Biden: "You can’t be pro-insurrection and pro-America."

[Chris2055]

I think he might be relevent, somehow. You know, other than not being Trump.

That's vague but it's also your opinion of him, not an example of how you support him.

1st. Legal redundancy regarding a platform of no bullshit, it's bullshit, and hurts his platform.

Signing an oath not to overthrow the government is bullshit that hurts his platform? What's his platform? Fascism?

2nd. The insinuation that he violated the constitution, but without an authority that says so.

*gestures around wildly*

Define authority, because clearly these don't qualify:

• The 117th Congress (impeachment).
• The state of Colorado (ballot disqualification).
• The state of Maine (ballot disqualification).
• Multiple members of Trump's own administration (sworn statements).

3rd. You think that if he kowtowed, it would work out for his benefit. I don't.

How is it kow-towing to sign a document that is standard practice? A document he previously signed on two occasions (2016, 2020).

I honestly think that states barring him from the election is doing a lot more for him than against. You say that you understand that there are conservatives that are concerned about democracy, but have you talked to them about how they feel about the Colorado thing? You are free to believe what you do, but I cannot, despite my attempt.

I do think states barring him from the ballot is being received negatively by many conservatives and TBH, unlike the vast majority of conservative ideas, I can see why. It's unprecedented in contemporary American history and aligns with Trump's narrative of election interference. However, the two factors are not mutually exclusive nor does one negate the other. Also, removing Trump from the ballot is unprecedented but so are his actions that justify removing him from the ballot.

It was to point out that accusing someone of something has a lot less at stake than to be guilty of the accusation.

And I asked if you thought he was guilty and you dodged the question. I asked that for a reason. By guilty do you mean convicted or simply that he actually did the thing? Because in the case of the latter but not the former, he still has a lot at stake.

That document wouldn't involve SCOTUS.

The decision about the ballot is going to be made by SCOTUS. Again, what effect do you think this document would have on that, since you brought it up.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Last I checked Trump's not the one attempting to throw his leading political opponent in prison. You know, like dictators do.

"Lock her up! Lock her up!"

That was already forgotten I see.

 

[tabzer]

That's vague but it's also your opinion of him, not an example of how you support him.

I said he existed. That's obviously supportive.

Especially considering the previous suggestion that @Xzi made about Trump not existing.

If this thread was about Biden, I'd might have more or less to say. So far, I have been more supportive of Biden than anyone here. You chose to make it a platform for Trump.

*gestures around wildly*

Define authority, because clearly these don't qualify:

• The 117th Congress (impeachment).
• The state of Colorado (ballot disqualification).
• The state of Maine (ballot disqualification).
• Multiple members of Trump's own administration (sworn statements).

Are they authorities designated by the constitution? (No.)

How is it kow-towing to sign a document that is standard practice? A document he previously signed on two occasions (2016, 2020).

It's always been kowtowing. But it's more relevent now, don't you think?

The decision about the ballot is going to be made by SCOTUS. Again, what effect do you think this document would have on that, since you brought it up.

You missed the point. Even if SCOTUS says Trump can stay on the ballot, that would have nothing to do with the "redundant" contract that doesn't involve the SCOTUS. It's just another party that he didn't need to involve, and he is choosing not to.

 

[Xzi]

I said he existed. That's obviously supportive.

Acknowledging someone's existence and supporting their agenda are two entirely different things. Playing dumb again or just a poor grasp of the English language?

You missed the point. Even if SCOTUS says Trump can stay on the ballot, that would have nothing to do with the "redundant" contract that doesn't involve the SCOTUS. It's just another party that he didn't need to involve, and he is choosing not to.

Trump's actions have stripped SCOTUS of plausible deniability. Now if they side with him and he stages another insurrection, they can't claim there was no way to see it coming.

 

[Chris2055]

I said he existed. That's obviously supportive.

Especially considering the previous suggestion that @Xzi made about Trump not existing.

If this thread was about Biden, I'd might have more or less to say. So far, I have been more supportive of Biden than anyone here. You chose to make it a platform for Trump.

So, dodging again. Got it.

Are they authorities designated by the constitution? (No.)

