Post: Original Intent

Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage

Republicans: Do you know where your political donations are?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 6:12 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (12 comments) [439 views]

The silent Trump voter
Politics by HatetheSwamp     April 28, 2024 7:28 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [24 views]

James Comer hopes for divine intervention to save him from embarrassing impeachment fiasco.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 7:05 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [137 views]

pb's Legal Goobers #s 2 & 3: The NY v Trump case is collapsing
Law by HatetheSwamp     April 26, 2024 3:43 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (6 comments) [53 views]

The Oval Office Oaf calls for "Four more years. Pause."
Entertainment by HatetheSwamp     April 24, 2024 2:56 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (6 comments) [110 views]

Trump, Giuliani, Meadows are unindicted co-conspirators in Michigan fake elector case, hearing reveals
Law by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 4:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [65 views]

Turley: The "haymaker" in Supreme Court arguments. Chief Justice Roberts. "Openly mocking of DC Circuit."
Law by HatetheSwamp     April 26, 2024 5:59 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (8 comments) [194 views]

The latest general election polls from this weekend reveal something interesting.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 22, 2024 11:03 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (10 comments) [424 views]

So Ukraine got money.
Military by oldedude     April 24, 2024 3:58 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (6 comments) [99 views]

Donna may be getting her wish granted: Gateway Pundit to file for bankruptcy
Law by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 7:28 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [39 views]

History selectors, pages, etc.

Original Intent

By Ponderer
January 6, 2024 9:43 am
Category: History

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

Do you believe that it was the original intent of the drafters of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to exclude the office of the presidency from consideration regarding the disqualification of insurrectionists and rebels against the Constitution and those who give aid and comfort to enemies thereof? That their original intent was to allow an insurrectionist to hold the office of president?

I'm going to suggest that it was in fact very likely not.

Discuss...!

Comments Start Below

The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.

Comments on "Original Intent":

by HatetheSwamp on January 6, 2024 10:11 am

po,

As you know, I spent decades reading texts, interpreting them and commenting on them.

Reading Section 3, the obvious question to me is why the framers of the Amendment went to the trouble of listing "Senator, Representative and Elector of the President..." directly only to lump the President in among those who "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,..."

So far, I've read no exegesis that offers an adequate explanation...imo. You're welcome to be the one who succeeds.

by oldedude on January 6, 2024 10:29 am
No. And there's nothing to support that theory.

by Curt_Anderson on January 6, 2024 11:02 am
Ponderer,
We know with the framers said about the 14th amendment’s applicability to the presidency at the link below. It is well documented. Read what Senator Reverdy Johnson asked about the omission and the reply from Senator Lot Morrill.
abcnews.go.com

by HatetheSwamp on January 6, 2024 11:17 am

Curt,

You linked to that earlier.

So, if I read your article correctly it was only one Senator who, for certain, thought it applies to the President?

"Maine's Lot Morrill jumped in to clarify.

"Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,'" Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point."

Also, Re: "...a key question for arbiters now is whether the language drafted a century-and-a-half ago should be applied to Trump's role in the Jan. 6 riot."

So, what was "Trump's role in the Jan. 6 riot?"

by Curt_Anderson on January 6, 2024 11:33 am
Also, Re: "...a key question for arbiters now is whether the language drafted a century-and-a-half ago should be applied to Trump's role in the Jan. 6 riot."

So, what was "Trump's role in the Jan. 6 riot?"

Do you wonder if the much older language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights still apples?

As for Trump’s role in his insurrection, it’s comparable to Alexander Stephens in his.

by oldedude on January 6, 2024 11:38 am
Sorry, #2 was for the thread lead post from po.

by HatetheSwamp on January 6, 2024 11:45 am

No, Curt.

As I recall, the J6 Committee concluded by being vexed over the fact that, while the riot was taking place at the Capitol, Trump did nuthin for 187 minutes. If 3+ hours of inactivity is the extent of Trump's role in the J6 riot, what's impeachable by anyone's understanding of Section 3?

by Curt_Anderson on January 6, 2024 11:59 am
Trump’s 187 minutes inactivity are not nearly as vexing as is his actions and exhorting beforehand.

by HatetheSwamp on January 6, 2024 12:26 pm

"...peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..."

Them's fightin words, eh. Patriotism is evil!

View Video

by islander on January 6, 2024 12:31 pm

The problem as I see it, Ponderer, is that the laws are not clear and this is not an uncommon situation since even in law, everything is not black and white.

