“Because the constitution doesn’t benefit me this time” – GOP hypocrites
The fact that they have no actual constitutional or legal response gives me hope this could actually stick. At least Clarence and company will have to do a lot of hoop jumping and goal post moving to justify their corrupt decision.
The party of domestic terrorism’s spokesmonsters are better at evading than CNN is at asking.
Because he has no legal basis.
If he tried to argue the president is above the law than he’d have no where to go.
If he tried to say well he hasn’t committed an insurrection then you only need to point at he CO judge conclusion he did and the fact the CO SC didn’t even touch that argument.
So there is no legal basis to argue other than the sham that the president isn’t an officer of the country or some fingers crossed lunacy.
> “Well, this has so much more to do with the, you know, the suppression of the vote as opposed to Donald Trump. **We would — we would oppose this decision, regardless of what Republican [was running].**
I bet you would
Anchor: “Mr. GOP head of Maine, why is her legal argument wrong?”
GOP dude: “cause it’s wrong.”
Anchor: “But why is it wrong?”
GOP dude: “cause it takes away the right to vote for him.”
Anchor: “yes, but she made the legal argument based on the facts of the case that he should be legally taken off the ballot. So what is the legal argument she messed up on?”
GOP dude: “you can ask any which way you want, she is just wrong.”
Anchor: “but is it an interpretation of the law that’s wrong?”
GOP dude: “look man, all the lawyers are telling me it’s wrong. Lots of people say it’s wrong.”
Anchor: “Sir, I just want to know the legal argument of why she is wrong.”
GOP dude: “Have a good day.”
A summary.
Barack Obama: “As you may know, I tough constitutional law earlier in my career. Later on was privileged to become the president of this great nation.
To be president there are four qualifiers in the constitution.
One, you have to be a natural born citizen . (Yeah, that birther stuff was fun.)
Two, you have to be over the age of 35. Three, you can not have committed insurrection against the United States. And four, you can not already have been president for two terms.
Right now there are legal cases, constitutional cases, working their way up to the Supreme Court. Some people have been disqualified for participating in insurrection against the United States but some are arguing that that should not be a disqualification and that the people should be able to make their choice at the election.
If following this with great interest and, should the decision be that the people should be able to elect someone to the office of the president, despite their constitutional disqualification, I am getting my campaign ready to declare that I’m running for a third term.”
I am absolutely shocked.
Don’t even need to click to know that the GOP’er danced around the question, gave some whataboutism about Biden or immigration, etc. and the CNN talking head just took it and didn’t call out the GOP’er because they gotta both sides this shit?
Good, keep pushing these asshats on the air! We need more public accountability and less normalization.
Everything conservatives do, they do poorly.
The Barry Sanders of question dodging.
Please let this spread to every elected official that attended the insurrection. We could really take out the trash.
What is the point of the law? Mr GOP law and order?
Honest question – is there any series of events that will put SCOTUS in a position to have to rule whether or not Trump is in fact an insurrectionist and therefore cannot be President?
This is exactly why I watch MSNBC and not This kind of Filth from CNN ever since Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon’s exit CNN has become more conservative in our eyes.
They should just reframe the question, ask at what point someone should be taken off the ballot if it is discovered that the candidate has not lived in the US for 14 years (one of the qualifications for being President).
The answer to that question should be the same as the one for if the candidate is disqualified for participating in an insurrection.
Good luck arguing with people who think that “Biden is a traitor allowing an invasion at our southern border. But Trump is a hero because on January 6 he was trying to take back America from the globohomo elite.”
This anchor nailed it. This is EXACTLY how you do it.
1. When they try to blow past your question, you ask it again.
2. When they give you a hand-wavy answer for sound bites, you ask for specific.
3. Repeat again from 1.
Sounds like the GOP thinks it’s a Michael Scott-style hate crime.
The GOP is a cult. They are not able to think rationally at this point. They do not believe the truth.
“We’re just opposed to her taking away the rights of the voters to be able to choose the leader that they want to vote for or not,”
Since when does anyone have a right to vote for a specific person?
Too be fair, words have meaning, and everyone has words!!! /s
> “We’re just opposed to her taking away the rights of the voters to be able to choose the leader that they want to vote for or not,”
We have a great candidate, with a fresh perspective, but they were not born in the USA as a natural born citizen. But shouldn’t the voters have a right to choose to vote for them?
We have a great candidate, with bold new ideas, and they are 32 years old. But shouldn’t the voters have a right to choose to vote for them?
We have a great candidate, with a proven track record: they have already served two terms as president. But shouldn’t the voters have a right to choose to vote for them?
The answer is no. The answer is that the rules in the USA’s constitution say no, you don’t get to nominate such a person. They’re not even eligible.
