Miscellaneous Trump (6 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 7 (members: 3, guests: 4)
    Huntn

    Huntn

    Misty Mountains Envoy
    Joined
    Mar 8, 2023
    Messages
    935
    Reaction score
    982
    Location
    Rivendell
    Offline

    Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'​

    www.yahoo.com

    Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'

    Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the 2024 election.
    www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

    WASHINGTON – It looks like American politics is entering a new age of anxiety, triggered by an unprecedented legal development: The potential indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate.

    Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests by his followers – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the unknowable impact all this will have on the already-tense 2024 presidential election

    I’ll reframe this is a more accurate way, Are Presidents above the law? This new age was spurred into existence when home grown dummies elected a corrupt, mentally ill, anti-democratic, would be dictator as President and don’t bother to hold him responsible for his crimes, don’t want to because in the ensuing mayhem and destruction, they think they will be better off. The man is actually advocating violence (not the first time). And btw, screw democracy too. If this feeling spreads, we are In deep shirt.

    This goes beyond one treasonous Peice of work and out to all his minions. This is on you or should we be sympathetic to the idea of they can’t help being selfish suckers to the Nation’s detriment? Donald Trump is the single largest individual threat to our democracy and it‘s all going to boil down to will the majority of the GOP return to his embrace and start slinging his excrement to support him?
     
    Heathen said:
    Click to expand...


    They are not christians in any sense of that word, I am however and I hope that they will see the errors of their ways and repent before it is too late, Such hate will destroy their very soul and I do not wish that for anyone - even hatefull biggots like them.
     
    RobF said:
    I already knew that of course. The question was to make clear whether you're going for the bluntly stupid, "The Presidency isn't an Office" argument - and you're not! Well done! - or the also daft, "it is an Office but it's not under the United States" argument - and you're not doing that one either! Bravo! - or the convolutedly stupid:

    1) The Founders and the Constitution did regard the Presidency as an Office.
    2) And as one under the United States.
    3) And like all the other Offices they regarded it as one that shouldn't be occupied by someone also in the legislative branch.
    4) But they also thought the holder of the Presidency, unlike other Offices, should be able to take bribes from Kings, Princes, and foreign States.
    5) And this thinking is based on the premise that the Presidency, which is an Office, and carries financial advantage, and duties and responsibilities, making it literally an Office of Profit and Trust by definition, is, despite that, not an Office of Profit or Trust.
    6) Because Offices have to be appointed, because they were appointed by the King in England.
    7) Except not all Offices, because we've already established the Presidency is an Office, and it's elected.
    8) So it's just Offices of Profit or Trust that can't be elected.
    9) Because, so this argument goes, you can be elected to an Office, just not one that has financial advantage, or duties and responsibilities. Even though the Presidency is an Office which has both those things.
    10) Which means "of Profit or Trust" does not mean having financial advantage or duties and responsibilities - because if it did, it would apply to the President - but actually means, "which is not elected."
    11) That's the argument.

    And you are doing that one. Which is nuts. I mean, by the time you reach 4) anyone should be going, "Ummm, that doesn't sound right," but no, you plough right on to the bit where you're arguing the meaning of "of Profit or Trust" is not, as basic comprehension would suggest, "where one profits or has trust placed in them", but is actually, "where one is not elected."

    And you think the writers of the Constitution would not have thought, "Hang on, this is a bit confusing, people might think we don't want the President to be able to be bribed by Kings, Princes, and foreign States, even though we totally do, maybe we should make it explicit that we want the President to be able to take such bribes."

    And you think this because you think it was so well known that "Offices of Profit or Trust" didn't mean "Offices where the holder profits or has trust placed in them" but meant "Offices where one is appointed, not elected," that no-one would be confused by this.

    Even though that's such clearly bad reasoning it can't even dream of reaching the standard of being specious.

    And even though we have a founding father on record saying the exact opposite, and what basic comprehension and reasoning would indicate, that the term "Office of Profit or Trust" did include the President such that the clause was "another provision against the danger of the President receiving emoluments."

    And that's your argument.

