US Politics Thread 2021-24

[bweiss]

IMHO, the Supreme's will toss this in the dumpster pronto. If they don't, (and they know this), the result may well be that Mr. Biden will also face elimination from Red State primary ballots,
if not impeached first. What a gift to Mr. Kennedy, with Joe Manchin lurking around on the sidelines.

Let him who be without Sin, cast the first vote. That'd fix it. It's a tie! Nobody wins. Might wind up with the janitor of the Capitol building being sworn in as the only one who no one can find any dirt on.

And, the Epstein files are soon to be released. Who's on Santa's naughty list?!? Something that may also entangle the across the pond politic.

Get out the popcorn, the show's about to begin.

[Buddahaid]

By what due process? Colorado's decision is the result of a lawsuit and I'm pretty sure just declaring Biden off the ballot to get even does not follow the rule of law set by state constitutions.

Also, the Biden impeachment will likely go nowhere since there has been no evidence presented that meets the requirements and must have occurred while in office.

[bweiss]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

By what due process? Colorado's decision is the result of a lawsuit and I'm pretty sure just declaring Biden off the ballot to get even does not follow the rule of law set by state constitutions.

Also, the Biden impeachment will likely go nowhere since there has been no evidence presented that meets the requirements and must have occurred while in office.

I don't know about any lawsuit that this Colorado court decision is based upon or connected to. But this is what was published in the AP.


DENVER (AP) — A divided Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday declared former President Donald Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s
insurrection clause and removed him from the state’s presidential primary ballot, setting up a likely showdown in the nation’s highest court to decide whether the
front-runner for the GOP nomination can remain in the race.


https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2



Based upon that, the State of Colorado does not possess the legal standing to abrogate the Constitution by rendering a decision based solely upon subjective interpretations and spurious political rhetoric, rather than court evidence in a trial conducted according
to, as you say, due process. I'm unaware of any trial involving Mr. Trump wherein he was charged with insurrection, let alone convicted of such. Nor can a state court decide in a vacuum what the Republican party (any legally registered political party), can or cannot
do in their state National primary candidate election process, which is constitutionally protected and resides in the Republican party's exclusive domain (thus as they've just stated, if such were to stand they will simply caucus and choose who they want regardless of the
Colorado Supreme Court's ruling, and or the voters wishes of Colorado for that matter). Nor can the Colorado courts legally make any such judgement (with a hope of it standing) without evidence, a trial, let alone a conviction to base it upon.

Tis why I said; "insurrection, real or imagined".


There's no imagining the millions of people who have crossed the border illegally, nor the fact that the Federal Government has no idea who they are, where they went, what they are doing, and how many are here in the first place,
nor why they are here, to do what exactly, nor more importantly, how many may be outright enemies of this country seeking to cause harm, or are engaged in organized criminal activity? In a Democratic-Republic, the guy in charge is ultimately responsible
for upholding the law, rule, and regulation of the Federal Government and all it's vast entities. The FBI director just issued several warnings in Congressional testimony regarding terrorist threat elevations in the last couple of days, his concerns being directly tied
to this border crisis. That clock is ticking. At some point, likely soon someone is going to be looking into the willful failure to uphold the law, or for any promulgation of countermanding directives to disregard enforcement of the law, which would constitute a
violation of Oath of Office, and the Constitution.


Enter Lt. Governor Dan Patrick of Texas. And I'm sure he's but the first. Yes, the Red States could very well remove Mr. Biden from their State ballots in the same manner as conducted in Colorado against Trump. I don't see what would stop them.


In either instance however, the question is; is it likely to stand? IMO, no it won't as it will not get passed the Supreme Court's judgement, and that as they say, will be the end of that.

[August]

14th Amendment Section 3

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.