Your desire to “let the voters decide” is _irrelevant_, if you accept the USA’s Constitution as the rules of the process of who can be nominated. And if you don’t; then all bets are off.
The same goes for eligibility of insurrectionists.
I kept reading that as the GOP guy saying Dude, before every sentence.
I wish there was a highly regarded interview show where you would have to try to answer each question asked and if you deflected, ignored, or babbled then you would just get a loud buzzer and be awarded no point for the question. It could be called 20 questions and you pass or fail if you are able to answer them or not.
It would become the ultimate test of your position to be one of the winners of the game. Make something like this and ask about half hard questions and half soft and it could be the ultimate standard of what a public figure is made of. Such a simple concept. Amazing no one has made it yet.
You could have a new audience even be in charge of the buzzer every night. “What do you think? Did Senator Dinglehopper give a real answer? I wanna hear those fingers on the button folks!”
These interviewers aren’t tough enough, and it shows for almost the last decade. I’m glad they pushed, but they could have and should have pushed harder. Especially within an election year.
Well mostly because it’s illegal to remove someone from a state ballot for a federal election without a conviction.
Liberals and tyranny just go hand in hand.
I seriously don’t see what’s so hard in understanding that if a person has been **disqualified** from running for office due to having been a part of or supporting of an insurrection attempt, that they are disqualified from *being selected, at all. Hence:* ***disqualified.***
The solution of which is the 14th amendment.
the pool for Presidency = anyone that was born in the United States, aged 35+ and don’t commit to actions that are grounds for being disqualified such as providing aid or comfort to insurrectionists or, by being part of the insurrection itself.
The 14th amendment is a type of requirement for being the President. Just like being 35 is another requirement and being born here is another requirement. The requirement that the 14th states is: that the person never commits to or supports sedition/insurrection.
If any of those aren’t at the minimum threshold, then that person is incapable of being on the ballot let alone being the President. The 14th is just another one of those requirements.
Can we please disband the GOP already?
They do not have any valid political views. They are just causing havoc – which is what Russia wants. Whether they are being compensated for the havoc or not is irrelevant; the GOP is NOT working for the American public. It is working for the American Public’s destruction.
32 comments
“Because the constitution doesn’t benefit me this time” – GOP hypocrites
The fact that they have no actual constitutional or legal response gives me hope this could actually stick. At least Clarence and company will have to do a lot of hoop jumping and goal post moving to justify their corrupt decision.
The party of domestic terrorism’s spokesmonsters are better at evading than CNN is at asking.
Because he has no legal basis.
If he tried to argue the president is above the law than he’d have no where to go.
If he tried to say well he hasn’t committed an insurrection then you only need to point at he CO judge conclusion he did and the fact the CO SC didn’t even touch that argument.
So there is no legal basis to argue other than the sham that the president isn’t an officer of the country or some fingers crossed lunacy.
[Video](https://youtu.be/dOoyROcP6n4?si=2hIozX4-aYS5Mbk1)
> “Well, this has so much more to do with the, you know, the suppression of the vote as opposed to Donald Trump. **We would — we would oppose this decision, regardless of what Republican [was running].**
I bet you would
Anchor: “Mr. GOP head of Maine, why is her legal argument wrong?”
GOP dude: “cause it’s wrong.”
Anchor: “But why is it wrong?”
GOP dude: “cause it takes away the right to vote for him.”
Anchor: “yes, but she made the legal argument based on the facts of the case that he should be legally taken off the ballot. So what is the legal argument she messed up on?”
GOP dude: “you can ask any which way you want, she is just wrong.”
Anchor: “but is it an interpretation of the law that’s wrong?”
GOP dude: “look man, all the lawyers are telling me it’s wrong. Lots of people say it’s wrong.”
Anchor: “Sir, I just want to know the legal argument of why she is wrong.”
GOP dude: “Have a good day.”
A summary.
Barack Obama: “As you may know, I tough constitutional law earlier in my career. Later on was privileged to become the president of this great nation.
To be president there are four qualifiers in the constitution.
One, you have to be a natural born citizen . (Yeah, that birther stuff was fun.)
Two, you have to be over the age of 35. Three, you can not have committed insurrection against the United States. And four, you can not already have been president for two terms.
Right now there are legal cases, constitutional cases, working their way up to the Supreme Court. Some people have been disqualified for participating in insurrection against the United States but some are arguing that that should not be a disqualification and that the people should be able to make their choice at the election.
If following this with great interest and, should the decision be that the people should be able to elect someone to the office of the president, despite their constitutional disqualification, I am getting my campaign ready to declare that I’m running for a third term.”
I am absolutely shocked.
