Re: Cool Breeze's Topic

[Guest]

I still think Trump will be blocked from running effectively.

Is this legally possible?

Are the anti-Confederate laws still in effect?

[Bob Butler]

I still think Trump will be blocked from running effectively.

Is this legally possible?

Are the anti-Confederate laws still in effect?

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.

It has been argued that the presidential oath is not to the Constitution, the presidency is not an office, that an insurrection conviction is required and the insurrection was not an insurrection. Still, the conservative Supremes in the past have supported the words of the text and intent of the authors. If so, it would be a total block, not an effective one. For example, no conviction was required when the authors of the amendment were alive and several juries and judges have already convicted people for the insurrection. What would happen if they ruled it was not? They could weasel around it somehow, but I for one think the Supreme Court has little enough credibility as is. We'll see.

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[FullMoon]

Why am I censored?

This site loves free speech like the Biden Admin does

Probably because you're rude, smug, annoying, condescending brashful and lacking in life experience to know the difference. The other annoying one isn't censored as much probably to show how far off the deep end the Leftist lunatics are.

[Cool Breeze]

Why am I censored?

This site loves free speech like the Biden Admin does

Probably because you're rude, smug, annoying, condescending brashful and lacking in life experience to know the difference. The other annoying one isn't censored as much probably to show how far off the deep end the Leftist lunatics are.

You call me names but can't recognize who runs the institutions and propaganda presses.

Hmmm, who's lacking in knowledge, logic, and experience really?

If you can't see things for what they are, you are hamstrung. All of you guys are. Burner realized it long ago, and it has been proven by me countless times since.

[Guest]

I still think Trump will be blocked from running effectively.

Is this legally possible?

Are the anti-Confederate laws still in effect?

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.

It has been argued that the presidential oath is not to the Constitution, the presidency is not an office, that an insurrection conviction is required and the insurrection was not an insurrection. Still, the conservative Supremes in the past have supported the words of the text and intent of the authors. If so, it would be a total block, not an effective one. For example, no conviction was required when the authors of the amendment were alive and several juries and judges have already convicted people for the insurrection. What would happen if they ruled it was not? They could weasel around it somehow, but I for one think the Supreme Court has little enough credibility as is. We'll see.

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If anyone has undermined and destroyed the United States, it is insane leftists like you.

[FullMoon]

Why am I censored?

This site loves free speech like the Biden Admin does

Probably because you're rude, smug, annoying, condescending brashful and lacking in life experience to know the difference. The other annoying one isn't censored as much probably to show how far off the deep end the Leftist lunatics are.

You call me names but can't recognize who runs the institutions and propaganda presses.

Hmmm, who's lacking in knowledge, logic, and experience really?

If you can't see things for what they are, you are hamstrung. All of you guys are. Burner realized it long ago, and it has been proven by me countless times since.

I'm assuming this hasn't been deleted because it proves my point. Both you and Bob are as John has said many times.

[Bob Butler]

If anyone has undermined and destroyed the United States, it is insane leftists like you.

Endorsing the Constitution and the presidential oath of office is insane? Personal attacks are to be preferred? You might try arguing fact and logic instead. I’d like anyone to argue against Professor Tribe of Harvard. Mine is just the short version.

[Guest]

If anyone has undermined and destroyed the United States, it is insane leftists like you.

Endorsing the Constitution and the presidential oath of office is insane? Personal attacks are to be preferred? You might try arguing fact and logic instead. I’d like anyone to argue against Professor Tribe of Harvard. Mine is just the short version.

Why didn’t the most heavily armed demographic in the country (Trump supporters) bring guns to the insurrection and use them if they were trying to take over the government?

And how were the insurrectionists going to take over the government, exactly? Sit in desks? Log into computers? Did they have the nuclear codes? Why didn’t the capitol police kill them all?

[Bob Butler]

Why didn’t the most heavily armed demographic in the country (Trump supporters) bring guns to the insurrection and use them if they were trying to take over the government?

And how were the insurrectionists going to take over the government, exactly? Sit in desks? Log into computers? Did they have the nuclear codes? Why didn’t the capitol police kill them all?