Everybody here knows Trump is not fit to be president of the United States, we also know that what Mitch McConnell said about Trump’s role in Jan 6 and Trump’s responsibility tor what happened that day is absolutely true.

If the framers of the Constitution could have envisioned that what they wrote would enable someone like Trump, who did what Trump did, I have no doubt that the laws necessary to qualify for the highest office in the land would have been much clearer and detailed than what we were left with. There needs to be standards of ethics and morals that would have to be met by any candidate.

If a candidate for a federal office, (the presidency for example) were found to be unqualified in any state the candidate would have to be unqualified in every state. We can’t have some states disqualifying candidates and other states disqualifying different candidates.

That’s why we need uniform standards in all 50 states for Federal elections.

by Ponderer on January 6, 2024 12:50 pm

Curt, would you think that his three hours of inactivity during the storming of the Capitol (As he was watching what was going on on live TV knowing that with a phone call he could stop it) might qualify as "giving aid and comfort" to those same now convicted insurrectionist participants and enemies of the Constitution that he sent there, fueled by his lies?

And having sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic, was he not also in that historical space of time in direct conflict with that sworn duty by sitting motionless as an insurrectionist pile of putrid pigshit and watching it being attacked without stopping it, as he had all the power in the world to do?

I myself would think so in each case.

By the way. I notice that no one as yet has addressed the title question of this thread....

However they ended up finally drafting Sec 3 of the 14th, does anyone here believe that it was the original intent of those drafters to constitutionally allow a known insurrectionist and enemy of the Constitution to ever hold the office of president when they were barring pretty much any other known insurrectionist and/or enemy of the Constitution from holding it?

Anyone? Yea...? Nay...?

by Curt_Anderson on January 6, 2024 12:51 pm
Islander,
As you know we have the situation now of some states qualifying candidates while they are unqualified in other states. That being the case with minor party and independent candidates not getting ballot access in all 50 states.

In theory you'd think that the voters wouldn't vote for a candidate with obvious and egregiously low ethics and morals. Alas. I just wish voters would hold political candidates to the same standards they might have when hiring a minimum wage employee. Would they hire somebody who is under indictment, charged with fraud or sued frequently---including in a rape/defamation case?

by HatetheSwamp on January 6, 2024 12:54 pm

Decent concept, isle. But, doesn't it seem a little Big Brother-ish to you?

It seems to me that the Framers framed out as much personal liberty for citizens as was optimal and, as I pointed out in my opinion thread, as much independence for the individual states as was reasonable. No doubt, the 14th Amendment curbed states rights. But, then, don't you want Maine to be able to limit Trump's access to Maine’s ballot?

Federal control may not be the panacea of which you dream.

by HatetheSwamp on January 6, 2024 12:58 pm

In theory you'd think that the voters wouldn't vote for a candidate with obvious and egregiously low ethics and morals.

As you know, this is a diverse, pluralistic society. Notions of what's moral and ethical ain't universal.

by Curt_Anderson on January 6, 2024 1:06 pm
Curt, would you think that his three hours of inactivity during the storming of the Capitol (As he was watching what was going on on live TV knowing that with a phone call he could stop it) might qualify as "giving aid and comfort" to those same now convicted insurrectionist participants and enemies of the Constitution that he sent there, fueled by his lies? --Ponderer

Yes. Silence indicates consent. It's more than aid and comfort. It's more than being complicit. He instigated the rioters. Especially after riling up the crowd with instructions to “fight much harder … We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong … We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”

The Capitol assault resulted in one of the worst days of injuries for law enforcement in the United States since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. About 140 officers — 73 from the Capitol Police and 65 from the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington — were injured.

by HatetheSwamp on January 6, 2024 1:28 pm

...qualify as "giving aid and comfort" to those same now convicted insurrectionist...

How many of the J6 crowd have been convicted of the crime of insurrection?

Y'nes remember, I'm sure, that OD and pb were on SS while the riot was taking place and we were condemning...in real time.

But, were those here on the old forum supporting, even cheering on the protest committing a crime? If so, maybe Merrick Garland needs to hear from you.

by Curt_Anderson on January 6, 2024 1:59 pm
HtS,
None of the January 6th crowd was convicted of insurrection, although several were convicted of insurrection's close cousin: sedition.

I am only aware (and I looked) of two persons in American history who were convicted of insurrection, namely John Brown and John U. Andrews in connection with the NYC draft riots during the Civil War.

by islander on January 6, 2024 2:07 pm

”Decent concept, isle. But, doesn't it seem a little Big Brother-ish to you?” ~ Hate

Not at all…Why would it?