Note that the President himself is not specified in that list and I think it is intentional. It doesn’t make sense to specify by name both houses of Congress and the Electors but lump the US President in a broad category with lesser civil and military office holders. If POTUS (and VPOTUS) were intended to be included it would have been at least as clearly specified as Senators and US Representatives but it's not.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by August

14th Amendment Section 3


Note that the President himself is not specified in that list and I think it is intentional. It doesn’t make sense to specify by name both houses of Congress and the Electors but lump the US President in a broad category with lesser civil and military office holders. If POTUS (and VPOTUS) were intended to be included it would have been at least as clearly specified as Senators and US Representatives but it's not.

Neither Senators nor Representives hold offices and as such are mentioned separately. The President however does hold an office, making him an officer.

[bweiss]

For those interested. (Best viewed in Subsim "dark" modes).

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution is not as cut and dried as the media attempts to present it, nor as the State Supreme Court in Colorado has sought to defined and politically use it.
But opinions be as they may, here is some information that clouds the issue I fear, for those who believe this is somehow an open and shut case. And I would submit, the Supreme Court will
spend more than a little time delving into this.

Link to the: Congressional Library "Constitution Annotated" Analysis and Interpretation Of the U.S. Constitution:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/

Here among other links to the individual sections of the 14th Amendment, is an overview of Section 3:


Amdt14.S3.1 Overview of Disqualification Clause

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:

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.

Overview Summary: (This is where the plot thickens!).

"The right to remove disabilities imposed by this Section was exercised by Congress at different times on behalf of enumerated individuals."

"1 In 1872, the disabilities WERE REMOVED, (my edit to capitalize the words for emphasis) by a blanket act, from all persons "except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses,
officers in the judicial, military and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States."

"2 Twenty-six years later, Congress enacted that "the disability imposed by section 3 . . . incurred heretofore, is hereby removed."


NOTE - Item 2: (incurred - heretofore, is HEREBY REMOVED).


In as much as teaching history in schools and universities in the America has all but been eliminated by the Teachers Union, few people know that very many ex-Confederate officers and soldiers
commonly held Federal offices and U.S. Federally elected positions post Appomattox.

As a limited example, here is one such case:


Link to: Robert E. Withers, Colonel, C.S.A., 18th Virginia Infantry Regiment, and later Commander of the Danville Army Depot, C.S.A.:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Withers


Following the war, Withers moved back to Lynchburg in 1866 and established the Lynchburg News, a daily paper devoted to the interests of the Conservative Party.

He was nominated for Governor of Virginia by that party but the party withdrew from the race. He was a presidential elector on the Democratic ticket in 1872. He was elected the
11th Lieutenant Governor of Virginia in 1873. He was elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate and served from March 4, 1875, to March 4, 1881. He chaired the
Committee on Pensions in the 46th Congress. Withers lost reelection in 1881 to William Mahone of the Readjuster Party.

President Grover Cleveland appointed Withers as the United States consul to British Hong Kong, from 1885–89, when he resigned.

Note that he was, among other things, a "presidential elector", as defined in the 14th Amendment. So the idea that someone who participated in a rebellion, or insurrection,
automatically being disqualified from holding a Federal office is nonsense. It's been done many times in the past and is solid jurisprudence, and as pointed out above the clause no longer exists
as it was removed by an Act of Congress in 1872.

I would assert here that the new Confederate rebels in Colorado, are a bit late to the party.

With regard to the ex-Confederates broadly, there was also what is called the Oath of Repatriation, which in effect was a swearing or re-swearing of the Oath of Allegiance to the United States,
fully restoring their citizenry privileges.

Link to: Supplementary Reconstruction Act of Fortieth Congress, March 23, 1867 An Act supplementary to an act entitled "An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel states,"
passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, and to facilitate restoration. (A long read but an interesting one).


https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/exhibits/reconstruction/section4/section4_reconact1867_2.html


Finally, it should be noted that all of the media uproar is a "camels nose under the tent". It is all based upon the accusation, notion, opinion, or belief, that there "was" actually an insurrection on Jan 6th to begin with.
And in a reach that would astound Michael Jordan, the Democrats, left wingers, new Confederates, and never-Trumpers, etc., now attempt to supplant the additional fictional tale that Mr. Trump led or somehow caused it.


Caused what exactly?


