ChrisWeigant.com

A Very Slippery Slope

[ Posted Wednesday, January 12th, 2022 – 16:23 UTC ]

An interesting idea is being floated these days about one particular clause in a constitutional amendment. What it boils down to is the question of whether Democrats (or anyone else) should make a concerted effort to bar from ever seeking office those Republicans who in some way participated in the January 6th insurrection attempt. On the face of it, this seems a rational thing to contemplate -- no one who has tried to overthrow the government should be allowed to participate in that government in the future. The Constitution should not become a suicide pact, in other words. But actually applying it in this particular case will almost certainly set us all on an even slipperier slope than we're already on, in terms of partisan warfare in Congress.

Here's the relevant text, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

That's the whole section. Again, on first reading it, it's understandable the impetus toward barring certain Republicans from seeking office or getting re-elected. But a larger context might be necessary.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified during the post-Civil War period. At the time, many who had served in either the Confederate army or government wanted to run for office in the newly-readmitted southern states. This was an explicit way to bar them from doing so. But later during the Reconstruction Era the text of this law was drastically narrowed, by the passage of the Amnesty Act of 1872. This limited who could be barred from office, and it allowed most Confederate rank-and-file soldiers to run for office and serve from that point on. This was part of a general easing of retribution, as President Ulysses S. Grant then went on to pardon all but 500 former top Confederate officials. So back then, the foot soldiers were not held as accountable as the leaders and were allowed to serve in Congress or any other office they could get elected to.

Now, please remember, the Confederate States of America was unquestionably either an insurrection or rebellion (take your pick). It's beyond debate. But it had a structure -- a government, an army, a navy, and all the minor trappings of government below them. They issued their own currency and stamps, for example. Though never recognized diplomatically on the world stage, they did have a functioning governmental structure. There was no question about who had served in this government or armed forces -- it was all public knowledge.

So let's go back to the text of that amendment. The first part of the clause is pretty clear-cut -- you can't serve in any government office, period, whether state or national. The second part, however, already limits who this would apply to in today's situation: "...who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States...."

This would seem to mean sitting or former political officeholders and those who had ever been a commissioned officer in the United States military (I leave it for those more well-versed in legalisms to determine whether "an officer of the United States" would apply to the rank-and-file members of the military, who also have to swear an oath of service). But this would indeed include anyone serving in the current Congress (and not just "any previous Congress") because of the timing of the insurrection attempt. The new Congress officially convenes on January 3rd. Three days later, the insurrection attempt happened. So all sitting members would be covered, as well as those (like Devin Nunes, for instance) who were sitting members of the current Congress but have since quit. It would also cover any other politician who had sworn an oath to defend the Constitution previous to that date (up to and including President Donald Trump).

But then there's the third clause: "...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Republicans are already arguing that what took place doesn't qualify as an "insurrection or rebellion." And what definition should be used for "engaged in" or "given aid and comfort to"? That's a much more nebulous question than: "Did you serve in the Confederate government or armed forces?" And remember that it wouldn't even cover those who did actively participate but had not previously sworn any oath to defend the Constitution. There are dozens of people who were part of the mob who stormed the U.S. Capitol who are now running for office nationwide. Those who had never previously sworn such an oath are still perfectly free to do so, even under the most Draconian reading of the amendment's language.

Let's say for the sake of argument that a Draconian reading is what is necessary here. There is certainly a strong moral argument to make that those who swore to defend the Constitution but then turned around and attacked it should be barred forever from serving in any office, but again this was not the Civil War. So there are no paymasters' lists of who participated and who didn't. So how many should it be applied to? The people who directly participated in storming and ransacking the seat of democracy in America? Well, they'd be the most obvious, of course. Members of Congress who were in contact with the leaders of the insurrectionist groups? Those who egged them on at Trump's pre-attack rally, including Trump himself? Well, you could certainly make a strong "given aid and comfort" argument for all of them. But how about those Republicans who voted against certifying the results from all the states, even after the insurrection attempt had happened? Does that qualify as "aid and comfort" or "insurrection or rebellion"? That's a harder case to make, obviously, since no matter how much you disagree with them you have to admit they were following the correct constitutional procedure and not rampaging through the halls chanting: "Hang Mike Pence!" So where does the line get drawn?

