• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Congress pass a law banning Insurrectionists?

Ziggurat said:
If that's what triggers a civil war, well... you could argue electing Lincoln did too. But nobody blames Lincoln for the civil war.

Trump isn't going to start a civil war. If libs start one because he gets elected, that's on them. But I doubt that will happen.
Click to expand...

He thinks Trump will start a civil war if he wins the election.

:p
 
theprestige said:
The 14th seems poorly thought out, too.
Click to expand...

It was written to address the civil war and other similar events, I don't think they thought a future president would incite a riot to stop the election. I suppose they could have figured out that possibility based on the last century or so of the Roman Republic. But more recent history had suggested that the danger of internal strife was much more clear acts of insurrection, like civil war or perhaps even the Revolution.
 
Ziggurat said:
Trump isn't going to start a civil war. If libs start one because he gets elected, that's on them. But I doubt that will happen.
Click to expand...

Keep those straw men coming. Are we just going to ignore what happened at the end of Trump's term? Are we just going to ignore all the times he's vowed revenge for it?
 
JayUtah said:
The emotional response that started this whole subtopic was someone's hand-wringing suggestion that preventing Trump from running for President risked a civil war.
Click to expand...

Yes, rushing through legislation and a trial and conviction in January specifically to ban Trump from being President, if he wins in November, risks a civil war.

Or at least lots of violence around the country.
 
Unfortunately, if Trump gets elected there will be series of constitutional crises until he dies or terms out. Given his history, they will probably end without actual violence on account of him generally lacking the......where-with-all to actually stick with something once there's any push back. I'd be fairly surprised an actual civil war, they may be a few states that actual look into some form of legal secession.

I also expect that if terms out he won't fight it again as he can assuage his ego with knowledge that he can't run rather than have to deal with losing.
 
Hercules56 said:
Clearly you suggested Trump might start a civil war if he wins the election.
Click to expand...

No, I'm just leveling the playing field. You say we have to let Trump run otherwise we would risk a civil war. I'm saying that out of all the people involved, I think you should look for a cause for a potential civil war to the guy who actually did a whole bunch of stuff as President to subvert the transfer of power, and encourage violence toward that end. If you are worried about the risk of civil war, follow the evidence.
 
JayUtah said:
Keep those straw men coming. Are we just going to ignore what happened at the end of Trump's term? Are we just going to ignore all the times he's vowed revenge for it?
Click to expand...

Uh... what?

You're accusing me of using a straw man, but then immediately confirm that you are in fact making the argument that Trump might start a civil war. That's not how straw men work.

And yes, I'm confident that Trump won't start a civil war. I'm really not interested in a long debate about that topic, but I find the proposition completely unrealistic.
 
Hercules56 said:
Yes, rushing through legislation and a trial and conviction in January specifically to ban Trump from being President, if he wins in November, risks a civil war.
Click to expand...

Because you say so?

Or at least lots of violence around the country.
Click to expand...

If Trump's supporters are violent and unlawful, that's perhaps a good reason not to put him in charge.
 
JayUtah said:
No, I'm just leveling the playing field. You say we have to let Trump run otherwise we would risk a civil war. I'm saying that out of all the people involved, I think you should look for a cause for a potential civil war to the guy who actually did a whole bunch of stuff as President to subvert the transfer of power, and encourage violence toward that end. If you are worried about the risk of civil war, follow the evidence.
Click to expand...

Its silly and foolish to ignore the consequences of severally rushed legislation intended to disqualify one candidate from holding office.

But go ahead, keep that head in the sand.

We need a law to ban insurrectionists from taking Federal office. But the consequences of a rushed law specifically to stop Trump would be a cure that's worse than the illness.
 
Civil war is fairly unrealistic, but I'll be surprised if there aren't riots after the election regardless of who wins. Unless trump dies or has a stroke before hand. I'm sure if he does there will be loads of CTs about it.
 
Ziggurat said:
...but I find the proposition completely unrealistic.
Click to expand...

As did I the proposition that preventing Trump from running would cause a civil war, which was the reductio ad absurdum you seem to have missed.

I don't think a civil war will happen in either case. But it's amusing to see where some people apportion the probabilities.
 
JayUtah said:
Because you say so?

If Trump's supporters are violent and unlawful, that's perhaps a good reason not to put him in charge.
Click to expand...

Trump's opponents are also violent and unlawful. Remember BLM? Remember the lawlessness on 1/21/2017?
 
JayUtah said:
As did I the proposition that preventing Trump from running would cause a civil war, which was the reductio ad absurdum you seem to have missed.

I don't think a civil war will happen in either case. But it's amusing to see where some people apportion the probabilities.
Click to expand...

BLM lawlessness and violence was extremally worse than 1/6/21, and they all hate Trump.

No reason to think that wont happen again if Trump wins. You're contention is flawed. Both sides are capable of terrible violence.
 
Hercules56 said:
Its silly and foolish to ignore the consequences of severally rushed legislation intended to disqualify one candidate from holding office.
Click to expand...

It's silly and foolish to ignore the consequences of a President who tried to overthrow the government.

We need a law to ban insurrectionists from taking Federal office. But the consequences of a rushed law specifically to stop Trump would be a cure that's worse than the illness.
Click to expand...

So we can certainly ban future hypothetical insurrectionists, just not the one insurrectionist in fact who showed us how important it is to ban insurrectionists from holding office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom