The Race For 2024

[AdamWho]

Trump isn't going to be the nominee....

I wish I knew that for certain already.

Me too.
I remember 2016, when the GOP tried desperately to prevent his nomination. They failed, obviously.
I cannot imagine a GOP slate without Trump at the top that doesn't alienate so many Republicans that the Democrats could run AOC and win.
Tom

I am going to stand by my claim. I am happy to be wrong because I think it will be even worse for the Republicans if he is the nominee.

My claim is based on the self-preservation instincts of the Republicans and their donor class.

 

[TomC]

Trump isn't going to be the nominee....

I wish I knew that for certain already.

Me too.
I remember 2016, when the GOP tried desperately to prevent his nomination. They failed, obviously.
I cannot imagine a GOP slate without Trump at the top that doesn't alienate so many Republicans that the Democrats could run AOC and win.
Tom

I am going to stand by my claim. I am happy to be wrong because I think it will be even worse for the Republicans if he is the nominee.

My claim is based on the self-preservation instincts of the Republicans and their donor class.

That's our best hope.

It could happen.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

The donor class should have looked up from their avocado toast a little sooner. I think they’re stuck with the orange albatross at this point. They probably thought they had adequately groomed their boy Rhondi Santis. But it’s fairly obvious now that they picked a dud.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I was just now in the kitchen, making a new batch of ice cream. (Raspberry rum).
Somebody (not me) had left the kitchen system to Faux Noise. The subject was Kamala Harris and her assurance that she was readly and capable of being president if Biden's health failed. Faux had an ugly, fat old white man on to bray "Kamala Harris is totally unfit to serve!". As if Insurrectionist Trump, "Shut The Government Down" Ramaswami, or Wrecking Ball DeSantis are fit to serve. Given such choices, I will take Kamala Harris. Where does Faux find these sour, gormless wonders?

 

[TomC]

Given such choices, I will take Kamala Harris.

Given those choices, I'd vote for Beyonce if she were the Democrats nominee.

I don't care much for Harris. At least, I didn't back in 2020. I'm confident that a few years in that position probably ground off some of the hard edges I disliked, and gave her a good bit more experience.

What I mostly like about her now is how little news there is about her. I like that in a top government official. Steady. Competent. Boring.
Excellent!
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

Marjorie Taylor Greene reportedly calls Kari Lake a 'grifter' in private

"MTG thinks she's a scammer and not even a conservative," one source told Rolling Stone, adding that Greene has said that "Lake is a grifter and [is] trying to keep riding Trump's coattails because she lost [in Arizona], so she's cozying up on the election-integrity messaging."

"Kari did come up, and the term 'grifter' was used to describe her more than just once," another source who spoke with Greene told Rolling Stone, adding that Greene "thinks it's complete nonsense that anyone would think it's a good idea for Donald Trump to consider [Kari] for VP."

Lake, according to the outlet, has also suspected Greene of leaking negative stories about her in the media.

MTG is so horrible and spiteful - hating on Lauren Boebert and Laura Loomer and now Kari Lake.

So Greene is saying Lake is a fake, but Greene's madness is clinical.

She also says that school shooting victims are fake.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump isn't going to be the nominee....

I wish I knew that for certain already.

Me too.
I remember 2016, when the GOP tried desperately to prevent his nomination. They failed, obviously.
I cannot imagine a GOP slate without Trump at the top that doesn't alienate so many Republicans that the Democrats could run AOC and win.
Tom

I am going to stand by my claim. I am happy to be wrong because I think it will be even worse for the Republicans if he is the nominee.

My claim is based on the self-preservation instincts of the Republicans and their donor class.

Cept they got three far right God damned SCOTUS justices on board because of that bloated narrcistic cancer. And they'll support that vile ass gaping skin sore again if he is the candidate.

 

[thebeave]

Given such choices, I will take Kamala Harris.

Given those choices, I'd vote for Beyonce if she were the Democrats nominee.

I don't care much for Harris. At least, I didn't back in 2020. I'm confident that a few years in that position probably ground off some of the hard edges I disliked, and gave her a good bit more experience.

What I mostly like about her now is how little news there is about her. I like that in a top government official. Steady. Competent. Boring.
Excellent!
Tom

I'll take Beyonce too, over Kamala. I think I like Kamala even less as time goes on. Steady?...meh. Competent...no. Boring...yes. I think the reason there is little news about her is because everytime she opens her mouth, its either inappropriate cackling or she's talking to people as though they're in first grade or spewing some weird word salad that makes no sense, but she apparently thinks is profound. Its really pretty embarrassing and I suspect the media and her handlers are trying to minimize her exposure to keep her approval ratings from falling to single digits. She's not liked much by her own party, and I believe she is the lowest rated VP since such things were being tracked.

