Total posts: 2,186
Mortgage rates to go up to 8%. How is that reducing inflation when Americans can’t even afford homes. Fucktard.
Got my mortgage locked in when Trump was POTUS at 2.7999%.
My home, my family home, is worth nearly $400k, yet I owe less than half. Easy $1300 mortgage. At 8% it’s almost, almost 2.5-3x that much.
Democrats ruin everything.
Created:
TDS trolling post.
You keep incentivizing poverty, you get more poverty. Fucking DUH! 🙄
Created:
STILL NOT DISPROVEN TO DATE:
JFC, this subject was already covered and I shut it down with actual legal facts and proper analysis of the 14th Section 3. Again…
14th Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:
14th Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
First key legal term in that criteria is "shall": Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive.
Second key term here is "engaged": involved in activity; involved especially in a hostile encounter
Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
The final legal term (phrase) in that criteria is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy": SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.
What does Aid and Comfort to the Enemy mean?
"The two branches of treason, "levying war," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," are distinct, and do not embody synonymous actions."
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."
"...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power."
President Donald J. Trump did NOT (shall have) directly engage in an armed insurrection "in a hostile encounter" against the United States Constitution for which he gave oath to support. Equally, President Donald J. Trump did NOT give aid and comfort to the enemy since there was no enemy (a foreign power) to give aid and comfort to on January 6, 2020. More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I. emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection. Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riot and/or directly engaging in said riot that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol.
"The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials."
No insurrection, as such no rebellion either.
No enemies (agents of a foreign power) were present at the events of J6 either. Therefore, no enemies for anyone to give aid and comfort thereto.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not apply where President Donald J. Trump is concerned.
He can and will likely serve another term as POTUS.
Created:
lol. You fans of the dick are so predictable. I’m going to continue to purposely misspell words just to taunt you children. You just can’t he’ll yourselves in commenting as you do on it. So pathetic. Indubbabbly so
Created:
-->@prefixThe 14th amendment does not negate the foundation of the presumption of innocence found in other amendments and case law.Again, this isn’t a criminal trial.
Tell that to Trump who is being charged criminally by Jack Smith, but NOT for insurrection...which is one of the requirements under 14:3.
Created:
-->@prefixthe presumption of innocenceIs for criminal trials.
No shit sherlock; and Trump is being charged criminally. So, what prefix said applies. Dumbass.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
PART TWO:
And they breached the Capitol due to the egging on by undercover FBI agents and others in the crowds, and Capitol Police moved barricades, opened doors, and just stood around after the breach happened. All of this is documented in video evidence that you cannot refute.The Capitol police stood down once the Capitol was breached and they realized they were clearly outmanned. It was the best decision they could make given the circumstances, further resistance would have only lead to more people getting hurt.
Bullshit chicken shit excuse, typical of intellectual coward denialists.
The idea that this was somehow organized by the FBI as some plot to take down Trump is egregiously stupid. 140 Capitol police officers were injured that day, I would really love to know what you think that meeting looked like as they sat there planning how they were going to egg on thousands of people to attack themselves and then proceeded to get hurt in the process and then none of them ever spoke about it since. This is 9/11 - Sandy Hook level of absurdity.
Still a walk in the park compared to the 2020 St Floyd Riots. Over 60,000 officers attacked and more than 30% sustaining injuries.
Cops do not stand by and allow crimes to happen unless they are ordered to do so. Fact.
Trump did not hold a gun to anyone's head and forced them to breach the CapitolThat’s not how incitement works
Neither does giving a speech defending and asserting the 1A informing American voters that they have a right to voice their grievances to the government and to do so peacefully. Clown.
Not one rioter in 2020 burned or looted because Maxine Waters told them to.Sure, they did, and in every other riot thereafter. She gave them carte blanche to do it going forward.Now you’re not even pretending to be serious.Provide a shred of evidence that a single rioter was doing so because Maxine Waters told them so. Go.
"Waters traveled to Brooklyn Center and spoke to a crowd of people that has gathered since last Sunday, when 20-year-old Wright died after former officer Kim Potter mistook her gun for a Taser and shot him one time. Last week, groups in the area were observed looting businesses, defying curfews, and clashing with uniformed law enforcement officers as dozens found themselves behind bars in the embattled city."
""You think we're rallying now? You ain't seen nothing yet," Waters said at the rally. "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."
"Those remarks made waves because they fell after Trump administration officials were protested at restaurants, in incidents that Waters contextualized as part of an historical tradition of civil disobedience and confronting public officials."
No, they did not. Saying so doesn't make it so. Especially with a so-called committee ran entirely by democrats suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome locking out any and all Republican input. It was an entirely one-sided shit show that didn't even include contradictory video evidence that refuted much of their asinine assertions.They didn’t block out all republican input, only input from a select group of republicans who had no intention of seriously investigating the events and in some cases were themselves key witnesses to the heart of the investigation.
Still blocked the opposition and only allowed the fake Republican bootlickers to the Democrats.
There is no evidence which contradicts the committee’s general findings, only snippets of information that might appear so at first but ignore the greater story.
Yes, there is, you're just an intellectual cowardice denialist of those facts.
I have the academic and professional training/experience that equips me with the requisite knowledge, intellect and experience with the subject matter.I have always been skeptical of this, now I know it’s bullshit. It’s not only that you are ignorant of basic concepts in how the law works, it’s more importantly that you demonstrate an inability to engage in productive rational conversation.