    Dude, your argument sucks.
    Click to expand...
    As to #4 the constitution prohibits bribery. Washington accepted gifts. And my discussion relates to emoluments and that those who claim the president doing business violates the emoluments clause. Yet, presidents have engaged in business throughout our history.

    Yes it’s an office. But the president is not an officer. The president is an elected official. Officers are appointed and Congress and the president and vice president are elected officials.

    Quite simply the emoluments clause parallels and follows the early European model to prohibit appointed ambassadors, legates, consul, royal advisors, etc. from accepting money, land, royalties, and title from other Kings, to whom they were probably related.

    The framers knew well the history of offices of profit and they knew they were not elected. The reference in the constitution targets specifically the ambassadors, the legates, counsels, military, official advisors.
     
    Dragon said:
    They are not christians in any sense of that word, I am however and I hope that they will see the errors of their ways and repent before it is too late, Such hate will destroy their very soul and I do not wish that for anyone - even hatefull biggots like them.
    Click to expand...
    Outside of their own child coming out or being visited by three ghosts how often does that really happen for people with that kind of hate in their hearts?
     
    Last edited:
    Optimus Prime said:
    Outside of their own child coming out or being visited by three ghosts how often does that really happen?
    Click to expand...

    Not often enough unfortunately. "Christianity" sure seem to have taken a long step away from the actual teachings of Jesus in many religious circles in the US. They seem so focused on the old testament that they have completely forgotten what Jesus actually said and did. As I had said before - if Jesus came back today as a dark skinned middle eastern man and preached what he did then - they would throw him in the Florida concentration camp within a day!
     
    Heathen said:
    Click to expand...

    I'm a Jew and that part of the bible is ours, they're borrowing it. But they are not reading it

    Our Interpretation of that section is that Sodom was destroyed because the Sodomites would not grant asylum to sojourners who arrived in their lands seeking asylum. In other words what Trump and MAGA is doing about immigration here in the USA.

    I asked Gemini to find me some links, this one went right to the crux of it, it was exactly the narrative I was looking for:
    Farmworkers-1024x532.jpeg


    "Hostility towards strangers and aliens is the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah which resulted in their destruction in Genesis 19. This is visible when the men of Sodom surround Lot’s house, and demand that the visiting men (who we know to be angels) come out so they can violate them. This contrasts radically with Abraham and Sarah’s lavish hospitality in Genesis 18. Lot’s subsequent offer of his home as a sanctuary serves as a partial model of righteous aiding and abetting of aliens at a time when many North Americans and Europeans are scapegoating immigrants and refugees, calling for their deportation. The alien angels’ visit becomes a rescue mission to their hosts, as they urge Lot and his family to flee for their lives—before it’s too late. This story speaks prophetically to our situation in the USA now as we anticipate the Trump Administration coming to power January 20."


    bobekblad.com

    Resisting the Sin of Sodom

    Hostility towards strangers and aliens is the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah which resulted in their destruction in Genesis 19. This is visible when the men of Sodom surround Lot’s house, and demand tha…
    bobekblad.com bobekblad.com
     
    Sendai said:
    As to #4 the constitution prohibits bribery. Washington accepted gifts. And my discussion relates to emoluments and that those who claim the president doing business violates the emoluments clause. Yet, presidents have engaged in business throughout our history.

    Yes it’s an office. But the president is not an officer. The president is an elected official. Officers are appointed and Congress and the president and vice president are elected officials.

    Quite simply the emoluments clause parallels and follows the early European model to prohibit appointed ambassadors, legates, consul, royal advisors, etc. from accepting money, land, royalties, and title from other Kings, to whom they were probably related.

    The framers knew well the history of offices of profit and they knew they were not elected. The reference in the constitution targets specifically the ambassadors, the legates, counsels, military, official advisors.
    Click to expand...
    Washington's gifts could have been considered to have not been from a King, Prince, or foreign State, and we all know you have absolutely nothing to support the notion that Washington thought otherwise and declared that the clause didn't apply to him.

