Trump and the 14th Amendment – You cannot keep Trump out of office by merely accusing him of insurrection

Loading

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Democrats are desperate to keep Trump as far away from politics as possible. His election in 2016 put a monkey wrench in their sixteen-year plan to move America into a one-party system. Trump’s policies ran opposite of their policies, and his administration threatened to reveal how evil their criminal political enterprise really is. Their propaganda, their false Russia-Gate fabrication, their multiple impeachments, their multiple legal attacks and court cases, and their constant smear campaign has not yielded the results they have needed. Donald J. Trump is as popular as ever, and may even be capable of exceeding their cheat in 2024. They can’t take that chance, so they are desperate to do anything they can to keep Trump off of the ballot.

Latest schemes to stop the Trump Train from running them off of the political road

Among their latest schemes to stop the Trump Train from running them off of the political road has been the Fourteenth Amendment, Section Three. The writers of the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment sought to punish anyone who supported the secession of the Confederate States prior to the War Between the States for their unconstitutional insurrection against the Union. Never mind that secession was perfectly constitutional since the firmer union created by the Constitution remained a voluntary union, despite arguments to the contrary by Hamiltonian-minded historians and politicians. The “Radical Republicans” of Congress at the time hated any supporter of secession with the same kind of vitriol we see today being pointed at Trump. They were willing to do anything to force the Southern States into compliance. The Union, after all, had already used military force and the destruction of war to beat The South into submission, so why would they worry about any repercussions for disallowing anyone who supported the “rebellion” to ever be able to hold political office again? Nonetheless, the clause is in the Constitution. The question is, does it apply to Donald J. Trump?

Typically, in the American Legal System, if you are going to be considered “guilty” of something, that guilt must be proven in the court of law. In other words, mere accusations do not make something a conviction. To be convicted of something and to reap the legal consequences that accompanies that conviction a person must be entitled to the full due process of law. Even a burglar caught red-handed robbing a liquor store is not sentenced and thrown in jail without the benefit of a trial. Natural Rights are a big deal when it comes to American Liberty, and no matter the situation, legally we are all supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and may not suffer the consequences of the accusation unless a conviction is achieved.

Enemies of the Constitution and Liberty

That said, our courts are definitely being used as a weapon. Our patriots being accused of insurrection on January 6, 2021 are being convicted, even though the evidence does not support the accusations, and the juries have been fully convinced before they even took their seats in the jury box that anyone present at the Capitol who is a Trump Supporter is guilty of all charges despite, in many cases, the fact that the person in question never stepped onto the steps of the Capitol, and in the case of some friends of mine, arrived long after the “insurrection” had ended.

But, the enemies of the Constitution and Liberty, who now claim they love the Constitution when it comes to the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment that was designed to keep insurrectionists out of political office, are convinced that Trump incited insurrection, his supporters committed insurrection, and Trump doesn’t even need to be convicted of participating in insurrection to be considered guilty of insurrection, and therefore as per the Fourteenth Amendment Donald Trump is disqualified to run for office, including for the Presidency in 2024.

Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said on CNN that former President Donald Trump does not need to be criminally convicted of insurrection to be disqualified to run for President as per the Fourteenth Amendment.

Raskin said, “The authors of the 14th Amendment themselves dealt with that question. They felt that if someone sets themselves at war against the Constitution, and engages in the most profound anti-democratic act of trying to overthrow an election by installing themselves in office with an insurrection, then at that point, they are constitutionally barred. So, when people say, it is undemocratic what the voters decide, that’s like saying, let Vladimir Putin run for president, even though he’s not a U.S. citizen because it would be undemocratic to deny that choice to the voters. The Constitution has already made that judgment.”

He continued, “I think what we need is a judicial determination of whether or not an impeachment by the House, 57 to 43 vote in the Senate, enough to establish as a civil proposition that he’s engaged in insurrection or whether you need additional adjudicated fact finding by the court. But nowhere does it say that you need to have a criminal conviction in order to make section three of the 14th Amendment apply.”

