“If you look at everything that was going on, which was some of the worst in history, it’s amazing what Abraham Lincoln was able to accomplish. Many people have said that I’m the only president to accomplish as much as him and perhaps more. But it was an amazing thing he did. We love Lincoln, folks.”
Our army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do, and at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, it had nothing but victory
The orange-hued Stable Genius does have a point, though. By destroying the ramparts – those places where aircraft park in front of terminal buildings – the American revolutionary forces disrupted the ability of British troops to travel back and forth to their homeland, which was extremely demoralizing especially during the holiday season. Also, to be fair to the Orange Genius, the famous reference to Fort McHenry was during the War of 1812, a much more technologically advanced time in aviation history during which both President James Madison and his Sec of State James Monroe thought it would be a good idea to invade Canada.
By 1812 the British had both fighter jets and stealth bombers, so ramming the ramparts at all the airports made a lot of sense. Didn’t work, though – British-Canadian interests managed to burn down the White House in August, 1814, allegedly with AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles fired from a pair of F-16s, a feat that one would dearly hope might be re-enacted should said residence become occupied by an orange shit-stain at some future date.
I found a picture of some Civil War reenactors. You have to admire the commitment they make to realism, all that attention to detail.
"He was a Republican. Not many people know that. "
Nah, he doesn’t like Presidents who die. Losers!
text for discourse
Oh, so close.
But, actually, you’d have been closer if you’d gone in a both sides direction.
A for effort, though.
Nailed it.
Actually, as I Google, I think the most expected donald answer was that he would have avoided the civil war altogether. It just had to be worked out.
“Woke”
I can’t believe this isn’t mentioned yet!
Even if this and Colorado’s ban are removed, it’s still a delightful slap in the face for the Orange Dictator-wannabe.
I’m not comfortable with the idea that candidates can be removed from the ballot without having been convicted of something serious at the very, very least, but I am enjoyed the irritation it must be causing him.
Wasn’t the amendment concerned originally applied without prior convictions?
This is the third time the Maine decision has been posted on this site. I posted it once.
Sorry.
I just didn’t see it in this thread - I don’t read all the forums.
I can understand this. But, the amendment in question has a mechanism built-in for overcoming such a ban. He just needs to get 2/3 of both Houses of Congress to vote to overturn his ban, and he’s back in. So it’s not like it’s an entirely extrajudicial process with no means of defending yourself, or appealing the verdicts.
So, I’d tell him, get on with that, Mr. Art of The Deal. Show us how good you really are at negotiating.
How would someone be convicted of being less than 35 years old?
Millions and millions of people are already guilty of that offense, and everyone is at birth.
For purposes of determining eligibility for appearing on the tve ballot, what legal standard is applied?
And then there’s the precedent of Civil Forfeiture. The cops can take stuff from you if they think it was the “proceeds of crime”, even if you haven’t even been charged with the underlying crime. You can then take it to court to get your money back, if you can prove you got it legitimately.
Are we going to treat the Presidency of the United States less seriously than drug dealing?
The US has this rule on the books. It takes deliberate actions by officials in each State to carry out this process (apparently, so far, we’ll see, I guess…), and there’s a mechanism in place to appeal any such actions. I think that’s a sufficient number of safeguards in place to prevent abuse.
Wouldn’t that violate Amendment 8, Section 4, the one about cruel and unusual punishment? Specifically exposing him to public ridicule. I mean it would be the modern equivalent of putting him in stocks.
Nope, because this isn’t a part of his “punishment”. The punishment is the ineligibility for office, this is just part of the process for appealing that punishment. He can avoid the humiliation entirely by just accepting his punishment, slinking off and shutting up.