Up until now, the Justice Department hasn't even charged any of the defendants from January 6th with sedition or domestic terrorism, much less insurrection or treason. There is no requirement in the Fourteenth Amendment clause for a conviction of such crimes, but it would certainly be a lot easier for Congress to bar someone from office who had already been proven in court to have attacked the government. But it's pretty farfetched to imagine that the Justice Department would ever (at least not without overwhelming proof of guilt being uncovered by the Select Committee) charge sitting members of Congress with such high crimes. So while it would indeed be convenient to just see who the courts decide is guilty of such crimes, that's almost certainly not going to happen any time soon.

There is no real mechanism in the Fourteenth Amendment for enforcement, either. Does Congress merely vote (with a simple majority in both chambers) on whether to bar some particular person or entire class of persons from ever holding office? The only procedure outlined is the one to waive the law, not to enforce it, which is a problem for those who want to now invoke it. No matter what route is chosen in any attempt to utilize this provision, it is likely it will end up in the courts, meaning the heavily-conservative Supreme Court would have the final say on the matter.

There is one larger thing to consider as well. Those now arguing for invoking the clause and using it on as many Republicans as possible should really take a deep breath and ask themselves if this is really what we should be doing in America. Because it would almost certainly prove to be a very slippery slope. After all, we scoff at countries who summarily bar people from ever running for office -- as happens regularly in places like Russia and Iran and China -- for being nothing more than "fake democracies." There is no real democracy if the people in power get to decide who can challenge them in the next election, after all. And that is exactly what going after those Republicans who did nothing more than voting against certifying the Electoral College results would indeed look like: political retribution, plain and simple.

If that's not enough to give pause, consider what would happen going forward. Say Democrats enforce the provision to the hilt. Even attempting to bar sitting Republicans from ever running for Congress again would absolutely enrage the entire party, from Trump on down. Attempting to bar Trump himself from office would be even worse, because then he'd be personally involved. Say such an attempt largely failed (one way or another, perhaps at the Supreme Court). Think for a minute what Republicans would do, once they regained power in either chamber of Congress or the White House. They would then seek to turn this effort around and use it against any Democrat they didn't like, for any reason under the sun. They'd call "supporting Black Lives Matter" aiding and abetting an enemy of the government. They'd widen the definition to include as many Democrats as possible -- they are already getting ready to essentially run their entire 2022 campaign on the sole issue of "Vengeance!" so adding this in would be a piece of cake for them.

Personally, I can certainly understand the temptation to use this obscure part of a constitutional amendment to bar the most unrepentant Republicans from ever seeking or holding office again. It would be fitting indeed. But other than individual groups at the local level suing in a pre-emptive move to keep certain candidates off the ballot, I don't really think Democrats as a whole should give in to the urge to try this route. Again, if the Select Committee provides solid evidence of involvement or if anyone who actually participated in the violence of that day is convicted in court of sedition or domestic terrorism, then I would agree that this should be a clear disqualification and Democrats should indeed act. But without such a smoking gun, I think any wider application would wind up coming back to bite Democrats in the end.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

113 Comments on “A Very Slippery Slope”

  1. [1] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    While I think that the danger is more that we as a country underreact to this GOP treachery than overreact, I agree that going after the Congresscritters whose support of the Big Lie was instrumental to Jan 6th would indeed be a slippery slow. Not that the Repugs won't go on a Vengeance Tour and toss the filibuster the moment they regain power.

    18 USC §2383 prescribes jail time and find for doing what these Repugs did. Let's see if DoJ prosecutes at least some of them. This is why I'm not afraid of a 2nd Trump Presidency -- he's going to be fighting for his freedom come 2024.

  2. [2] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Damned auto correcT.

  3. [3] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Oh, he'll run but here's no way he wins any but the most illegitimate election.

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    That's exactly what we'll have.

  5. [5] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And we'll be in no position to complain.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This is precisely what worries Gabe Sterling.

    Republicans and Democrats are in danger of completely breaking down the trust of the American people in the integrity of elections.

    His frustration about all of this is palpable.

    Funnily enough, the 2020 election was one of the most secure, free and fair elections in the history of America and more Americans voted than ever before!