“If someone sets themselves at war against the Constitution” 

Let’s break-down what Raskin said, shall we?

“If someone sets themselves at war against the Constitution” — The Democrats (and most Republicans, for that matter) have been operating against the Constitution through government for over two-hundred years. A study a friend of mine and I conducted in 2007 found that 85% of federal spending is unconstitutional. In addition to the unconstitutional operations of government’s politicians and bureaucrats, in 2020 they were so worried that Trump would continue his dismantling of their criminal schemes they rigged the election, and stole it from a man that actually won by a landslide. And yet they say “he” is the one at war against the Constitution?

“most profound anti-democratic act of trying to overthrow an election by installing themselves in office with an insurrection” — Our country is not supposed to be a democracy, it is a republic. For those of you who think the words are synonymous, please read my book, “Repeal Democracy,” inside which I explain the difference between the two very different governmental systems. Also, the Electoral College, and even the perception regarding it (such as, Pence was not there to “certify” the election, but to count the electoral votes. Certification, according to the Constitution, is achieved by the Electors), is completely unconstitutional in the first place.

Was January 6, 2021 an example of insurrection?

First, let’s go over the timeline on January 6, 2021, in Washington D.C.:

  1. 12:00 pm: Trump’s speech began.
  2. 1:00 pm: Outer barricades stormed by protesters.
  3. 1:10 pm: Trump’s speech ended according to Washington Post (which means no Trump supporters who were there to hear Trump’s speech were among the protesters who breached the outer barricades ten minutes earlier).
  4. 1:30 pm: Capitol Police overtaken at steps of Capitol (at this time no Trump Supporters who heard Trump speak had arrived at the Capitol, yet, which means none of them were among the protesters who stormed the Capitol Police on the steps of the Capitol, which means those who stormed the Capitol were people other than those who attended Trump’s speech).
  5. 1:41 pm: Likely arrival of first Trump speech attendees, which would be those who did not stop to use the restroom, grab a bite to eat, or go to their hotel first, but walked immediately to the Capitol at the pace suggested as the average time it takes according to Google Navigator. Understand, it likely took longer since so many people clogged the streets. This time is only provided due to what Google Navigator provided as the average time to walk, unencumbered, to the Capitol from where Trump spoke.
  6. 2:15 pm: Interior of the Capitol building breached by protesters.
  7. 2:50-3:00 pm: Likely earliest arrival time of Trump supporters from rally who heard Trump speak if they lingered, or grabbed a bite to eat, or went to their hotel rooms before proceeding towards The Capitol, or did not walk at a brisk pace that was likely only achievable by younger persons, persons in athletic shape, and unencumbered by crowds (most of which do not typically describe the average Trump supporter). My friend, Derek Kennison, who was convicted just a few days ago by all counts against him for his participation on January 6 arrived at the Capitol at 2:45 pm, after all of the “insurrection” events had transpired. He also never set foot on the steps or inside the building, never confronted any Capitol Police, and remained on the West Side of the Capitol, which is the grassy area where, for the most part, no alleged confrontations with law enforcement occurred.

So, if the people who heard Trump speak, even if hypothetically the “Capitol Riot” was an insurrection (by unarmed, mostly elderly Trump supporters) weren’t even on the grounds yet because they were still walking there when the “insurrection” happened, how is it that Trump is guilty of inciting insurrection?

As for the definition of insurrection, in the Fourteenth Amendment it is given that insurrection is against the Constitution. But, the Electoral College was originally designed to only be Electors voting for President, not the general public. The public’s vote was originally intended to be for their Elector, not for President. The unconstitutional practice of Electors voting based on a democratic popular vote by the people for President did not emerge until the 1820s when Andrew Jackson demanded change based on his argument that he was popular among the people, and in order to save the Constitution the country needed to operate in a more democratic manner. So, the Electoral College is not operating in line with its original constitutional expectations. Second, according to the 1860 American Dictionary of the English Language, and the 1828 Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, Insurrection is defined as being:

A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.But, the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”

The Declaration of Independence states, “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…[and when government] reduce[s] them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.”

