Almost a quarter of Trump supporters oppose having him on ticket if convicted: Survey

Your claim of logical fallacy is itself false.
If people are deemed worthy of voting and office-holding rights there is no reason to rule them out a priori from being recipients of votes for office.

 

Your projection is pathetic. You're the one who is ruling them out a priori. I'm saying DON'T rule them out a priori. But I do expect an intelligent electorate to rule them out a posteriori! If the electorate DOESN'T rule them out, then that means we don't have an intelligent electorate and we deserve them. Scary... but a necessary risk if we are to remain a democracy.

Your position is that government should rule them out by not allowing them to run in the first place. I'm saying the voters should. That's the difference between your authoritarian mindset and my democratic one.

And you know this,. It's the reason why the only justification you could come up with was circular reasoning. Which IS a logical fallacy.

 

I take your point on the Latin.
Nonetheless, whether "we don't have an intelligent electorate and we deserve them" (or we do and we don't) that's separate from the question why -- if we say convictions aren't disqualifying for voting and office-holding -- we should say they are disqualifying when we cast our ballots. Surely the generosity in the former cases should be matched in the latter.

 

Trump will be convicted.

He'll lose a substantial number of moderates and independents.

Trump is only 1 point ahead, if RFK is in the race, and he will be in the race:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e..._election_trump_vs_biden_vs_kennedy-8272.html

Trump will be convicted and lose that lead as a substantial number of moderates and independents will not vote for him
if he is convicted. The odds of his conviction on at least a few of those 92 felony counts are pretty good, I should think.

Oh, I supposed he could run the board with hung juries, but not in Washington DC or NY.

 

Golem, if the constitution deems Trump is not qualified to hold office, and three judges agree on the fact that he did, indeed, engage in insurrection, all 7 judges in Co did not contest that fact, he then is not qualified to be on the ballot, per the constitution.

Now, isn't complying with the constitution part of democracy, too?

Of course, I don't see the 3 justices he appointed removing him from the ballot, but even with them, I don't see how they deny the lower courts' finding of fact. They will have to deny their rulings on procedural grounds, methinks.

 

If he is convicted, he will appeal, and that process could last beyond a four year term or into his term and his incarceration will be postponed by judicial decree. This is something our forefathers forgot to include in the Constitution. See, they assumed future politicians would be men of gravitas, be gentlemen of good faith. they didn't imagine a man like Trump would game the system for nefarious ends.

He'll just be the first president in history who is a felon.

Welcome to America.

 

There is a good chance Trump will be convicted and there isn't a chance in hell, under any administration that Biden will be convicted. As much as Republicans want him convicted, AG's have to go on evidence, and if they have any training at all, they will know what evidence is and what it isn't. one thing is clear, Republicans don't seem to know what really constitutes evidence.

it's a mixed bag, there are no clear winners.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/aug/21/fact-checking-donald-trump-on-his-economy-and-joe/

Wrong, we were in Afghanistan, remember? Trump's jingoism is about on par with a number of other presidents.

Trump deliberately handed Biden a bad hand, he.....
1. Reduced troops to 2500, not enough to defend personnel that was there, so Biden had to
A) increase the number back to original levels, OR
B), get out altogether.

he chose to get out, and that was problematic due to Trump's kicking out the Afghan gov in favor of the taliban and reducing troop levels.

Trump paid lip service to getting out of Afghanistan, and he didn't have the courage to do it. he kicked the can to Biden

Trump invited the TALIBAN to CAMP DAViD.

Trump separated some 5000 children from their parents for a crime no greater than a misdemeanor.

Name one president who has solved the immigration problem?

WE have a labor shortage, we need more immigrants, we need to loosen the immigration requirements and speed it up.

We need more judges at the border to handle the case load. We need much larger spaces to accommodate people for processing.

We need a lot of things that Republicans won't agree to, because they hate immigrants because they claim 'they are poisoning the blood of the nation'

So, you see, all of the real problems are BECAUSE OF REPUBLICAN STUPIDITY

 

1/4 Maga Red support the Kangaroo court - you say ? Just goes to show that there are ignorant dummies on the Red side too.

 

THAT'S your priority? Sad. This is why it's so hard to advance anything today. Us vs Them not This vs That.

 

You know this how? It will be trial by jury and all members must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a rough standard to meet on nebulous charges.

You are in a state of denial, if you believe Biden cannot be convicted. You cannot possibly know all the details of arrangments between Joe and Hunter Biden.

It was down to virtually no casualties.

Biden did a bad job of removing the US from Afghanistan. It would have taken only the basic of planning to do it better.

Really?? They are setting new records for illegal border crossings even after Biden has been president for nearly three years. Usually after a couple of years, a new president cannot no longer blame his predecessor for his problems. That wall would worked, but since Trump wanted it the Biden stopped it.

 

I completely agree. Disqualifying Trump would be the right legal decision to uphold democracy. However, it would divide the country for decades to come, in my opinion. But I don't think they'll do that. So the only plausible option is ruling on procedural grounds... or not issuing an opinion at all. I agree with you that this is most likely what they'll do.

 

I'd say it's a reasonably good guess.

If the charges were nebulous, there is no way in hell Willis or Smith would have indicted.

How do I know that?

When the world spotlight is burning down your backside, noting the old adage, 'when you aim an arrow at the king, you'd better not miss', mindful that the indictment of a former US President is a monumental historic event, mindful that your failure will also go down in history and you will be marked forever and it could ruin your career, you do not indict on 'nebulous' charges, you make darn sure you've turned over every stone for proof, have TONS of DIRECT evidence, and then some.

In other words, to allege 'nebulous charges' defies credulity.

Well, here is what I do know, there is NO evidence Joe Biden is corrupt.
None. Nor is there any reason to suspect him.

Biden has been a public figure for over 30 years. Explain to me how, all of the sudden, the right is now accusing him of corruption/bribery? If one is corrupt, one doesn't suddenly become corrupt in one's golden years. There simply is no logic to the notion that Biden is a corrupt person, especially given the fact that when he took office, he allowed the investigation of his own son, continue, not to mention his hand picked AG has defended Trump, twice, in court.

Not only that, Republicans are claiming that the video of him bragging about withholding loan guarantees to Ukraine in order to get Ukraine to fire Shokin is evidence of wrong doing.

Explain to me why Republicans didn't make this charge when the video was taken and uploaded to the internet when Joe was VP?

You want to know why, Kriman?

Because, at the time he bragged and made that video, REPUBLICANS BACKED THE FIRING.

Capiche? It wasn't wrongdoing, because, Shokin, contrary to the Right's current bogus claims, having totally forgotten what the incident was truly about, Shokin was NOT investigating Burisma. The entire reason the right, the left, the IMF, our allies, Republican and Democrat senators, the entire reason EVERYONE wanted Shokin fired was because he was not doing his job, fighting corruption in Ukraine, and the State Dept and US foreign policy in the region needed a prosecutor who would clean up Ukraine to best assure our aid to Ukraine would not be diverted for corrupt purposes.

Do you remember, kriman,, when Trump bragged he was sending in more lethal war gear to Ukraine, comparing himself to Obama who sent light weight supplies? Do you remember that Trump brag, kriman? Recall that Trump made this brag LONG AFTER shokin was fired, and Obama wasn't sending in serious war supplies BEFORE shokin was fired. THAT was the reason Biden bragged about how he got shokin fired. Ohh, but Trump won't tell you details like that, nor will Republicans, mindless biased and disingenuous Republicans won't mention facts like this, in today's hyper partisan climate.

Do you got that?

Now,. if republicans can be so wrong on this point, how in holy hell can we trust any of you on your accusations against Joe Biden?

You've proven to me over and over and over again that you do not understand that, in order to prosecute a president, you are going to need better than innuendo and circumstantial evidence, especially in light of the ruling in McDonnell v United States. Because, when the rubber hits the road, that is all you guys really have. Fluff.

All I'm seeing by Comer et. al., is sheer incompetence, a veritable shiit show.

You really aren't thinking this through. Your contention defies logic.

Oh yeah, as if the most incompetent president in Us History, one Donald J. Trump, the guy who gave Biden a bad hand in the first place, the guy who paid lip service to getting us out of Afghanistan, but was to coward to do it, AS IF he could have done better.

My ass.

The price of those 'better stats' was to separate over 5000 kids from their parents for a crime no better than a misdemeanor because that is what the zero tolerance policy did.

Sorry, that is a price that is equal to child abuse, not a policy that caring democrats are willing to pay.

We have solutions, but Republicans won't back an immigration bill.

There is no practical way to build a wall across a 2000 mile boarder, and coyotes will always exploit the achilles heel. walls can easily be surmounted. This is a bogus claim. Some walls in some areas are worth fortifying, and they have been. But we are in an age of technology, and these are better solutions.

"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man" --- General George Patton

 

There is evidence. It may or may not be enough to convict him, but you cannot say with any credibility that he will not be convicted because you do not know what other evidence might be turned up.

 

Here's the thing, Golem.

You can't cherry pick the constitution when it is convenient for your party and rather nebulous high minded arguments.

either we follow it or we trash it, in toto. I should think the former is the wiser path.

now, let's see what the SCOTUS says about the matter.

 

His withdraw was a disaster. He deserted an air base which would have provided protection for aircraft and those being airlifted out. He pulled out the military before getting out all the civilians. He left billions of dollars worth of equipment and arms for the terrorists. As part of my air force career, I served for around three years in an air operations center. I saw how good planning was done. Biden's disaster was not even close to good planning.

You are blaming that for letting in record numbers of illegals and most likely terrorists. That does not compute. Even democrats in congress and democrat mayors are starting to rebel.

In spite of the democrats ridicuous claims, fences work. They won't stop 100% but they will reduce the numbers and slow them down so they can be caught by other methods.

 

I'm not saying you should cherry pick when it's convenient to a party. But we SHOUD cherry-pick "... in Order to form a more Perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,.."

We either follow THAT or we had no reason to constitute a nation in the first place.

So THAT is what the discussion should be about. Which decision best complies with the above? I don't know the answer. But I do know the question. Unfortunately, SCOTUS does not. So they will rule to keep Trump on the ballot based on a technicality and not on the Constitution.

 

Convicting Trump of ANYTHING is a Democrat wet dream. Dems have been trying to convict him of SOMETHING... ANYTHING for years. Wasted and still wasting millions in the never ending attempt.

"If he is convicted"??? LOLOLOL.... accuse, accuse, accuse on!

Definition of stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting different results.

 

I gave you my reasons for not suspecting Biden. Please reread them. As for certainty, we aren't certain we will live to tomorrow, and that kind of argument is specious.

There is no evidence warranting an indictment and that is all that matters.

Read the ruling in McDonnell v United States.

 

Partisan spin.

Trump is a disaster.

Rumor has it.....

Trump lacks any shred of human decency, humility or caring. He is morally bankrupt, breathtakingly dishonest, lethally incompetent, and stunningly ignorant of virtually anything related to governing, history, geography, human events or world affairs. He is a traitor and a malignancy in our nation and represents a clear and present danger to our democracy and the rule of law.

 

Well, 'in order to form a more perfect union' is the kind of high minded talk i was talking about.

It's great for the Declaration of Independence, but for whom to indict, it is not a legal, nor constitutional argument, and we should avoid that kind of talk when ruling on the constitutionality of any deed or act.

Why? Because it's an appeal to emotion, and emotion is a minefield of potential mischief, errors, and the like.

History has produced only one insurrection whereupon such high minded lingo was apt, lingo that was morally just, and that the DoD and the war that led to our independence; a once in millenia event.

It has no application beyond that event, nor will it ever occur, again, in the foreseeable future. Let's just stick to the constitution, and sound legal arguments. To do otherwise, invites mischief, partisan emotion, and assorted error.

 

That IS the Constitution. Not the DoI

I'm not talking about who to indict. Not indicting a criminal, no matter who that is, does NOT promote justice.

I don't know what emotion you are referring to. The statement is quite objective. A decision either promotes those things, or it doesn't.

 

That is why they have investigations.

 

I suspect that even you have seen the lines of illegals crossing the border. Now imagine those illegals trying to climb over a fence or climbing through a hole the fence and the border guards sitting idly by just watching them. The fence slows them down so that the bordfer guards have time to handle them rather than just helplessly watching them walk across the border.

 

Most of Bidens supporters are opposed to having him on the ticket again. They may not be wise, but that's not the same as stupid, and many know when they've been had. They may not openly admit it, but they know- and they won't be asking for a second round.

 

Right. Okay. but it hardly changes my point, as the preamble is high minded tone setting 'why this document is created' talk.

It's not in the body of the constitution where matters of 'constitutionality' are ruled upon.

Well, yes, we're talking about being on and off the ballot, sorry for the side track. When it comes to Trump, it's easy to inject "indict" in the conversation with whatever point is being addressed.

Getting back on point, on or off the ballot re Trump, I'm having a problem with your logic.

You appear to claim that keeping Trump on the ballot promotes/equates to ' a more perfect union', taking a line from the preamble to the constitution as if to say keeping Trump on the ballot, therefore, 'is following the constitution'. I disagree with your logic.

The preamble to the constitution sets the tone, tells us why the constitution is created, it is not the body of the constitution where matters of constitutionality are ruled on, it's high minded in it's presentation, as it should be, but it's not in the body of the constitution, there is no rule in it to be followed, it's just tone (ergo 'emotion') and justification. So, constitutionally speaking, such as preventing an insurrectionist who fits section 3 to the T, off of the ballot, would seem to me, in diametric opposite to your claim, to be actually more in keeping with promoting a more perfect union given that doing so is what is 'following the constitution'.

I'm using your logic to come to the opposite conclusion, which goes back to my point, you can't use high minded language when making decisions such as keeping someone on, or off, the ballot. Using your logic, there will never be a time to keep someone off of the ballot if we appeal to emotion where keeping anyone off of the ballot can be 'anti-democratic'.

Any action to keep someone off the ballot could be seen as 'anti-democratic'. It's not, it's following the constitution where section 3 spells out the precise circumstance in which to disqualify someone, and several judges have ruled that Trump is an insurrectionist, and if disqualifying trump per section 3 isn't following the constitution, then when can section 3 ever be implemented? If not now, when?

Complying with section three, noting that doing so should be an rare event, which it is, is the heart of democracy, should a circumstance that section 3 addresses, arises. Has it not arisen with Trump?

Sometimes following the constitution won't be popular, but it will be logged on the right side of history, and history always sorts these things out.

In the meantime, we shall see what procedural errors committed by CO and ME the conservative justices will uncover to justify their keeping Trump on the ballot. Wouldn't want a barrage of hate and threats sent their way, if they should do, at least what I would consider, the right thing.