We need to stop blaming the problems of the US on individuals, not Thomas, or the SC or any Senator, or even Trump.Â
There have been a dozen elections to change course, and voters have always consistently chosen for politicians who clearly have malicious intent either to punish the Democratic Party for perceived failures (such as recently on inflation) or because Republicans promise to address their 1 or 2 main issues.Â
It's voters who are destroying our country, the politicians we get from the Right are the result of how they vote.Â
Yes! and now weâre stuck with these miserable sons of bitches of the Republican Party and their incredibly stupid and dangerous âinbredâ voter citizens who are brain insufficient and who are literally the âpollutionâ that is rotting the country into the worldâs toilet
The amount of hate Thomas gets when Alito is every bit as awful having never voted against the Conservative majority in a critical case, but he keeps his nose cleans, suggest that isn't true.Â
We have no idea if our government can actually take on corruption because the American people have literally never over the past 30 years empowered the government to take on corruption.Â
The American people have handed control of the SC to Republicans each of the three times they could in 24 years. Impeachmen does nothing when Americans don't really see protecting Democracy as an important issue.Â
They run on protecting Democracy, they have run on campaign reform in every election since Obama, under Biden they passed $840 billion addressing rising Medicare costs and emission reduction incentives (50% projected reduction), most Democratic states already have $15+ minimum wage, abortion protections, legal marijuana, environmental polocy. The Democrats federally funded hundreds of thousand blue collar jobs by adding $575 billion to the infrastructure bill, they appoint reasonable people to head departments.
Ok heres a famous one. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period. If you like your healthcare plan, you'll be able to keep your healthcare plan, period". I hate to "whatabout" or "both sides", but what about both sides? To be a politician is to be untrustworthy because they cant make everybody happy but they have to convince everybody that they will. That is the truth. And, thats why elections are about picking the lesser of two evils, that which most aligns with your personal views. To not see this is to be blind or willfully ignorant. Im sure youre not ignorant but perhaps disingenuous. "What policy have democrats lied on?". Seriously?
That's a great point. Now let me ask you this: Did Obama pass the Affordable Care Act which was adopted by 38 states insuring millions with further funding provided by the Democrats under Biden increasing enrollment to a record 25 million in 2025 until Trump and the Republicans repealed it?
So Obama told a lie about healthcare, but he still managed to get major policy passed insuring millions. If that's the best lie you got and you are comparing that to Republicans you are just mental.Â
Its a lie. Told by a democrat. I apologize for not coming up with a more juicy one. Perhaps you could help me. Is lying moral when it achieves what some people want?
I cant recall if Obama lied about the drone strikes or not. Heres my point, and I know its a "both sides" argument. You see, I may have voted republican in every election since I was old enough, but Im certainly not going to defend everything they do or pretend that they are superior individuals to democrats. I never would defend absolutely any politician or political party. I hold my nose and pull the lever for who I think is best. I feel that Im an informed voter because I care enough to discuss it.
Blame the stupid election system that gives so much power to rural hicks over the millions of progressive metropolitan voters. I know he won the popular vote the second time, but he would not have won if he didn't win the first time.
Or how about blame the blue collar voters who switched from Obama to Biden, and to a lesser extent, Black voters who stayed home because they weren't "enthusiastic" enough about Clinton, giving Trump the Midwest in 2016? Or Nader voters in Florida giving Bush enough room to steal the Presidency in 2000?
The Democrats have played along too. Look how many of the leadership have supported Trump and how many of the average democrats excuse Trumpâs unlawful ascension to power. The Dems love the status quo more than the constitution or the people.
Trump and MAGA are to blame for starting the insurrection, the democratic leadership are to blame for intentionally aiding the insurrectionists after the fact.
The 14th amendment says that he is disqualified from holding office. Ever since his insurrection turned violent on J6, heâs been disqualified:
âNo person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.â
No agency needs to have accused him. Accusations are neither here nor there, as they are not mentioned in the amendment. Biden could have accused Trump, through a process of Biden conducting executive due process. Much as Lincoln moved to suppress the confederates after he conducted executive due process and found the confederates to be in a state of insurrection and subject to suppression.
Ok. If you cant tell Im not a legal scholar. But I dont see how Trump could be disqualified without being accused and found guilty. Im mean who has the legal authority to find that he commited this disqualifing act and then enforce the disqualification? Because if there is such a person or body that could find him disqualified, then Biden's term was the time for it to happen. I believe the supremes judged that he couldnt be removed from individual states ballots.
Are 25 year olds disqualified from running for president without being accused and found guilty?
Election officials have the authority to find that he engaged in insurrection and doesnât meet the qualifications for office, so canât lawfully appear in the ballot. Elections officials bar people from various ballots all the time. Itâs so normal it doesnât make the news. Elections officials like the Secretary of State of Maine, who ruled Trump was an insurrectionist and disqualified from the ballot.
Judges can also rule on the issue in civil court, and find that J6 was an insurrection, and that officials should be removed from office for participating. Just exactly as a judge ruled it was an insurrection and had Couy Griffin removed from office for his J6 involvement. Judges can also rule that Trump incited the J6 attack and that the attack was insurrection, as two courts did when they heard the case against Trump in Colorado. The state supreme court ruled he was disqualified from office as a result.