The protesters were not acting against the Constitution, but against a governmental system that has been operating against the Constitution

What we deduce from the Fourteenth Amendment, the dictionaries of the time, the First Amendment, and the Declaration of Independence, insurrection is something that is committed against the Constitution, not a government that fails to follow the Law of the Land; insurrection tends to be violent, peaceful gatherings and protests are not insurrection; and if government is acting in a despotic manner in violation of the Constitution as it does today, to stand against it, even violently, is not insurrection, but rather is a right, and a duty, of the people.

No guns, or other weapons, were found to be present on January 6, 2021. No violence was committed, except by perpetrators who were acting in a destructive manner prior to the arrival of those who heard Donald Trump speak. If the argument by Trump and the protesters is accurate that the 2020 Election was indeed performed in an illegal manner, or that fraud was somehow a part of the election, the people standing against the government on that day had the right and the duty to do so.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
105 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It is absurd that democrats think the mere accusation is sufficient to invoke the 14th amendment. Why hasn’t jack smith charged President Trump with insurrection?

Another effort to defeat President Trump has failed

You might want to hold off on that comment until after the trial.

Another effort to defeat President Trump has failed.

A conviction in a rigged trail for a crime that never happened is not going to change Trump’s viability. You are stupid, desperate and deluded to think so.

Every single thing that you don’t like is “a conspiracy” or “rigged” or some damn thing. You’re all fantastically paranoid.

Not many other ways to interpret an ongoing coup against Trump which started when he announced his run for the Presidency in 2015. We’ve seen nothing but an endless parade of false accusations and investigations in search of a crime. Now, backed against the wall, the left has had to stop looking and just make up the reasons to try and knock Trump out of the race with lawfare.

Only an idiot can’t see it. Only a fascist condones it.

comment image

All over the country, crazy Trump cultists are ruining family Thanksgiving gatherings.

What’s wrong, baby, did someone question some of your leftist talking points and make you sad?

Damn, can you give an example?
Most families know the politics of each other and just sit and watch football.
I was shocked at the Packer game outcome.
Real families DGAF who you vote for, just help clean up after the feeding frenzy.

What trial?

Any one of four. Take your pick. I think it’s the January 6 trial that will end Trump’s dictatorial aspirations.

What trial?

Why would it? Trump committed no crimes; that was Pelosi, Bowser and the Capital Police.

What trial?

There are several trials in various stages of progress. Are you now trying to act as if they aren’t happening?

These are the charges filed by jack smith with respect to the January 6 peaceful protest.

one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States applies to Trump’s repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment.one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote’s certification in January 2021.one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators’ alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress.one count of conspiracy against rights refers to Trump and his co-conspirators alleged attempts to “oppress, threaten and intimidate” people in their right to vote in an election.The charge for insurrection under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 is not in the charging documents nor the indictment. Ergo, there will not be a trial for insurrection under 18 U.S. Code § 2383, hence my comment, “what trial?”

18 U.S. Code § 2383, it is illegal to incite, assist with, or participate in a rebellion or insurrection against U.S. laws and authority. The punishment for insurrection can include a fine, up to 10 years in federal prison, and ineligibility for public office.

If the left wanted to remove President Trump from the ballot in the general election of 2024 from any state using the 14th Amendment, President Trump would need to be found guilty of 18 U.S. Code § 2383 and thusly convicted.

President Trump could be found guilty of all four of the smith charges above but he could not constitutionally be removed from any ballot.

Better luck next time fools…

Last edited 2 months ago by TrumpWon

Greg never said that Trump would be removed from the ballot under the insurrection clause; rather, he wrote that “it’s the January 6 trial that will end Trump’s dictatorial aspirations.”