 

[AdamWho]

I am going to stand by my claim. I am happy to be wrong because I think it will be even worse for the Republicans if he is the nominee.

My claim is based on the self-preservation instincts of the Republicans and their donor class.

Cept they got three far right God damned SCOTUS justices on board because of that bloated narrcistic cancer. And they'll support that vile ass gaping skin sore again if he is the candidate.

SCOTUS doesn't care about Trump at all. They are part of the establishment that wants to get things done... without Trump

 

[ZiprHead]

Watchdog group sues to block Trump from Colorado ballot, citing 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause

 

[blastula]

MTG is so horrible and spiteful - hating on Lauren Boebert and Laura Loomer and now Kari Lake.

There can only be one top female magat suckup.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am going to stand by my claim. I am happy to be wrong because I think it will be even worse for the Republicans if he is the nominee.

My claim is based on the self-preservation instincts of the Republicans and their donor class.

Cept they got three far right God damned SCOTUS justices on board because of that bloated narrcistic cancer. And they'll support that vile ass gaping skin sore again if he is the candidate.

SCOTUS doesn't care about Trump at all. They are part of the establishment that wants to get things done... without Trump

What I meant was the right wing got what they wanted with that piece of fudge.

No, not a metaphor. I just hate fudge

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Watchdog group sues to block Trump from Colorado ballot, citing 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause

No, they can't. He was convicted of jack, so no court will enforce that. Again, this was a constitutional crisis that the GOP took a dump on.

 

[Politesse]

Watchdog group sues to block Trump from Colorado ballot, citing 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause

No, they can't. He was convicted of jack, so no court will enforce that. Again, this was a constitutional crisis that the GOP took a dump on.

What does the lack of a conviction have to do with it? There is no clear requirement in the law for such a standard, and if we take a textualist read of this, it's very clear that the authors made a purposeful choice not to include such a requirement. It's not as though the authors were unfamiliar with the concept of a criminal conviction. But that isn't how they worded it. Why not?

 

[ZiprHead]

Watchdog group sues to block Trump from Colorado ballot, citing 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause

No, they can't. He was convicted of jack, so no court will enforce that. Again, this was a constitutional crisis that the GOP took a dump on.

What does the lack of a conviction have to do with it? There is no clear requirement in the law for such a standard, and if we take a textualist read of this, it's very clear that the authors made a purposeful choice not to include such a requirement. It's not as though the authors were unfamiliar with the concept of a criminal conviction. But that isn't how they worded it. Why not?

And as far as I know none of the people who had this used against them were convicted of anything in a court of law.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Watchdog group sues to block Trump from Colorado ballot, citing 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause

No, they can't. He was convicted of jack, so no court will enforce that. Again, this was a constitutional crisis that the GOP took a dump on.

What does the lack of a conviction have to do with it? There is no clear requirement in the law for such a standard, and if we take a textualist read of this, it's very clear that the authors made a purposeful choice not to include such a requirement. It's not as though the authors were unfamiliar with the concept of a criminal conviction. But that isn't how they worded it. Why not?

And as far as I know none of the people who had this used against them were convicted of anything in a court of law.

Are there examples that aren’t related to the Civil War?

 

[Politesse]

Watchdog group sues to block Trump from Colorado ballot, citing 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause

No, they can't. He was convicted of jack, so no court will enforce that. Again, this was a constitutional crisis that the GOP took a dump on.

What does the lack of a conviction have to do with it? There is no clear requirement in the law for such a standard, and if we take a textualist read of this, it's very clear that the authors made a purposeful choice not to include such a requirement. It's not as though the authors were unfamiliar with the concept of a criminal conviction. But that isn't how they worded it. Why not?

And as far as I know none of the people who had this used against them were convicted of anything in a court of law.

Are there examples that aren’t related to the Civil War?

That is the context in which the 14th Amendment was penned. And preventing the next such war was a major part of the authorial intent of the directive. Whatever later generations were able to make of the Amendment, they were not social justice heroes, the Congress of 1866. They were Republicans who had recently seen their republic torn end from end and nearly dismantled, and who still wanted the dream of that republic to survive the generational vicissitudes of majority rule.

 

[TomC]

They were Republicans who had recently seen their republic torn end from end and nearly dismantled, and who still wanted the dream of that republic to survive the generational vicissitudes of majority rule.

