General Discussion

Polybius

(18,387 posts)

22. From the article:

Thu Dec 26, 2024, 12:03 PM

Thursday

The unlikelihood of congressional Republicans doing anything that might elect Harris as president is obvious. But Democrats need to take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Why would Harris become President if Trump is disqualified? Why not Vance?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

MichMan

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If Drumpf isn't barred from office for *INSURRECTION* our pretense at LAW is over with. [View all] UTUSN Thursday OP

Make it so, America BoRaGard Thursday #1

Laws and The Constitution simply don't apply to him bif Thursday #2

Laws and consequences are for the Poors NotHardly Thursday #35

Pity our Attorney General didn't do anything about it for four years. sop Thursday #3

Pick your preferred AG- Schiff? Kirschner? Weissman? Yates? Fiendish Thingy Thursday #7

This message was self-deleted by its author sop Thursday #8

That take on the issue is ridiculous on its face. n/t xocetaceans Thursday #39

Explain your reasoning. Fiendish Thingy Thursday #57

K & R malaise Thursday #4

All well and good, except Republicans control congress. Fiendish Thingy Thursday #5

If they vote 2/3 to let it go, fine: At least we went through the motions. UTUSN Thursday #10

It would take a majority to pass a disqualification resolution. Fiendish Thingy Thursday #14

Another ridiculous take that shows that the article is fundamentally misunderstood. n/t xocetaceans Thursday #42

So easy to leave one liner retorts Fiendish Thingy Thursday #58

The problem is that Vance would slide into the spot. Trump is just a puppet. Vance is aligned with the Vinca Thursday #6

Chips fall where chips may. The focus is on insurrection. UTUSN Thursday #12

True. n/t xocetaceans Thursday #43

I don't know it as bad as Vance is. He's more like a normal human being. Trump is a huge problem here. Walleye Thursday #26

"normal" can include being so icky as to make him allergic to being associated with. UTUSN Thursday #48

Yes, but I don't think he has the magnitude of insanity to be capable of ruining the whole country in one term Walleye Thursday #50

Maybe the plan is to get him elected and then disqualify him Buckeyeblue Thursday #59

This would only have been helpful at the ballot stage (as in MadameButterfly Thursday #9

No, the ballot stage was crapped on by the SCofUS. UTUSN Thursday #11

I'm aware of that MadameButterfly Thursday #13

Would stop "it"/what now? They did the ballot part, not the insurrection part. UTUSN Thursday #16

Colorado tried to keep Trump off the ballot because of the insurrection. MadameButterfly Thursday #18

My last clarity here is: They said couldn't keep it from running or from being on the ballot. Reason for it don't matter UTUSN Thursday #19

I thought the US Supreme Court - UNANIMOUSLY - rejected the whole "You can declare someone an insurrectionist without Midwestern Democrat Thursday #15

I'm no Legal eagle. The authors in the article go through (all) of the opposing arguments. UTUSN Thursday #17

Did every single Confederate (or any) go through a trial specifically about insurrection? UTUSN Thursday #20

No Southern_gent Thursday #21

So, they "removed the disabilities" for THEM. Not blanket for anybody/everybody else. UTUSN Thursday #24

Congress never Southern_gent Thursday #36

I'm no scholar but I think what's in the Constitution is what it is. UTUSN Thursday #49

From the article: Polybius Thursday #22

The focus is on insurrection, not partisan distractions. I think they are just disposing of a tangent there. UTUSN Thursday #23

You have a point Polybius Thursday #34

She wouldn't iemanja Thursday #40

This Southern_gent Thursday #60

*** Adam SCHIFF, Liz CHEENEE, Marc ELIAS - am looking at *you*! ********* UTUSN Thursday #25

Is there anything that says... Think. Again. Thursday #27

The Trail of wreckage starts with Nixon not being charged with treason for his back room dealing with North Vietnam to k yourout Thursday #28

The polls were the ultimate court. Unfortunately, trump won. Silent Type Thursday #29

The issue is insurrection, period. Not ballots, polls, voting results, trials, etc. UTUSN Thursday #41

It'll be a long 4 years if we are going to claim insurrection should prevent trump from taking office. It won't work and Silent Type Thursday #54

It's not a 4 yrs' issue. The shelf life is Jan 20. It's not about jockeying for elections' advantage. UTUSN Thursday #62

who determines whether an insurrection took place? cadoman 19 hrs ago #90

Republicans and Congress are too busy rubbing their hands together over the thought of the outright bribes he will Walleye Thursday #30

Lets face it, the US is a lawless shithole country. nt yaesu Thursday #31

Some elected officials were refused to be seated in the Reconstruction Era bucolic_frolic Thursday #32

It's not going to happen Renew Deal Thursday #33

Going through the motions would be something. Later to be called profile-courage. UTUSN Thursday #44

A forgetable anectdote Renew Deal Thursday #70

If you really think about it, there should be overwhelming bipartisan support under the circumstances. Frank D. Lincoln Thursday #55

He should have been impeached and convicted after the insurrection Renew Deal Thursday #71

We must make this into an unforgettable national memory. Kid Berwyn Thursday #37

This is a year too late iemanja Thursday #38

No, did not rule on insurrection. Chips fall where chips may. UTUSN Thursday #45

So you are happy to throw out the will of the people iemanja Thursday #47

Not trolling me. The issue of insurrection is its own thing, not being enlisted by me for my voting expediency. UTUSN Thursday #53

The trolling is that something can be done about it iemanja Thursday #65

That's not even a definition of trolling, which is not the topic anyway. UTUSN Thursday #68

The topic isn't stopping Trump from taking office? iemanja Thursday #74

No, it's about insurrection. And trolling is different from flaming. UTUSN Thursday #76

Insurrection iemanja Yesterday #79

"can't handle disagreement" doesn't equate with authentic engagement. S'long. UTUSN Yesterday #81

Kettle, pot. iemanja Yesterday #82

C'mon, let's bid each other a nice g'bye. I'll start (again) : G'bye! UTUSN Yesterday #85

I thought we had already. iemanja Yesterday #86

You don't let it be. UTUSN Yesterday #87

LOL iemanja Yesterday #88

I'd absolutely being willing to throw out the will of 49% of idiots standingtall Thursday #64

50% iemanja Thursday #66

Elected reps are not bound to uphold the will of the people or popular opinion bucolic_frolic Thursday #51

"Make a stand" hadEnuf Thursday #46

It's as if Jefferson Davis was elected president in 1868. cer7711 Thursday #52

People might as well move on. garland won't do a damn thing. And tRUMP being charged w/ an insurrection? SWBTATTReg Thursday #56

K&R Native Thursday #61

Garland dropped the ball! Xoan Thursday #63

we've been over this 1000x WarGamer Thursday #67

If you would cite *one* court decision saying adjudication is necessary, UTUSN Thursday #69

so you're advocating... WarGamer Thursday #72

The only thing I am advocating is in the OP. If you're not going to cite the finding you claim, UTUSN Thursday #73

Trump could not pass even the most basic background check Skittles Thursday #75

Been over. orangecrush Thursday #77

Can't argue with a mysterious post.ON EDIT answering orangecrush here to not kick thread: UTUSN Thursday #78

Pretense at law. orangecrush Yesterday #89

He wasn't barred from running and he's not going to be barred from office Meowmee Yesterday #80

Doesn't mean he shouldn't be. But you're correct about that. UTUSN Yesterday #83

I didn't say it meant that, of course he should've been barred and he should be barred now Meowmee Yesterday #84

Well, obviously it was always legal for a criminal to run for President, and then hold that office, we just never knew msfiddlestix 17 hrs ago #91