We are one country, we are all Americans and when we vote for the president of our country we are not voting for the president of just our state. Your idea of Big Brother can be applied to a state government as well as the federal government.

” As you know, this is a diverse, pluralistic society. Notions of what's moral and ethical ain't universal.”

And??? We all know that. That doesn’t mean we can’t have standards of ethical behavior for Doctors, lawyers, judges and yes, even presidents.

” But, then, don't you want Maine to be able to limit Trump's access to Maine’s ballot?”

Of course I would as long as it applied to every state.

My country is where my ultimate loyalties lies. I’m and American first and a state of Mainer second.

My dream would be that the Supreme Court agrees with our secretary of state and rules that Trump is ineligible to run for president in our country due to his unethical and illegal behavior..

by HatetheSwamp on January 6, 2024 2:29 pm

Fine, isle.

Practically speaking ours is a constitutional, federal republic. It's a nation "of the people, by the people and for the people." The Tenth Amendment is the punchline of the Bill of Rights.

Individualism is our core value not conformity, nor uniformity.

I understand the ideal you aspire to. I disagree obviously... and vehemently... as we both well know.

by Ponderer on January 6, 2024 2:32 pm

"None of the January 6th crowd was convicted of insurrection, although several were convicted of insurrection's close cousin: sedition." -Curt

Plus, all of the convictions were for specific acts that qualify as acts of insurrection, in a broad and legal sense of the word I would think...

insurrection [ in-suh-rek-shuhn ]
noun

1. an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.

by HatetheSwamp on January 6, 2024 2:42 pm

It is, of course, what insurrection means under the law that matters.

However, according to that dictionary definition, J6 was a riot at the Capitol, not an insurrection.

by Curt_Anderson on January 6, 2024 2:46 pm
Ponderer,
As you indicate an overall crime can be the sum of its parts.

In the Georgia election interference case, I don't know that anybody was charged with election interference per se. However the dozen or so defendants have been charged with:
making false statements and writings;
solicitation of violation of oath of public officer;
impersonating a public officer and conspiring to impersonate;
forgery and conspiracy to commit forgery;
filing false documents;
criminal attempt to influence witnesses;
conspiracy to commit election fraud;
conspiracy to commit computer theft and computer trespass;
conspiracy to commit computer invasion of privacy;
conspiracy to defraud the state; and
perjury.

by islander on January 6, 2024 4:26 pm
”I understand the ideal you aspire to. I disagree obviously... and vehemently... as we both well know” ~ Hate

You’re right! We both have very different ideals. And my ideals were expressed in the Declaration of Independence and those ideals are what we have been striving to achieve since the founding of our nation.

The concept that humans have the right to determine their own
fate and the only way that can become a reality is in a democracy where each person’s vote counts just as much anyone else’s. The words to the Declaration of Independence were so radical that even they did not understand its full implications.

The U.S. Constitution was based on the idea that the federal government,
rather than the states, was the heart of the new system. It asserted
that power to govern derived from the people of the nation, and it
created a national government to represent them. The document
began: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect Union. . . .” *

My ideal is that every citizen of our country, The United States of America, should have an equal say in the government and that every citizen should be equal before the law.

It didn’t start out that way though, in practice we began claiming one thing but doing another…”The Great American Paradox”.

The great American paradox was the backbone of the State's Rights Confederates just as it is with you.

by oldedude on January 6, 2024 4:27 pm
curt- your above statement. was that about the insurrection? or do you think those are different. I'm just wondering because everyone was talking insurrection, and then there's what you were talking about.

by Ponderer on January 6, 2024 6:32 pm

So,

However they ended up finally drafting Sec 3 of the 14th, does anyone here believe that it was the original intent of those drafters to constitutionally allow a known insurrectionist and enemy of the Constitution to ever hold the office of president when they were barring pretty much any other known insurrectionist and/or enemy of the Constitution from holding it?

Am I really the only one here who will venture an opinion on this question?

It seems obvious to me that it couldn't possibly have been the drafters' intent to constitutionally allow a known insurrectionist and enemy of the Constitution to ever hold the office of president when they were barring pretty much any other known insurrectionist and/or enemy of the Constitution from holding it.

Was it a mistake on their part? Perhaps. An oversight? A miscommunication...? Did they consider it a foregone conclusion that no known insurrectionist enemy of the Constitution could ever imaginably end up in a position of being elected president by American voters to even bother including such a stipulation...? Like they considered it an insult to the voters of this country to even suggest that they'd be capable of doing such a despicable thing...?