You don't know shit. Your psychological projection knows no bounds. I know how the law works, you do not. I've studied it. I worked in it. I used it in a variety of capacities. You have not. You're a clown. A pseudo know-it-all expert on all things who loves trying to make themselves sound smart, when you so clearly are not.
You consistently accuse me of sophistry,
Yeah, and I am not the only one either who sees through your bullshit.
implying that this is a reason to not engage with me, but anyone who has ever presented a legal a argument knows that this is what the legal arena is all about.
LOL!!! You clearly do not know the meaning of sophistry. It's all about the lies, not the truth. And the law is about finding the truth, not purporting the lies.
For anyone to thrive in that arena they need to expect it and know how to deal with it. You don’t. When presented with anything you consider sophistry you immediately engage in insults followed by chest pumping. No qualified professional would ever conduct themselves in this way.
I speak to those in the language they know the best, and it is rather effective.
I am retired, so I do not need to be professional about anything. And it is to people like you, IWRA, Rational Madman and others who made me how I am/act on DART. I can change at any minute and be as I would be in person, open-minded, respectful, informative, and empathetic. But none of you deserve it. You get what you dish out.
So no, you are clearly not what you claim. I’m so sorry life didn’t work out the way you hoped. Get over it.
Oh, I am every bit what I said I am, it is not a claim, it is fact.
Life has worked out grandly for me and my wife. Guess you're just jealous since you have to use projection to attack my life.
Sorry, not sorry your life sucks.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
PART ONE:
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>Sure, out of context. The definition I used was provided within the context of the discussion about J6, NOT the St. Floyd Riots of 2020. Big fucking difference. Both events are mutually exclusive, therefore the same definition given (#163) of insurrection does not applyThis is the most transparently hypocritical rebuttal I’ve ever heard. I can’t believe you actually wrote this.Please, enlighten us with your command over the English language and explain why each occurrence gets its own separate definition and how language is supposed to work when we use different definitions with completely different standards in order to compare two different things.
OMG!!! You are so dense it is fucking pathetic. Clearly you have never heard of homonyms!!!!
Two different circumstances can dictate different meanings of the same word you dumbass!!!
"In the children’s book series, Amelia Bedelia, Amelia is often asked to complete tasks in which she takes the instructions literally. For example, she’s asked to dress the chicken. What does she do? Amelia literally puts a little green pair of shorts and a pink top on the chicken.
Was that what her instructions meant? Of course not! She was supposed to prepare the chicken for cooking. But that’s just it: The English language is complex because sometimes the same word can be used in a different context and have a whole new meaning. This is what’s referred to as a homonym "
Was that what her instructions meant? Of course not! She was supposed to prepare the chicken for cooking. But that’s just it: The English language is complex because sometimes the same word can be used in a different context and have a whole new meaning. This is what’s referred to as a homonym "
Proved you wrong, yet agian.
But hey, thanks for playing.
you cannot say with absolutism that not a single person would not be present J6 to rightly protest and voice their grievances in redress to the government.Plenty of people were there for only this purpose.
NO! You clearly inferred every single person there was there for that singular purpose.
"The rioters on J6 would have never been out there let alone have breached the Capitol without Trump’s months long campaign to convince these people the election was stolen and his telling them to be there in J6. Again, they’ve all said this themselves."
What I rebutted stands factually accurate. You cannot say with absolutism that not a single person would not be present J6 and protest and voice their grievances in redress to the government of their own accord. Not every single person there was there "just because Donald Trump told them to do so." It's complete bullshit. People act in their own best self-interests and rarely do so at the behest of others, let alone any one man (or woman). No one has that level of power. No one.
That’s irrelevant to this conversation. Remember when liberals argued that the 2020 riots were “mostly peaceful” and you flipped your shit because you didn’t care about the peaceful protesters, all you wanted to focus on were the burners and looters? Now apply that same standard here.
No, it is very relevant to the discussion; especially when YOU bring it up and then try to ignore your gross error in doing so, so poorly. Peacefull protesters didn't cause over $2 BILLION in damages across the nation. The violent rioters did. The peaceful protesters, though, still committed crimes, nonetheless. Blocking traffic. Disturbed the peace invading restaurants forcing patrons to commit to BLM or they would stay there and yell in your face. So it was not all entirely peaceful, just the MSM painted it that way in order to keep heat of the BLM mantra in and of itself.
January 6th was committed by thousands of rioters, each with their own specific purpose and goal.
Not every single person among those "thousands" of protesters and rioters made it inside.
About time you admitted they had their own motives and were not following Trump's "orders." Glad that's put to rest.
Some were there to commit seditious conspiracy, some were there to hang the VP, some were there to fight with DC police, some were just going with the flow… you’re always going to have someone you can point to who didn’t fit the characterization of that day. That doesn’t take away from the overall picture of what happened.
Oh bullshit. No one person, or even a few, have the power to literally take over the US Government. And they sure as shit were just talking shit with no real intention to hang anyone.
Compared to the St Floyd Riots of 2020, J6 was a walk in the park.
And the rioters of the 2020 riots were all fighting with the police, not some, ALL were, and many tried to or were successful in burning down police stations, destroying police vehicles, so on and so forth. Again, J6 was a walk in the part compared to the 2020 riots.
