I recall Obama’s 2008 campaign with the hysterical crowds and people fainting. I mocked Democrats for their Messiah like worship of a man who will single handedly solve all their problems. At the time I thought Republicans would never do that.
I hear you. I've said many times over the years that all of those conservative commentators who mocked Chris Matthews for that "thrill up my leg" comment should apologize profusely to him now, after what they reduced themselves to for Trump.
I haven't studied it, or read enough analysis of it to form a confident opinion, but from what I do know, I think it probably doesn't apply to Trump, because of how broadly/loosely one would have to interpret the wording, "engaged in."
What happened on January 6 was by any definition an insurrection, and it was absolutely caused as a result of Trump's two months of lies, and his call to action on that day and at that place. He also refused for hours to do anything to stop the insurrection once it started. But I think "engaged in" would have to do a lot of work from a legal perspective.
My position all along has been that Trump should have received an impeachment conviction, and though I'm not much of a McConnell-basher, I think McConnell really dropped the ball by not voting for conviction and whipping a few more senators into doing the same. It was absolutely warranted, and if he had done it, the GOP would look a lot different (and be a lot stronger) today.
Prof. Tribe, formerly a liberal constitutional scholar with HLS, and a highly credentialed conservative jurist (I forget his name) co-wrote a piece arguing that Trump clearly is subject to that section of the COTUS. They argue that state AGs can bar Trump from the ballot in their states. Law suits will then be filed and fast-tracked to the SCOTUS - double entendre unintended lol. .
I haven't yet read the co-authored piece, however I think we do have to get this in front of the SCOTUS - the sooner the better. Unfortunately, the 14th A. is somewhat vague and doesn't give a mechanism for enforcement.
The partisan side of me wants to see Trump remain in the presidential race, however this issue needs to be addressed with finality, legal arguments on both sides need to be made and then the SCOTUS must rule.
I was going to point this out as well. I get what John D was trying to say, but the covid lockdowns weren't a good example, since most of the lockdowns were done at the state and local levels. A better example might be something like tariffs, which the GOP generally opposed, until Trump started using them to start trade wars. Then they were just swell.
>>But his supporters would argue they weren't TRUMP's lockdowns.
Oh, I'm sure many would, even though it was Trump's federal response team, including Trump himself, who were calling for the lockdowns. Trump even publicly criticized Republican governors like Kemp and DeSantis for lifting those lockdowns.
But again, that was only a single example of how "attaching Trump’s name to an otherwise effective message had a tendency to invert the results." And beyond campaign messaging, we saw this in practice over four years. Republicans went from screaming about the national debt before Trump (rightfully so), to being totally cool with the $7.8 trillion added under Trump, to screaming about the national debt again once Trump was gone from office. Another: Republicans jump all over Biden whenever he lies (rightfully so), but say nothing when it comes to Trump, who's even more prolific at it than Joe. The same argument could be made for issues related to gay rights. This is how Trump's been treating by the base for years. He's not held to the standards the base holds others to.
And what's so frustrating about all of this is that nothing is ever Trump's fault. His supporters constantly deflect. If he ever would shoot someone on the street in the middle of Manhattan and there were eyewitnesses and video proof-- well, the video would be fake and the eyewitnesses would be government agents, RINOS, or members of the global elite leftist Satan worshipping child eating pedophile democrats.
Yes, there are two standard responses Trump disciples give when asked about Trump's bad behavior:
1. Fake news - he never said that / didn't do it, it's just the fake news media making up stuff because they can't beat him in an election.
2. Ok, he DID say / do those terrible things, but those terrible things are nothing compared to the terrible things the Democrats and Biden are doing. Therefore we still must support Trump unconditionally.
I'm still clinging to recent history regarding Iowa where the winner hasn't gone on to win the nomination. Desperate times.
Fascinating.
I recall Obama’s 2008 campaign with the hysterical crowds and people fainting. I mocked Democrats for their Messiah like worship of a man who will single handedly solve all their problems. At the time I thought Republicans would never do that.
Boy was I wrong.
I hear you. I've said many times over the years that all of those conservative commentators who mocked Chris Matthews for that "thrill up my leg" comment should apologize profusely to him now, after what they reduced themselves to for Trump.
I would like to know your take on the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, section 3. In your opinion does it apply to Trump?
I haven't studied it, or read enough analysis of it to form a confident opinion, but from what I do know, I think it probably doesn't apply to Trump, because of how broadly/loosely one would have to interpret the wording, "engaged in."
What happened on January 6 was by any definition an insurrection, and it was absolutely caused as a result of Trump's two months of lies, and his call to action on that day and at that place. He also refused for hours to do anything to stop the insurrection once it started. But I think "engaged in" would have to do a lot of work from a legal perspective.
My position all along has been that Trump should have received an impeachment conviction, and though I'm not much of a McConnell-basher, I think McConnell really dropped the ball by not voting for conviction and whipping a few more senators into doing the same. It was absolutely warranted, and if he had done it, the GOP would look a lot different (and be a lot stronger) today.
Prof. Tribe, formerly a liberal constitutional scholar with HLS, and a highly credentialed conservative jurist (I forget his name) co-wrote a piece arguing that Trump clearly is subject to that section of the COTUS. They argue that state AGs can bar Trump from the ballot in their states. Law suits will then be filed and fast-tracked to the SCOTUS - double entendre unintended lol. .
I haven't yet read the co-authored piece, however I think we do have to get this in front of the SCOTUS - the sooner the better. Unfortunately, the 14th A. is somewhat vague and doesn't give a mechanism for enforcement.
The partisan side of me wants to see Trump remain in the presidential race, however this issue needs to be addressed with finality, legal arguments on both sides need to be made and then the SCOTUS must rule.
But his supporters would argue they weren't TRUMP's lockdowns. That's why they change their answer when Trump's name is included.
I was going to point this out as well. I get what John D was trying to say, but the covid lockdowns weren't a good example, since most of the lockdowns were done at the state and local levels. A better example might be something like tariffs, which the GOP generally opposed, until Trump started using them to start trade wars. Then they were just swell.
>>But his supporters would argue they weren't TRUMP's lockdowns.
Oh, I'm sure many would, even though it was Trump's federal response team, including Trump himself, who were calling for the lockdowns. Trump even publicly criticized Republican governors like Kemp and DeSantis for lifting those lockdowns.
But again, that was only a single example of how "attaching Trump’s name to an otherwise effective message had a tendency to invert the results." And beyond campaign messaging, we saw this in practice over four years. Republicans went from screaming about the national debt before Trump (rightfully so), to being totally cool with the $7.8 trillion added under Trump, to screaming about the national debt again once Trump was gone from office. Another: Republicans jump all over Biden whenever he lies (rightfully so), but say nothing when it comes to Trump, who's even more prolific at it than Joe. The same argument could be made for issues related to gay rights. This is how Trump's been treating by the base for years. He's not held to the standards the base holds others to.
And what's so frustrating about all of this is that nothing is ever Trump's fault. His supporters constantly deflect. If he ever would shoot someone on the street in the middle of Manhattan and there were eyewitnesses and video proof-- well, the video would be fake and the eyewitnesses would be government agents, RINOS, or members of the global elite leftist Satan worshipping child eating pedophile democrats.
Yes, there are two standard responses Trump disciples give when asked about Trump's bad behavior:
1. Fake news - he never said that / didn't do it, it's just the fake news media making up stuff because they can't beat him in an election.
2. Ok, he DID say / do those terrible things, but those terrible things are nothing compared to the terrible things the Democrats and Biden are doing. Therefore we still must support Trump unconditionally.
You're absolutely right.