No thoughts...? Doesn't matter...? Who cares what they meant...?

by oldedude on January 6, 2024 7:57 pm
Yet again, you're trying to get us to say something that isn't true and you know it. I've explained it in second-grade language.

All this takes to get EXACTLY what you want is to take trumpster to court. Charge him with insurrection and get a conviction! That's it! HOLY CRAP!😱 What a concept!

This is easy to do the right way if you would only do it the legal way according to the law. Why don't you want to do that? I don't understand why you're so resistant to doing it right.

You're one of the Klansmen in the '50's. "He's guilty because he's orange! Burn a cross and let's get to it! He has so many other charges (and few of them have been proven in court), but I don't care!

The only problem is that I don't think legally, you have squat. Otherwise, we would have seen it already.

by islander on January 7, 2024 5:10 am

Pondy ~ Here is a great and informative article by Teri Kanefield. In it she explains why these questions are not as simple as they seem at first. 👍

If nothing else this Constitutional Crisis will hopefully make it plain for the American people to see why the Constitution must be open to the possibility that it might need to be changed periodically in order to make it more clear and to fix problems with "amendments".

terikanefield.com

by oldedude on January 7, 2024 5:37 am
isle. All that "periodic change" is already built into the Constitution. For the left it's far too slow though. That's the way it was specifically designed. So that "flash in the pan" ideas of mob rule have to wait on change. This is so a small number of people don't over-ride the good of the many.

by oldedude on January 7, 2024 6:14 am
The problem as I see it, Ponderer, is that the laws are not clear and this is not an uncommon situation since even in law, everything is not black and white.
I would argue the law is very clear in this. If they're convicted of insurrection, they cannot hold a federal office. That is clear. What isn't clear is why the dims want to jump the line and do something illegal. That is a fairly confusing question for me.

That’s why we need uniform standards in all 50 states for Federal elections.

The only major issue about not getting on the ballot in states is the timing and registration.

by HatetheSwamp on January 7, 2024 6:30 am

Nice, isle. Thanks for the Teri article. Teri is bright AND informed, yet biased, though has enuff sense and humility to lament the bias.

The problem with this article is that... typical of TDS hysteria... it pretends that Section 3 is the entire Fourteenth Amendment, which it ain't.

Many of the legal pundits I follow are convinced that the Court will decide the case without touching Section 3. That'd be the easiest thing to do and the punchline of the Amendment, Section 5, will make that easy.

What I like about Teri is the effort here, as OD and pb do, to be rational in the faace of the very powerful preferences and prejudices that Teri carries around during every moment. Not merely to add fuel to the flames of subjectivity.

I've been watching MSNBC. Teri's sumpthin close to a progressive voice of reason.

by islander on January 7, 2024 6:57 am

One of the things I always enjoy reading are the comments from readers at the end of Teri's articles.

by Ponderer on January 8, 2024 8:47 am

"I would argue the law is very clear in this. If they're convicted of insurrection, they cannot hold a federal office." -olde dude

It's amazing how you can consider being convicted of insurrection as "very clear" in Section 3 of the 14th when it doesn't appear anywhere in the entire section of the amendment.

What's very clear is that it is inconceivable that the original intention of the drafters of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was to disqualify all insurrectionists candidates from holding sworn federal offices because they engaged in insurrection......... except for the presidency.

Their original intention couldn't have possibly been to allow an insurrectionist to be president, while cutting off essentially all other high positions in federal government from being held by such a treasonous person.

And as no one here apparently disagrees with me on that or has proposed any logical argument to the contrary, I will take it that at least most of you agree with me, but have your own biased reasons for not wanting to publicly say so.

by islander on January 8, 2024 9:24 am

I certainly agree with you Ponderer !! 👍

by Ponderer on January 8, 2024 11:17 am

I was pretty sure you did, Isle.

by Ponderer on January 9, 2024 9:26 am

One of these is in order...

by HatetheSwamp on January 9, 2024 9:34 am

po and isle,

If there's any chance that Section 3 would be applied to any person in the 21st century, don't you agree that it would be necessary to demonstrate that that person actually did engage in insurrection?

by islander on January 9, 2024 9:51 am

Trump did engage in insurrection. The whole world witnessed it as it was happening.

If Trump thinks it is unfair to keep keep him off the ballot because of what we saw he is entitled to due process and he can challenge the secretary of state's decision in a court of law.