    Your "OK, it is an office, but the holder of it is not an officer" stance, is both daft and ignorant - contemporary usage and dictionaries defined "officer" as "one who is in an office" as you would expect - and irrelevant, given that the emoluments clause doesn't refer to "an officer" but a "person holding any Office".

    Even if that weren't the case, Washington himself referred to the "President and other public officers", indicating that he and contemporaries did consider the President to be an officer.

    And you're still, bafflingly, figuratively doing the "fingers in the ears going la la la" thing with a founding father on record saying that the term "Office of Profit or Trust" did include the President such that the emoluments clause was "another provision against the danger of the President receiving emoluments." As if, if you just keep ignoring it, it'll simply vanish.

    I mean, wow. This is stunningly bad stuff. I think maybe we should get Guinness to have a look at this thread, because I think you may be setting a World Record in willful ignorance here.
     
    Sendai said:
    As to #4 the constitution prohibits bribery. Washington accepted gifts. And my discussion relates to emoluments and that those who claim the president doing business violates the emoluments clause. Yet, presidents have engaged in business throughout our history.

    Yes it’s an office. But the president is not an officer. The president is an elected official. Officers are appointed and Congress and the president and vice president are elected officials.

    Quite simply the emoluments clause parallels and follows the early European model to prohibit appointed ambassadors, legates, consul, royal advisors, etc. from accepting money, land, royalties, and title from other Kings, to whom they were probably related.

    The framers knew well the history of offices of profit and they knew they were not elected. The reference in the constitution targets specifically the ambassadors, the legates, counsels, military, official advisors.
    Click to expand...
    Rob put his finger on it when he said, "you're going for the bluntly stupid, "The Presidency isn't an Office" argument." You seem to be applying it outside of its unusual application.



    I asked Gemini to round up more, by stating, There appears to be a "The Presidency isn't an Office" argument on the Internet, then asking Gemini would you look into that, and give me your insight as to what is with that argument.

    Gemini replied:

    "The argument "The Presidency isn't an Office" is a legal and constitutional argument that gained some traction in recent discussions around the potential disqualification of a candidate from holding the presidency. "

    Supported by, at link:

    1. The presidency is not an “office … under the United States.” If that’s the case, Section 3 does not bar oath-breaking insurrectionists, like Trump, as Wallace found, from become president.
    Click to expand...
    2. The president is not “an officer of the United States” for purposes of the oath-triggering clause. If that’s the case, Section 3 never brought Trump within its purview, so it doesn’t matter if Trump later went on to engage in insurrection.
    Click to expand...

    In summary, Gemini states:

    In essence, the "The Presidency isn't an Office" argument is a legal strategy used to try to prevent the disqualification of a presidential candidate under the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist clause. However, it is largely considered unconvincing by legal experts, who emphasize that the Constitution's language and the historical understanding of the presidency strongly suggest it is indeed an "office".
    Click to expand...

    Gemini uses the following link with the support for that summery highlighted in purple at that link: Lawfare


    Note: Gemini adds what it wants to highlight in purple encoded in the link, such that when clicked the page comes up with the section Gemini refers to already highlighted. Makes it easy to find, scroll down find the purple highlighted text.

    That's a neat trick I looked into figure out how to do that, I found out, and then decided that's a neat trick which AI's can do, and which I could do if I were a computer.

    This when added to a link does that highlighting:

    ~:text=may%20well%20have%20been%20an,Just%20a%20little%20far%2Dfetched.
     
    SamAndreas said:
    Rob put his finger on it when he said, "you're going for the bluntly stupid, "The Presidency isn't an Office" argument." You seem to be applying it outside of its unusual application.



    I asked Gemini to round up more, by stating, There appears to be a "The Presidency isn't an Office" argument on the Internet, then asking Gemini would you look into that, and give me your insight as to what is with that argument.

    Gemini replied:

    "The argument "The Presidency isn't an Office" is a legal and constitutional argument that gained some traction in recent discussions around the potential disqualification of a candidate from holding the presidency. "

    Supported by, at link:




    In summary, Gemini states:



    Gemini uses the following link with the support for that summery highlighted in purple at that link: Lawfare


    Note: Gemini adds what it wants to highlight in purple encoded in the link, such that when clicked the page comes up with the section Gemini refers to already highlighted. Makes it easy to find, scroll down find the purple highlighted text.

