Yank
Bulbous Also Tapered
But who will those hypocritical gropers grope in future ?
The rules are for everybody else...
But who will those hypocritical gropers grope in future ?
We should rename the GOP as the Republiban party.
President Trump is a righteous man, he has followed God’s laws and he exhorts other to lead a life of righteousness.^ yet so many who vote for Trump say "we don't like him but we like his (Old Testament) policies". Exactly how large is the American Taliban ?
President Trump is a shitehouse man, he has fallowed God's laws and he extorts others to lead a life of self-righteousness.President Trump is a righteous man, he has followed God’s laws and he exhorts other to lead a life of righteousness.
I desperately hope that this WaPo essay is unduly pessimistic, but I fear that it isn't:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/23/robert-kagan-constitutional-crisis/
Contrary to the title of this thread, I think Trump and his acolytes are in the ascendant. His grip on the Republican Party seems to be absolute, and I think that only ill-health will prevent him from running and winning again, courtesy of all the mechanisms the Republicans are putting in place to steal the election. This is not going to end well. Civil War, Part 2? Hopefully not.
Very scary article. If Trump or a clone does get in then America probably needs another civil war ….
I can't read that article because of a subscription blockage, but in any case I'm sceptical that he would get elected because in the last election all his acolytes were exhorted to go out in droves to vote and he still lost. Only yesterday the seemingly endless Arizona recount finally declared that Biden had actually received more votes than even the original declaration had recorded. And the democratic vote was likely a lot more split than the Republican vote.I desperately hope that this WaPo essay is unduly pessimistic, but I fear that it isn't:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/23/robert-kagan-constitutional-crisis/
Contrary to the title of this thread, I think Trump and his acolytes are in the ascendant. His grip on the Republican Party seems to be absolute, and I think that only ill-health will prevent him from running and winning again, courtesy of all the mechanisms the Republicans are putting in place to steal the election. This is not going to end well. Civil War, Part 2? Hopefully not.
With the number of disillusioned Trump voters now in evidence I think they'll start looking for a new messiah. Though anything is possible. When they fail to find a new crackpot and if Trump declares he is running, maybe they will flock to him. I wonder though if the Republican party machinery really would freely allow this person, who is now a figure of derision, to be their nominee?
I'd be happy if the Second Amendment was interpreted as it was originally intended, as I understand it, i.e. that the USA would have no standing army, just a continuation of the Revolutionary War Minutemen. This all fell on its face as the USA expanded westwards and ran into problems with the locals who, understandably, objected to their ancestral lands being confiscated. Thus a regular army was needed, thus rendering the Second Amendment null and void.
Is the only way they could achieve power, because it won't be by being elected, not like 2016. Which will unleash more than just a squabble about election tampering.Second, Trump and his Republican allies are actively preparing to ensure his victory by whatever means necessary. Trump’s charges of fraud in the 2020 election are now primarily aimed at establishing the predicate to challenge future election results that do not go his way. Some Republican candidates have already begun preparing to declare fraud in 2022, just as Larry Elder tried meekly to do in the California recall contest.
Thanks for that comment, Bob, as you've no doubt realised, I'm no constitutional scholar. So, I presume that this standing army you mention is not the same thing as the "well-regulated militia" to which the Second Amendment refers. So, did the Founding Fathers envisage a small core of a standing army + "Minutemen" as needed?The view of US constitutional scholars is that your understanding is not correct, as Article 1, Section 8, Cl. 1 (provide for the common defense), Cl. 12 (raise and maintain armies), and Cl. 13 (provide and maintain a navy) all envision defending the country with a standing military. The Framers are understood to have envisioned maintaining a small standing army that required regular Congressional attention, hence the requirement that no appropriation for the army could be for more than 2 years; interestingly, no such limit was put in place for the navy.
Also note the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, was not ratified until 1791, three years after the Constitution was ratified.