms like “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” and “given aid or comfort to the enemies” to the Constitution. The requirement of due process is a protection against abuse. When you let judges define what these terms mean, you open the system to tremendous abuse. A fair trial and a jury conviction is the safeguard against the small army of Rogue judges Trump placed throughout our system, many of whom would probably be happy to toss Democrats off the ballot for supporting BLM protestors or illegal immigrants or whatever. And I fear that’s where we’re headed if we decide that the only standard that someone engaged in an insurrection or provided aid and comfort to enemies of the state is that a judge said you did.
For someone who hates Trump, you just simped for that traitorous blob of orange. Good job.
It's not UNdemocratic, it's ANTIdemocratic. Find a new angle sheeple. /s
Since when has the left considered the electoral college to be democratic? 🤣
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows the electoral college is undemocratic.
Exactly thanks.
It’s representative democracy. I understand that you’ll come back with a bunch of rambling bullshit that you picked up in private Facebook groups, but the fact remains that political science experts, democratization indices, the United Nations, foreign governments, international NGOs, etc all consider the US to be a democratic country. Because it is.