I agree. If any of these trials is going to reveal to voters what he’s all about and why he shouldn’t receive another term, it will be that particular trial.

You need to catch up a little, the J6 tapes have been released.
The lies will all come tumbling down, put that in your politifact and smoke it.
Ghost busses.
Who opened the doors.
Guided tours.
DC police body cam footage.

Last edited 2 months ago by kitt

the J6 tapes have been released.The lies will all come tumbling down, put that in your politifact and smoke it.

As I’m sure you remember, Tucker Carlson gained access to the footage nearly a year ago, and the lies were supposed to come tumbling down then. No such tumbling has ensued. What makes you think this time will be any different?

I argued with one clown who was saying there were “armed insurrectionists”. I said there were NO firearms among the protesters. He then “backed up” his accusation with a story of one of the arrested who admitted to legally concealed carrying and who never drew his weapon. The authorities didn’t know he carried until he told them, the honest (if unwise) thing to do. That’s the “armed insurrection”.

Limited access and Fox squashed the story.
We already know the J6 commitee lied their asses off, falsified information.
Who fact checks your fact checkers
https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/20/politifact-is-ticked-that-we-fact-checked-their-false-fact-check-of-our-fact-check-of-their-fact-check/

No such tumbling has ensued. What makes you think this time will be any different?

Actually, even with a limited release of tapes, they did. One prisoner has already been released and, unless you are dedicated to clinging to the leftist lies (as you obviously are), numerous lies have been dispelled.

Precisely
The peaceful protest erupted into a riot instigated by antifa/blm/fbi and the capital police. Most dressed as Trump supporters with the exception of the CP. some of them may have been antifa/blm/fbi as we are learning.

Democrats hate justice, the law, the Constitution and due process. All of that gets in the way of their clamoring for a single party fascist socialist totalitarian police state.

With the UN as their Partners in crime with aid from Soros, Gates and Swabe as their lackeys

/The UN/Globalists/Democrats are attempting to end all elections and replace the Presidency with a Dictatorship under the NWO and the UN as well

replace the Presidency with a Dictatorship under…the UN

You are nuts.

What do you think this WHO treaty is all about, one of high ignorance?

From the AP:

“The voluntary treaty, which is in draft form and is still far away from ratification, does not overrule any nation’s ability to pass individual pandemic-related policies, multiple experts, including one involved in the draft process, told The Associated Press. The treaty lays out broad recommendations related to international cooperation on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Nowhere in the 30-page document are lockdowns, closures or specific citizen surveillance systems mentioned.”

The treaty does not trade away the sovereignty of the United States. If you disagree, feel free to cite the sections you believe do so.

Oh, sure. If some idiot nation wanted to add restrictions on their people over and above what the WHO mandates, they are more than welcome.

Yeah, no thanks. Let’s see the proof the WHO is independent of the CCP.

Let’s see the proof that they’re not.

Recall back to the COVID pandemic, if you can remember back that far. WHO ran interference for the CCP.

WHO is a UN entity, led by a vet, not a doctor.
His terrorist and communist ties are a consern.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/10/5-shocking-facts-about-who-chief-tedros-adhanom-ghebreyesus/

Last edited 2 months ago by kitt

If some idiot nation wanted to add restrictions on their people over and above what the WHO mandates, they are more than welcome.

…And they would then need to be agreed upon by the countries involved, and the United States wouldn’t need to sign on to a treaty with which it disagrees.

You really don’t seem to know how any of this works.

No, YOU don’t know how it works. No wonder school kids are getting dumber and dumber, with teachers like you who can’t read and comprehend.

No, YOU don’t know how it works.

Please explain what I got wrong.

Last edited 2 months ago by Michael

Please explain what I got wrong.

Read my original comment and then read your response. THEN figure out what you got wrong. That’s the best I can do. Otherwise, it’s hopeless.

