Congress pass a law banning Insurrectionists?

[johnny karate]

And did he not do it just because someone told him he can't do it? Or did he not do it because, you know, he couldn't do it?

Most executive branch employees are not political appointees. They will be the same ones under Trump as they are under Biden. Do you think Trump being president is going to magically make them turn into MAGA extremists who discard any considerations of legality? Yeah, no. That's not how government actually works.

First off all, congratulations on your ninth consecutive year of downplaying Trump and assuring everyone he's not that bad. You've been knocking it out of the park with this so far.

To your point, I'd like you to walk us through the exact mechanisms and people in place to enforce them that will prevent Trump from doing what he wants, and the mechanisms and people in place that will prevent him from ignoring those mechanisms and people.

What, a protest that turned into a riot that Capitol Hill police badly mismanaged? Yeah, I'm really not worried about that.

Not a surprising sentiment. I would expect someone who has endorsed election denialism to be unbothered by the insurrection it inspired.

 

[Ziggurat]

First off all, congratulations on your ninth consecutive year of downplaying Trump and assuring everyone he's not that bad. You've been knocking it out of the park with this so far.

And you've been playing chicken little for nine years, but the sky never actually fell.

 

[Hercules56]

How so? I'm the one advocating that we follow the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court to address a specific situation in the manner prescribed. You're the one seeming to say, "Don't do anything or else Trump supporters might start a war." I'm pretty confident in my devotion to the ideals of democracy and the rule of law on this point.

Nothing democratic or American about bulldozing a law through the House and Senate and rushing an indictment, trial and conviction, all in 21 days, so as to keep the winner of an election from taking office.

No, that looks more like an abandonment of democracy and the American principles of fairness.

You seem to want to destroy our house in order to save it.

 

[Hercules56]

....As a practical matter, no, I doubt it could happen. But that's not what you're complaining about. Ziggurat brought up the questionable optics of doing this, to which I responded. You then said :—

​

and I corrected you with

​

I got back the haughty content-free response :—

​

But it seems we are back to talking about the optics. And you seem to feel they're bad enough that Trump supporters might start a civil war....

Your solution, and all the injustice and unfairness that it entails, might just start a war.

Even if it doesn't it looks terrible.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I can't believe people here are actually suggesting that if the Dems win back the House, they should rush through a new law that would ban Trump, the Senate should kill the filibuster to pass the new law, then indict Trump and convict him, all before January 21st.

How would that NOT be an injustice and abuse of the system???

It would be interesting to get Mitch McConnell’s expert take.

 

[Brainster]

I can't believe people here are actually suggesting that if the Dems win back the House, they should rush through a new law that would ban Trump, the Senate should kill the filibuster to pass the new law, then indict Trump and convict him, all before January 21st.

You haven't been paying attention then.

 

[Hercules56]

Democrats in Congress could always vote to reject Trump's electoral votes on January 6, as an alternative to the unjust and unfair suggestion by JayUtah.

This would likely lead to a contingent election, which could go a zillion ways.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Voters.

Whether we should abide the constitution should be up to the whims of voters in a particular election?

 

[Hercules56]

You haven't been paying attention then.

I want Trump to lose as much as anyone else. But I want it to look fair and not a total abuse of the system.

 

[ahhell]

And did he not do it just because someone told him he can't do it? Or did he not do it because, you know, he couldn't do it?

Most executive branch employees are not political appointees. They will be the same ones under Trump as they are under Biden. Do you think Trump being president is going to magically make them turn into MAGA extremists who discard any considerations of legality? Yeah, no. That's not how government actually works.



What, a protest that turned into a riot that Capitol Hill police badly mismanaged? Yeah, I'm really not worried about that.



I suspect you didn't actually read this source, which makes fairly plain that the author's complaints aren't any worse than how he thinks other presidents have also violated the constitution. Would you argue that Obama created constitutional crises?

Sure, most bureaucrats aren't going to be maga, but do they do when they get some stupid order from the attorney general? Is that what you want to count on? Trump can't blatantly illegal things because the bureacrats won't obey his orders, that is in itself a constitutional crisis. They can quit I suppose. I tend to agree with CATO most president do things that are clearly unconstitutional and it doesn't break the system. But that was just one of many lists of the things trump wanted to do that were illegal or unconstitutional. They aren't usually as stupid, ignorant, nor clumsy as trump and none of them tried to stay in office after they lost the election. Jan 6 was what trumps second term will be like far more than the first 3 years of his first term. And because of January 6, we won't get any responsible people between him and the bureaucracy.

