 |
 |
General Election 2024
Poll
 | 2 votes (15.38%) | ||
| | 1 vote (7.69%) | ||
| | 2 votes (15.38%) | ||
| | 7 votes (53.84%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 2 votes (15.38%) | ||
| | 2 votes (15.38%) | ||
| No votes (0%) |
13 members have voted
| March 5th, 2024 at 5:00:10 AM permalink | |
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 189 Posts: 18764 |
No leader of an insurrection is going to make it easy to charge him, unless he's up for direct confrontation and elimination. I consider it the same problem as with getting mob bosses convicted. They couch their orders as suggestions, ideas, favors or just outright code words. They hide behind intermediaries. Or simply stir up mobs by delegitimizing the entity they are fighting like the justice system if you're working politics. So, the idea, that we can easily stop an insurrectionist leader doesn't seem likely to me. You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |
| March 5th, 2024 at 5:07:29 AM permalink | |
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 189 Posts: 18764 | Some people say when Trump asked the Georgia official for votes, it was a violation. I can argue he didn't ask anything illegal. "hey I asked him to find me $20,000 dollars, not rob a bank." would be the same idea. I didn't ask him to make up votes, but to recount or whatever he could do. I'm innocent. Nobody makes a direct reference if they can help it. You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |
| March 5th, 2024 at 6:02:58 AM permalink | |
| RonC Member since: Nov 7, 2012 Threads: 8 Posts: 2510 |
Well, it shouldn't be an easy to convict someone of insurrection. Make a case, get an indictment, and prosecute him. Lots of things aren't "easy" to convict people for doing, but great prosecutors make cases all the time when they have the evidence to do so. There are times when something is very close to a line but does not cross that line. I wish we weren't faced with either issue and both of the leading candidates were not running. Differing reasons (so it is not one of those dastardly both sides things) but I think we'd be better off with neither one of them in the race. Absent a way to convict or disqualify, the President's campaign needs to focus on messaging that will beat Trump. That is they way forward. The courts are a distraction until something gets to trial. The President can wait on them to take care of things, but I don't think it is a good idea. |
| March 5th, 2024 at 6:21:17 AM permalink | |
| Mission146 Administrator Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 23 Posts: 4147 |
It's a minor point, but to your first paragraph, Constitutionally, the Senate would actually have to specifically disqualify him from holding future office. Impeaching him (which is essentially convicting him on the grounds of Impeachment) and removing him does not automatically disqualify from future office. "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman |
| March 5th, 2024 at 8:00:41 AM permalink | |
| RonC Member since: Nov 7, 2012 Threads: 8 Posts: 2510 |
You are right. It is a huge point. I neglected to re-read the impeachment process again before I wrote that. I have seen that requirement and did not remember it. I do wonder if, based on the Section 3 language of the 14th amendment, that necessity might not be another question for the SC if a person was convicted by the Senate specifically of insurrection or rebellion. I think that they need to make a law to meet the standard the Court but it needs to be done without "targeting"...which describes the whole point of the the Raskin move--get rid of Trump. |
| March 5th, 2024 at 8:50:16 AM permalink | |
| JimRockford Member since: Sep 18, 2015 Threads: 2 Posts: 971 | First let me say that I have no disagreement wit SCOTUS opinion on removal of Trump from a state ballot. However in my opinion whether or not he was charged with insurrection is irrelevant. When the 14th Amendment was ratified there was no specific federal law defining the charge of insurrection. The federal law that could now be used to charge someone with insurrection (18 U.S. Code § 2383) was passed in 1948. The mind hungers for that on which it feeds. |
| March 5th, 2024 at 8:59:31 AM permalink | |
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 189 Posts: 18764 | Credit to Biden
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |
| March 5th, 2024 at 9:12:24 AM permalink | |
| RonC Member since: Nov 7, 2012 Threads: 8 Posts: 2510 |
True...but there was an actual insurrection to look to for who should be disqualified. People swore an oath to another government to overthrow the UA government. It is a little harder when you try to define a protest as an insurrection. Perhaps it was an attempt. Perhaps he started it. Perhaps he wanted it. The problem is it is not that clear in spite of all the protestations saying it was because those holding that position think it was. |
| March 5th, 2024 at 9:26:17 AM permalink | |
| RonC Member since: Nov 7, 2012 Threads: 8 Posts: 2510 |
I am generally in favor of getting rid of, or lowering, junk fees. The bigger impact for many of those paying late is the impact of interest rate increases that often take effect. A $10,000 balance at 19.9% interest would cost about $166 in interest a month. A $10,000 balance at 29.9% interest as a penalty for being late (this is often on your agreement forms) would cost $249. I guess it might not matter if they are already late and at that rate... |
| March 5th, 2024 at 10:32:47 AM permalink | |
| ams288 Member since: Apr 21, 2016 Threads: 29 Posts: 12538 |
Resort fees next please! “A straight man will not go for kids.” - AZDuffman |