That's how due process works.

by Ponderer on January 9, 2024 10:08 am

"Trump did engage in insurrection. The whole world witnessed it as it was happening." -Isle

Not only that, but several state supreme court judges in these cases were satisfied and declared that the evidence they saw demonstrated to them that he had engaged in insurrection. It was their providing due process in the furtherance of their official oversight in this case that got it to the place that it is now.

by HatetheSwamp on January 9, 2024 10:13 am

If Trump thinks it is unfair to keep keep him off the ballot because of what we saw he is entitled to due process and he can challenge the secretary of state's decision in a court of law.

That's how due process works.

Baha. Nuh uh. Keehee, ha!

Guilty until proven innocent. Ain't!!!!!?

And, isle, it's also the rights of Trump voters... as evil and moronic as they may be... that are being infringed.

by oldedude on January 9, 2024 12:47 pm
If Trump thinks it is unfair to keep keep him off the ballot because of what we saw he is entitled to due process and he can challenge the secretary of state's decision in a court of law.

That's how due process works.

Wrongagain. It's the states' (meaning government's) job to ensure a fair trial (for about the fourth time) prior to taking any rights he would otherwise be eligible for (see the multitude of other posts I've made about this). If not, THE STATE HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY to correct. Not the other way around.😞

You are so big brother motivated, but when big brother has a responsibility, you absolutely shirk from it.

The law in this case is extremely clear. You're choosing to make up you own laws, and you're only bitching about it because you don't like that you have to give someone you hate the same rights as you would someone you do like. Grow up.

by HatetheSwamp on January 9, 2024 1:11 pm

OD,

I can't imagine, if crazed MAGAs in purple states removed Joe from their ballots for bonkers MAGA reasons that isle and po'd be posting:

"If (our belovéd President) thinks it is unfair to keep keep him off the ballot because of what we saw he is entitled to due process and he can challenge the secretary of state's decision in a court of law.

That's how due process works."

Not by a looooooooong shot! Baha.

by islander on January 9, 2024 2:31 pm

Ballot Exclusion Is Common in all 50 States. Secretaries of State have broad powers and the authority to determine who meets and doesn’t meet the state’s requirements to be on their ballots and different states have different requirements. This goes for state and federal elections.

The secretary of state cannot charge or indict a person for a crime; the secretary of state can only determine whether a potential candidate meets the state’s requirements to be on the ballot.

Should the secretary of state determine that a candidate is not eligible to be on the state’s ballot, that person isn’t being charged with or tried for a crime. Again, not meeting state qualifications is not a crime. A person charged with a crime has a right to due process, such as a trial in a court of law etc.

We have in place the means by which a candidate who believes the secretary of State was wrong for disqualifying him or her from the ballot can appeal that decision and seek redress in the courts. Both states that have disqualified Trump have put a hold on their decision pending the ruling of the courts. The courts should let us know shortly what their decision is.

As you know I think Federal elections should be run and overseen by the federal government and the rules and laws should be the same in every state.

by HatetheSwamp on January 9, 2024 2:42 pm

So, if crazed MAGAs in purple states removed Joe from their ballots for bonkers MAGA reasons...

...I'm confident po and you wouldn't be saying that all's copacetic, that Joe has due process and that he can just appeal...

...very, very confident.

Shenna Bellows is a radical, extremist partisan hack. You should be up in arms about what she's done.

Even MAGAs don't do this stuff. You should be appalled and ashamed.

by islander on January 9, 2024 2:56 pm

Here's what you fail to understand, Hate. Under these same circumstances, if it were Joe Biden who did what Trump has done I would feel exactly the the same about him being disqualified from the ballot as I do now with Trump being disqualified.

by Curt_Anderson on January 9, 2024 3:03 pm
HtS,
I doubt it.

The reason Trump apologists, enablers and supporters like you are having conniption fits over Trump's possible exclusion from ballots is because there is a good case to keep him off, namely the 14th Amendment.

The leading Democratic candidate for Oregon's governor a couple of years ago was the NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. Our Secretary of State ruled him ineligible over a residency period issue. See link. He challenged the ruling in court. He lost. No whining and moaning from Kristof or his supporters.

