• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ohio SOS Wants to Ban Biden From Ballot

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Make no mistake, I have zero love for Kamala. She came out in the first debate attacking other Democrats instead of focusing on policy. She's an authoritarian through and through. She was a bully as an AG. Republicans can't attack her on those vectors though because Republicans are worse on all three of those issues, so they have to cultivate bullshit personality defects. It's just sad that people still fall for it.
 
dank69 said:
Make no mistake, I have zero love for Kamala. She came out in the first debate attacking other Democrats instead of focusing on policy. She's an authoritarian through and through. She was a bully as an AG. Republicans can't attack her on those vectors though because Republicans are worse on all three of those issues, so they have to cultivate bullshit personality defects. It's just sad that people still fall for it.
Click to expand...
It's still amazing that Biden even tapped her for VP. Someone will always try to be an attack dog in a debate, but her low blows towards Biden were uncalled for.

It matters now because perception is reality. As bad as Biden's job approval rating is, Harris' net ratings are even worse. Usually the running mate doesn't matter much, but in this particular scenario, it's almost certainly a drag on the campaign.
 
manly said:
It's still amazing that Biden even tapped her for VP. Someone will always try to be an attack dog in a debate, but her low blows towards Biden were uncalled for.

It matters now because perception is reality. As bad as Biden's job approval rating is, Harris' net ratings are even worse. Usually the running mate doesn't matter much, but in this particular scenario, it's almost certainly a drag on the campaign.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the whole point of the VP though? Lay low and be a slightly worse person for the job so nobody gets any ideas?
 
manly said:
It's still amazing that Biden even tapped her for VP. Someone will always try to be an attack dog in a debate, but her low blows towards Biden were uncalled for.

It matters now because perception is reality. As bad as Biden's job approval rating is, Harris' net ratings are even worse. Usually the running mate doesn't matter much, but in this particular scenario, it's almost certainly a drag on the campaign.
Click to expand...
Well, she's a woman, and she's black, so that's enough for 50% of the nation to hate her no matter what she does.
 
But besides Harris, who would have been VP? Warren too polarizing politically to Biden. Whitmer would actually outshine Biden.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Isn't that the whole point of the VP though? Lay low and be a slightly worse person for the job so nobody gets any ideas?
Click to expand...
That's not the issue at hand. IIRC there were some early reports that Harris' team wasn't working "smoothly" with the WH; but otherwise it's not about her job performance as VP. It's a largely ceremonial job, as you've stated.

The issue is that Biden is 81-years-old and some voters care a lot about who the "backup plan" is. Even BoomerD, who claims he's never voted (R) in a major election, is harshly anti-Kamala here. It doesn't matter how low Harris lies because voters had already convinced themselves years ago that his VP will serve out his first term.

And to state the obvious, it's not reliable GOP voters that matter. It's the few swingy voters in a few battleground states; some of whom wouldn't admit it openly but they still have a bias against a woman, much less a Black woman, becoming POTUS.


eelw said:
But besides Harris, who would have been VP? Warren too polarizing politically to Biden. Whitmer would actually outshine Biden.
Click to expand...
Realistically Harris' net ratings are so bad almost any other choice would be better for the campaign. That doesn't mean Biden should make a change because it's not that simple.
 
eelw said:
But besides Harris, who would have been VP? Warren too polarizing politically to Biden. Whitmer would actually outshine Biden.
Click to expand...
Wish Katie Porter had been free. I'll add just one more thing. She will not be the Dem nominee for pres. after Biden.
 
dank69 said:
Well, she's a woman, and she's black, so that's enough for 50% of the nation to hate her no matter what she does.
Click to expand...

Bingo. I mean if people haven't noticed yet, racism and sexism are alive and fucking well in this country, and Kamala is no exception to those deep seated biases, explicit or implicit.
 
fskimospy said:
But by your own logic if he did the 14th amendment would not bar him from the presidency.

Again, by your own logic the 14th amendment does not bar someone currently invading the US from becoming president. I know this sounds absurd but this is because your logic is absurd.

It is weird that you argue that people currently leading an armed invasion of the US are not barred by the 14th amendment from becoming president of the country they are invading.

You have to admit that’s weird, right?
Click to expand...

Someone that is actually leading an armed invasion should be shot.
 
ch33zw1z said:
CO supremes disagree. Trump lead an insurrection by continually gas lighting his voters.

he led an insurrection by telling his subordinates to find him votes, and we’re still finding people at a state level that were either manipulating ballots or trying to in his favor.

Hundreds if not thousands of Trump supporters were involved, at a state a federal level.