There could be some magically delicious schadenfreude here.
If the most divisive presidential candidate I know about got hogtied by legislation from the most divisive war in U.S. history and couldn't lawyer his way out of it...

I'd have to bake a celebration cake!
Perhaps something in a vaguely brown color with orange icing on top?
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Watchdog group sues to block Trump from Colorado ballot, citing 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause

No, they can't. He was convicted of jack, so no court will enforce that. Again, this was a constitutional crisis that the GOP took a dump on.

What does the lack of a conviction have to do with it?

If you look at the charges brought up against Trump, I believe none of them are based on statements he made about the election or January 6th. The most critical aspect is that Trump has not been charged with inciting a riot. If the Justice Department won't charge him with that or if DC doesn't charge him with that, no Judge in this country is going to make that leap alone. In one of these threads, I linked a Legal Eagle video on the free speech issue, which was quite frightening regarding what is protected speech, and why Jack Smith has been particularly choosey on his charges against Trump.

There is no clear requirement in the law for such a standard, and if we take a textualist read of this, it's very clear that the authors made a purposeful choice not to include such a requirement.

And in a perfect world, yes, you are right. But in that perfect world, Trump was impeached in January 2021 with a near unanimous vote and the punishment included not being able to reseek the office of the Presidency. One issue you are not considering here is that of precedence. There is none for this situation. The Civil War was a pretty blatant act of treason. Had Trump gotten his wish, and went to the US Capitol and commanded certain actions, this might be a much easier case to provide precedence. But that didn't happen thanks to the Secret Service.

So we are left with absolutely no case law, and not a Federal Judge in the US would touch that to begin the process with a 42 foot pole unless it was Judge Cannon and President Biden was the defendant.

It's not as though the authors were unfamiliar with the concept of a criminal conviction. But that isn't how they worded it. Why not?

Because there was a Civil War that was just fought. The sides were well known. This was specifically about those traitors. Please don't mistake my pragmatism for anything but pragmatic understanding that Federal Judges will not unleash a process to prohibit a person not found guilty of a crime (especially a former President) from running for office. I'd imagine "standing" will be the easy way out of this case. As the violation of an insurrection isn't against a person, but the Government and the US Government might need to be the one to actually request a 14th Amendment solution, and that ain't happening either.

 

[TomC]

Watchdog group sues to block Trump from Colorado ballot, citing 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause

No, they can't. He was convicted of jack, so no court will enforce that. Again, this was a constitutional crisis that the GOP took a dump on.

What does the lack of a conviction have to do with it?

If you look at the charges brought up against Trump, I believe none of them are based on statements he made about the election or January 6th. The most critical aspect is that Trump has not been charged with inciting a riot. If the Justice Department won't charge him with that or if DC doesn't charge him with that, no Judge in this country is going to make that leap alone. In one of these threads, I linked a Legal Eagle video on the free speech issue, which was quite frightening regarding what is protected speech, and why Jack Smith has been particularly choosey on his charges against Trump.

There is no clear requirement in the law for such a standard, and if we take a textualist read of this, it's very clear that the authors made a purposeful choice not to include such a requirement.

And in a perfect world, yes, you are right. But in that perfect world, Trump was impeached in January 2021 with a near unanimous vote and the punishment included not being able to reseek the office of the Presidency. One issue you are not considering here is that of precedence. There is none for this situation. The Civil War was a pretty blatant act of treason. Had Trump gotten his wish, and went to the US Capitol and commanded certain actions, this might be a much easier case to provide precedence. But that didn't happen thanks to the Secret Service.

So we are left with absolutely no case law, and not a Federal Judge in the US would touch that to begin the process with a 42 foot pole unless it was Judge Cannon and President Biden was the defendant.

It's not as though the authors were unfamiliar with the concept of a criminal conviction. But that isn't how they worded it. Why not?

Because there was a Civil War that was just fought. The sides were well known. This was specifically about those traitors. Please don't mistake my pragmatism for anything but pragmatic understanding that Federal Judges will not unleash a process to prohibit a person not found guilty of a crime (especially a former President) from running for office. I'd imagine "standing" will be the easy way out of this case. As the violation of an insurrection isn't against a person, but the Government and the US Government might need to be the one to actually request a 14th Amendment solution, and that ain't happening either.

Dang.
I'm not a lawyer, obviously.
But what this sounds like, to me, is that Trump might lawyer his way out of this noose because he wasn't actually charged with inviting his supporters to bring gallows for the Vice President to the Capitol Building during the EC vote.

Tom