A dispute about the validity of a National election resulting from the use of a Nationwide system of half-baked and hair brained non-secured electronic voting machines linked by the internet to who knows where, and controlled
by who knows who, from companies owned by (you don't even want to know), based upon state and county controlled outdated voter rolls containing half the people in the local cemetery, and operated (tinkered with), by
highly qualified technical experts who otherwise bake cookies for elementary school functions and in their spare time volunteer to help out at the polls, and otherwise fear to, or have been ordered to, don't ask - don't tell,
when it comes to verification of any voter ID. Right.

The actuality of fact is that this all resides in the realm of spurious political rhetoric produced solely for your entertainment.


Dictionary, Oxford Languages:

in·sur·rec·tion

/ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/

noun: insurrection; plural noun: insurrections

a violent uprising against an authority or government.


That simple definition can be applied to any one of the numerous and well publicized protests, demonstrations, riots, occupations, declarations, marches, speeches, or parades which
take place Nationwide daily, to include video taped sex acts on the floor of Congress or any number of persons who have objected to any governmental process, including the Congressman
sap who recently pulled the Capitol Building fire alarm shutting down a Congressional vote.

And while political rhetoric from media bark-horns has continued to bellow out the term "insurrection", only the lower court in D.C., has issued any judgements against anyone involved,
and most notably of all, convicted them solely of "misdemeanors."

Really!?! An insurrection of such magnitude as the political rhetoric would have one believe, "worse than Pearl Harbor they said", yet of the defendants so far tried (ranging in the hundreds),
to include elderly couples who meandered into, or were invited by the Capitol Police into, the Capitol Building, has resulted in nothing more than mere misdemeanors. Elevated jaywalking tickets.

No hangings, no firing squads, no life sentences, no decades in prison. Surely Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are wishing from the grave that they had registered themselves as Democrats
or at least drove as chauffeurs for a Democrat Senator; perhaps bedded with a Congressman like Fang Fang the honeypot. Quite the contrary to any Pearl Harbor'esque attack,
it was all just made up for television drama best viewed with popcorn and a beer.

It plays well in the world of media bobble-heads, and is intended as red meat for political groupies. It does not stand up to any court or tribunal scrutiny.


As we shall soon see, and if we want to continue to live in a democratic republic we had very well hope to see.

[les green01]

Originally Posted by bweiss

For those interested. (Best viewed in Subsim "dark" modes).

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution is not as cut and dried as the media attempts to present it, nor as the State Supreme Court in Colorado has sought to defined and politically use it.
But opinions be as they may, here is some information that clouds the issue I fear, for those who believe this is somehow an open and shut case. And I would submit, the Supreme Court will
spend more than a little time delving into this.

Link to the: Congressional Library "Constitution Annotated" Analysis and Interpretation Of the U.S. Constitution:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/

Here among other links to the individual sections of the 14th Amendment, is an overview of Section 3:


Amdt14.S3.1 Overview of Disqualification Clause

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:

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.

Overview Summary: (This is where the plot thickens!).

"The right to remove disabilities imposed by this Section was exercised by Congress at different times on behalf of enumerated individuals."

"1 In 1872, the disabilities WERE REMOVED, (my edit to capitalize the words for emphasis) by a blanket act, from all persons "except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses,
officers in the judicial, military and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States."

"2 Twenty-six years later, Congress enacted that "the disability imposed by section 3 . . . incurred heretofore, is hereby removed."


NOTE - Item 2: (incurred - heretofore, is HEREBY REMOVED).


In as much as teaching history in schools and universities in the America has all but been eliminated by the Teachers Union, few people know that very many ex-Confederate officers and soldiers
commonly held Federal offices and U.S. Federally elected positions post Appomattox.

As a limited example, here is one such case:


Link to: Robert E. Withers, Colonel, C.S.A., 18th Virginia Infantry Regiment, and later Commander of the Danville Army Depot, C.S.A.:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Withers


Following the war, Withers moved back to Lynchburg in 1866 and established the Lynchburg News, a daily paper devoted to the interests of the Conservative Party.

