What's new
By:

Donald is about to go through some things...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Al-O-Meter said:
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment proscribes a penalty for engaging in insurrection which is 18 U.S. Code § 2383. As I have said many times, if Donald Trump is convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he should not be allowed to hold office. However if it is being found guilty of "something related", or if someone else who is not Trump is found guilty instead of Trump, then no it doesn't count.

It is really, really, super simple. If Trump is found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he's off. If he's not found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he's on the ballot and could conceivably pardon himself of all charges upon taking the oath of office after winning the election. Where things will get really crazy is if Trump wins the election but is convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 in the weeks between winning the election and taking the oath of office.
Click to expand...
Well he can't pardon himself of state charges and he has more than a few at the state level.
 
fishonjazz said:
Cool thing about pardons is that from what I understand trump can't be pardoned if he is convicted for the upcoming Georgia indictments since it isn't a federal indictment. So at least we can agree that would be pretty cool (since you are no fan of trump)
Click to expand...
Beat me to it fishbro.
 
If a sitting president loses an election, but attempts to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the winner of that election, in order to remain in power, but fails, he is allowed to run for the office of presidency again. And I sincerely wish that I don’t have any idea what I’m talking about in saying that, and must be mistaken, lol….
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Okay, but you skipped right over the part about showing that there is a rise of conspiracism at all. You blurt it out and show zero evidence that there is any more conspiracism today than 50 years ago with the moon landings, death of Elvis, and the JFK assassination. If you are alleging that there is more consipricism today then show your work on that point before you set about constructing explanations for a phenomenon that may not exist outside your own imagination.
Click to expand...

I’m not alone, but no matter, the most recent studies would indicate I’m quite mistaken in thinking conspiracism has increased:

journals.plos.org

Have beliefs in conspiracy theories increased over time?

The public is convinced that beliefs in conspiracy theories are increasing, and many scholars, journalists, and policymakers agree. Given the associations between conspiracy theories and many non-normative tendencies, lawmakers have called for policies to address these increases. However, little...
journals.plos.org journals.plos.org

This does not mean QAnon was therefore irrelevant, or not worth noting, at least so many times.

www.voanews.com

Trump Seen Moving Closer to QAnon Conspiracy

Apparent embrace of discredited movement comes ahead of an expected 2024 bid by former president to reclaim the White House
www.voanews.com www.voanews.com

And if there is a spike, in the Trump era, which my recency bias interpreted as an increase, it’s also not irrelevant to look a little deeper.


Abstract​

In the present contribution, we examine the link between societal crisis situations and belief in conspiracy theories. Contrary to common assumptions, belief in conspiracy theories has been prevalent throughout human history. We first illustrate historical incidents suggesting that societal crisis situations—defined as impactful and rapid societal change that calls established power structures, norms of conduct, or even the existence of specific people or groups into question—have stimulated belief in conspiracy theories. We then review the psychological literature to explain why this is the case. Evidence suggests that the aversive feelings that people experience when in crisis—fear, uncertainty, and the feeling of being out of control—stimulate a motivation to make sense of the situation, increasing the likelihood of perceiving conspiracies in social situations. We then explain that after being formed, conspiracy theories can become historical narratives that may spread through cultural transmission. We conclude that conspiracy theories originate particularly in crisis situations and may form the basis for how people subsequently remember and mentally represent a historical event.
 
Hmmm…


“Atlanta-area prosecutors investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia are in possession of text messages and emails directly connecting members of Donald Trump’s legal team to the early January 2021 voting system breach in Coffee County, sources tell CNN.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is expected to seek charges against more than a dozen individuals when her team presents its case before a grand jury next week. Several individuals involved in the voting systems breach in Coffee County are among those who may face charges in the sprawling criminal probe.

Investigators in the Georgia criminal probe have long suspected the breach was not an organic effort sprung from sympathetic Trump supporters in rural and heavily Republican Coffee County – a county Trump won by nearly 70% of the vote. They have gathered evidence indicating it was a top-down push by Trump’s team to access sensitive voting software, according to people familiar with the situation”.
 
Republicans: we want a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden. We want that special counsel to be David Weiss.