What makes it an insurrection are the motivations behind it. Specifically, the motivations of the person who organized and cultivated it.
No shit captain obvious. Tell is all something that we don't already do not know.
That would be Donald Trump.
NOPE! Wrong answer.
Every single person involved was following his lead.
Wrong answer again. You already admitted they were there for their own purpose and goals.
"January 6th was committed by thousands of rioters, each with their own specific purpose and goal."
If he announces on November 8th that the election was won by Biden fair and square and prepares for a peaceful transition, no one shows up to Washington, there is no rally, the Capitol is never breached, January 6th is yet another day no one remembers just like every other election cycle. They were there because he very clearly signaled to them that he wanted them there.
So what. There is nothing illegal about that. No more than when BLM or ANTIFA signaled they wanted people to show up and protest along with them. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
It was all part of his plot ...
You need to Losen that tinfoil hat there clown.
I would say the framers of the 14th amendment certainly had this in mind.
You cannot say what the framers intended, you're too ignorant to know one way or the other since you cannot even read, interpret and accurately apply Constitutional Law correctly.
Created:
Any pencil dick here that believes 14:3 actually applied would have challenged me to an official debate by now. Since the chicken 💩 s haven’t, we’ll, that fact pretty much establishes their position is a heaping pile of shit that they know they cannot prove.
I win, anyone contesting loses.
Fuck you very much.
Adieu
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Clearly they didn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t have happened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
How can someone demonstrate prejudice without having information to base a decision on?
We all have information to base a decision on, it's called vicarious experiences.
Created:
FanDick loves sucking dick. So much so he needs that sperm milk to continue not only be the asshole he so clearly is; but also his mouth enjoys being the asshole #2. Fucking faggot.
Created:
- STILL INCONTESTABLE!!!
14th Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
First key legal term in that criteria is "shall": Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive.
Second key term here is "engaged": involved in activity; involved especially in a hostile encounter
Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
The final legal term (phrase) in that criteria is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy": SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.
"The two branches of treason, "levying war," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," are distinct, and do not embody synonymous actions."
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."
"...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power."
President Donald J. Trump did NOT (shall have) directly engage in an armed insurrection "in a hostile encounter" against the United States Constitution for which he gave oath to support. Equally, President Donald J. Trump did NOT give aid and comfort to the enemy since there was no enemy (a foreign power) to give aid and comfort to on January 6, 2020. More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I.emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection. Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riotand/or directly engaging in said riot that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol.
"The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials."
No insurrection, as such no rebellion either.
No enemies (agents of a foreign power) were present at the events of J6 either. Therefore, no enemies for anyone to give aid and comfort thereto.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not apply where President Donald J. Trump is concerned.
He can and will likely serve another term as POTUS.
Created:
False equivalency fallacyYou can’t even spell, let alone understand what hearsay means. Because you’re a dummy.
The foregoing quote was spelled correctly.
You're just a jealous FanDick who sucks dick but cannot suck mine. LOZER!!!
Created:
Stupid circle reasoning jerk thread. waste of space at DART exemplifying a lack of original thinking.
Created:
When i see these TDS threads, it is so unperturbably predictable that YOU are the FanDIck posting this spam shit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Imagine two tribes.
Imagine you're a supporter for pedophilia and communism.
You're a waste of time.
Created:
To disqualify Trump at this point in time, one must make a presumption of guilt.No confederate leader was ever found guilty of insurrection in court yet many were banned from running for office,
False equivalency fallacy, and I also proved you wrong on this. There was one found guilty under 14/3 and barred from office, among other "elected" officials. So fuck off with this asinine retort.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
-->@FLRWAP article say different.
Ditto. But he won't read it let alone acknowledge it.
Cherry picking things they believe support them, doubling down on it in the wake of conflicting data, is all they can do. Deny deny deny and deny some more.
Created:
Posted in:
"A bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone. Some biases are positive and helpful—like choosing to only eat foods that are considered healthy or staying away from someone who has knowingly caused harm. But biases are often based on stereotypes, rather than actual knowledge of an individual or circumstance. Whether positive or negative, such cognitive shortcuts can result in prejudgments that lead to rash decisions or discriminatory practices."
Created:
- STILL INCONTESTABLE!!!
14th Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
First key legal term in that criteria is "shall": Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive.
Second key term here is "engaged": involved in activity; involved especially in a hostile encounter
Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
The final legal term (phrase) in that criteria is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy": SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.
"The two branches of treason, "levying war," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," are distinct, and do not embody synonymous actions."
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."
"...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power."
President Donald J. Trump did NOT (shall have) directly engage in an armed insurrection "in a hostile encounter" against the United States Constitution for which he gave oath to support. Equally, President Donald J. Trump did NOT give aid and comfort to the enemy since there was no enemy (a foreign power) to give aid and comfort to on January 6, 2020. More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I.emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection. Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riotand/or directly engaging in said riot that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol.
"The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials."
No insurrection, as such no rebellion either.
No enemies (agents of a foreign power) were present at the events of J6 either. Therefore, no enemies for anyone to give aid and comfort thereto.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not apply where President Donald J. Trump is concerned.