If some secretary of state ruled Biden ineligible for a bonkers reason Biden would prevail in court.

opb.org

by HatetheSwamp on January 9, 2024 3:58 pm

isle

Sorry. I don't believe you.

by Ponderer on January 10, 2024 6:21 am

Isle, Hate's inability to comprehend the concept of unbiased makes him incapable of understanding how someone simply in the name of Justice could want to see someone on their side face criminal charges just because they committed crimes. For people like Hate, their reptilian-brained, genetic tribalism kicks in with an intensity and lack of respect for any morality to defend their own, regardless of the heinous and blatant nature of their tribal member's crimes that the rest of us simply can't understand.

Reality and truth are only impediments to them in their abject and flailing defense of their career criminal tribal leaders. Their boundless hypocrisy is lost on them as they scream for vengeance and justice towards enemies whose crimes they simply made up, while absolutely ignoring the blatant and despicable crimes of their club members as they are committed right in front of their inconceivably biased faces. Lies are a way of life with them. Truth is their enemy. On average pretty much all of the time anyways.

So anyway Isle... I just hope that you can cope with the mental trauma and breakdown that will surely befall you as the result of the realization that Hate doesn't believe you. I just hope that you can push through this horrifically dark period of Hate not believing you to regain some semblance of a normal life at some point in the hopefully very near future.

Lots of us are here for you if you need any counseling or just a shoulder to cry on, Isle. We know what a difficult time this must be for you. I mean my god! I don't even want to imagine what life would be like for me if Hate didn't believe me. My heart goes out to you, Isle.

by HatetheSwamp on January 10, 2024 6:43 am

Isle, Hate's inability to comprehend the concept of unbiased makes him incapable of understanding how someone simply in the name of Justice could want to see someone on their side face criminal charges just because they committed crimes.

Baha, po. You amalgamate projection and the delusion of omniscience as well as anyone in history... and, universe-centering, too... it goes without saying.

Lots of us are here for you if you need any counseling or just a shoulder to cry on, Isle.

How cute.

The fellowship of the Swamp...

...i.e., the woke, white electric limousine lovin EFFINSwamp!

by oldedude on January 10, 2024 6:59 am
Reality and truth are only impediments to them in their abject and flailing defense of their career criminal tribal leaders. Their boundless hypocrisy is lost on them as they scream for vengeance and justice towards enemies whose crimes they simply made up, while absolutely ignoring the blatant and despicable crimes of their club members as they are committed right in front of their inconceivably biased faces. Lies are a way of life with them. Truth is their enemy. On average pretty much all of the time anyways.

So my question remains. Why do you fight so much AGAINST a trial? Why did you feign not understanding the 14th amendment sooooo much that you continually fight against having the one thing that could put trumpster away. For good.

Is it that the sheep enjoy hating others so much? Or maybe you just have to have someone to hate in your life just to make yourself feel better.

by HatetheSwamp on January 10, 2024 7:10 am

So my question remains. Why do you fight so much AGAINST a trial?

Really, po.

After all these years, I think I know. I really want you to prove me wrong.

So,?...

by Ponderer on January 10, 2024 7:17 am

"Why do you fight so much AGAINST a trial?" -olde dude

What trial am I "fighting" against, od?

I mean, if a trial is necessary, why aren't they having one? Can I tell you?

It's because the trial you are screaming about doesn't need to happen. Declaring that something isn't necessary is not the same thing as "fighting against it".

"Is it that the sheep enjoy hating others so much?" -olde dude

No that's not it. It's that we don't like treasonous, career criminal insurrectionists trying to destroy our democratic system of government while attempting to seat themselves in the highest office in the land in order to turn our country into his own impervious private playground of corruption.

That tends to bring out the negative side of us. I'll admit it.

by islander on January 10, 2024 7:26 am

”So my question remains. Why do you fight so much AGAINST a trial?” ~ oldedude

I think you’ll have to ask Trump that question. Trump and his lawyers have been working diligently since day one to delay a trial since he believes he will be reelected and, at least in his mind, Trump can then pardon himself and his cohorts after he is found guilty.

We all (progressives) want Trump to be tried as quickly as possible.

by HatetheSwamp on January 10, 2024 7:39 am

It's because the trial you are screaming about doesn't need to happen. Declaring that something isn't necessary is not the same thing as "fighting against it".

Oy, po.

Can you even begin to imagine how anti-American that comment is?

You EFFINloathe the Bill of Rights, don't you!!!!!?

by islander on January 10, 2024 7:44 am

The funny thing is...Trump's followers, his enablers and apologists like oldedude and Hate, would probably LIKE to have a trial in these cases where Trump has been disqualified from appearing on the state's ballot.

