For whatever reason, reminds me of the stupendous absurdity of a person who couldn't get the lowest level of security clearance being in charge of the entire intelligence apparatus, including many authorities in that system that are given ONLY to him. Given everything that we know about him, I'm not sure that you can get much better of a "Fox guarding the henhouse" kind of situation. And PRETTY sure that Putin 100% understands this.
Which pairs nicely with also not being able to get a job a McDonald's, I do believe.
'Mericuh.
Frankly, Donnie has the country by the balls.
The CIA likely has all types of traitorous info on Trump. But they can’t take action because SCOTUS.
And they would never release this information publicly because it would jeopardize our position with our allies and assist our enemies. And it violates their policy anyway to announce investigations publicly.
In many ways Donnie is thoroughly exposing the weaknesses of democracy as the instrument to head off a descent into authoritarianism. We the people doesn’t work very well when the people are either apathetic or imbeciles.
the framers of the constitution KNEW trump was coming, and put in multiple safeguards to stop him.
but ironically, one of the main safeguards, the electoral college, is exactly the tool that will put him in despite being voted down again and again.
the best laid plans of mice and men oft go astray...
The CIA likely has all types of traitorous info on Trump. But they can’t take action because SCOTUS.
And they would never release this information publicly because it would jeopardize our position with our allies and assist our enemies. And it violates their policy anyway to announce investigations publicly.
In many ways Donnie is thoroughly exposing the weaknesses of democracy as the instrument to head off a descent into authoritarianism. We the people doesn’t work very well when the people are either apathetic or imbeciles.
the framers of the constitution KNEW trump was coming, and put in multiple safeguards to stop him.
but ironically, one of the main safeguards, the electoral college, is exactly the tool that will put him in despite being voted down again and again.
the best laid plans of mice and men oft go astray...
We've touched on this topic before, and while I hesitate to delve into too much - knowing SO LITTLE about the founders or the law - I'll repeat what I've said before: As smart as they were, it looks like they just weren't smart enough (in this case). If they KNEW that Trump was coming, why didn't they do more to stop it? Two specific thoughts on that, the first one perhaps more solid than the second:
1) If they KNEW so much of what men are capable of, why did they set up an impeachment system where same-party control of EITHER chamber or Congress could stop the very worst of presidents from being impeached?
2) Could the constitution not have been written in such a way to have made SCOTUS' recent decision regarding presidential immunity much, much less likely?
3) I guess it's since been rendered moot by #2, but also, how about writing the constitution in such a way that we weren't constrained by a "Justice Department (freakin'!) MEMO" saying the the president is basically above the law while in office?
Arguably "phony" versus "proud autocrat wanna-be," hmmm.....tough call.
Trump has a softball "Townhall", gives up after a few questions and dances poorly for 30+min, cancels or refuses interviews with multiple legitimate news sources.
Trump rambles like a corner homeless person, threatening people, making racist claims and outright lies, ranting about sharks, etc. and they claim Harris is word salad.
For Trump supporters, every accusation is an admission of their candidate's inadequacy.
the framers of the constitution KNEW trump was coming, and put in multiple safeguards to stop him.
but ironically, one of the main safeguards, the electoral college, is exactly the tool that will put him in despite being voted down again and again.
the best laid plans of mice and men oft go astray...
We've touched on this topic before, and while I hesitate to delve into too much - knowing SO LITTLE about the founders or the law - I'll repeat what I've said before: As smart as they were, it looks like they just weren't smart enough (in this case). If they KNEW that Trump was coming, why didn't they do more to stop it? Two specific thoughts on that, the first one perhaps more solid than the second:
1) If they KNEW so much of what men are capable of, why did they set up an impeachment system where same-party control of EITHER chamber or Congress could stop the very worst of presidents from being impeached?
2) Could the constitution not have been written in such a way to have made SCOTUS' recent decision regarding presidential immunity much, much less likely?
3) I guess it's since been rendered moot by #2, but also, how about writing the constitution in such a way that we weren't constrained by a "Justice Department (freakin'!) MEMO" saying the the president is basically above the law while in office?
my understanding is that the framers didn't think political parties would be as strong as they became.