He can and will likely serve another term as POTUS.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Insurrection Act - read it and learn. POTUS has the authority to call up the national guard in order to suppress insurrections.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thank you for submitting that evidence that the National Guard was offered by the Pentagon. Who is in charge of the Pentagon? The Commander in Chief.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Your arguments refute themselves.
Says the intellectual coward denialist who will never admit they are wrong. Total narcissistic of you.
Your lack of attention to detail and reading comprehension skills refute your banal retorts.
Created:
Posted in:
Two trolls sitting in a tree, K I S S I N G!!!
Suck suck and sucking one another off, making a mess for all to see.
Created:
FanDick is the one who doesn’t comprehend heresay and why it’s more often than not admissible in court.Go suck a dick, FanDick. Everyone here knows that’s what you love to do when you’re not trolling DART with your TDS issues.what a surprise that a racist MAGA Moron is a homophobe. Yet no kids for you. Hmm.
So you admit to liking sucking Dick, got it. LOL!!!
And you misspelled hearsay. Because you’re a dummy
Just for you, FanDick. Because I spelled it correctly elsewhere, and I knew if I misspelled it just once you would see it and comment on it. So predictable.
The reason hearsay is barred for evidence is simple:You have already shown you don’t understand what constitutes hearsay. Because you’re a dummy
Quoting out of context fallacy.
The reason hearsay is barred for evidence is simple: one cannot cross examine the person who is making the statement since that person is not in court. The person in court or the document read is simply repeating what someone else said…and that someone else is not present for cross examination.
I know full well what it is, you do not, clearly, and like your buddy Double Dumber, you too are an intellectual coward denialist.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>The definition of insurrection that you provided is factually inaccurate where the 2020 St Floyd Riots are concerned.And yet I provided the exact same definition from the exact same source you did earlier in post 163.
Sure, out of context. The definition I used was provided within the context of the discussion about J6, NOT the St. Floyd Riots of 2020. Big fucking difference. Both events are mutually exclusive, therefore the same definition given (#163) of insurrection does not apply. Dumbass.
So when you needed to make your argument this definition was fine, but now that it’s inconvenient for you it’s inaccurate.But I’m the dishonest denialist eh?
Wrong. It's called lack of attention to detail and lack of reading comprehension skills on YOUR PART!!!!
I used the correct definition for insurrection in relationship to each respective event(s).
That's why there is more than one definition for insurrection, it depends on the context in which it is to be used that determines the correct definition to be used.
The riots of 2020 were directed specifically at civil authority and the established government in each respective state affected by said violent uprising/revolt against said authority and government(s). "No Justice, No Peace!" Remember.Yes I do, which is irrelevant to the definition of insurrection we both agreed on till it no longer worked for you.
Nope. "we" did not agree on anything. I provided the correct definition as it applied in context to J6. You used the same definition as it applied to the St Floyd Riots of 2020, and I correctly pointed out you were wrong. Different circumstance/events requires a different more apropos definition directly applying to the context of said riots.
It really doesn’t matter though. If the only qualifiers are that they are violent and directed at government, then every violent protest is an insurrection. Either way, J6 was still an insurrection.
It sure does matter! Words have very different meanings depending on the context in which they are used. You used the wrong definition of insurrection where the Floyd riots are concerned. Your fault. Your ignorance. Your problem. And now you're making up your own definition to skirt the issue. Pathetic.
They didn't need a cult leader to do what they organized and executed. You're pulling straws out of thin air with the Maxine Waters referenceThe reference and point clearly went over your head. The rioters on J6 would have never been out there let alone have breached the Capitol without Trump’s months long campaign to convince these people the election was stolen and his telling them to be there in J6. Again, they’ve all said this themselves.
Oh bullshit. Your crystal ball is clearly dead and needs new batteries, cause you cannot say with absolutism that not a single person would not be present J6 to rightly protest and voice their grievances in redress to the government. You have heard of the 1A, right!?! And they breached the Capitol due to the egging on by undercover FBI agents and others in the crowds, and Capitol Police moved barricades, opened doors, and just stood around after the breach happened. All of this is documented in video evidence that you cannot refute. Trump did not hold a gun to anyone's head and forced them to breach the Capitol, they did that of their own choosing.
Not one rioter in 2020 burned or looted because Maxine Waters told them to.
Sure, they did, and in every other riot thereafter. She gave them carte blanche to do it going forward.
Just like how the Democrats with their defend the police, no cash bail, no punishment for criminals have given them carte blanche to commit more crimes. Again, all documented video evidence of the crime, slime, and drug addicts ruining democrat ran cities across the nation.
Do you understand this difference? If not let me try an analogy…
Stop trying to use analogies when you do not even know what they are let alone how to use them. They're ridiculous and complete ignoratio elenchi arguments on your part.
There is no basis in fact to substantiate such an asinine claim as "an organized plot driven by the president of the United States."The J6 committee already established this.
No, they did not. Saying so doesn't make it so. Especially with a so-called committee ran entirely by democrats suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome locking out any and all Republican input. It was an entirely one-sided shit show that didn't even include contradictory video evidence that refuted much of their asinine assertions. But hey, keep drinking that Kool-Aid, sooner or later you'll end up in Jonestown.
What part of this did you fail to comprehend?The entirety of the left are emphatically arguing both as a reason to disqualify Trump from 2024. Insurrection AND giving aid or comfort to the enemy.The part where what “the entire left” is doing has anything to do with our discussion of your legal argument.