Merrick Garland: ok I will appoint a special counsel and it will be David Weiss.

Republicans: that's not fair! The system is rigged against conservatives! Lol

www.yahoo.com

Republicans Wanted a Special Counsel Investigation of Hunter Biden. Now Many Oppose It.

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans have for months repeatedly written to Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding he appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, the president’s son, over his business dealings. Some even demanded that a specific man be named to lead the inquiry...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

Congressional Republicans have for months repeatedly written to Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding he appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, the president’s son, over his business dealings.

Some even demanded that a specific man be named to lead the inquiry: David Weiss, the Donald Trump-appointed Delaware U.S. attorney who has long investigated the case.

But Friday, after Garland elevated Weiss to special counsel status, Republicans in Congress reacted publicly not with triumph but outrage.

The reaction was a notable political development, one that underscored both how Weiss, a Republican, has fallen in conservative circles and how deeply it has become ingrained in the GOP to oppose the Justice Department at every turn.

But in interviews, away from social media and television appearances, the reaction of many Republicans to Weiss’ appointment was more nuanced. Privately, some in the GOP were chalking up the development as a victory.

The party had worked for years to elevate the Hunter Biden case — which Democrats have long dismissed as a partisan obsession of the right — to a scandal equivalent to those dogging Trump, who has faced two impeachment trials, two special counsel investigations and three indictments totaling 78 felony counts against him. Those indictments include charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and willfully retaining national defense information after he left office.

By contrast, Hunter Biden has thus far been accused of two misdemeanor crimes stemming from his failure to pay taxes on more than $1.5 million in income related to his overseas business deals, and one felony count of illegally possessing a firearm while being a drug user.


He described the appointment of a special counsel as “a direct acknowledgment that Hunter Biden did something wrong,” (I consider guilty pleas direct acknowledgement that he did something wrong lol)
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Nope. Trump is currently facing many charges. He could technically be jailed for any of them if convicted, but it is only a conviction for violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 that would prohibit Trump from being President. Even with that clause in the US Constitution, Trump could still win the election from jail.

No. The provision is very clear. If he is found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he should not be allowed on the ballot, but being convicted of "something" related to insurrection is not sufficient.
Click to expand...

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members.
Click to expand...

What's your source for your claims?
 
Red said:
And if there is a spike, in the Trump era, which my recency bias interpreted as an increase, it’s also not irrelevant to look a little deeper.
Click to expand...
There isn't a spike. We are actually at low ebb on conspiracism. This chart only goes back to 2004, but even in that frame you can see how little QAnon was holding the attention of Americans.

Conspiracy.gif


Not only was QAnon not the phenomenon you and The Thriller made it out to be, but even the 2020 election was nothing compared to the Sandyhook mass shooting.

I will agree with you that it is relevant to look a little deeper. Why is it that a mass shooting had people discussing conspiracy theories so much more than anything Trump did? It was the reach of Alex Jones and Infowars. Why is it that you believed conspiracism to be on the rise, or on some sort to uptick? It is the media you consume. Both you and Thriller consume the same media and you have the same distorted view. By doing the same sort of research LogGrad did of term usage it becomes clear that Thriller is even further into this distorted view than you are. That doesn't surprise me as Thriller clearly prefers a more filtered intake of information than you do. You stick to your ideas but at least you'll sometimes read views that disagree with yours. The same cannot be said of Thriller. With Thriller it is filters and blocks on everything with only a curated stream of information allowed in to his bubble.

If you would like to do your own research into what has the attention of the public, here is a fun tool to play with:

 
One Brow said:
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members.
Click to expand...
Congress did a lot of shady things prior to the Supreme Court slapping them down in Powell v. McCormack in 1969. There are some in Congress who like to pretend they still have the power to do things without courts, including whoever authored your linked memo posted to congress.gov. It was only a couple years ago that Nancy Pelosi claimed she had the power to do such a thing when she said "If I wanted to be unfair, I wouldn’t have seated the Republican from Iowa because that was my right on the opening day. I would have just said, you’re not seated, and that would have been my right as Speaker to do so", but that isn't how the law works. Congress does not have that power. They are going to need a guilty verdict from the courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top