General Discussion

iemanja

(55,066 posts)

47. So you are happy to throw out the will of the people

Thu Dec 26, 2024, 01:29 PM

Dec 26

because you didn't get your way in the election? How anti-democratic of you. The other obvious point is that it isn't going to happen. The column writers are trolling. The chips have already fallen.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

cadoman

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 Dec 26 OP

Make it so, America BoRaGard Dec 26 #1

Laws and The Constitution simply don't apply to him bif Dec 26 #2

Laws and consequences are for the Poors NotHardly Dec 26 #35

Pity our Attorney General didn't do anything about it for four years. sop Dec 26 #3

Pick your preferred AG- Schiff? Kirschner? Weissman? Yates? Fiendish Thingy Dec 26 #7

This message was self-deleted by its author sop Dec 26 #8

That take on the issue is ridiculous on its face. n/t xocetaceans Dec 26 #39

Explain your reasoning. Fiendish Thingy Dec 26 #57

K & R malaise Dec 26 #4

All well and good, except Republicans control congress. Fiendish Thingy Dec 26 #5

If they vote 2/3 to let it go, fine: At least we went through the motions. UTUSN Dec 26 #10

It would take a majority to pass a disqualification resolution. Fiendish Thingy Dec 26 #14

Another ridiculous take that shows that the article is fundamentally misunderstood. n/t xocetaceans Dec 26 #42

So easy to leave one liner retorts Fiendish Thingy Dec 26 #58

The problem is that Vance would slide into the spot. Trump is just a puppet. Vance is aligned with the Vinca Dec 26 #6

Chips fall where chips may. The focus is on insurrection. UTUSN Dec 26 #12

True. n/t xocetaceans Dec 26 #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 Dec 26 #26

"normal" can include being so icky as to make him allergic to being associated with. UTUSN Dec 26 #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 Dec 26 #50

Maybe the plan is to get him elected and then disqualify him Buckeyeblue Dec 26 #59

This would only have been helpful at the ballot stage (as in MadameButterfly Dec 26 #9

No, the ballot stage was crapped on by the SCofUS. UTUSN Dec 26 #11

I'm aware of that MadameButterfly Dec 26 #13

Would stop "it"/what now? They did the ballot part, not the insurrection part. UTUSN Dec 26 #16

Colorado tried to keep Trump off the ballot because of the insurrection. MadameButterfly Dec 26 #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 Dec 26 #19

I thought the US Supreme Court - UNANIMOUSLY - rejected the whole "You can declare someone an insurrectionist without Midwestern Democrat Dec 26 #15

I'm no Legal eagle. The authors in the article go through (all) of the opposing arguments. UTUSN Dec 26 #17

Did every single Confederate (or any) go through a trial specifically about insurrection? UTUSN Dec 26 #20

No Southern_gent Dec 26 #21

So, they "removed the disabilities" for THEM. Not blanket for anybody/everybody else. UTUSN Dec 26 #24

Congress never Southern_gent Dec 26 #36

I'm no scholar but I think what's in the Constitution is what it is. UTUSN Dec 26 #49

From the article: Polybius Dec 26 #22

The focus is on insurrection, not partisan distractions. I think they are just disposing of a tangent there. UTUSN Dec 26 #23

You have a point Polybius Dec 26 #34

She wouldn't iemanja Dec 26 #40

This Southern_gent Dec 26 #60

*** Adam SCHIFF, Liz CHEENEE, Marc ELIAS - am looking at *you*! ********* UTUSN Dec 26 #25

Is there anything that says... Think. Again. Dec 26 #27

The Trail of wreckage starts with Nixon not being charged with treason for his back room dealing with North Vietnam to k yourout Dec 26 #28

The polls were the ultimate court. Unfortunately, trump won. Silent Type Dec 26 #29

The issue is insurrection, period. Not ballots, polls, voting results, trials, etc. UTUSN Dec 26 #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 Dec 26 #54

It's not a 4 yrs' issue. The shelf life is Jan 20. It's not about jockeying for elections' advantage. UTUSN Dec 26 #62

who determines whether an insurrection took place? cadoman Dec 27 #90

Republicans and Congress are too busy rubbing their hands together over the thought of the outright bribes he will Walleye Dec 26 #30

Lets face it, the US is a lawless shithole country. nt yaesu Dec 26 #31

Some elected officials were refused to be seated in the Reconstruction Era bucolic_frolic Dec 26 #32

It's not going to happen Renew Deal Dec 26 #33

Going through the motions would be something. Later to be called profile-courage. UTUSN Dec 26 #44

A forgetable anectdote Renew Deal Dec 26 #70

If you really think about it, there should be overwhelming bipartisan support under the circumstances. Frank D. Lincoln Dec 26 #55

He should have been impeached and convicted after the insurrection Renew Deal Dec 26 #71

We must make this into an unforgettable national memory. Kid Berwyn Dec 26 #37

This is a year too late iemanja Dec 26 #38

No, did not rule on insurrection. Chips fall where chips may. UTUSN Dec 26 #45

So you are happy to throw out the will of the people iemanja Dec 26 #47

Not trolling me. The issue of insurrection is its own thing, not being enlisted by me for my voting expediency. UTUSN Dec 26 #53

The trolling is that something can be done about it iemanja Dec 26 #65

That's not even a definition of trolling, which is not the topic anyway. UTUSN Dec 26 #68

The topic isn't stopping Trump from taking office? iemanja Dec 26 #74

No, it's about insurrection. And trolling is different from flaming. UTUSN Dec 26 #76

Insurrection iemanja Dec 27 #79

"can't handle disagreement" doesn't equate with authentic engagement. S'long. UTUSN Dec 27 #81

Kettle, pot. iemanja Dec 27 #82

C'mon, let's bid each other a nice g'bye. I'll start (again) : G'bye! UTUSN Dec 27 #85

I thought we had already. iemanja Dec 27 #86

You don't let it be. UTUSN Dec 27 #87

LOL iemanja Dec 27 #88

I'd absolutely being willing to throw out the will of 49% of idiots standingtall Dec 26 #64

50% iemanja Dec 26 #66

Elected reps are not bound to uphold the will of the people or popular opinion bucolic_frolic Dec 26 #51

"Make a stand" hadEnuf Dec 26 #46

It's as if Jefferson Davis was elected president in 1868. cer7711 Dec 26 #52

People might as well move on. garland won't do a damn thing. And tRUMP being charged w/ an insurrection? SWBTATTReg Dec 26 #56

K&R Native Dec 26 #61

Garland dropped the ball! Xoan Dec 26 #63

we've been over this 1000x WarGamer Dec 26 #67

If you would cite *one* court decision saying adjudication is necessary, UTUSN Dec 26 #69

so you're advocating... WarGamer Dec 26 #72

The only thing I am advocating is in the OP. If you're not going to cite the finding you claim, UTUSN Dec 26 #73

Trump could not pass even the most basic background check Skittles Dec 26 #75

Been over. orangecrush Dec 26 #77

Can't argue with a mysterious post.ON EDIT answering orangecrush here to not kick thread: UTUSN Dec 26 #78

Pretense at law. orangecrush Dec 27 #89

He wasn't barred from running and he's not going to be barred from office Meowmee Dec 27 #80

Doesn't mean he shouldn't be. But you're correct about that. UTUSN Dec 27 #83

I didn't say it meant that, of course he should've been barred and he should be barred now Meowmee Dec 27 #84

Well, obviously it was always legal for a criminal to run for President, and then hold that office, we just never knew msfiddlestix Dec 27 #91