You're so dense it's pathetic.
But I'm glad that's settled, you can now stop arguing that Trump is excluded because he is not a foreigner.What in the flying fucktard special needs crap are you babbling on about here!??!The part where you said this genius:The entire point of this amendment was to stop americans who engaged in rebellion from holding office in our government…No, double dumbass, it was meant for both Americans AND foreigners from infiltrating our government to destroy it.
There's that lack of reading comprehension coming out again.
Nowhere in my statement did I say, directly or indirectly, that Trump is excluded because he is not a foreigner.
You have to be a real special kind of stupid to claim such an asinine thing.
The foreigner part applies to the "aid and comfort" part of the amendment.
And it applies to Americans or those who have had already served in an official government capacity, then acted against the interests of the country/Constitution, would be barred from future office.
You will never prevail in this subject matter.
Everything I posted in my analysis stands as 100% factually accurate.
Your rebuttals are purely childish and amateurish in nature.
You simply couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag where this subject is concerned.
But as everyone here knows, you enjoy trying to look smart with your banal sophistry and never ever will admit you are wrong.
That's why you are, without a doubt, the biggest intellectual coward denialist at DART .
Created:
10-20 people who allegedly had a tool that could have been used as a weapon among a couple thousand people an insurrection/rebellion does not one make.
Created:
Citing my credentials gives away personal information.Bullshit. You have no credentials to speak of.
Easy to claim, harder to prove.
Prove I have no credentials.
Can’t, and you know you can’t.
Enjoy that plate of bullshit you’re vomiting.
Created:
The reason hearsay is barred for evidence is simple: one cannot cross examine the person who is making the statement since that person is not in court. The person in court or the document read is simply repeating what someone else said…and that someone else is not present for cross examination.
Created:
Back from a short trip.
FanDick is the one who doesn’t comprehend heresay and why it’s more often than not admissible in court.
Go suck a dick, FanDick. Everyone here knows that’s what you love to do when you’re not trolling DART with your TDS issues.
Created:
JFC, this subject was already covered and I shut it down with actual legal facts and proper analysis of the 14th Section 3. Again…
14th Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
First key legal term in that criteria is "shall": Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive.
Second key term here is "engaged": involved in activity; involved especially in a hostile encounter
Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
The final legal term (phrase) in that criteria is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy": SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.
"The two branches of treason, "levying war," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," are distinct, and do not embody synonymous actions."
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."
"...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power."
President Donald J. Trump did NOT (shall have) directly engage in an armed insurrection "in a hostile encounter" against the United States Constitution for which he gave oath to support. Equally, President Donald J. Trump did NOT give aid and comfort to the enemy since there was no enemy (a foreign power) to give aid and comfort to on January 6, 2020. More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I.emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection. Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riotand/or directly engaging in said riot that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol.
"The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials."
No insurrection, as such no rebellion either.
No enemies (agents of a foreign power) were present at the events of J6 either. Therefore, no enemies for anyone to give aid and comfort thereto.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not apply where President Donald J. Trump is concerned.
He can and will likely serve another term as POTUS.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Troll. Start a new thread with this nonsense vs obfuscating this one with your unsubstantiated ignorant opinions that have absolutely nothing to do with 14/3.
Created:
Citing my credentials gives away personal information. I wasn’t born yesterday, and certainly not as stupid as you. If I really truly wanted to find you and what a real life prick that you are, I could with all the personal info you’ve given at DART. Thing is, you’re jsut not that special enough for me to waste my time on the liberal low life narcissist pompous pos that you are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I'm currently researching what you suggested just so that way I can become more familiarized with your stance. However, I am aware many animals can become traumatized and failed to thrive because of an emotional event that occurred to them. Assuming we do not consider these animals autonomous, I hardly believe there is an association. Nonetheless, I am considering it.
Please do not bring animals into this. That's as asinine as the alphabet (LGBTQIAS+-) claiming their lifestyle choice is okay because "animals" do it too. Totally idiotic and nonsensical.
Created:
Unsure recollections without anything factual to back it up, especially when the others from whom they claim to have heard the statements being conveyed from, are not present to affirm or deny said statements = hearsay.Bullshit. First hand testimony under oath is called evidence
No, it is not. It is called HEARSAY and for good reason.
Educate yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>Speaking of subjective, nonsensical is such a word. Regardless, I'm on this forum to learn. If you believe contrary to what I say, then you have the right to post articles that prove me wrong. If I wanted to learn all the answers myself I would, but I'm here instead. I have researched substantially in every topic that I bring forward for discussion. I'm hoping that you and others could present to me something that I could not research which is personal and individual opinions and perspectives that perhaps I had not considered.
Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you really that dense!?!
I provided you with a direct, affirmed, logical, and well supported answer to your query with the underlining question of this thread. You ignored it. Gave me some word salad response. Gave you another clue/hint to find answers far more legit than anonymous individuals on an online debate forum, and you scoff at me with sophomoric banality.
The only nonsensical banter here is coming from one source, you. This threaded topic is asinine. It's egotistical. It's misogynistic.
Only a truly curious person wanting to discover the truth would do their own personal research, first, before coming to a place like this.
If you really wanted legit discussion, you would have engaged in the DEBATE side of this forum. Not within the forum.
It is clear that you have interests in the realm of psychology, but your efforts are amateurish and rudimentary.
You have a long way to go.
Yes, I have an academic background in psychology. So, I see where you "think" you are going with this, but you're off on the wrong foot.
If you are truly here to learn, then grow up and accept the constructive criticism. Don't be a dick about it.
Created:
“Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows corroborated Cipollone’s recollections about Trump’s eldest daughter on Jan. 6.“White House counsel’s office wanted there to be a stronger statement out to condemn the rioters. I’m confident in that,” Hutchinson testified. “I’m confident that Ivanka Trump wanted there to be a statement to condemn the rioters.”
Unsure recollections without anything factual to back it up, especially when the others from whom they claim to have heard the statements being conveyed from, are not present to affirm or deny said statements = hearsay.
Created:
so do you agree that the real issue is 'proximate v general' causation?No. The only issue here is whether Trump's responsibility for J6 meets the legal criteria.
It doesn't and I have firmly established that incontestable legal fact.
you argue that trump in some detached sense caused the riot therefore he should be responsible for it. should the policeman that murdered george floyd also be responsbible for all the riots that happened afterwards? you have to draw a line some where. the rioters did their own thing.The rioters absolutely were not doing their own thing, and Trump is not responsible in some detached sense, he is directly responsible.
No, he is not.
Maxine Waters is more culpable for inciting leftists who have accosted innocent people trying to force them to adhere to the Burn Loot Murder mantra if Chauvin would be acquitted. That rhetoric was specific and meets the legal criteria, Trump telling people to fight like hell (i.e., protest sternly) but peacefully and with dignity =/= incitement to violence. He never said get confrontational and in their faces like Waters did. You are delusional.
It would already be absurd to suggest Trump was unaware of the prospect of violence yet decided to proceed anyway.
Did he have some magical crystal ball no one else did to be so aware of such a prospect? Where is this crystal ball? Have you seen it? Used it? Has any study been conducted upon said ball to determine its usage during the days leading up to J6 that would conclusively prove Trump, as you claim, was fully aware of the pending violent riotous behavior of over 1,000 different people from all walks of life that day at the Capitol. Please, share with us all your know-it-all Sauron knowledge and legal expertise. (ROTFLMAO)
Over the next 3 hours as the attack unfolded Trump did absolutely nothing to stop the attack
Oh, prey tell Mr Dunning Kruger know-it-all Security Expert. What was Trump supposed to do to collectively stop over 1,000 people with individual thoughts, emotions, motives and choices to cease and desist on the spot, like the flip of a switch. Well??
Created:
-->
@Double_R
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>WRONG! It was NOT my definition. It was a LEGAL definition provided by "TheFreeDictionary" for rebellionGenius, "your" definition doesn't mean you wrote it, it means you provided it and are more importantly using it to make your case.
That's not how the grammar works when you use a possessive pronoun (or even possessive adjective) like 'your.'
You should have said, "The definition for rebellion that you cited (or provided) via the FreeDictionary.com is..." instead how you poorly worded it using a possessive pronoun/adjective version of 'your.'
You do not have to be a law professor or constitutional scholar to recognize basic plain English.And yet the law is never written in "basic plain English."That part wasn't about the law, I was breaking down your definition.
Again, not "my" definition.
You do believe basic English applies to English definitions right?
Circle jerk.
Proportionality makes a huge difference when establishing when an action is merely a riot vs an insurrection. Which is precisely why none of the 2020 riots were ever declared an insurrection despite the glaring fact they targeted government buildings, offices, policies, procedures and threatened the lives of civil and federal employees.The 2020 riots were never declared an insurrection because they don't meet the definition."insurrection. noun [ C/U ] /ˌɪn·səˈrek·ʃən/ an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government or ruler and take control of the country, usually by violence."
The definition of insurrection that you provided is factually inaccurate where the 2020 St Floyd Riots are concerned. This is a more accurate layman definition:
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
And the factually accurate legal definition:
A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
3. By.... And in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.
4.-2 That, whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States to call forth the militia of such state, or of any other state or states, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of congress.
The riots of 2020 were directed specifically at civil authority and the established government in each respective state affected by said violent uprising/revolt against said authority and government(s). "No Justice, No Peace!" Remember.
It had nothing to do with proportionality. Whether it is an insurrection depends on the motivations and goals of the offenders. The 2020 rioters had no intentions of "defeating their government" or to "take control of the country".
Or defeating a civil authority. Capitol Hill Occupied Protest - Wikipedia
A rose by any other name...
They weren't out there because their cult leader told them to be, not one single person who was arrested for their actions tried to claim they were only listening to Maxine Waters. This was a matter of civil unrest sparked by a viral video, not an organized plot driven by the president of the United States. Two entirely different things.
They didn't need a cult leader to do what they organized and executed. You're pulling straws out of thin air with the Maxine Waters reference, but having brought her into it, what she did, on more than once occasion, meets the definition of incitement.
"In the days after Rep. Maxine Waters told demonstrators in Minnesota that they should “get more confrontational” if Derek Chauvin was acquitted, Republicans have called for her censure or outright removal from Congress — claiming she was inciting violence."
Her rhetoric was loud and clearly inciting violence whereas Trump's speech to protest outside the Capitol peacefully and with dignity failed to meet the definition of incitement.