They all know how long unnecessary trials would take and it would play right into Trump's game plan of delay, delay. delay.

Trump is appealing the state secretaries determination which is his right (Due process) and the courts will provide us with an answer pretty quickly.

by oldedude on January 10, 2024 8:02 am
isle.... again. obviously you don't follow the threads at all unless you want to throw in something useless.

I have been on the "WTF didn't you do this earlier!" regarding taking trumpster to court. I want him gone (DISCLAIMER: Not dead, injured, or wounded in any way). OUT of the opportunity to run. I was hoping the dims were smart enough (an oxymoron) to start this early knowing he was going to try to go waay past the election date and then pull some other shenanigans to keep him in office. The dims couldn't figure that out.

So please actually read some posts, especially when it makes you really stupid when you say some crap that doesn't make any sense to anyone who's been keeping up..

by islander on January 10, 2024 8:04 am

“Hate's inability to comprehend the concept of unbiased makes him incapable of understanding how someone simply in the name of Justice could want to see someone on their side face criminal charges just because they committed crimes.” ~ Ponderer

Hate’s claim that he doesn’t believe me is meaningless. It’s simply another projection on his part, he knows that he lies therefore everybody must be a liar too. Truth, as he’s told us countless times, has no meaning for him. To Hate…Truth is simply whatever he thinks is true.

This is why, when people like Hate are faced with genuine TRUTH, Truth with a capital ‘T’, that which conforms to realty, always seems to be biased toward the left.

by islander on January 10, 2024 8:17 am

"But the more pressing immediate question is when the court can resume progress on the case, which is stalled during appeals. The case is scheduled for trial on March 4, and Trump has been trying to drag it out—as he has all his trials—with the evident hope that it can be delayed until after the election. When Trump appealed the decision of the district court that he was not immune, Special Counsel Smith tried to move things along by taking the case directly to the Supreme Court, but the court declined to take it at that point. The case will almost certainly end up there again, at which time the justices could let the appeals court decision stand or agree to take it up. If they take it up, they could decide it quickly or delay it until after the election." ~ HCR

by oldedude on January 10, 2024 8:39 am
Hate’s claim that he doesn’t believe me is meaningless.
I will tell you that when you posts end in "HRC" or "HCR" or whatever, I don't even read them. They're opinion that may be based in "fact," but they're still opinion. My opinion is that she's still an EV Limousine liberal. She may have facts on her side. And we disagree. We're allowed to.

So again, you're nothing better than some bible-thumper that just found Jesus. This is THE Truth! And you're damned and rotting in hell if you don't believe exactly how I believe!

I just casually walk away because you waste my time.

This is why, when people like Hate are faced with genuine TRUTH, Truth with a capital ‘T’, that which conforms to realty, always seems to be biased toward the left.
Looking at who you believe has absolute "truth," I understand that. AND you're talking about "opinions" being true or not true as if there's an absolute in opinions. That's a bald faced lie. Having lived in Euro welfare countries, I can use facts to support my "opinion" that I believe we have a better system. You would argue with me forever on the "fact" their system is better. It's not a fact. It's an opinion. Please don't confuse the two. They're two entirely different things.

by islander on January 10, 2024 9:41 am

oldedude ~ What we deal with here are values, opinions, and facts.

Facts are objective. Values and opinions are subjective.

When Heather or anyone else states that the “Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. It was engrossed on parchment and on August 2, 1776, delegates began signing it.”

They are stating two objective “facts”. They are both true because they conform to reality.

When I say I think haddock tastes better than blue fish I’m giving you my subjective opinon. I’m not saying it’s an objective fact that haddock tasts better than blue fish. The part of my claim that is a true fact however is that, to me, haddock tastes better than bluefish.

Values are also subjective. If I say my peace of mind is more valuable than my money, I’m not stating any objective facts about the value of money or peace of mind, my claim is that MY peace of mind is more valuable my money which is a true fact.

Now perhaps you could tell me what Heather posts as facts that are actually lies.

Of course if, like you say, you don’t read anything she says then you won’t know what to post.

by HatetheSwamp on January 10, 2024 9:48 am

Note to HCR:

Merrick Garland... and his minion, Jack Smith... have themselves to blame. J6 happened on J6 021 and the highly politicized Biden DOJ waited forEFFINever to bring charges.

Trump's team is doing nuthin but to ask for the same due process rights guaranteed to every EFFINAmerican... which y'nes, clearly, want to deny him.

If you're pi$$ed, don't condemn the Bill of Rights. Blame the Justice Department... and the President it serves.