But the framers put in the electoral college as a last ditch way for responsible elders to reject a DJT character. It didn't work. It's now considered inappropriate and possibly illegal for electors to reject their state's election.
as for impeachment, framers had senators be non-elected so senators wouldn't be subject to the need to kiss up to m'aga type mobs. this is a big one. US R senators knew from the start trump was unfit for office but they had to get through a primary so they let DJT run roughshod over them and the nation.
If those senators didn't have elections - AS THE FRAMERS SAID THEY SHOULDN'T- maybe those R senators would have convicted and removed Trump. But senators knew conviction would mean they couldn't get through a primary so they voted to acquit, against their better judgment.
So that one is on those who changed the constitution to allow senators to be elected.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
my understanding is that the framers didn't think political parties would be as strong as they became.
But the framers put in the electoral college as a last ditch way for responsible elders to reject a DJT character. It didn't work. It's considered inappropriate for electors to reject their state's election.
as for impeachment, framers had senators being non-elected so senators wouldn't be subject to the need to kiss up to m'aga type mobs. this is a big one. US R senators knew from the start trump was unfit for office but they had to get through a primary so they let DJT run roughshod over them and the nation.
If those senators didn't have elections - AS THE FRAMERS SAID THEY SHOULDN'T- maybe those R senators would have convicted and removed Trump. But senators knew conviction would mean they couldn't get through a primary so they voted to acquit, against their better judgment.
So that one is on those who changed the constitution to allow senators to be elected.
So you think only property-owning white males should be able to vote? Somehow I don't think Democrats would want that...
the framers of the constitution KNEW trump was coming, and put in multiple safeguards to stop him.
but ironically, one of the main safeguards, the electoral college, is exactly the tool that will put him in despite being voted down again and again.
the best laid plans of mice and men oft go astray...
I am not so sure that the electoral college was created as a safeguard against Trumps to be. My understanding is more aligned with the following from wikipedia:
"The Electoral College was officially selected as the means of electing president towards the end of the Constitutional Convention due to pressure from slave states wanting to increase their voting power (since they could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when allocating electors) and by small states who increased their power given the minimum of three electors per state. The compromise was reached after other proposals, including a direct election for president (as proposed by Hamilton among others), failed to get traction among slave states.[31] Levitsky and Ziblatt describe it as "not a product of constitutional theory or farsighted design. Rather, it was adopted by default, after all other alternatives had been rejected."[31]
“I’m torn. On one hand, Trump’s former chief of staff says he’s a Hitler-admiring fascist who wants to rule like a dictator. But, on the other, Harris can’t locate pay stubs from a part-time job 40 years ago. What a perplexing decision.”
my understanding is that the framers didn't think political parties would be as strong as they became.
But the framers put in the electoral college as a last ditch way for responsible elders to reject a DJT character. It didn't work. It's now considered inappropriate and possibly illegal for electors to reject their state's election.
as for impeachment, framers had senators be non-elected so senators wouldn't be subject to the need to kiss up to m'aga type mobs. this is a big one. US R senators knew from the start trump was unfit for office but they had to get through a primary so they let DJT run roughshod over them and the nation.
If those senators didn't have elections - AS THE FRAMERS SAID THEY SHOULDN'T- maybe those R senators would have convicted and removed Trump. But senators knew conviction would mean they couldn't get through a primary so they voted to acquit, against their better judgment.
So that one is on those who changed the constitution to allow senators to be elected.
You've made this (bolded) claim many times. But I have not seen much to back it up.
I've seen quite a bit to back up the idea that the whole point of the EC was to get the slave states and the small states to sign up to the Constitution without any notion of preventing the Trumps of the world from becoming POTUS.
The CIA likely has all types of traitorous info on Trump. But they can’t take action because SCOTUS.
And they would never release this information publicly because it would jeopardize our position with our allies and assist our enemies. And it violates their policy anyway to announce investigations publicly.
In many ways Donnie is thoroughly exposing the weaknesses of democracy as the instrument to head off a descent into authoritarianism. We the people doesn’t work very well when the people are either apathetic or imbeciles.
theframers of the constitution KNEW trump was coming, and put in multiple safeguards to stop him.
but ironically, one of the main safeguards, the electoral college, is exactly the tool that will put him in despite being voted down again and again.
the best laid plans of mice and men oft go astray...