Don’t even need to click to know that the GOP’er danced around the question, gave some whataboutism about Biden or immigration, etc. and the CNN talking head just took it and didn’t call out the GOP’er because they gotta both sides this shit?
“Objection!”
“On what grounds?”
“It’s devastating to my case!”
“Overruled.”
Anyone hear NPR’s interview with Maine’s secretary of state? She gives a great explanation of Maine’s laws nd why she made the decision she did.
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/02/1222389987/donald-trump-maine-election-ballot-2024-supreme-court
Good, keep pushing these asshats on the air! We need more public accountability and less normalization.
Everything conservatives do, they do poorly.
The Barry Sanders of question dodging.
Please let this spread to every elected official that attended the insurrection. We could really take out the trash.
What is the point of the law? Mr GOP law and order?
Honest question – is there any series of events that will put SCOTUS in a position to have to rule whether or not Trump is in fact an insurrectionist and therefore cannot be President?
This is exactly why I watch MSNBC and not This kind of Filth from CNN ever since Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon’s exit CNN has become more conservative in our eyes.
They should just reframe the question, ask at what point someone should be taken off the ballot if it is discovered that the candidate has not lived in the US for 14 years (one of the qualifications for being President).
The answer to that question should be the same as the one for if the candidate is disqualified for participating in an insurrection.
Good luck arguing with people who think that “Biden is a traitor allowing an invasion at our southern border. But Trump is a hero because on January 6 he was trying to take back America from the globohomo elite.”
This anchor nailed it. This is EXACTLY how you do it.
1. When they try to blow past your question, you ask it again.
2. When they give you a hand-wavy answer for sound bites, you ask for specific.
3. Repeat again from 1.
Sounds like the GOP thinks it’s a Michael Scott-style hate crime.
The GOP is a cult. They are not able to think rationally at this point. They do not believe the truth.
“We’re just opposed to her taking away the rights of the voters to be able to choose the leader that they want to vote for or not,”
Since when does anyone have a right to vote for a specific person?
Too be fair, words have meaning, and everyone has words!!! /s
> “We’re just opposed to her taking away the rights of the voters to be able to choose the leader that they want to vote for or not,”
We have a great candidate, with a fresh perspective, but they were not born in the USA as a natural born citizen. But shouldn’t the voters have a right to choose to vote for them?
We have a great candidate, with bold new ideas, and they are 32 years old. But shouldn’t the voters have a right to choose to vote for them?
We have a great candidate, with a proven track record: they have already served two terms as president. But shouldn’t the voters have a right to choose to vote for them?
The answer is no. The answer is that the rules in the USA’s constitution say no, you don’t get to nominate such a person. They’re not even eligible.
Your desire to “let the voters decide” is _irrelevant_, if you accept the USA’s Constitution as the rules of the process of who can be nominated. And if you don’t; then all bets are off.
The same goes for eligibility of insurrectionists.
I kept reading that as the GOP guy saying Dude, before every sentence.
I wish there was a highly regarded interview show where you would have to try to answer each question asked and if you deflected, ignored, or babbled then you would just get a loud buzzer and be awarded no point for the question. It could be called 20 questions and you pass or fail if you are able to answer them or not.
It would become the ultimate test of your position to be one of the winners of the game. Make something like this and ask about half hard questions and half soft and it could be the ultimate standard of what a public figure is made of. Such a simple concept. Amazing no one has made it yet.
You could have a new audience even be in charge of the buzzer every night. “What do you think? Did Senator Dinglehopper give a real answer? I wanna hear those fingers on the button folks!”
These interviewers aren’t tough enough, and it shows for almost the last decade. I’m glad they pushed, but they could have and should have pushed harder. Especially within an election year.
Well mostly because it’s illegal to remove someone from a state ballot for a federal election without a conviction.
Liberals and tyranny just go hand in hand.
I seriously don’t see what’s so hard in understanding that if a person has been **disqualified** from running for office due to having been a part of or supporting of an insurrection attempt, that they are disqualified from *being selected, at all. Hence:* ***disqualified.***
The solution of which is the 14th amendment.
the pool for Presidency = anyone that was born in the United States, aged 35+ and don’t commit to actions that are grounds for being disqualified such as providing aid or comfort to insurrectionists or, by being part of the insurrection itself.
The 14th amendment is a type of requirement for being the President. Just like being 35 is another requirement and being born here is another requirement. The requirement that the 14th states is: that the person never commits to or supports sedition/insurrection.
If any of those aren’t at the minimum threshold, then that person is incapable of being on the ballot let alone being the President. The 14th is just another one of those requirements.
Can we please disband the GOP already?
They do not have any valid political views. They are just causing havoc – which is what Russia wants. Whether they are being compensated for the havoc or not is irrelevant; the GOP is NOT working for the American public. It is working for the American Public’s destruction.