Is Trump constitutionally barred from being POTUS again?

#576
#576
FLVOL_79 said:
I enjoy how much you all unintentionally have in common with the Taliban. My favorite though is your recent accidental nazisim 😄
Click to expand...
Stay focused on the question, goober. You criticized Dems as the party of participation trophies. Are civil war monuments anything other than participation trophies? I mean, they're there to honor the side that participated, but lost, right?
 
#577
#577
evillawyer said:
Stay focused on the question, goober. You criticized Dems as the party of participation trophies. Are civil war monuments anything other than participation trophies? I mean, they're there to honor the side that participated, but lost, right?
Click to expand...
by that logic, all Vietnam memorials need to be removed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#578
#578
evillawyer said:
Stay focused on the question, goober. You criticized Dems as the party of participation trophies. Are civil war monuments anything other than participation trophies? I mean, they're there to honor the side that participated, but lost, right?
Click to expand...
Most memorials are participation trophies, unless you're using that term specifically to mean "consolation trophies for losers."

By that token, monuments to Native American warriors could be called "participation trophies " Because they lost. Custer gets a monument because his side won even in the end though he lost his final battle.

Or do we judge the appropriateness of trophies according the the morality behind the cause regardless of outcome? If the American Civil War had been solely about states' rights vs. federal power, the right to secede if dissatisfied with government, economic issues such as tariffs, etc. and chattel slavery had not existed, would monuments to the losers still be considered inappropriate?

With the American Revolution, large numbers of colonists were either indifferent or pro-British. Would monuments to the British be dismissed as "participation trophies" since their side eventually surrendered?

Are monuments to slaveowners appropriate simply because their side defeated the British in the late 1700's? Or do they get the benefit of moral equivalence since their side won?
 
#579
#579
evillawyer said:
Stay focused on the question, goober. You criticized Dems as the party of participation trophies. Are civil war monuments anything other than participation trophies? I mean, they're there to honor the side that participated, but lost, right?
Click to expand...
They are memorials. I've never seen a single one glorifying what they did. Seems you don't get out much. You should wheel yourself through Gettysburg one day and learn some history.

If their sole intent was to hurt the feelings of people who adhere to victim culture (which didn't exist then) then mission accomplished. Your feelings don't matter Karen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, Vol since 77, JOEY’S ALL VOL !!! and 1 other person
#585
#585
jmacvols1 said:
Click to expand...


Two things.

First, the Court whatever it does should rule unanimously and specifically state that it is not commenting on whether Trump engaged in insurrection or not.

Second, I think Trumpsters need to recognize that, by Trump's logic, if the Court rules in his favorite it is illegitimate because the Court is heavily conservative and he appointed 3 of them. Per Trump, himself, it is not a valid ruling.
 
#586
#586
lawgator1 said:
Two things.

First, the Court whatever it does should rule unanimously and specifically state that it is not commenting on whether Trump engaged in insurrection or not.

Second, I think Trumpsters need to recognize that, by Trump's logic, if the Court rules in his favorite it is illegitimate because the Court is heavily conservative and he appointed 3 of them. Per Trump, himself, it is not a valid ruling.
Click to expand...
I could care less, it is binding. Like yall like to say..any means necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#587
#587
lawgator1 said:
Two things.

First, the Court whatever it does should rule unanimously and specifically state that it is not commenting on whether Trump engaged in insurrection or not.

Second, I think Trumpsters need to recognize that, by Trump's logic, if the Court rules in his favorite it is illegitimate because the Court is heavily conservative and he appointed 3 of them. Per Trump, himself, it is not a valid ruling.
Click to expand...

It should be left up to States, as it is with most issues. Sometimes, in a Republic, individual States do things other States dont like. Is what it is. The last thing we need is the Feds dictating election law to States.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77 and hog88
#588
#588
lawgator1 said:
Two things.

First, the Court whatever it does should rule unanimously and specifically state that it is not commenting on whether Trump engaged in insurrection or not.

Second, I think Trumpsters need to recognize that, by Trump's logic, if the Court rules in his favorite it is illegitimate because the Court is heavily conservative and he appointed 3 of them. Per Trump, himself, it is not a valid ruling.
Click to expand...

Of course
 
#589
#589
volgr said:
It should be left up to States, as it is with most issues. Sometimes, in a Republic, individual States do things other States dont like. Is what it is. The last thing we need is the Feds dictating election law to States.
Click to expand...


Republicans are all for states rights.

Until a state does something they don't agree with.
 
#591
#591
1704500584019.png
Four justices appointed by Democratic governors, Justices, Richard L. Gabriel, Melissa Hart, William W. Hood III and Monica Márquez, all circled, voted to disqualify the former president from Colorado's presidential primary ballot
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and Orangeburst
#592
#592
lawgator1 said:
Two things.

First, the Court whatever it does should rule unanimously and specifically state that it is not commenting on whether Trump engaged in insurrection or not.

Second, I think Trumpsters need to recognize that, by Trump's logic, if the Court rules in his favorite it is illegitimate because the Court is heavily conservative and he appointed 3 of them. Per Trump, himself, it is not a valid ruling.
Click to expand...
it will be 9-0 Trump's favor and prove the CO SC is corrupt as we knew all along

 
  • Like
Reactions: TNVOLNAVY
#595
#595
jmacvols1 said:
it will be 9-0 Trump's favor and prove the CO SC is corrupt as we knew all along

Click to expand...



It would be best if it's 9 - 0.

But it's important to remember that under Trump reasoning it is to be ignored because the judges are biased.
 
#596
#596
lawgator1 said:
It would be best if it's 9 - 0.

But it's important to remember that under Trump reasoning it is to be ignored because the judges are biased.
Click to expand...
If the justices follow rule of law, the facts and use logic and common sense they will vote in Trumps' favor no matter who choose them.
 
#597
#597
jmacvols1 said:
If the justices follow rule of law, the facts and use logic and common sense they will vote in Trumps' favor no matter who choose them.
Click to expand...


Sorry, they are biased, the decision by definition is wrong. That is what Trump himself says.

You can't have it both ways.
 
#599
#599
jmacvols1 said:
The biased judges Trump is talking about, like the one in NY who hates Trump and was going to find Trump guilty no matter what, are the kind of judges Trump is talking about.
Click to expand...


Can't have it both ways. Conservative judges cannot do the right thing every time when liberal ones do the wrong thing every time.

Trump has set his own standard on this.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top