SectionC3

I have a feeling the Williams thing may change. Because at this point it can’t get much worse and I wonder if they wouldn’t mind having him learn on the job in the hopes that there is improvement by the middle of the season.

It's almost like someone here said the same thing days ago. Enjoy, hoaxers: https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/19/politics/donald-trump-fourteenth-amendment-2024-race/index.html

It's not time to "break glass in case of emergency," but it's fair to start thinking about what blunt object to use for such an activity. I'm fine with mixing in Edwards and/or Bates to see what it looks like. At this point, I don't see the harm. I also wonder if they'll explore the trade market for that position, not with the intent of making a move immediately, but to gauge the price in case there's some glass that has to be smashed.

Hoax. In point of fact Trump will be in jail in Fulton County very soon.

That’s sort of my point. Populists are their own thing. They aren’t really D or R now. Should have their own branding, too, for their own benefit. Probably would do well in a lot of elections, especially if they cut out the conspiracy theory nonsense.

Realistically I struggle to see how someone can be a populist Republican. The two are at odds. I don't have an issue with this song. Personally, I think it's a lot of whining, but he's entitled to whine. What makes me shake my head is that conservatives have seized upon as some sort of anthem. I don't know how the anti-capitalist tone in there meshes with the traditional view of the Republican Party about unions and the Trump tax cuts for the rich. Maybe conservatives like the parts about picking on fat people on welfare (a large number of whom are probably white Trumpers, anyway). I don't know. But a populist Republican is just someone who is confused.

His house did get struck by lightning. So there’s that.

That’s the best you have?

Hoax. It’s not vague. Plain as day, as a matter of fact. CRS—nonpartisan congressional staff—happens to agree with me. Keep on trying and I’ll keep on cooking you and your MAGA pals.

Let us know when you have something other than a MAGA euphemism to add. Or, better yet, take that civics class so that someday you might have something constructive to contribute.

Meaningless drivel. In point of fact you’re the one who doesn’t want to follow the constitution, and therefore who wants to transform our country. You got cooked and everyone with half a brain knows it. Don’t like what the constitution says? Get a convention together and do something about it. Until then, stop complaining and try taking a civics class or two.

And if you’d read it you’d understand that the Senate debate addressed that question and rendered obvious the point that the drafters intended for the disability to applied to an executive in an appropriate circumstance. Maybe if you read it you’d also have time to realize that there’s nothing in the amendment that precludes application of the disability to an executive. We can do this all day, and I can keep on cooking you and all of your MAGA pals, or you can just accept the reality that this clause could be a problem for Trump. Not because I want it to be, not because you and your MAGA colleagues don’t want it to be, but because that’s how things happen to shake out based upon a constitutional provision drafted about 150 years ago.

Quite the opposite. You may wish to look at the Congressional Research Services paper. Different part of the constitution, big boy.

Hoax. Bottom line: what is required is not a conviction. Otherwise, the amendment would have said as much. (That’s a conservative interpretation, FYI.). It’s uncertain whether anything in the form of judicial action is required; in theory, this clause could be self-executing. I don’t ascribe to that theory, and the way the disability probably is asserted and/or attaches is through an act of the body in question (such as Congress unseating a member), through a declaratory judgment action (someone with standing sues and gets a judgment in a court of law directing application of the disability), or through a civil proceeding seeking to invalidate an act of a “disabled” holder of an enumerated office. (The third way is a pretty obtuse manner in which to approach the issue.). And, if you bothered to think about this objectively for a moment, there’s a good reason why the conviction language wasn’t included in the amendment. This is a civil war era amendment designed to keep traitors out of office. To require a conviction for application would have been a ridiculous and unworkable approach that would have either demanded hundreds of thousands of prosecutions of people who might possibly become enumerated officeholders, or that would have rendered the amendment largely toothless. So it is today that Trump doesn’t have to be convicted of a damn thing for the disability to apply. Such are the ups and downs of the plain language of the federal constitution.

Hoax. An appointment was made. The Coach is blocking it for a reason unrelated to its suitability. And there we have it.

Again, words matter. Application of the disability does not turn on a conviction. That’s simply not said in the amendment. If you bothered to think about the historical context for the amendment, it would be pretty obvious why. Interestingly, while you were busy watching OAN and complaining about how your laziness is someone else’s fault, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service updated its research with respect to this issue in 2022. And, there, it notes, among other things, that a civil action typically has been used to apply the disability bar in this amendment. Which means that, in simple terms that you still probably can’t understand, the burden of proof is lower (perhaps preponderance of the evidence, perhaps clear and convincing evidence) than in a criminal proceeding (beyond a reasonable doubt). So you read it here first: this is the path by which the establishment Republicans will nuke Trump. If that fool somehow manages to win the primary, then the conversation about whether this amendment will apply will start to arise. That determination probably will flow from a civil proceeding that very well could end up at the Supreme Court (and, perhaps, later Congress, which would be a nightmare for Republicans), and it’s going to end Trump’s ability to hold an enumerated office. Hoax. Take a civics class and learn about reconstruction.

It doesn’t say one must be convicted of those acts, dummy. That’s the point. MAGA is trying to read (ironic, I know) something into the amendment that doesn’t exist. The correct standard is found to “have engaged in” such acts.

Hoax. Literacy counts. And words matter. Unless you’re MAGA, in which case you just make things up about the Constitution and pretend that you’re right.

Hoax. You specifically said the 14A requires a conviction of engagement in such activities as a predicate to application. That’s what you have to (and can’t) put your finger on, hoax man. This is where it all began, hoax man:

So could Tuberville. And the consequence of his action puts our security at risk.

Apparently they got tired of not backing the blue following the insurrection and decided to turn on another group that risks life and limb for our country.

Hoax. You were told. You still can’t put your finger on the part of the 14A that requires a conviction to trigger application of the elected office bar. That’s because it doesn’t exist. And you got your answer as to why, to the extent one was to go beyond the plain language of that amendment and review the construction of that text, your point is misguided and frankly stupid. Maybe you can find one of those continuing adult education places and get some help there with a civics class. Hoax. Different issue. All Pro Bills Man has a little reading comprehension problem about which I reminded him. Winner winner chicken dinner. He’s cooked. He had the docs, he knew he had the docs, and he tried to hide the docs. Adios to that fatso.

How’s your study of the constitution coming?

The consequences of not prosecuting are far worse.

He never said anything of the sort.