You “laff” responded to my “I’m going to eat you”, but youre the sheep in that scenario. Blatantly lying to yourself and others to protect your identity (aka ego)

Trump is predictable, and you’re an ez mark.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS in a unanimous ruling stated that States cannot make this determination.

zinfamous said:
Trump did lead an armed insurrection. Why do you deny plain truth?
Click to expand...
Keep saying it maybe it will become true...

dank69 said:
If Biden and Kamala weren't Democrats, none of the conservatives here would have any problems with Biden's or Kamala's personality traits, because they wouldn't be constantly bombarded by propaganda telling them that they are senile or stupid.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the above at all. But it isn't their "personality traits. Joe is senile and sliding into oblivion. Kamala just can't do anything, see the link I posted earlier.

Amused said:
Yes, because "idiots" have dual degrees in economics and political science, a law degree, a successful career as a county prosecutor, state attorney general, senator and vice president.

So... Racist or sexist or both?
Click to expand...

Just because you went to school doesn't mean you aren't an idiot. Just because you blew you way into State AG Position doesn't mean that you are not an idiot either.
 
pcgeek11 said:
SCOTUS in a unanimous ruling stated that States cannot make this determination.


Keep saying it maybe it will become true...



I don't agree with the above at all. But it isn't their "personality traits. Joe is senile and sliding into oblivion. Kamala just can't do anything, see the link I posted earlier.



Just because you went to school doesn't mean you aren't an idiot. Just because you blew you way into State AG Position doesn't mean that you are not an idiot either.
Click to expand...

States can, and did make that determination. Keeping in mind that Republicans pushed that in CO.

States rights! Until we don’t like it!
 
ch33zw1z said:
Why? Is that a requirement for the 14th apply? Seems it isn’t.
Click to expand...


Take it up with the ones that made the ruling...


"Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse," the court decision concluded.


The ruling made clear that lawmakers after the Civil War intended the 14th Amendment to expand federal power, at the expense of the states, and that the Constitution "empowers Congress" to determine how to use the "severe" penalty of disqualification.
 
pcgeek11 said:
Take it up with the ones that made the ruling...


"Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse," the court decision concluded.


The ruling made clear that lawmakers after the Civil War intended the 14th Amendment to expand federal power, at the expense of the states, and that the Constitution "empowers Congress" to determine how to use the "severe" penalty of disqualification.
Click to expand...

Doesn't answer my question. throwing someone in jail or shooting required for the 14th to apply?

It would seem that the 14th doesn't require a conviction, agree?
 
ch33zw1z said:
Doesn't answer my question. throwing someone in jail or shooting required for the 14th to apply?

It would seem that the 14th doesn't require a conviction, agree?
Click to expand...


It requires an action of congress to enact the 14th as per the SCOTUS.

The ruling made clear that lawmakers after the Civil War intended the 14th Amendment to expand federal power, at the expense of the states, and that the Constitution "empowers Congress" to determine how to use the "severe" penalty of disqualification.

There is also a law against insurrection that was passed by Congress.

Rebellion or Insurrection - FindLaw

When examining the crimes of rebellion and insurrection, it's important to understand how they compare to treason and sedition. Learn about January 6th, rioting, the Proud Boys, and much more at FindLaw.com.
www.findlaw.com www.findlaw.com

The prohibition on rebellion and insurrection arises in federal law at 18 U.S.C. Section 2383. The law prohibits incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws. The punishment for this crime includes a fine, up to 10 years in federal prison, and ineligibility for federal public office.

Unless I have missed it so far Nobody has been charged with insurrection for Jan 6th.

By November of 2023, federal prosecutors had filed charges against over 1,200 individuals. Crimes alleged include:
  • Assaults on law enforcement officers from the Capitol Police and the D.C. Metropolitan police
  • Obstructing and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding
  • Trespassing in restricted areas of federal buildings or grounds
  • Conspiracy to obstruct a proceeding of Congress
  • Conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder
  • Seditious conspiracy
  • Destruction and theft of property
So keep repeating it and maybe some day it will happen.

You and others keep saying it is so obviously true. And if so why isn't he doing time in prison or ... Why has no one been charged with insurrection?

That being said I think every single person that illegally entered the Capital Buildings or participated in the riot that day should be arrested and held accountable.
 
pcgeek11 said:
None of this matters to you anyway. You will keep beating that same old drum. Yawn

I've said my piece on it.
Click to expand...

So, yes or no, pretty simple. 14th requires a conviction?

More than a few perps from Jan. 6 have been charged with seditious conspiracy. Maybe you should bone up on what that is.

An attempt to overthrow our government happened, there’s no denying that, textbook insurrection. You voted for the guy who led the attempt, twice. And here you are still shilling for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top