That’s the best I can do.

You’re unable to explain what I got wrong. That tracks.

You did not cite the treaty you cited a known liar the AP.
The treaty would have the power of the purse, guess what purse.
That over rides our constitution therefore our sovereignty.
If you would like I can link to proposed amendents and you can read it yourself.
You are not really curious that it would lock in a nation in as little as 6 months.
Its a roach motel.

Last edited 2 months ago by kitt

You did not cite the treaty you cited a known liar the AP.

Trump is a known liar. Why don’t you discount everything he says with the same fervor that you use with the Associated Press?

Last edited 2 months ago by Michael

Weak deflection, from a weaker mind, go read the treaty Mikey, and the proposed amendments.

I don’t have any need to deflect anything—it’s a real question. Trump is a known liar. Why don’t you discount everything he says with the same fervor that you use with the Associated Press?

Stop pretending mikey you love liars, you vote for them.
It is a deflection and a weak minded one .You call Trump a liar cause your TV says so, nothing more than that.
Now toddle off youngster.

You call Trump a liar cause your TV says so, nothing more than that.

I call him a liar because he told thousands of documented untruths while he was president. To give him the benefit of the doubt, he probably said many untrue things because he had no idea what he was doing and he just said whatever popped into his head.

As you’re aware, an entire cottage industry sprang up around the task of keeping track of Trump’s lies while he was president. They were documented and then discussed on a daily basis.

This Forbes article analyzes the number of untrue statements made by the three most recent presidents in their first hundred days. Trump is the winnah and still champeen—by a metric buttload.

From the article
I collected data from PolitiFact, excuse me politifactless.

???

you never seem to understand when you pull a source that is sourceless.

This doesn’t, of course, mean that Trump didn’t lie.

you love liars

This doesn’t, of course, mean that Trump didn’t lie.

you love liars

This doesn’t, of course, mean that Trump didn’t lie.

you love liars

This doesn’t, of course, mean that Trump didn’t lie.

you love liars

Lie after lie after lie.

