What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2024 Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Minutes after his lawyer says that it wasn't an insurrection, just a riot, Dementia Donnie steps before the cameras and says it was an insurrection.

An insurrection led by Nancy Pelosi.
 
Minutes after his lawyer says that it wasn't an insurrection, just a riot, Dementia Donnie steps before the cameras and says it was an insurrection.

An insurrection led by Nancy Pelosi.

Once again, never interrupt an opponent when they are making a mistake...

**Note: Wondering if I should just CTRL+C that phrase for this thread over the next 9 months...
 
Scoob, I know you are a constitutional legal scholar all of a sudden, but when did this clause came into play? After the Civil War. Like right after a TRUE insurrection if you will, you know, one that involved guns, cannons, warships, hundred's of thousands of dead people, vast property destruction. Put in to keep Confederate leaders from getting back into power. Dont remember a big majority of the dead being killed by flag poles and crowd control barriers.

Now who is meaningless today?

What is lost here, is that while the South went and created their own country (Confederacy), these guys are not doing so. They feel they are keeping their existing country. Huge difference. They don’t need to create a new Army. They will use the existing Army, Navy, etc. Any gerneral who follows The Donald’s command will be defending the US Constitution.

scary situation upcoming here.
 
Oct 7, 2023
- Hamas attacks Israel killing 1,200+

How will America, the most powerful nation on earth and Israel's biggest supporter respond?

Oct 8th + 9th, 2023
- "In 2013, was I Vice President?"
 
Not Texas if they (hopefully) secede.

And any general that follows Trump if he isn't President is committing treason so...
 
Any gerneral who follows The Donald’s command will be defending the US Constitution.

If DJT is the President, then yes, the Generals need to follow his commands. The President is the Leader of the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces carry out his commands and that would be to defend the US Constitution. Isnt that what is supposed to happen every day, the government defending our constitution?

scary situation upcoming here.

So is that an admission that DJT WILL BE the new President? :-)
 
Donald Trump wins the case in a landslide. Every Supreme Court Judge was on his side today. The 14th Amendment Section 3 is meaningless today. It probably meant something when it was passed, but it means nothing now.

It will be 9-0, but not because that section is meaningless. In the Civil War the South declared they were committing treason, the way the colonies did in the Declaration. Had the colonies lost, their senior leaders would have been hanged and their officials denied Crown posts.

In the insurrection, there was no formal declaration, for the reason mookie stated. The MAGAts are trying to seize control from within, not separate. It is as if Washington sailed up the Thames and said "I'm King, now," the way William of Orange had just 90 years earlier.

Dump is Mussolini marching on Rome in 1922.
 
What detachment from reality looks like:

I've seen you trying to run your "victory lap" on this one Frenchie, but you omit mentioning one very important factor.

RFK Jr. changed his designation from (D) to (I) before the NH primary. So that ended his (D) candidacy, right there.

You guys are very good when it comes to omission of key facts to make a "point". Whatever that imagined point might be ...
 
Why oh why would he switch if he was such a shoe-in to defeat weak ole Biden? Seems like an odd choice for him since as you said he would have won over 50% with his eyes closed. It will be interesting (and FUN) to see how you spin this.
 
Donald Trump wins the case in a landslide. Every Supreme Court Judge was on his side today. The 14th Amendment Section 3 is meaningless today. It probably meant something when it was passed, but it means nothing now.

Stop. The fact is he hasn't been convicted of Insurrection officially. We all know he did it, but he has a right to his day in court. (That he is delaying because he has no testicles)

I get that the media is all breathless that this is about 14.3 overall but it really isn't. The SC was not going to declare him ineligible for the general, that wasn't even before them. This was about whether Colorado had a right to conclude he violated 14.3 and hold him off the ballot. Even they agreed, no other state is prepared to do the same.

This isn't rocket science...he was going to be the nominee no matter what unless he was convicted. He hasnt been.
 
Stop. The fact is he hasn't been convicted of Insurrection officially. We all know he did it, but he has a right to his day in court. (That he is delaying because he has no testicles)

I get that the media is all breathless that this is about 14.3 overall but it really isn't. The SC was not going to declare him ineligible for the general, that wasn't even before them. This was about whether Colorado had a right to conclude he violated 14.3 and hold him off the ballot. Even they agreed, no other state is prepared to do the same.

This isn't rocket science...he was going to be the nominee no matter what unless he was convicted. He hasnt been.

There is NO requirement in the 14.3 amendment that says he must be convicted. Zero, zip, nada. They are making it up.
 
I won't quote anyone in particular, so this is just a generic reminder that members of our Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Constitution, and are under no obligation to follow unlawful orders no matter who is President.

Back to your 14.3 discussion.
 
I won't quote anyone in particular, so this is just a generic reminder that members of our Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Constitution, and are under no obligation to follow unlawful orders no matter who is President.

Back to your 14.3 discussion.

Unless they really want to.
 
I won't quote anyone in particular, so this is just a generic reminder that members of our Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Constitution, and are under no obligation to follow unlawful orders no matter who is President.

Back to your 14.3 discussion.

OK Mr Constitution

Article IV, Section 4 - “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…”

So if the Marines decided on their own to go guard the southern border tomorrow and follow the constitution as stated, but Joe said no, is that an unlawful order that they can ignore? You would be ok with the Marines defying Joey's directive?

If DJT ordered the same Marines to the southern border come January to follow the constitution as stated, but the Marines said no, is that an unlawful order that they can ignore? You would be ok with the Marines defying a Presidential directive?
 
I won't quote anyone in particular, so this is just a generic reminder that members of our Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Constitution, and are under no obligation to follow unlawful orders no matter who is President.

Back to your 14.3 discussion.


OK Mr Constitution

Article IV, Section 4 - “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…”

So if the Marines decided on their own to go guard the southern border tomorrow and follow the constitution as stated, but Joe said no, is that an unlawful order that they can ignore? You would be ok with the Marines defying Joey's directive?

If DJT ordered the same Marines to the southern border come January to follow the constitution as stated, but the Marines said no, is that an unlawful order that they can ignore? You would be ok with the Marines defying a Presidential directive?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top