He was nominated for Governor of Virginia by that party but the party withdrew from the race. He was a presidential elector on the Democratic ticket in 1872. He was elected the
11th Lieutenant Governor of Virginia in 1873. He was elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate and served from March 4, 1875, to March 4, 1881. He chaired the
Committee on Pensions in the 46th Congress. Withers lost reelection in 1881 to William Mahone of the Readjuster Party.

President Grover Cleveland appointed Withers as the United States consul to British Hong Kong, from 1885–89, when he resigned.

Note that he was, among other things, a "presidential elector", as defined in the 14th Amendment. So the idea that someone who participated in a rebellion, or insurrection,
automatically being disqualified from holding a Federal office is nonsense. It's been done many times in the past and is solid jurisprudence, and as pointed out above the clause no longer exists
as it was removed by an Act of Congress in 1872.

I would assert here that the new Confederate rebels in Colorado, are a bit late to the party.

With regard to the ex-Confederates broadly, there was also what is called the Oath of Repatriation, which in effect was a swearing or re-swearing of the Oath of Allegiance to the United States,
fully restoring their citizenry privileges.

Link to: Supplementary Reconstruction Act of Fortieth Congress, March 23, 1867 An Act supplementary to an act entitled "An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel states,"
passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, and to facilitate restoration. (A long read but an interesting one).


https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/exhibits/reconstruction/section4/section4_reconact1867_2.html


Finally, it should be noted that all of the media uproar is a "camels nose under the tent". It is all based upon the accusation, notion, opinion, or belief, that there "was" actually an insurrection on Jan 6th to begin with.
And in a reach that would astound Michael Jordan, the Democrats, left wingers, new Confederates, and never-Trumpers, etc., now attempt to supplant the additional fictional tale that Mr. Trump led or somehow caused it.


Caused what exactly?


A dispute about the validity of a National election resulting from the use of a Nationwide system of half-baked and hair brained non-secured voting machines linked by the internet to who knows where, and controlled by who knows who, from companies owned by
(you don't even want to know), and operated (tinkered with), by highly qualified technical experts who otherwise bake cookies for elementary school functions and in their spare time volunteer to help out at the polls. Right.

The actuality of fact is that this all resides in the realm of spurious political rhetoric produced solely for your entertainment.


Dictionary, Oxford Languages:

in·sur·rec·tion

/ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/

noun: insurrection; plural noun: insurrections

a violent uprising against an authority or government.


That simple definition can be applied to any one of the numerous and well publicized protests, demonstrations, riots, occupations, declarations, marches, speeches, or parades which
take place Nationwide daily, to include video taped sex acts on the floor of Congress or any number of persons who have objected to any governmental process, including the Congressman
sap who recently pulled the Capitol Building fire alarm shutting down a Congressional vote.

And while political rhetoric from media bark-horns has continued to bellow out the term "insurrection", only the lower court in D.C., has issued any judgements against anyone involved,
and most notably of all, convicted them solely of "misdemeanors."

Really!?! An insurrection of such magnitude as the political rhetoric would have one believe, "worse than Pearl Harbor they said", yet of the defendants so far tried (ranging in the hundreds),
to include elderly couples who meandered into, or were invited by the Capitol Police into, the Capitol Building, has resulted in nothing more than mere misdemeanors. Elevated jaywalking tickets.

No hangings, no firing squads, no life sentences, no decades in prison. Surely Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are wishing from the grave that they had registered themselves as Democrats
or at least drove as chauffeurs for a Democrat Senator; perhaps bedded with a Congressman like Fang Fang the honeypot. Quite the contrary to any Pearl Harbor'esque attack,
it was all just made up for television drama best viewed with popcorn and a beer.

It plays well in the world of media bobble-heads, and is intended as red meat for political groupies. It does not stand up to any court or tribunal scrutiny.


