Wait, you're seriously using James O'Keefe as a source? Shit, let me ask my dog what he thinks Biden's supporters privately say. He arguably has more credibility in comparison.
Yes, a "reporter" who is well known for heavily editing video to misrepresent the facts and/or fabricate his own. It is perfectly valid to disregard such a person.
Downvote me all you want, the evidence of James O'Keefe being a dishonest reporter is out there for people to readily review. The person he is interviewing might be 100% correct but his message is tainted by sharing it via an unrepentant liar.
If only there was a huge televised event the majority of the country watches coming up and the president typically did a broadcast interview right before it....
Like, especially in the leadup to an election and when people have doubts of his mental ability, now would be a great time for that.
They keep saying he's fine, but he's also only appearing in public for short speeches/comments where he still gets confused. If he's fine, show everyone he's fine.
Have him do an actual interview where he needs to think on he's feet
I want to be clear that I don’t agree with or support this but coming from an evangelical upbringing they will respond with “liberals already banned Jesus from the classroom, that’s why there’s so many school shootings” or something like that, they don’t live in reality
Trump's got a knack for surprising Hillary, like that time she supported Trump in the Republican primaries because she thought he would be easier to beat.
Unpopular opinion, I agree. Trump should already be in prison for his many crimes, but that doesn't mean letting states decide individually whether he should be on the ballot (as a free man for some fuckin' reason) is a good idea.
Also, I enjoyed this quite a lot:
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ... asked Trump’s lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, whether he would concede that his client had engaged in insurrection.
Mitchell pushed back, saying, “President Trump did not engage in any act that can be plausibly characterized as insurrection.”
An insurrection, he added, “needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence.”
Jackson appeared incredulous at the narrow definition of the term.
“So your point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?” she asked.
Well, but what if states start to decide that Biden doesn't qualify, because the intent of the framers was clearly badda badda badda et cetera?
I'm not saying we have to avoid anything that might give the Republicans an excuse to do something nuts, but it genuinely is just weird and un-called for to have each individual state decide individually whether a candidate for a federal election should be in the race or not. In my opinion.
Then just like the j6 committee there would have to be a congressional bi partisan hearing like there was for trump to determine what the charges are and what the facts are.
You guys act like someone just claimed "trump doesn't qualify" and there isn't actual proof. If the GOP tries to do this to Biden go ahead. There is literally no proof of biden causing an insurrection.
Then just like the j6 committee there would have to be a congressional bi partisan hearing like there was for trump to determine what the charges are and what the facts are.
Sounds great. Like I say, I think it's grossly foolish that the federal government hasn't tried to give Trump more consequences than they have. Beer Hall Putsch etc.
You guys act like someone just claimed "trump doesn't qualify" and there isn't actual proof.
When did I say that? There's plenty of proof; it's on video. I just think the states making major decisions (not operational decisions about running the election, which is clearly in their purview) about the federal elections is going to lead to a civil-war-inciting mess.
There are several Republican state legislatures that are saying that they have the right to determine for themselves which electors their states should send to Washington, not the will of the voters in their state. That's clearly wrong also (criminal), but it's a little hard for me to see the difference between that and the power you're claiming that the states have to disqualify Trump.
I mean, if you could wave a magic wand and say that states are allowed to make their own decisions about the federal elections, but only if those decisions are right and truthful, then sure. You can say they can disqualify Trump, because Trump should actually be disqualified. You can say they can't disqualify Biden, though, etc etc. But... that's not how these systems works. Absent you or I being the determiners of what disqualifications states are or aren't allowed to make, I would rather fall back on "major questions about the federal election are decided federally."
That's exactly how these systems work tho. The states have a mechanism to determine if someone is eligible. They determined trump is not. "What if they did it to someone innocent" isn't even a question here.. you are the one who brought it up and made it one.
Lemmy.org - Politics
Newest