Correct, they knew that Kamala was coming and destroying the country so they prayed that someone like Trump would come along.
Everyone loves the electoral college when their side wins, but...cry harder mate! If he wins the popular vote, you'll still cry.
Trump will win handily, only flagpole would still disagree with that. I told him in February but him and his liberal friends wouldn't listen.
We've touched on this topic before, and while I hesitate to delve into too much - knowing SO LITTLE about the founders or the law - I'll repeat what I've said before: As smart as they were, it looks like they just weren't smart enough (in this case). If they KNEW that Trump was coming, why didn't they do more to stop it? Two specific thoughts on that, the first one perhaps more solid than the second:
1) If they KNEW so much of what men are capable of, why did they set up an impeachment system where same-party control of EITHER chamber or Congress could stop the very worst of presidents from being impeached?
2) Could the constitution not have been written in such a way to have made SCOTUS' recent decision regarding presidential immunity much, much less likely?
3) I guess it's since been rendered moot by #2, but also, how about writing the constitution in such a way that we weren't constrained by a "Justice Department (freakin'!) MEMO" saying the the president is basically above the law while in office?
my understanding is that the framers didn't think political parties would be as strong as they became.
But the framers put in the electoral college as a last ditch way for responsible elders to reject a DJT character. It didn't work. It's now considered inappropriate and possibly illegal for electors to reject their state's election.
as for impeachment, framers had senators be non-elected so senators wouldn't be subject to the need to kiss up to m'aga type mobs. this is a big one. US R senators knew from the start trump was unfit for office but they had to get through a primary so they let DJT run roughshod over them and the nation.
If those senators didn't have elections - AS THE FRAMERS SAID THEY SHOULDN'T- maybe those R senators would have convicted and removed Trump. But senators knew conviction would mean they couldn't get through a primary so they voted to acquit, against their better judgment.
So that one is on those who changed the constitution to allow senators to be elected.
total misinformation post, falsehoods abound! less than 2 weeks, hooray!!!!!
the framers of the constitution KNEW trump was coming, and put in multiple safeguards to stop him.
but ironically, one of the main safeguards, the electoral college, is exactly the tool that will put him in despite being voted down again and again.
the best laid plans of mice and men oft go astray...
We've touched on this topic before, and while I hesitate to delve into too much - knowing SO LITTLE about the founders or the law - I'll repeat what I've said before: As smart as they were, it looks like they just weren't smart enough (in this case). If they KNEW that Trump was coming, why didn't they do more to stop it? Two specific thoughts on that, the first one perhaps more solid than the second:
1) If they KNEW so much of what men are capable of, why did they set up an impeachment system where same-party control of EITHER chamber or Congress could stop the very worst of presidents from being impeached?
2) Could the constitution not have been written in such a way to have made SCOTUS' recent decision regarding presidential immunity much, much less likely?
3) I guess it's since been rendered moot by #2, but also, how about writing the constitution in such a way that we weren't constrained by a "Justice Department (freakin'!) MEMO" saying the the president is basically above the law while in office?
The framers of the early American government could not have envisioned a completely shameless candidate succeeding at such a level. When the extent of Nixon’s corruption was laid out, 85 members of the Senate indicated that they would vote to convict. But Trump’s hold on his core of supporters is so great that only 57 voted to convict him after he incited a riot to illegally hold onto the presidency. It should have been 100 to zero, but enough Republicans cared more about getting re-elected by true believers than doing the right thing.
His escape from justice shows that we may never hit the bottom in this country and empowered him that no matter what his crimes as President, that no modern Senate would ever have 67 votes to convict him.
my understanding is that the framers didn't think political parties would be as strong as they became.
But the framers put in the electoral college as a last ditch way for responsible elders to reject a DJT character. It didn't work. It's now considered inappropriate and possibly illegal for electors to reject their state's election.
as for impeachment, framers had senators be non-elected so senators wouldn't be subject to the need to kiss up to m'aga type mobs. this is a big one. US R senators knew from the start trump was unfit for office but they had to get through a primary so they let DJT run roughshod over them and the nation.