As we shall soon see, and if we want to continue to live in a democratic republic we had very well hope to see.

well said hope the folks here read yours seem like most didn't read my i know Markus did fact is they are trying to use something that was remove long before any one of us was born

[bweiss]

Well it may not be read by forumers, but as it's electronic it's already been captured by the NSA, CIA, DHS, FBI, SIS, MI6, Mossad, Chinese Ministry of State, likely as not the Russian FSB,
and any other Nation State hooked to the internet, including Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and the DGB (Disinformation Governance Board) and perhaps most concerning of all, the American Teachers Union.

That's the ones to worry about there. Though I referred to them briefly, technically I didn't question what it is they are actually teaching the lil kiddies in after school sessions.

Das Kapital - Ideas spread. Not always good ideas as ole Karl demonstrated, but irrespective the principle remains the same.

[August]

Told ya so. After all turnabout is fair play:

Republican lawmakers in three swing states have announced their plan to remove President Joe Biden from their state ballots.
Aaron Bernstine of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Cory McGarr of the Arizona House of Representatives and Charlice Byrd of the Georgia House of Representatives released a joint statement on Thursday announcing their plan to remove Biden from the 2024 general election ballots in those three states.

https://www.newsweek.com/republicans...allots-1855042

[bweiss]

Originally Posted by August

Told ya so. After all turnabout is fair play:





https://www.newsweek.com/republicans...allots-1855042

You hit it the nail on the head there.

Ha! Speaking of Confederates in their graves... "Told ya so!"


Most forget, (were never taught history to begin with), that mixed in with the issue of slavery which did not become the focus of hostility until nearly
mid-way through the war, was the issue which lit the fuse over States Rights versus an omnipotent Federal Government or a centralized National governmental power
if you prefer. A long running dispute over the Articles of Confederation versus the Constitution if you will, which despite the Revolutionary War was still in the mid 1800's
hotly debated in Southern State Legislatures. Particularly with regard to foreign export tariffs.


https://www.essentialcivilwarcurricu...civil-war.html


Funny, the political party that erected all the Confederate hero monuments after they fought against this Nation and lost,
is now the party tearing them down in a public show of self narcissism loudly proclaiming their own purity.

Gives new meaning to; "The South Shall Rise Again".

Ah the humanity of it all...

[mapuc]

Your politicians are on a sloping plane and the slope seems to get more steeper.
Heading for a black Christmas week- Where each state and county remove one of the main candidate.

Until Supreme court gives the go ahead or forbid it.

Markus

[bweiss]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Your politicians are on a sloping plane and the slope seems to get more steeper.
Heading for a black Christmas week- Where each state and county remove one of the main candidate.

Until Supreme court gives the go ahead or forbid it.

Markus

We tend to do that from time to time over here...


“Thus ended the great American Civil War, which must upon the whole be considered the
noblest and least avoidable of all the great mass conflicts of which till then there was record.”

― Winston Churchill

[mapuc]

Found this article in a Danish newspaper.

I can't say if he's right or not-I personally say it would mean the end of your democracy.

- Whatever January 6 was, it was not a Trump-led coup attempt. They had no weapons and no plan to overthrow the government, says Tucker Carlson in the short video.

However, the former Fox News host believes that in the US we are witnessing a 'coordinated talking point' which is an 'obvious lie'.

- It seems crazy because it is crazy.

https://ekstrabladet-dk.translate.go..._x_tr_pto=wapp

Markus

[Reece]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I can't say if he's right or not-I personally say it would mean the end of your democracy.

Markus

I doubt it Markus, the bill of rights would prevent that! or there would be a civil war again!! (just my view, I'm not a politician)

[les green01]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Your politicians are on a sloping plane and the slope seems to get more steeper.
Heading for a black Christmas week- Where each state and county remove one of the main candidate.

Until Supreme court gives the go ahead or forbid it.

Markus

wouldn't be the first time Abe Lincoln on his 1860 election run wasn't on any of the ballots in the south but basic right now the dems are running scare most polls show trump beating biden though i don't put much into polls how you know they are running scare when they try to use part of a amendant thats been remove,what the american people need to do line both parties up tar and feather them then pitchfork them in the backsides right on out