 

[gabeygoat]

Goes to show just how toxic he is, that people are arguing that the government should be held hostage just by the fact that Trump exists.

 

[johnny karate]

And you've been playing chicken little for nine years, but the sky never actually fell.

Insert "This is fine" meme here.

And your dodge has been noted.

 

[johnny karate]

I can't believe people here are actually suggesting that if the Dems win back the House, they should rush through a new law that would ban Trump, the Senate should kill the filibuster to pass the new law, then indict Trump and convict him, all before January 21st.

How would that NOT be an injustice and abuse of the system???

You haven't been paying attention then.

What's even harder to believe is the lengths people will go to create a straw man to get angry about.

JayUtah is discussing theoretical legislation to prevent an insurrectionist from holding office, per the Supreme Court's ruling.

Hercules56's wild extrapolation above does not resemble any argument that JayUtah actually made.

The desperation of the bothsides-ers is palpable.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sure, most bureaucrats aren't going to be maga, but do they do when they get some stupid order from the attorney general?

Exactly what sort of orders are you imagining here?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Sure, most bureaucrats aren't going to be maga, but do they do when they get some stupid order from the attorney general?

Exactly what sort of orders are you imagining here?

Donald Trump, November 2023:

I mean, if somebody if I happen to be president and I see somebody who's doing well and beating me very badly, I say go down and indict them. Mostly what that would be, you know, they would be out of business.

There's a lot more of that in the interview.

And it's the sort of thing that Trump actually did try to do, on multiple occasions, when he was President. Just one example of many cited within the linked article:

In his book “Holding the Line,” Berman wrote that the Justice Department headquarters pressured his office to pursue an investigation into Kerry. In April 2019, Justice Department officials leaned on Berman’s staff within hours of Trump tweeting about Kerry and the Logan Act, he wrote.

“No one needed to talk to Trump to know what he wanted,” Berman wrote. “You could read his tweets.”

 

[Ziggurat]

Donald Trump, November 2023:

Way to take that quote out of context. He's describing what he thinks Biden is doing. And yeah, there's some risk of the reverse happening too. Democrats should have thought about that before they pushed transparently political prosecutions. But the best odds of there actually being a crackdown on such tactics is precisely if Trump becomes president. If Biden wins, Democrats are just going to conclude that it works, and there's no reason to try to prevent it in the future. If Trump gets in office, then they might actually see the risk it poses, and make changes to reduce that risk.

And it's the sort of thing that Trump actually did try to do, on multiple occasions, when he was President. Just one example of many cited within the linked article:

An example where nothing happened. Let me clue you in on something: Trump isn't able to weaponize the federal bureaucracy against his opponents, because the bureaucracy hates him. But the federal bureaucracy is happy to be weaponized against Trump and others critical of that bureaucracy, and protect those it favors.

The entire article is like all the Hollywood folks who threatened to leave if Bush won a second term, and then nothing happened. It's pathetic.

 

[Random]

(snip)
An example where nothing happened. Let me clue you in on something: Trump isn't able to weaponize the federal bureaucracy against his opponents, because the bureaucracy hates him. But the federal bureaucracy is happy to be weaponized against Trump and others critical of that bureaucracy, and protect those it favors.

The entire article is like all the Hollywood folks who threatened to leave if Bush won a second term, and then nothing happened. It's pathetic.

Do some reading on Project 2025. Firing bureaucrats who refuse to push the party line will be an actively pursued project under a second Trump administration. He's been absolutely clear on that one. Once the purges are complete...

 

[Hercules56]

What's even harder to believe is the lengths people will go to create a straw man to get angry about.

JayUtah is discussing theoretical legislation to prevent an insurrectionist from holding office, per the Supreme Court's ruling.

Hercules56's wild extrapolation above does not resemble any argument that JayUtah actually made.

The desperation of the bothsides-ers is palpable.

JayUtah is proposing we rush through legislation and kill the filibuster and indict and convict Trump, all between 1/1/25 and 1/21/25, so as to ban Trump from taking office.

There are real-world consequences to such an abuse of the system.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do some reading on Project 2025. Firing bureaucrats who refuse to push the party line will be an actively pursued project under a second Trump administration. He's been absolutely clear on that one. Once the purges are complete...

Oh no. If we elect a Republican president, we might actually have a federal bureaucracy that tries to implement his agenda. How awful.

 

[Hercules56]

Oh no. If we elect a Republican president, we might actually have a federal bureaucracy that tries to implement his agenda. How awful.

You think laying off tens of thousands of workers, just because they are not MAGA stooges, is a good idea?