The only thing the Supreme Court did to throw a wrench in things, was that they invented a requirement that Congress had to approve legislation that enforced the disqualification, when the constitution requires no such thing. The amendment requires an act of Congress to remove the disqualification, not to enforce it. The executive branch can just enforce the disqualification.
Just as they can if the person isnât 35 years of age. Just as they can if the person isnât a natural born citizen, or a resident of the US for 14 years. Just as they can if the person has already been twice elected president. Just as they can if an official previously on oath to the constitution âshall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies [of the constitution].â
It became an unlawful insurrection when it turned violent. He met the qualifications for office until J6.
But then, I can read the law objectively and let the Framers rule the issue through what they wrote and what legislative intent they gave us in the Congressional Record. Iâm not grinding an ax, Iâm going off objective facts of history and the law as written.
Itâs generally accepted as no, it is not insurrection if it is not violent, that would be just regular crime; but the definition doesnât specify it. But once there is violence, it is defined insurrection etc. The original dictionary gives an extended coronation of what it is and isnât, as compared to other, similar terms.
âINSURREC'TION, noun [Latin insurgo; in and surgo, to rise.] 1. A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.â From 1828.
Britannica has it as
âinsurrection, an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt.â
Republicans control the Presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court. They have Democratic authority to make any budgetary policy they want, so yes Democrats have to work with them. Many Democrats need "independent" voters to get elected.Â
While Unde Biden with a narrow majority in Congress, Democrats passed $3.1 trillion in social legislation. Calling that the status quo is pure propaganda. Also at the state level every Democratic state has insisted a ton of Liberal priorities from raising the minimum wage, to criminal justice reform, to environmental policy.Â
And how did the MAGA traitors get to their current positions?
Biden doing fuck all to suppress them and see them all removed from office per the 14a and held for the duration of the insurrection. He had a job to do to enforce the law and failed.
MAGA is the one responsible for breaking the law, Biden is the one for failing to enforce the law.
Who elected Trump in the first place? Who elected Republicans to Congress who called the insurrection fake with many politicians refusing to acknowledge Biden won the election for over a month after the result was called? Who elected Trump again despite knowing what he did?
You know Trump could run for President from jail right? Or appoint a "successor" who could pardon him on day 1.Â
Stop trying to blame Democrats for what the American people freely do.Â
No one lawfully elected Trump again. He was disqualified by the 14a, for life, on J6. No, Trump canât run for â any Office, civil or military, under the United States, or any state,â because the 14th amendment says he canât. Your feelings donât matter, your opinion doesnât matter, the plane text of the constitution is clear. The framers of the amendment were clear in their comments during the debate before passage of the 14th amendment. No executive official, including a president, can engage in insurrection and remain qualified for Office.
Now, what has any of the election stuff got to do with the basic facts? Trump publicly incited the insurrection. The insurrection began with a violent attack on the congress. The insurrection continues to this day and Biden did basically nothing about it for 4 years.
And the governing body that had clear authority to prosecute a President for actions taken in Office is Congress. Nixon and Clinton were both investigated and impeached by Congress.
No Republicans were willing to do that, and certainly not enough to convict. And Republicans controlled the SC who literally ruled in Trump v Anderson that:
The Supreme Court clarified that only Congress has the constitutional authority to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders, typically by passing specific enabling legislation. Without a clear enforcement mechanism passed by Congress, a president cannot be automatically disqualified from office by outside lawsuits or state election officials.
So no you are wrong. Even if the DoJ convicted it would have done nothing
The American people saw Trump's actions and voted for him anyway. They are 100% responsible.Â
Congress when united is more powerful than the commander in chief requiring only a 2/3 majority to override any veto, and a 60 votes majority to appoint a special prosecutor.Â
Trump was voted in Democratically in 2016 and 2024 by the American people.Â
Because Biden didnât arrest all of those who have held a seat in Congress in violation of the 14a, having failed to suppress the MAGA insurrection.
No, Trump was not voted in according to the rules of our democracy in 2024. You have to willfully ignore the qualifications for office to believe that.
Trump was indicted on over 90 charges in multiple states and in DC. The corrupt courts failed us, especially the Supreme Court. Even Nevada tried to keep Trump off the ballot for the 14th, but the court overturned it. He was never charged or tried for "insurrection." Hell, he never saw a single trial for the sedition or insurrection that he was the leader of.
Do I wish Biden had used his newly established Supreme Court's decree of Unlimited Unitary Executive Power, which would've given him immunity for all crimes committed as president? Yes I do. Did he make a mistake in hiring Merrick the Meek for AG? Definitely so, but charges were filed in multiple jurisdictions and the evidence was clear as day. He should have faced trial, but the courts failed us, and then the voters failed us again.
Iâm talking about the CIC enforcing the law on insurrectionists as head of the military and militia, the whole reason the office was created was to do so. But then you would have to know American history and the law to know that. Fat chance.
Anyway, Iâll refute your baseless claim. Yes, the President is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States and is on oath to enforce the law. The AG has law enforcement duties delegated to them by statute (28 U.S.C. § 503), and even that just makes them head of the DOJ. It never mentions all law enforcement power belonging to the AG. All executive authority still resides with the President. But go ahead and cite the amendment that takes law enforcement power from the president. Iâll wait.
The President is charged to ensure the laws are executed: âhe shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.â Article II Section 3.
•
u/gmeape123 4d ago
Calling that shameless traitor to his own people a âmanâ is generous but yes