Don’t we already have deplorables?
magats
Maganuts.
Yes, but I don’t think it’s as clear-cut as you & the Atlantic are making it out to be. If it were, I’d agree with you. My evidence that it is not is simply that this Constitution provision is not being enacted.
Why it’s not clear cut is a critical question. Fomenting insurrection as a sitting president is enough for me, personally. But not, evidently, for those currently in positions of authority, nor for about a third of the country.
I never said it was clear cut. I have no idea where you got that from. In fact, I think there is absolutely no chance of excluding him from being POTUS based on it. SCOTUS is going to let the voters decide. I expect even the left judges will, because they don’t want courts interfering in the election process. I’ve made that opinion on these boards before. Don’t put your hopes on this.
I am just saying that it’s worth at least trying to enforce our laws.
Re: clear-cut, I meant “it” to refer to the fact that he had, in fact, violated this Constitutional provision. I think he did, but millions upon millions don’t agree.
But I agree that we should enforce our laws, especially when those violating them come from positions of power and privilege.
Got it. I’m not entirely sure either. I think he tried to steal the election, in fact the evidence overwhelmingly shows that, and I believe he instigated the 1/6 riots intentionally as a delaying tactic to support that effort. But I am not sure that counts as “insurrection” in a legal sense.
The fact that none of the rioters have been charged with insurrection suggests that it doesn’t apply, at least in the eyes of the DOJ. This article explains it.
I’m not firmly against the idea he might have done so, but I’m not convinced of it either.
It would be kind of sweet to elicit from Trump how, precisely, he would have had Obama removed from the Democratic ticket because of his foreign birth, and then follow through on those steps to disqualify him from the Republican ticket.
I want to agree with you, and basically do. However, Trump being kept off the ballot might make 2024 such a strong year for the GOP as to discourage any such future election interference.
If you mean it’s worth trying to enforce most laws some of the time, I’d agree. But if we are talking about trying to enforce every constitutional law almost all the time, I seriously disagree. Instead I think just the opposite – excuses for not enforcing the law should be usually be seized. While it is impossible to pre-specify when authorities should look the other way, I think that giving voters their democratic choice of candidate is a good reason to ignore Section 3 of the 14th amendment. Let’s leave enforcement of that provision up to the voters.
Me, too, but I can’t wrap my head around people thinking the actual acts weren’t disqualifying, yet the indictment is.
As others have noted, one of the few logical explanations is “that his acts were fine, and the indictment is bogus — but he’ll now be too distracted, or unelectable.”
You are assuming, of course, you’d get a coherent answer?
Welll, this absolute bullshit is probably a part of it:
In the CBS News/YouGov survey, Trump voters were asked to pick who they feel tells them the truth. Trump gathered 71 percent of the vote, friends and family gathered 63 percent, conservative media figures had 56 percent, and religious leaders gathered 42 percent. The poll was conducted between August 16-18 and interviewed 2,061 U.S. adult residents. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 points for the sample overall.
Wow, Dear Leader, indeed. How so many North Koreans could be so brainwashed always baffled me…but it’s right here, right now.
I would’ve been interested in seeing the poll asking about non-Trump conservative politicians.
Definitely. I’ve come up with the hypothesis that one of the big differences between Republicans and Democrats is this. Republican voters want to be told what they want to hear even if it’s BS. Democrats want to be told the truth. Whether it’s COVID-19, global warming, the ascendence of the Chinese economy, and so on, that seems to be a common trait.
I don’t think it was always this way, but the Republican politicians were forced to adopt this strategy due to having previously relied on the strategy of winning socially conservative senior citizens. As it’s turning out, being the type of person who wants to listen to BS rather than the truth isn’t a trait that discriminates based on age, and they have now seemingly solved the problem of what to do when there base starts dying of old age.
Jeez Louise. 
Apparently it really is true that, if you just constantly boast about how great (and in this case, how trustworthy) you are often enough, you can brainwash a good percentage of people into believing it. Makes me wonder how many other professions this strategy would work on…
I am the greatest surgeon, certainly in this hospital and probably in the world! The most highly skilled surgeon ever!!
But doctor, 6 patients in a row have died on your operating table.
Fake news, spread by the other surgeons, who are jealous of me, and hate this hospital! They are enemies of good health! In fact, I can’t share details right now, but in two weeks I’m going to perform the most complicated, greatest transplant surgery ever attempted. It will be celebrated in medical journals for years to come!
Wow, we can’t wait to see it happen, doc!
Agree w @FlikTheBlue two posts up.
Trump doesn’t tell the truth.
But what he does that’s different from the typical politician is that he sounds sincere in his righteous anger. He sounds like he really does hate all the things he rails on about. His followers key off the hate that they love and the sincerity they crave. Even if it’s actually false sincerity. trump has that unvarnished genuininess that he’s really channeling his inner 6yo. Which he is, since 6yo is the only personality he has. This sells great to other people who are happily 6yos on the inside too.
Unlike the typical focus-grouped pol delivering anodyne blandnesses and cringingly corny slogans. That to 6yos sounds just like the waah-waah-waah trombone sound of teachers on the Peanuts animated cartoons.
Of course the fact there’s an entire RW media chorus repeating trump’s every falsehood as facts certainly helps. It’s not really clear which of those two entities is writing the script, but they’re doing a hell of a duet harmony. Which really appeals to people who like their world unrealistically consistent and simple.
I think those poll-takers are just going “Heh! Let’s mess with the libs and say Trump is more truthful than my family. Heh!”, since taking a poll like that has the dopamine upside of feeling like you owned the libs, with zero risk.
Do poll-makers and poll-answer-solicitors not think about this, and naively presume everyone is truthful? Or is this accounted for in the margin of error? Or somewhere in between: they assume people lie, but not as much as they actually do?
Though I note that the poll (from CBS News poll finds Trump's big lead grows, as GOP voters dismiss indictments - CBS News) asked about whether they “feel what they tell you is true.” I can’t tell if that’s whether this is from the perspective of Trump (i.e. he is sincere) or the voter (believes Trump) or ambiguous.
Jenna Ellis, one of Trump’s “elite strike force team” of lawyers who was recently indicted in Fulton County George Tweeted the following:
One of the things I don’t get is how Trump is able to win the loyalty of so many people when he publically throws his supporters under the bus. Why are his supporters so loyal when Trump has demonstrated he’s willing to burn any of them when it’s convenient?