The people most inclined to use violence - the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and their ilk - were waiting for Trump to call on them as an official arm of the government. (I have forgotten the exact phrase for it. Not quite the militia, but a similar force of semi governmental part time armed civilians covered by some quasi official status.) Trump never did invoke this. In the meanwhile they were keeping an ample supply of weapons in reserve in Virginia in case he did. Partially too it is normally illegal for civilians to carry or use firearms in DC. If they didn’t carry or flaunt guns, the cops would not use theirs, and the cops could legally carry. The insurrectionists would have lost many lives for little gain. Keeping it at the riot / brawl level worked better for the insurrectionists in terms of disrupting the building and Constitutional procedures.

There were several hopes for keeping Trump in power. If they could bully Mike Pence into accepting the fake electors, that could conceivably do it. An argument seems more likely if he had not been firm. If they could bully Pence into leaving, another leader could take his place, and that leader could try to accept the fake electors. Pence was afraid of that and thus refused to get in a car that could take him from the Capitol. If they could make the election a standoff they could force Congress to decide the president under an unusual rule where each state gets one vote, where a populous state got as much weight as a small state. This put the Republicans at an advantage quite distinct and greater than the popular vote or the Electoral College. They would win such a vote.

I also suspect Trump was more desperate than rational for much of the time. He had planned to be at the Capitol. The Secret Service prevented it. We got an ad - lib.

Sitting in desks or using computers was not going to do it. Most insurrectionists didn’t seem to be part of a (sorta) thought out Trump supported plan. For all but a few, the plan was to be wild. I suspect the Shaman got lots of attention and publicity, but never exchanged notes with the White House people, Proud Boys or Oath Keepers.

The capitol police were more reluctant than enthusiastic about using guns. They only did so in a few cases where they were outnumbered or desperate. For the most part they judged they were supposed to prevent a massacre, not instigate one. At a guess, some insurrectionists had similar thoughts.

You would know all this if you had watched much of the January 6 Committee. I watched it too much and used none of it until now. I expect most of it to be mentioned in the trial.

When I asked for fact and reason, I didn’t expect questions you didn’t know the answer to.

[Guest]

Why didn’t the most heavily armed demographic in the country (Trump supporters) bring guns to the insurrection and use them if they were trying to take over the government?

And how were the insurrectionists going to take over the government, exactly? Sit in desks? Log into computers? Did they have the nuclear codes? Why didn’t the capitol police kill them all?

The people most inclined to use violence - the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and their ilk - were waiting for Trump to call on them as an official arm of the government. (I have forgotten the exact phrase for it. Not quite the militia, but a similar force of semi governmental part time armed civilians covered by some quasi official status.) Trump never did invoke this. In the meanwhile they were keeping an ample supply of weapons in reserve in Virginia in case he did. Partially too it is normally illegal for civilians to carry or use firearms in DC. If they didn’t carry or flaunt guns, the cops would not use theirs, and the cops could legally carry. The insurrectionists would have lost many lives for little gain. Keeping it at the riot / brawl level worked better for the insurrectionists in terms of disrupting the building and Constitutional procedures.

There were several hopes for keeping Trump in power. If they could bully Mike Pence into accepting the fake electors, that could conceivably do it. An argument seems more likely if he had not been firm. If they could bully Pence into leaving, another leader could take his place, and that leader could try to accept the fake electors. Pence was afraid of that and thus refused to get in a car that could take him from the Capitol. If they could make the election a standoff they could force Congress to decide the president under an unusual rule where each state gets one vote, where a populous state got as much weight as a small state. This put the Republicans at an advantage quite distinct and greater than the popular vote or the Electoral College. They would win such a vote.

I also suspect Trump was more desperate than rational for much of the time. He had planned to be at the Capitol. The Secret Service prevented it. We got an ad - lib.

Sitting in desks or using computers was not going to do it. Most insurrectionists didn’t seem to be part of a (sorta) thought out Trump supported plan. For all but a few, the plan was to be wild. I suspect the Shaman got lots of attention and publicity, but never exchanged notes with the White House people, Proud Boys or Oath Keepers.

The capitol police were more reluctant than enthusiastic about using guns. They only did so in a few cases where they were outnumbered or desperate. For the most part they judged they were supposed to prevent a massacre, not instigate one. At a guess, some insurrectionists had similar thoughts.

You would know all this if you had watched much of the January 6 Committee. I watched it too much and used none of it until now. I expect most of it to be mentioned in the trial.

When I asked for fact and reason, I didn’t expect questions you didn’t know the answer to.

That’s is quite an elaborate fantasy there. And your source is the Jan 6 committee, lol! I truly hope most Americans aren’t as gullible as you.