There is no basis in fact to substantiate such an asinine claim as "an organized plot driven by the president of the United States." Just stupid. Utterly stupid of you to say.
The entirety of the left are emphatically arguing both as a reason to disqualify Trump from 2024. Insurrection AND giving aid or comfort to the enemy."shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"Do you know what "or" means?
Do you know what the middle finger means?
What part of this did you fail to comprehend?
The entirety of the left are emphatically arguing both as a reason to disqualify Trump from 2024. Insurrection AND giving aid or comfort to the enemy.
For example:
"The suit accuses Trump of inciting and aiding the mob that stormed the Capitol two years ago."
Do you know what "and" means?
it was meant for both Americans AND foreigners from infiltrating our government to destroy it.The point, or inspiration for the amendment was to stop Americans, of course they would not exclude foreigners.
You DAFT!?!
Redundantly:
What does Aid and Comfort to the Enemy mean?
What does Aid and Comfort to the Enemy mean?
"The two branches of treason, "levying war," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," are distinct, and do not embody synonymous actions."
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."
"...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power."
FFS, how many times do I have to keep posting this POINT OF FACT before you will grasp the truth of it??????
But I'm glad that's settled, you can now stop arguing that Trump is excluded because he is not a foreigner.
What in the flying fucktard special needs crap are you babbling on about here!??!
Trump being a foreigner or not has what to do with the price of tea in China, exactly!?!
Your ignorant sophistry proves you an ignorant narcissist. That's all.Live with that.Loser.You haven't proven a thing except how childish you are. Not one argument you made stands.
That's EXACTLY what an intellectual coward denialist would say.
Every single argument I made is legally factually accurate and undisputed.
I've proven you wrong over and over again within this thread.
You're just butt hurt that I have wiped the virtual floor with your idiocy and simply refuse to admit it.
Mr. Dunning_Kruger. That is your name from now on. And that is how I will address you going forward.
Created:
If it’s so well studied and documented, then link to the evidence to support YOUR claim. The burden of proof is in you to prove YOUR claim, not me. So JC all you want Mr FanDick.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Look up the term autonomy, then read a few APA articles on it in relationship to trauma.
You'll get better answers and learn more that way then instigating purely subjective unsubstantiated nonsensical personal opinions on the matter.
Adieu
Created:
Easy to claim, harder to prove.You are the one claiming Trump “offered” the National Guard to protect the Capital.Prove it. You are a liar.“The Army major general testified that the day before the insurrection, he received a letter with an "unusual" restriction on deploying any quick-reaction force service members unless granted explicit approval by then-Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy”
You made an unsubstantiated counterclaim; the burden of proof is on you to prove that counterclaim.
Who sent the letter?
How was he, one man, going to stop the riot?You are being ridiculous. He was asked (by his own daughter, Kevin McCarthy and several others) to call off the attackers. He refused.
No, you are being ridiculous in your fallacious characterization of what Trump did (or did not do) that day.
Where is the evidence to back of your claim he was asked by those people, and documented evidence that he refused.
Easy to make these claims, harder to prove.
Yes, they did, and it is cited within my comment discrediting the claim 14/3Your citation doesn’t say the FBI declared J6 was not an insurrection. You are lying.“The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials”This is meaningless. It’s subjective. It’s anonymous. And it certainly doesn’t quote the FBI saying anything like what you are proposing.
It's not subjective, it is specific to the investigation. Again, no one has ever been charged with insurrection or rebellion. Period.
Since this Washington Examiner fish wrapper article, several people have been convicted of seditious conspiracy and given long prison sentences.
Oh, how cute, a genetic fallacy. Pathetic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Why is a voluntary act fine, but the same act unvoluntary is traumatic?
We all have autonomy, and whether you are male or female, having the control over your autonomy being taken from you is traumatic.
Rape of a woman = traumatic
Torture of a POW = traumatic
Home invasion = traumatic
Car accident = traumatic
So on and so forth.
Anything that disrupts our internal and external sense of control over our person and the areas we consider safe = trauma.
Created:
Wrong. Trump offered the National Guard to protect the Capitol and Pelosi said no.That’s a lie. Trump didn’t offer the National Guard and Pelosi didn’t say no because it was not offered.
Easy to claim, harder to prove.
Trump did what he could before J6 happened, so what the fuck was he going to do that just wouldn't be shot down anyways.That’s ridiculous. He sat and watch it on TV and did nothing to stop the attack
How was he, one man, going to stop the riot? Please, enlighten us all with your gastly wisdom on what effective strategy would have put the breaks on J6 via Trump. Well?
which is precisely why the FBI clearly stipulated that J6 was NOT [an] insurrection.That’s a lie. The FBI never stipulated, declared or announced J6 was not an insurrection.
Yes, they did, and it is cited within my comment discrediting the claim 14/3 can be uses against Trump.
You're just being an intellectual coward denialist.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines “insurrection” as: “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence”
By that definition, there was no “insurrection” at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the FBI. Reuters reports:
The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
…
"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."
".....but the FBI found “no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside.”
Created:
THIS ARGUED POSITION STANDS 100% FACTUALLY ACCURATE TO DATE OF THIS THREAD:
14th Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
First key legal term in that criteria is "shall": Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive.