Did idiot Biden lie when he said:
… the Afghanistan withdrawal went perfectly?
… the southern border is secure?
… Border Patrol mounted agents whipped illegal immigrants?
… inflation is transient?
… gas was $5 a gallon when he took office?
… Putin caused all the inflation?
… there was no vaccine when he took office?
… he has traveled 17,000 miles with Xi?
… that there are no background checks at gun shows?
… that the Georgia election law suppresses the ability to vote?
… the “surge” of illegal immigrants he caused happens every year?
… that he would only serve one term?
… that the disaster at the border is Trump’s fault?
… that the information on Hunter’s laptop was “Russian disinformation”?
… that he had no knowledge of Hunter’s foreign business deals?
… the Supreme Court had decided election fraud cases?
… that he hasn’t taken lobbyist money?
… that he vaccinated (at the time) 70% of the population?
… he has driven an 18-wheeler?
… that the Georgia election integrity law would suppress votes?
… that he was a coal miner?
… he was a civil rights activist?
… he was arrested in the Capital?
… he was arrested in S. Africa?
… 350 million Americans had been vaccinated?
… no foreign leaders had criticized him?
… about nation building and putting soldiers in Afghanistan?
… about not leaving Afghanistan until all Americans were removed?
… that the collapse in Afghanistan “caught him by surprise”?
… he visited the Tree of Life synagogue after an attack on it?
… that he was going to end COVID?
… he was working “around the clock”?
… he had an opportunity to go to Annapolis and play football?
… that the 2nd Amendment banned weapons?
… the .223 and 9mm round were the most powerful rounds?
… told union members that since he took office, they have more money, more savings?
… that he was responsible for a planned Social Security cost of living increase?
… he would fire anyone on his staff that showed disrespect to anyone?
… there was no action on COVID19 “for months” under Trump?
… Officer Sicknick was murdered at the Capital?
… Republicans were defunding police, not Democrats?
… the economy was “in a tailspin” when he took office?
… the Capital riot was the worst incident of violence since the Civil War?
… the trillions of dollars Democrats were spending would cause inflation?
… Trump said white supremacists were “fine people”?
… there were Russian bounties?
… Democrat spending would not increase the deficit?
… no one making less that $400,000 would see tax increases?
… his infrastructure bill was “paid for”?
… the majority of illegal immigrant families are sent back?
… no family members of his or staff would get government jobs?
… the government was going to “buy American”?
… that he was a member of Ukraine and Polish secret service?
,,, that he didn’t know what Top Secret documents were illegally kept in his private office or how they got there?
… that inflation was bad when he took office?
… that the economy was in free-fall when he took office?
… that he was raised in a Puerto Rican neighborhood?
… that he was raised in a Polish neighborhood?
… that he was raised in an Italian neighborhood?
… that he went to synagogue before he went to mass?
… that the Suspicious Activity Reports do not show payments to the Biden family from China?
… that the Chinese spy balloon did not collect any military intelligence over the US?
… that the White House had no prior knowledge of the Mar a Lago raid?
… he was once a University of Pennsylvania professor?
… he said Hunter broke no laws?
… he said he reduced the national debt by $1.7 trillion?
… he said the Taliban would not allow al Qaeda back into Afghanistan?
… he said wages have gone up in his economy?
… he said he cured cancer?
… he said Hunter never made any money in China?
… he said he didn’t attend Hunter’s 2015 dinner with his business associates?
… he said his house was struck by lightning and burned down, almost killing his wife?
… he said he talked Strom Thurman into supporting Civil Rights?
… he said he hasn’t had time to visit East Palestine since the train derailment?
… he visited Ground Zero on 9/12?
… he was a 4 year professor at U Penn?
… he said he would not build one more foot of border wall?
… he said he HAD to spend money appropriated for the border wall on the wall?
… he said he spoke to Golda Meir before the 1967 Six Day War?

This doesn’t, of course, mean that Trump didn’t lie.

If you accept all those lies, why do you complain if Trump lied? It’s all in your empty head.

you love love love liars

You’d find fault with Jesus if he stood between your vengeful cult leader and authoritarian control.

It would only be a small step, since you’ve twisted much of what Jesus said already.

So, you compare Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden, a corrupt, treasonous, degenerate lying pedophile with Jesus? REALLY?

Only a cultist would think that utter contempt for Donald Trump implies a worshipful attitude toward Joe Biden, or anyone else.

You’d find fault with Jesus if he stood between your vengeful cult leader and authoritarian control.

How would you know? You don’t know Jesus.

But like all radical left wingers, you’ll pull out His name if you think it will aid your argument.

Are you having fun marching with the rest of your pro-Gaza nitwits?

You don’t know Jesus.

He doesn’t need to know Jesus to be correct about that. He just needs to know you.

Michael, are you Comrade Greggie’s boy toy?

If you don’t know Jesus, you cannot say with certainty what He would do. Like standing between President Trump and authoritarian control.

Is English your second language?

First, he’s not predicting what Jesus would do. He’s predicting what *you* would do in a particular hypothetical situation.

Second, even non-Christians in the United States are familiar with the tenets of Christianity. Christians don’t hide what it’s about; on the contrary, many of them go out of their way to spread teachings from the Bible in hopes of gaining converts.

First, he’s not predicting what Jesus would do. He’s predicting what *you* would do in a particular hypothetical situation.

Actually, he’s not. Comrade Greggie’s post was not directed to me, dimwit.



Last edited 2 months ago by retire05

To Bill, then, but equally applicable to you.

Last edited 2 months ago by Michael

Bill who?

BTW, you should have asked kitt “Woopie who” not “Woopie what.”

You must live in a bubble because you are totally clueless, as most teenagers are.