    That's a neat trick I looked into figure out how to do that, I found out, and then decided that's a neat trick which AI's can do, and which I could do if I were a computer.

    This when added to a link does that highlighting:

    ~:text=may%20well%20have%20been%20an,Just%20a%20little%20far%2Dfetched.
    Click to expand...
    The presidency is an office. The president isn’t an officer. As Justice Roberts has stated officers are appointed, Congress, the President and Vice President are elected officials.
     
    Sendai said:
    The presidency is an office. The president isn’t an officer. As Justice Roberts has stated officers are appointed, Congress, the President and Vice President are elected officials.
    Click to expand...
    OK dude, you need to provide us with your definition of an officer, then you need to compare your's with its actual definition!

    This is beyond ridiculous 🙄
     
    All in deference to one man who has no business holding the office he currently holds. They twist themselves into knots to justify a crass conman who is fleecing all of us every day as he grabs more and more power for himself.
     
    Sendai said:
    The presidency is an office. The president isn’t an officer. As Justice Roberts has stated officers are appointed, Congress, the President and Vice President are elected officials.
    Click to expand...
    Well yes I suppose so, In California, in my county a county coroner is an elected official, but in some other California counties coroners are appointed, such that it's a mixed boat. They don't have to be Doctors, but they do have to know how to wield a knife. I think a retired butcher would be ideal.


    Military officers are Officers of the United States. It's a big deal they get to exercise the sovereign power of the federal government. That means they can sign for things which cost the government money.
     
    Sendai said:
    The presidency is an office. The president isn’t an officer. As Justice Roberts has stated officers are appointed, Congress, the President and Vice President are elected officials.
    Click to expand...
    Scalia said he was an officer. Roberts,Thomas,and Alito concurred.

    What Justice Scalia Thought About Whether Presidents Are “Officers of the United States”

    In a 2014 concurrence and a short letter elaborating on it, Scalia indicated that the president was an “officer of the United States.”
    www.lawfaremedia.org www.lawfaremedia.org
     
    Sendai said:
    The presidency is an office. The president isn’t an officer. As Justice Roberts has stated officers are appointed, Congress, the President and Vice President are elected officials.
    Click to expand...
    LET'S CHECK IN WITH JAMES MADISON!

    According to the constitution of every State in the Union, some or other of the officers of government are appointed indirectly only by the people. According to most of them, the chief magistrate himself is so appointed. And according to one, this mode of appointment is extended to one of the co-ordinate branches of the legislature. According to all the constitutions, also, the tenure of the highest offices is extended to a definite period, and in many instances, both within the legislative and executive departments, to a period of years. According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behavior.​
    ​
    On comparing the Constitution planned by the convention with the standard here fixed, we perceive at once that it is, in the most rigid sense, conformable to it. The House of Representatives, like that of one branch at least of all the State legislatures, is elected immediately by the great body of the people. The Senate, like the present Congress, and the Senate of Maryland, derives its appointment indirectly from the people. The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people, according to the example in most of the States.​
    ​
    - The Federalist Papers : No. 39​

    Seems that Madison thought the President was an officer who was appointed by the people! But maybe he just didn't know the history. Surely no other framers were so ignorant as to think someone who holds the office of President might be an officer. Wait... what's that? It's ALEXANDER HAMILTON!

    The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years​
    ​
    - The Federalist Papers : No. 69​
    ​
    Oh. Well. That's pretty dang unambiguous.

    So not Madison, not Hamilton, not Washington who as already mentioned referred to "the President and other public officers", and we've already covered - repeatedly - Edmund Randolph saying that the term "Office of Profit or Trust" did include the President such that the emoluments clause was "another provision against the danger of the President receiving emoluments".

    Honestly, @Sendai, it's really starting to look like all these framers thought the Presidency was an office, and the President an officer, who was subject to the emoluments clause.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom