The Trump Presidency 14

[BobTheCoward]

Which he did, as evidenced by the fact that he was forced to resubmit his clearance several times due to omitting his dealings with various foreigners.

No. "Lying" is the explanation for the multiple resubmissions. The claim that it is lying cannot be explained by the very event it is an explanation for.

That is a circular argument

 

[Bob001]

....
I mean in the US Constitution it says a President has to be 35 years old. Let's say we have an election and the candidate who wins the popular vote or the Electoral college is.... 33.
....

He wouldn't be able to get on the ballot.
.

 

[BobTheCoward]

He wouldn't be able to get on the ballot.
.

Has a federal court ever ordered removing a person from a state ballot?

 

[Bob001]

Subject for discussion: Assume for the sake of argument that Trump leaves office before 2020 one way or another. That would make Pence President. How hard would it be for Democrats to beat Pence, especially if he chose someone like Nikki Haley as VP?

 

[The Shrike]

Subject for discussion: Assume for the sake of argument that Trump leaves office before 2020 one way or another. That would make Pence President. How hard would it be for Democrats to beat Pence, especially if he chose someone like Nikki Haley as VP?

Pence would be demolished. A yuuge part of Trump's populist appeal is his bombastic personality. Pence got none of that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah Pence would be, for better or worst, just another Republican.

He wouldn't have Trump's core cult of personality to either deal or to depend on.

Best guess. We get President Pence before 2020 and the Dems will just stall him and weight it out until the election.

 

[Bob001]

Trump now claiming that the Mueller report proves Trump "rebuffed" Russian influence in his campaign:

Trump added a new twist to his latest Mueller rant, however, by claiming that the special counsel’s report showed that his campaign was not interested in receiving help from the Russians in 2016.

“It said no collusion and no obstruction and no nothing,” the president said. “And, in fact, it said we actually rebuffed… Russia, that we actually pushed them back, we rebuffed them.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/wa...port-and-claims-it-showed-he-rebuffed-russia/

 

[Bob001]

Has a federal court ever ordered removing a person from a state ballot?

The states enforce their own standards for placement on the ballot, which include complying with Constitutional requirements. The states wouldn't put a non-qualifying candidate ON their ballots.

 

[jeremyp]

No. "Lying" is the explanation for the multiple resubmissions.

Yep. Agree with that,

The claim that it is lying cannot be explained by the very event it is an explanation for.

That is a circular argument

No it isn't. The claim is that Kuschner lied about his connections to dodgy foreigners. An example of Kuschner lying about his connection to dodgy foreigners is pretty good evidence that he lied about his connection to dodgy foreigners.

You might claim that there are other explanations for his repeated failure to submit an accurate application form, but they are all, frankly, bollocks. for example, the idea that he forgot about these connections might work for the first inaccurate submission, but, I don't know about you but I would do everything in my power to ensure my second application was not marred by forgetfulness.

 

[jeremyp]

Has a federal court ever ordered removing a person from a state ballot?

Has an underage candidate ever attempted to get on the ballot?

 

[alfaniner]

edit: oops, wrong thread

Nope, the "wrong thread" is that persistent spider web stuck between the mics during The PDJT's current outdoor speech with the President of Poland.

 

[Minoosh]

Trump now claiming that the Mueller report proves Trump "rebuffed" Russian influence in his campaign:


https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/wa...port-and-claims-it-showed-he-rebuffed-russia/

A few more claims about what "the report says" could makes his friends in the Senate very curious indeed about what the report says. I think there's an upside of his bringing it up so much. It's frustrating, because repeating lies apparently works, but he's like a witness bringing up on direct examination the one thing his lawyer told him not to say.

I suspect there is a tiny grain of truth to what Trump says. Does anyone who's read the (redacted, of course) report know what he could be talking about?

 

[Bob001]

.....
I suspect there is a tiny grain of truth to what Trump says. Does anyone who's read the (redacted, of course) report know what he could be talking about?

What would be the grain of truth? Mueller concluded that he couldn't indict or charge Trump. Trump has promoted that as complete clearance for everything.

 

[Planigale]

He wouldn't be able to get on the ballot.
.

You say that but in the last electoral college there were votes for Colin Powell although as a naturalised US citizen he would not have been eligible.

(I am waiting for the first US presidential candidate delivered by caesarian section and the court case about whether they are a 'natural born' US citizen.)

 

[The Great Zaganza]

A few more claims about what "the report says" could makes his friends in the Senate very curious indeed about what the report says. I think there's an upside of his bringing it up so much. It's frustrating, because repeating lies apparently works, but he's like a witness bringing up on direct examination the one thing his lawyer told him not to say.

I suspect there is a tiny grain of truth to what Trump says. Does anyone who's read the (redacted, of course) report know what he could be talking about?

Trump tower, when they didn't want the little bit of HRC dirt because it wasn't juicy enough.

 

[Trebuchet]

You say that but in the last electoral college there were votes for Colin Powell although as a naturalised US citizen he would not have been eligible.

(I am waiting for the first US presidential candidate delivered by caesarian section and the court case about whether they are a 'natural born' US citizen.)

Colin Powell was born in New York City.

 

[Bob001]

You say that but in the last electoral college there were votes for Colin Powell although as a naturalised US citizen he would not have been eligible.

(I am waiting for the first US presidential candidate delivered by caesarian section and the court case about whether they are a 'natural born' US citizen.)

1/ Colin Powell was born in Harlem in 1937.

2/ Anybody can write-in anybody's name on the ballot, including Abraham Lincoln and Mickey Mouse. That's not the same as having a name placed on the ballot. Unless you contend that a write-in candidate could actually win the election, that has nothing to do with anything. And most electors are selected by their parties and bound to vote for their party's candidate. There is no chance that
a majority of electors could decide to vote for someone who wasn't on the ballot.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The states enforce their own standards for placement on the ballot, which include complying with Constitutional requirements. The states wouldn't put a non-qualifying candidate ON their ballots.

And if they did?

By the way, the president isn't on the state ballot because you don't vote for president.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yep. Agree with that,



No it isn't. The claim is that Kuschner lied about his connections to dodgy foreigners. An example of Kuschner lying about his connection to dodgy foreigners is pretty good evidence that he lied about his connection to dodgy foreigners.

You might claim that there are other explanations for his repeated failure to submit an accurate application form, but they are all, frankly, bollocks. for example, the idea that he forgot about these connections might work for the first inaccurate submission, but, I don't know about you but I would do everything in my power to ensure my second application was not marred by forgetfulness.

I wouldn't have to claim there are other explanations. It is on you for claiming a specific reason to justify it. And your argument from incredulity does not fly.

 

[Minoosh]

Trump tower, when they didn't want the little bit of HRC dirt because it wasn't juicy enough.

I was thinking something along those lines - is there anything in the redacted report to support such a statement?

Trump can say "no collusion" all he wants - but the fact is he tried to stop the investigation into plain old Russian meddling as well. By painting the whole thing as a witch hunt, he was proclaiming not only his own innocence but Russia's. And select senators most certainly believe Russia meddled. They have to wonder why Trump wanted the investigation into Russia stopped.

This "rebuffed" claim means he now confirms that Russia was trying to interfere with the election. I don't know if I expect his base to realize that, but all those Republican lawyers in the Senate? And I'm not so sure his base is thrilled, either. They don't necessarily want a president who rolls over and plays dead when some other country is injecting itself into the U.S. political process. They would never admit that to a Trump detractor, of course, but they're not all idiots.