As far as I can tell, there is nobody of note named “Woopie.” I guess I don’t move in the same circles you do. Is it some kind of Qanon personality?

Hint: change it to Whoopi.

But then, I really don’t expect you to know much. And I can promise you, Woopie/Whoopie is not in my circle.

Anyone ever tell you that you are full of crap?

Hint: change it to Whoopi.

Do you mean Whoopi Goldberg?!

First of all, you people need to spell the damned things correctly if you want me to have some idea of what you’re talking about. You can’t simply spew any random combination of letters onto the screen and expect everyone to know what you’re trying to convey.

Second, why would I give a flying fuck what Whoopi Goldberg thinks about anything?

Anyone with operating brain cells could make the leap from “Woopie” to “Whoopie”, unless they simply didn’t want to actually discuss the point.

What Jesus said and taught was recorded by his disciples. His words remain available for our consideration.

I doubt Jesus would have endorsed The Teachings of Donald Trump.

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg

This doesn’t, of course, mean that Trump didn’t lie.

The American economy isn’t “cratering”. The US GDP growth rate for the 3rd quarter of 2003 was 4.9%.

The current rate of inflation in the US is 3.2%.

Conventional savers can now earn over 5% on their CDs.

Surely you jest. bidenomics has been as equal a failure as has biden in his entire miserable life. biden is trash

Economist: Bidenomics is Putting ‘Astonishing Burden’ on American Households

In a commentary at the Daily Signal, he wrote that the traditional Thanksgiving dinner, at $46.90 in 2020, now is $61.17, “an increase of more than 30.4%.

“This price increase puts an astonishing burden on American households. However, that is only one of many price jumps during the Bidenomics era. Across all categories of food at home, prices are up more than 20% from when President Joe Biden took office, while energy prices are up well over 35%,” he explained.

Bidenomics also has “dramatically pushed up the first year’s interest cost on a typical mortgage from around $8,500 when President Donald Trump left office to well over $24,000 now,” he said.

Under Biden, “prices are now up more than 20% since the pandemic started and mortgage rates have spiked from around 3% to 7.5%, pushing that pillar of the American dream, homeownership, even further out of reach for tens of millions of Americans,” he said.

Biden, meanwhile, is spending his Thanksgiving at the $34 million Nantucket island home of a friend, billionaire businessman David Rubenstein.

comment image

What should worry most Americans is, presidents (and biden is not one) usually push through their most unpopular agendas their last year in office. It scares me to even think about the heIl they are about to rain down on the American people.

The left worries about a “code of ethics” for Supreme Court Justices but don’t seem to care if a Democrat “President”* has any ethics whatsoever.

What did he lie about?

You still love liars

Be that as it may, it doesn’t change the fact that Trump lies quite a bit.

As you can see inane repetition of a post is not effective.
Perhaps you can provide examples. Ones that can not be easily debunked.

is not effective

Sure it is. I said what I wanted to say. I didn’t expect minds to be changed. That would have been insane.

I didn’t expect minds to be changed. That would have been insane.

If you didn’t expect to change minds, why did you lie?

This doesn’t, of course, mean that Trump didn’t lie.

Yes it does.

Really? You’re saying that if Biden lies about something, it means that Trump didn’t lie about anything?

That’s not the way lying works, Bill. It’s not a zero-sum game. Everybody can lie, nobody can lie, or some can lie while others tell the truth.

Yes, it does. Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden is a corrupt, treasonous, pathologically lying pedophile and Trump is not.

Wow. Just…wow.

The President of the United States stages one little autogolpe, and this guy “struggles” with that fact. What a snowflake, amirite?

The coup was AGAINST Trump, not by him.

The coup was the Kennedy assassination when the CIA murdered a president and rolled out the welfare state, you know “for the children”.
Today He would be considered a far right conspiracy nut and a threat to thier democracy.

Last edited 2 months ago by kitt