This is a no-brainer.

It's impossible not to suspect that you progressives despise the Bill of Rights.

by islander on January 10, 2024 10:40 am

"Merrick Garland... and his minion, Jack Smith... have themselves to blame. J6 happened on J6 021 and the highly politicized Biden DOJ waited forEFFINever to bring charges." ~ Hate

Hate seems to be admitting that he he doesn't understand why these kinds of cases take so long. Teri Kanefield does an excellent job of explaining what you need to know in order to understand whats going on. I'm sure you've asked some of these questions before:

"I initially wrote this in March of 2022 and I have been periodically updating it since. The March 2022 version is here. For some reason, not all the links are showing up as a contrasting color.

I stopped updating this after indictments were brought, but please read if. you believe any of the following:

The DOJ took too long with the investigation into the January 6
insurrection.

The January 6 Congressional Hearings in the summer of 2022 jumpstarted
the DOJ and finally got Merrick Garland moving.

Things really got moving after Jack Smith was appointed. Garland should
have appointed Smith a year earlier.

Okay, so why couldn’t they just charge Trump earlier and keep
investigating?

We need Trump convicted to keep him from running for office.

Trump has to be indicted (or convicted) to stop him from undermining
democracy and committing crimes.

Using just the evidence available through public reporting there is enough
evidence to convict Trump

Just lock him up already

A former prosecutor said so, and a former prosecutor should know better than Teri (so there)

But what about the fact that Garland “refused” to prosecute cases handed
to him by Mueller on a “silver platter?”

The DOJ was slow to indict Trump because Garland (or the DOJ) is
compromised and/or corrupt.

click on the link, Hate. Teri gives clear and concise answers to these questions.

terikanefield.com

by HatetheSwamp on January 10, 2024 10:48 am

Keeheeheeheeheeheeheehee, hoohoo, hehehe, ha!

Hate seems to be admitting that he he doesn't understand...

Lucky for you, isle, that you do. Haha.

I lay awake many a night wishing I could UNDERSTAND well enuff to be you...

by islander on January 10, 2024 11:05 am

Hate ~ Your inability to understand so many things that others do might not be entirely your own fault.

We humans are all born with a drive to understand. Some of us were born with a powerful drive to understand…others not so much. It seems clear that you belong to the latter group.

It’s probably just the luck of the draw that you ended up in the group you did although our environment probably plays a role in how well our innate drive to understand develops.

by HatetheSwamp on January 10, 2024 11:15 am

Baha...

...or,...

...all of us bring our preferences and prejudices to every moment of our lives...

...and, those preferences and prejudices determine the nature of what we UNDERSTAND, man.

Yeah.

It's like that.

by Indy! on January 10, 2024 11:24 am

Heard Trump got hammered in court yesterday - his entire defense was eviscerated by the all female judges. Funny. Reminds me of a cartoon I saw one time...

by islander on January 10, 2024 11:34 am

Very good Indy !!!

Gotta' luv it !!! 🤣

by islander on January 11, 2024 7:31 am
"..all of us bring our preferences and prejudices to every moment of our lives...

...and, those preferences and prejudices determine the nature of what we UNDERSTAND, man." ~ Hate

We know, and unfortunately THAT is why you have such a problem trying to understand much of what you really need to understand. Your preferences and prejudices make it pretty near impossible for you even to understand that.

by HatetheSwamp on January 11, 2024 7:48 am

I hope you are joking but I'm afraid that you ain't able.

by oldedude on January 11, 2024 8:23 am
We know, and unfortunately THAT is why you have such a problem trying to understand much of what you really need to understand. Your preferences and prejudices make it pretty near impossible for you even to understand that.
Lead- read "I'm a door to door bible thumper."

by islander on January 11, 2024 8:50 am

No joke, Hate. You see…you don’t even understand how self defeating your mantra is.

by HatetheSwamp on January 11, 2024 8:53 am

No, isle. I understood. I merely was hoping against hope that I might be wrong.

by Ponderer on January 11, 2024 9:03 am

Isle, I don't know why Hate would ever hope that he's wrong. On average, he's wrong pretty much always. Just seems like a meaningless waste of perfectly good hope if you ask me.

by HatetheSwamp on January 11, 2024 9:23 am

Same as with you, po...and many woke white progressives...I'd love to laugh along with you...

...it's just that you can't joke...

...but, hope springs eternal.

Go To Top

Comment on: "Original Intent"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart^® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page