Second key term here is "engaged": involved in activity; involved especially in a hostile encounter
Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
The final legal term (phrase) in that criteria is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy": SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.
"The two branches of treason, "levying war," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," are distinct, and do not embody synonymous actions."
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."
"...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power."
President Donald J. Trump did NOT (shall have) directly engage in an armed insurrection "in a hostile encounter" against the United States Constitution for which he gave oath to support. Equally, President Donald J. Trump did NOT give aid and comfort to the enemy since there was no enemy (a foreign power) to give aid and comfort to on January 6, 2020. More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I. emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection. Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riot and/or directly engaging in said riot that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol.
"The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials."
No insurrection, as such no rebellion either.
No enemies (agents of a foreign power) were present at the events of J6 either. Therefore, no enemies for anyone to give aid and comfort thereto.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not apply where President Donald J. Trump is concerned.
He can and will likely serve another term as POTUS.
Created:
-->@Double_RBecause of this I predict it will go up to the supreme court and fail on those grounds.Trump watched the insurrection on TV from the White House. Many people in person and by phone implored him to take action to stop it, He did nothing for 3 hours.
Wrong. Trump offered the National Guard to protect the Capitol and Pelosi said no.
During the riots the National Guard was requested by an Ex-Capitol Police Chief (forced to resign at Pelosi's request) 6x and was denied.
No Congressional official requested the use of the National Guard.
J6 was an internal government operation designed to discredit Trump even further, and it worked as they intended/hoped it would.
Trump did what he could before J6 happened, so what the fuck was he going to do that just wouldn't be shot down anyways.
It is not a question that he helped the insurrection with his inaction. He should be banned from office under Article 14.
It most certainly is as it is a stipulated criterion of the 14th, and given the fact that he did not "shall have engaged in" the rioting, he is not liable, period. The people present made their own choice to do what they did, they are personally accountable for those choices. Trump isn't. Your claim here is ignorant and a laughable joke.
He was impeached and should have been convicted by the Senate but there were too many cowards who put their own political careers ahead of the country.
So, what if he was impeached. So have many before him. Doesn't mean shit nor does it have any relevance to the 14th claim.
You're just too stupid to realize how stupid you truly are on this subject matter.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
that's what you're doing you're doing a bunch of gymnastics and loop de loops. i mean, you're super smart and usually right on most issues, but it's pretty clear on this issue you are too covered in bias, to think objectively.
First truly intelligent thing you've said so far, and I cannot help but agree with this 110%.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
-->@n8nrgimthen it boils down to originalism v living constitution.That's not at all what I just argued.It doesn't matter whether we look at this from an originalist approach or not, the amendment does not restrict it's own usage anywhere near as specifically as TWS is claiming.
And yet it does with a very clear set of specific demarcated criteria in order to employ it.
And ironically, he is the one arguing for a living document with his ever evolving definition of arms.
WRONG! I have never changed my definition of arms; it has been utterly consistent.
Again, the passage as written is extremely vague and it is so on purpose.
Nope. It is unequivocally clear as the sky is blue. To laymen like you it's as you describe because you just do not know how to read it, let alone understand it.
No constitutional amendment is intended to be all encompassing and/or to have the foresight to consider every possible circumstance.
And yet many to most are intended to be all encompassing with the foresight to consider every possible circumstance. Absolute terms like "shall" are used for a reason, but you simply will not acknowledge that, let alone comprehend that fact.
The point of a constitution and it's (sic) amendments is to convey ideas.
Wrong. That is NOT what a Constitution of a government is created to do, "create ideas." Such an ignorant statement on your part. Demonstrates that you clearly know nothing about the law, let alone how to properly read it, interpret it, and apply it soundly.
TWS's entire argument is based on the notion that the amendment was intended to be all encompassing and using that notion to justify absurd techinal (sic) disqualifications regardless of whether the idea in question applies. That's not how it works. He claims to have the credentials to argue the law yet he doesn't understand it's most basic concepts.
It is to YOU who doesn't understand the law and its basic concepts in theory, argument (i.e., legislative), passage, and implementation.
again, it depends on if you think he should be responsible for that or not.It's not debatable whether he was responsible. The rioters themselves all said they were there because Trump told them to be there, and we had been saying his actions were going to result in something like this for months beforehand. Arguing he's not responsible is no more logically defensible than arguing the earth is flat.
Yes, it is debatable, because the accusation has been incitement.
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
Trump's speech fails to meet this definition and is in fact protected by it.
Who gives a flying fuck what the rioters say. They could say the green ferry in the Absinthe bottle told them to be there, what they say is subjective and wholeheartedly ignorant. If Trump said to his followers, jump off the nearest bridge to your death, I highly doubt there will be a line at the nearest bridge lining up to jump off because "Trump told us to."
Comparing legal culpability to incitement of a riot to arguing the earth is flat is absurd. Just further demonstration of your penchant for the Dunning Kruger Effect.
-->@IwantRooseveltagainTrump watched the insurrection on TV from the White House. Many people in person and by phone implored him to take action to stop it, He did nothing for 3 hours.It is not a question that he helped the insurrection with his inaction. He should be banned from office under Article 14.He was impeached and should have been convicted by the Senate but there were too many cowards who put their own political careers ahead of the country.I agree with every word of this
Proving once again your flagrant ignorance of the subject matter at hand.
Created: