trump should be barred from becoming president again

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 25
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says "no person" may "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States," who, "having previously taken an oath as…an officer of the United States…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."

i dont think trump should have been impeached for the riots. and i dont think he should be barred from office for causing an insurrection. but i do think since the election, he's been committing rebellion against the USA based on patently untrue claims. he's been trying to overthrow our democratic republic, to overturn a proper election. 

i say ted cruz and all the other defective congressmen should be removed and barred from office as well. i surmise that these guys know better, as opposed to their ignorant and brainwashed supporters. 
#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,626
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@n8nrgmi
Agree!
#3
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
What changed your mind?
Topic's author
#4
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Death23
i didn't change my mind. i still dont think he should be impeached. i do think he committed rebellion against the USA, which violates the constitution. 
#5
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
I see. Right thing, wrong reasons. Get on board.

#6
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
agree
#7
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
You don't think a president that violates the constitution should be impeached?
#8
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
I'm not sure your argument makes sense. You believe that a president has violated the constitution and should therefore be barred from running for office again. but that he shouldn't be impeached? Impeachment is the intended punishment for abuse of office. Barring them from running again would be an even stronger punishment. How can you justify barring someone from running again in the future, but that they shouldn't be impeached?
Topic's author
#9
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@HistoryBuff
the reason you can impeach someone is for high crimes and misdemeanors. i'm aware that some people say you can impeach for non crimes, but i dont buy that argument. it's possible to rebel against the country without committing crimes, and that's what id say trump has done. 
#10
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
the reason you can impeach someone is for high crimes and misdemeanors. i'm aware that some people say you can impeach for non crimes, but i dont buy that argument.
the term "high crimes" is a reference to the office. IE he holds a high office, so any abuse of his power is a "high crime". There is nothing in the constitution that implies the president must commit a criminal offense in order to be impeached. 

it's possible to rebel against the country without committing crimes, and that's what id say trump has done. 
no it isn't. sedition is a crime. If he has rebelled against the country, then he has absolutely committed a crime. 
Topic's author
#11
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@HistoryBuff
id have to see the law written out to see if i agreed that he broke it. i always considered things like treason and sedition to be vague and i suppose i thought they were violated when other crimes were committed
#12
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
id have to see the law written out to see if i agreed that he broke it. i always considered things like treason and sedition to be vague and i suppose i thought they were violated when other crimes were committed
Laws for sedition and treason in the US don't get used very much. the standard of evidence is usually pretty high. so whether trump could be found guilty of it in a court of law is less than certain. But it is absolutely a crime. So if you think trump rebelled against the US government, then also committed crimes. IE sedition, treason etc. 
#13
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
everybody has an opinion

but i do think since the election, he's been committing rebellion against the USA based on patently untrue claims.
You do know what opinions are worth. What's your evidence? He said/she said? Sorry. must have more to sustain your opinion.
Topic's author
#14
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@fauxlaw
no, it's a fact. he's been trying to overthrow democracy = fact
Topic's author
#15
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@fauxlaw
it's more than he said she said. 

on the one hand, we have all of mainstream media, including the most credible sources of news and even conservative sources like Fox news. we have all of the courts in the country, including the supreme court who is packed with trump appointees. we have the bulk of congress, and all fifty states including republican states. 

on the other hand, we have trump, a con man and a pathological liar. 

which one should we choose??  

if you trust trump, you're just stupid. there's no way around it. you have the right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. 

#16
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
more opinion unless you can cite evidence. No, don't give me some other idiot's opinion. Show me, chapter and verse, the statute Trump has violated with the evidence that he, in fact, violated it. It must stand up in court, you know. There is the arbiter of justice, not from some media rag.
#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
on the one hand, we have all of mainstream media, including the most credible sources of news and even conservative sources like Fox news. we have all of the courts in the country, including the supreme court who is packed with trump appointees. we have the bulk of congress, and all fifty states including republican states. 

Thank the lord Jesus America's democracy is dictated by millionaires behind media desks and vested government employees.
#18
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Death23
I just now realized you cannot spell Democracy without DC.

Coincidence? I think not.
#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
if you trust trump, you're just stupid. there's no way around it. you have the right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts

If you trust millionaires in DC, then you are both stupid and willfully ignorant of history.

If you trust millionaires in the Media to give a shit about anything other than your bank account, then you are ignorant of economics.

Nobody sane "trusts Trump"...it's just that the enemy of my enemy is the friend for the moment.
Topic's author
#20
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@fauxlaw
i cited the amendment that can bar a politician from office. we all know trump's antics after the election. what more evidence do you need? either you think he rebelled against the country or you dont. it's irrational to think trump had merit to his election conspiracies. so he objectively did rebel against the usa. i mean, a person could plausibly say he didn't 'rebel' *enough* to warrant blocking him from office. but it's indisputible that he tried to overthrow democracy. this isn't opinion... it's fact. 
#21
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
Did everyone who voted for Trump try to overthrow democracy?

If you think this on any level, then you are equating democracy to the DC establishment.

This is how you create authoritarian states and actually destroy democracy.
#22
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
no, it's a fact. he's been trying to overthrow democracy = fact
No. "Overthrowing democracy" is your loony private interpretation of what he did. Not what he actually did.

on the one hand, we have all of mainstream media, including the most credible sources of news and even conservative sources like Fox news.
Saying what? That Trump is guilty of insurrection? No. Of overthrowing democracy? No.

we have all of the courts in the country, including the supreme court who is packed with trump appointees.
Saying what? That Trump is guilty of insurrection? No. Of overthrowing democracy? No.

we have the bulk of congress, and all fifty states including republican states. 
Saying what? That Trump is guilty of insurrection?That Trump is guilty of insurrection? No. Of overthrowing democracy? No.

How is "overthrowing democracy"  then a"fact"? You must be profoundly deluded, or boldfaced lying.
Topic's author
#23
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@ethang5
trump tried to get states to revoke their ceritified election results, and tried to get pence to decline to certify the election. this is despite the fact that all objective evidence indicates this was a free and fair election. what do you call this, if not rebelling against our democracy? 
#24
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
Rather than address my rebuttals, you jump to yet more of your personal opinions you wish to substitute as Trump's intentions. Why do you liberals avoid questions? Sorry, rhetorical question. I know why you dodge answering.

trump tried to get states to revoke their ceritified election results,
Trump tried to get states to revoke their false ceritified rigged election results,

...and tried to get pence to decline to certify the election.
...and tried to get pence to decline to certify the fake, rigged, election.

...this is despite the fact that all objective evidence indicates this was a free and fair election.
Objective doesn't mean, "what Democrats like".

what do you call this, if not rebelling against our democracy?
I call it Trump derangement syndrome. It's where you assign motive to Trump, and then pretend your assigned motive IS Trump's actual motive. This is why you have to dodge questions. You don't want the pretense examined. 
Topic's author
#25
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
sorry to break it to you, but it's a fact that the election wasn't rigged. i'll sit with the crickets while everyone waits for you to show a shred of evidence that the election was rigged. 

what's actually the case, is that you are so deluded with lies, that you think anyone who believes the truth, are themselves deluded