If those senators didn't have elections - AS THE FRAMERS SAID THEY SHOULDN'T- maybe those R senators would have convicted and removed Trump. But senators knew conviction would mean they couldn't get through a primary so they voted to acquit, against their better judgment.
So that one is on those who changed the constitution to allow senators to be elected.
You've made this (bolded) claim many times. But I have not seen much to back it up.
I've seen quite a bit to back up the idea that the whole point of the EC was to get the slave states and the small states to sign up to the Constitution without any notion of preventing the Trumps of the world from becoming POTUS.
It was a compromise related to the three-fifths compromise to give the slave states outsized power in electing the president.
You've made this (bolded) claim many times. But I have not seen much to back it up.
I've seen quite a bit to back up the idea that the whole point of the EC was to get the slave states and the small states to sign up to the Constitution without any notion of preventing the Trumps of the world from becoming POTUS.
It was a compromise related to the three-fifths compromise to give the slave states outsized power in electing the president.
federalist 68 spells out Hamilton's view of the EC. To serve as a filter to elect as president only people fit to serve.
"Such men would be "most likely to have the information and discernment" to make a good choice and to avoid the election of anyone "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."
of course the EC was also partly a gift to the South to get them to approve the constitution.
Federalist No. 68 is the 68th essay of The Federalist Papers, and was published on March 12, 1788. It was probably written by Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym "Publius", the name under which all of the Federalist Papers...
The framers of the early American government could not have envisioned a completely shameless candidate succeeding at such a level. When the extent of Nixon’s corruption was laid out, 85 members of the Senate indicated that they would vote to convict. But Trump’s hold on his core of supporters is so great that only 57 voted to convict him after he incited a riot to illegally hold onto the presidency. It should have been 100 to zero, but enough Republicans cared more about getting re-elected by true believers than doing the right thing.
His escape from justice shows that we may never hit the bottom in this country and empowered him that no matter what his crimes as President, that no modern Senate would ever have 67 votes to convict him.
The sad thing about Jan 6th is that most all GOP members at the time were calling Trumps actions shameless and are on record saying Trump bore full responsibility. That it was a horrendous day in our nations history.
They excused themselves from convicting him in the Senate by saying he was leaving office anyway and the criminal courts were the best place to determine Trumps guilt or innocence.
Now that Fox News has successfully whitewashed Jan 6th after 3 years of hard work gaslighting, they all pretend Jan 6th was a nothing burger and fully support Trump.
JUST IN: The Justice Department has sent a letter to Elon Musk's super PAC, warning that his daily $1m giveaway to registered voters in swing states might violate federal laws, sources tell CNN. It's illegal to incentivize registration with cash/prizes
Kash Patel says as Trump’s next CIA Director he will lead “patriots” appointed by Trump in an all-out effort to prosecute and jail people in government and the media: “We will find the conspirators in govt and the media. Yes, we are going to come after the people in the media.”
It was a compromise related to the three-fifths compromise to give the slave states outsized power in electing the president.
federalist 68 spells out Hamilton's view of the EC. To serve as a filter to elect as president only people fit to serve.
"Such men would be "most likely to have the information and discernment" to make a good choice and to avoid the election of anyone "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."
of course the EC was also partly a gift to the South to get them to approve the constitution.
1) Bolded text seems disingenuous. The Primary purpose of the EC was to get the slave states and small states to sign on. Your notion that this was some sort of minor function in the creation of the EC system is absurd. It was THE purpose of the EC.
2) Federalist 68 basically shows that ONE person thought that one nice feature of the EC would be to help weed out any Trump-To-Be. That is a very different statement than saying that all (or the majority) of the framers of the Constitution thought that this feature was the (or one of the) primary drivers for the creation of the EC.
The EC was created to get the slave states and small states on board. It was not designed or implemented in order to keep future Trumps out.
JUST IN: The Justice Department has sent a letter to Elon Musk's super PAC, warning that his daily $1m giveaway to registered voters in swing states might violate federal laws, sources tell CNN. It's illegal to incentivize registration with cash/prizes
More lawfare. Just look at Jocelyn Benson as well in Michigan. Hopefully Trump appoints a loyal AG who'll target his enemies - like her.
