V.P. Kamala Harris says Donald Trump is No Longer Eligible to be President Now That He is a Felon.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: JinMI

Hmm. Weird. If I believe it should disqualify someone, you immediately assume that means I only want it for a particular party? Unlike you, I believe it should disqualify the person regardless of party.

But the fact that you think it should apply to all is the very reason it applies to none. They took away any reasonable ability for one political party to disqualify the other candidate. A felony could be as simple as a shoplifting charge when someone was young, or a trumped up crime to disqualify a candidate. If one party can do what the Democracts are doing right now then what is to keep the next candidate from disqualifying his opponent each election season? It would be open season on candidates. The basic rules that are set work great because there is nothing there to help a candidate disqualify his opponent using the legal system.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: opethPA

Kamala is a seasoned lawyer and VP. She doesnt know if Trump is disqualified or not?

Yes, she does know, which is why she did not use the words "disqualified" or "no longer eligible". You keep making up bulls#t.

She is quoted as saying that the felony conviction "should be disqualifying". In simple terms, that means that even though the Constitution makes his name ELIGIBLE to appear on the ballot, she is saying that people shouldn't vote for him because he does not have the right personal QUALITIES to actually be POTUS.

The article didn't say so, but I suspect she is referring to Article II of the Constitution which, among other things, specifies the oath of office that the POTUS must swear to before exercising any powers of the office. The oath says that the POTUS will "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution"--in other words, do what the Constitution says the POTUS is supposed to do. Article II of the Constitution goes on to direct the POTUS to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". So that's one of the things Trump swore he would do on Jan. 20, 2017 when he took the oath of office--faithfully execute the laws.

The NY hush money trial that was just concluded produced as evidence 34 fraudulent business records that Trump signed beginning in mid February and extending into early December, 2017. So, what he actually did was immediately start breaking the law within less than a month of taking office and kept on repeatedly doing it through the remainder of the year.

To anyone with an IQ above two digits, that should be a pretty good proof of the fact that he's not actually capable of faithfully executing the laws--especially when they apply to him. To many voters who care about preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution, a criminal violation of the oath of office in a candidate's first term could be seen as disqualifying for giving that candidate a second term.

Classic case of further election interference.
I was wondering how long it would take for the 'not eligible' gaslighting to start so they can try and knock a few percentage points off the voting total for Trump.

a reply to: Boomer1947

Stop encouraging people to leave their thinking to the elites.

Do voters HAVE to believe a jury verdict?

The very, very clear answer is NO!
Not legally and certainly not morally.

Jury verdicts can be wrong.....

Southern small town whites used to be able to kill blacks because no jury would convict.

Do you believe those men were innocent?
If they were running for office, would you not consider what they did because a jury found them "not guilty"?

It's the people with low IQs that would simply take the verdict as fact without looking into it.

a reply to: UKTruth

Well how the heck can you be President and not allowed in like 20 countries including our allies of you're a felon? I mean this not being asked by me sarcastically or anything. How can you be President if you can't actually pass a security clearance? Yes that doesn't apply to a President when elected, but uh shouldn't it?

I mean this is something that hasn't happened before, but do we want that precedent going forward? For anyone?

a reply to: frogs453


Like we are seeing, by your logic lawfare by the regime in power will be the norm for every political rival going forward where any novel, bunk case can be brought and with the right judge and jury, easily convicted of 34 felonies that aren't even by statute felonies.

Even worse, when this gets overturned, the election will be long past. But hey, he was convicted before the election!

Stupidity squared.

It's not about what people think Kamala said or about what she did say, it's about what Kamala wants people to think about what she said. She's fairly good at absorbing instructions about how to fake people out with word twists and tossed salads. 🤣

a reply to: frogs453


First, Presidents do not have to travel. Most do so for PR stunts.

There is a very good and practical reason why a felony should NOT bar someone for office.

The first being is all a small county some where in the US would just have to bring bogus charges, get a conviction shortly before the election and then that person would be prevented from holding office. By the time the appeal was reversed, the election would be over.

And that was the plan with Trump. You can almost hear the giggles when Biden supporters talk about the appeal.

But though it's fun now, it might not be so fun when Lauren Merchan gets hauled in front of a small Texas jury.

Let's see if you feel the same way.

Closed for review.
Terms And Conditions


Community Announcement re: Decorum