I'm not a textualist and I think people that argue the constitution like the laws passed by Congress over the past several centuries don't exist are wrong, but even with that in mind...

Yes? Impeachment by Congress is in the constitution. States' ability to run their own elections is in the constitution.

It's always been kowtowing. But it's more relevent now, don't you think?

Again, in what way is it kowtowing?

You missed the point. Even if SCOTUS says Trump can stay on the ballot, that would have nothing to do with the "redundant" contract that doesn't involve the SCOTUS. It's just another party that he didn't need to involve, and he is choosing not to.

I... didn't miss the point. You just reiterated the point I was making. You said this:

To a state, in a political landscape where states are trying to overrule a federal election. It's late to ask him to pledge allegiance to a state.

And I asked you then, what impact do you think that signing this document would have on their attempt to keep him off the ballot, since you mentioned it? Or were you just introducing that into the discussion for no reason?

 

[RedColoredStars]

Seriously though. My cats shit has a higher IQ than you righties.

 

[Beaukilla]

Americans are so weird using terms like "pro America", each side constantly calling the other out for it. You tell the world you're the great United States of America but you're so bitterly divided and looking more so every day. It's also odd that the two front runners for the next president are both well past the average life expectancy for men, so damn old! I wonder how the country will take a death in office? Will they rally like 9/11 and mourn as one, or will half the country take a big shit on the other and rub it in.

 

[tabzer]

Seriously though. My cats shit has a higher IQ than you righties.

"take me seriously"

"my cats"

Idiots: "Yes!"

Independents: "We're convinced!"

Lol, right. You guys aren't fooling anyone.

So, dodging again. Got it.

Look at the topic, and look at what you want to talk about. Who's dodging? Start a thread about Biden. Say something good about the guy that doesn't involve Trump. I've already had more positive to say about Biden than anyone here. You can't even acknowledge that he wrote a tweet. In all fairness, he probably didn't.

Acknowledging someone's existence and supporting their agenda are two entirely different things.

I can acknowledge what people are doing, as it becomes a topic. So far, Biden existing is spite of Trump seems to be the only thing that you've got going. And I agree that it's happening.

Playing dumb again or just a poor grasp of the English language?

I don't really have to "play dumb" when the premise is already there, sir trump-ception.

Trump's actions have stripped SCOTUS of plausible deniability. Now if they side with him and he stages another insurrection, they can't claim there was no way to see it coming.

And that's the fine print that you were too dishonest to say out loud in the beginning. You want Trump to make an oath that circumnavigates SCOTUS. Though it was obvious, it's refreshing for you to say it out loud. You are a scammer.

 

[Chris2055]

Look at the topic, and look at what you want to talk about. Start a thread about Biden. Say something good about the guy that doesn't involve Trump. I've already had more positive to say about Biden than anyone here.

You're the one that brought up Biden when someone called you a "Trump Supporter". Then, when asked to qualify that statement instead of stating in what ways you've supported Biden you say it's off-topic. I personally haven't seen you say one good thing about Biden but maybe I missed it. It's certainly hard to believe you approve of Biden given the mental gymnastics you do to defend Trump.

And that's the fine print that you were too dishonest to say out loud in the beginning. You want Trump to make an oath that circumnavigates SCOTUS. Though it was obvious, it's refreshing for you to say it out loud. You are a scammer.

How would that oath circumvent SCOTUS?

 

[tabzer]

You're the one that brought up Biden when someone called you a "Trump Supporter". Then, when asked to qualify that statement instead of stating in what ways you've supported Biden you say it's off-topic. I personally haven't seen you say one good thing about Biden but maybe I missed it. It's certainly hard to believe you approve of Biden given the mental gymnastics you do to defend Trump.

I don't approve of Biden. But I said more positive things than you have about him, making me a bigger Biden supporter than you. You can't even acknowledge that he exists.

You want to use "Trump supporter" as a slur to sideline legal and constitutional analysis. I've already stated in the beginning of this thread that people like "you" are Trump's bigger supporters. You (not "you" as much as others) give him a platform and you showcase your crazy (ie. @RedColoredStars) to make him look appealing by juxtaposition.

How would that oath circumvent SCOTUS?

Because the oath is made to the state (not SCOTUS), making it another potential stage for shitshow, despite how SCOTUS rules on his oath to office.

 

[Chris2055]

I don't approve of Biden. But I said more positive things than you have about him, making me a bigger Biden supporter than you. You can't even acknowledge that he exists.

Where have you said anything positive about him and what is this nonsense that I don't acknowledge he exists? When I talk about Biden you tell me it's off-topic. When I don't talk about him you say I don't acknowledge he exists. Truly remarkable gaslighting.

You want to use "Trump supporter" as a slur to sideline legal and constitutional analysis. I've already stated in the beginning of this thread that people like "you" are Trump's bigger supporters. You (not "you" as much as others) give him a platform and you showcase your crazy (ie. @RedColoredStars) to make him look appealing by juxtaposition.

I didn't use it as a slur. If anyone draws attention to Trump's outrageous actions they're giving him a platform. What are people supposed to do? Remain quiet and watch as he incites another insurrection with his lies?

Because the oath is made to the state (not SCOTUS), making it another potential stage for shitshow, despite how SCOTUS rules on his oath to office.

I don't think you understand how SCOTUS works. Trump already signed that paper twice and if it made any difference he would already be doomed.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I don't think you understand how SCOTUS works.

Or anything really.

 

[tabzer]

Where have you said anything positive about him and what is this nonsense that I don't acknowledge he exists? When I talk about Biden you tell me it's off-topic. When I don't talk about him you say I don't acknowledge he exists. Truly remarkable gaslighting.

None of what you are describing is what happened. Frankly, it was about Trump for you. The closest thing you came to admitting that Biden was a real person is by referring to a tweet as him. Read the thread from the beginning.

I didn't use it as a slur. If anyone draws attention to Trump's outrageous actions they're giving him a platform. What are people supposed to do? Remain quiet and watch as he incites another insurrection with his lies?

If people ignored him in 2015, I doubt he would have become president. You are supposed to find a meaningful platform that has nothing to do with Trump, not run a platform of "not-Trump", advertise it, force it, and then fail the whole planet. It's almost as if you want to make Trump a god.

I don't think you understand how SCOTUS works. Trump already signed that paper twice and if it made any difference he would already be doomed.

That paper has nothing to do with SCOTUS or his oath to office. It's an oath to something/someone else. Signing an "optional nearly 'meaningless'" oath before being accused and signing it after being accused are clearly different circumstances. The latter can be used for incrimination in ways that the primary cannot.

 

[Chris2055]

None of what you are describing is what happened. Frankly, it was about Trump for you. The closest thing you came to admitting that Biden was a real person is by referring to a tweet as him. Read the thread from the beginning.

I guess you don't remember what you said 2 posts ago. Here's the quote (emphasis mine):

Look at the topic, and look at what you want to talk about. Who's dodging? Start a thread about Biden. Say something good about the guy that doesn't involve Trump. I've already had more positive to say about Biden than anyone here. You can't even acknowledge that he wrote a tweet. In all fairness, he probably didn't.

If people ignored him in 2015, I doubt he would have become president. You are supposed to find a meaningful platform that has nothing to do with Trump, not run a platform of "not-Trump", advertise it, force it, and then fail the whole planet. It's almost as if you want to make Trump a god.

Biden has a meaningful platform but that doesn't mean we should ignore Trump's attempts to turn America into a fascist dictatorship. The threat is real.

That paper has nothing to do with SCOTUS or his oath to office. It's an oath to something/someone else. Signing an "optional nearly 'meaningless'" oath before being accused and signing it after being accused are clearly different circumstances. The latter can be used for incrimination in ways that the primary cannot.

How can signing an oath not to engage in insurrection be used for incrimination after being accused? It doesn't state that he did anything, just that he won't. If anything he would've screwed himself by signing the oaths previously and then engaging in insurrection during his term. They aren't going to slap the cuffs on him because he agrees to no foul play going forward.

 

[Knight of Time]

Am I ever glad I'm a Canadian; as someone who has been following USA politics for years, it makes me sad that many of my neighbors to the south have to put up with Trump's BS. But I also feel sad for the people who currently support him, many of you may think that he cares about you and wants to make life better for you, but the stark reality here is that he cares more about himself, power, and money than his millions of supporters (he seems to always have to put himself first). He is virtually using his supporters for his political gain, and I have an uneasy feeling that there are loads of supporters who are unaware he is just using them. On the flip side, I'm finding Biden is doing okay as president, but one of the biggest flaws he has IMO is his age. Sure, nobody is perfect (not even a past or current president of the USA), but at least he is doing the best he can. IMO, he is absolutely right about how much of a threat Trump is to the USA democracy if he becomes president again. If Trump became president again, there is no doubt in my mind that terrible things could very well (and probably will) happen, not just in the USA, but anywhere in the world. Trump needs to pay the price for all the terrible things he has done, and if there is any way to cut his massive ego down to size, I hope Biden can find a way. I don't want my southern neighbors who are against Trump to have to suffer because of him; they deserve a happier future; one that I know Donald Trump will never give them.

 

[Taleweaver]

I guess Mr. Biden doesn't know the definition of insurrection nor knows history.

Kind of weird, but i actually agree with you.

Not about anything Trump related, but it says pro America. Not specifically the us, but the continent is, after all, America as well. And the us government has some history staging and attempting insurrections against governments they don't like, such as Cuba and Venezuela. Of course nobody noticed with Trump obviously being targeted in a roundabout way, but that doesn't make the statement of a us president less bitter. Because i don't believe Biden is much better than 'the lesser evil'.

 

[supermist]

People that don't believe 1/6 was an insurrection and that Trump tried to overthrow the results of a free and fair election are people who cannot be reasoned with as they are continuing to deny verifiable data and a documented timeline of events.

They are, profoundly stupid individuals that we cannot engage productive discussion with.

 

[tabzer]

I guess you don't remember what you said 2 posts ago. Here's the quote (emphasis mine):

Look at the topic: Biden tweet
Look at what you want to talk about: Trump
Start a thread about Biden: Promote Biden without mentioning Trump. (Can you do it without getting sick?)

It's not difficult to decode.

Biden has a meaningful platform but that doesn't mean we should ignore Trump's attempts to turn America into a fascist dictatorship. The threat is real.

I don't know what "meaningful" means to you. On the receiving end, here, I am seeing calls to weigh in on multiple international "conflicts" at the behest of the US (as usual). What can we do? Accept, obey? We face a kind of dictatorship that does not originate here.

How can signing an oath not to engage in insurrection be used for incrimination after being accused?

Here is a scenario:

P1: Trump, you've been accused of inciting an insurrection.
Trump: I haven't incited an insurrection.
P1: Well the state of "Watchumakalit" has determined that you have.
Trump: Well, I don't believe that "Watchumakalit" has the jurisdiction.
P1: You've signed an oath to us, Mr. Trump; you gave us jurisdiction.
Trump: But that was before I knew you guys were interested in secession.
P1: Aha! But you signed the oath after that it was clear that secession was on the table.

I mean, it's make-believe, like your optional oath. Point is, don't give an inch. I can think of many different scenarios where it would be possible, I don't know what Trump has planned.

 

[supermist]

The founding fathers created the US government and then overthrew it the next day? Be serious now.

If you wanna make a more logical comparison, MAGA is very much like the Southern Confederacy. They want racial and religious supremacy to be the law of the land.

Furthermore, there's a ton of footage from 1/6 where MAGAs were waving Confederate flags

 

[tabzer]

People that don't believe 1/6 was an insurrection and that Trump tried to overthrow the results of a free and fair election are people who cannot be reasoned with as they are continuing to deny verifiable data and a documented timeline of events.

They are, profoundly stupid individuals that we cannot engage productive discussion with.

I think it's hilarious that you think people tried. Even on Trump's end, it was stage performance.

If Trump actually was trying, he would have told his army to attack like some civil war general. One person was shot; an "insurrectionist".

You are a loony toon, clutching pearls for a political elite that won't lift a finger to stop looters from robbing you and burning down your house, as long as they can capitalize on the agenda.