  7. [7] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    EM #6 Exactly how are Dems "breaking down the trust of the American people"? From where I sit it appears to be an exclusively Republican project. Also what do you suggest be done about it. As per CW banning them from office does not seem to be a good idea. As it will only exacerbate the break down in trust that you correctly lament.

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    manchin wants attention, and sinema wants money. democrats have lots of both to spare, so why oh why is chuck so shy about wielding those tools? you know nancy wouldn't be.

  9. [9] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [5]

    To be clear, do you mean that you expect that the ongoing Repug shenanigans will successfully tilt power (possibly including Trump) there way?

  10. [10] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [6]

    ...Funnily enough..

    I think you just invented a new phrase of speech, Elizabeth. ;D

  11. [11] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [8]

    As per CW banning them from office does not seem to be a good idea. As it will only exacerbate the break down in trust that you correctly lament.

    Dunno if "breakdown in trust" is worth being of concern anymore. Trustee's? It's not just that the Progressives are being stymied by the Repugs but they're getting stymied by DINOS as well (see the uncoupled BBB.) And isn't it enough that #MoscowMitch screwed the Dems out of two SCOTUS appointments and refused to hold Trump accountable?

  12. [12] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I don't see any trust to preserve.

  13. [13] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW

    President Ulysses S. Grant then went on to pardon all but 500 former top Confederate officials.

    And the rest is history *ba-dum ching*

    So how many pardons does a traitor to his country need? Rhetorical. Apparently pardons in triplicate and in multitudes of multiples. Nevertheless, it won't help. Alas, it is a very long way to Judecca, the innermost zone of the Ninth Circle of Hell... the center of the bottom... completely covered by ice like "straw in glass" and locked in various postures with no mobility or sound whatsoever.

    So, to recap: May they burn or freeze in Hell, as the case may be. While here on Earth 1, may they and their enablers rot in prison.

  14. [14] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    You forgot the part about Judas Iscariot being eternally torn apart in one of Satan's three mouths.

  15. [15] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Until I see otherwise, here on Earth 1 we quite possibly will see Trump's serial losses in court solidifying his place in history as America's foremost serial loser.

    Sure, he'll drag it out for as long as he can but the rest of Trump's life is about to become singularly unenviable.

  16. [16] 
    Kick wrote:

    MULTIPLE PARDONS OF THE CONFEDERATES

    Abraham Lincoln

    * Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, Tuesday, December 8, 1863. Congress thought Lincoln was far too lenient toward the South and therefore passed the Wade-Davis Bill, which Lincoln pocket vetoed in favor of his proclamation.

    * Proclamation dated March 26, 1864:

    By the President of the United States of America
    A Proclamation

    Whereas it has become necessary to define the cases in which insurgent enemies are entitled to the benefits of the proclamation of the President of the United States which was made on the 8th day of December, 1863, and the manner in which they shall proceed to avail themselves of those benefits; and

    Whereas the objects of that proclamation were to suppress the insurrection and to restore the authority of the United States; and

    Whereas the amnesty therein proposed by the President was offered with reference to these objects alone:

    Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare that the said proclamation does not apply to the cases of persons who at the time when they seek to obtain the benefits thereof by taking the oath thereby prescribed are in military, naval, or civil confinement or custody, or under bonds or on parole of the civil, military, or naval authorities or agents of the United States as prisoners of war, or persons detained for offenses of any kind, either before or after conviction, and that, on the contrary, it does apply only to those persons who, being yet at large and free from any arrest, confinement, or duress, shall voluntarily come forward and take the said oath with the purpose of restoring peace and establishing the national authority. Prisoners excluded from the amnesty offered in the said proclamation may apply to the President for clemency, like all other offenders, and their applications will receive due consideration.

    I do further declare and proclaim that the oath prescribed in the aforesaid proclamation of the 8th of December, 1863, may be taken and subscribed before any commissioned officer, civil, military, or naval, in the service of the United States or any civil or military officer of a State or Territory not in insurrection who by the laws thereof may be qualified for administering oaths. All officers who receive such oaths are hereby authorized to give certificates thereon to the persons respectively by whom they are made, and such officers are hereby required to transmit the original records of such oaths at as early a day as may be convenient to the Department of State, where they will be deposited and remain in the archives of the Government. The Secretary of State will keep a register thereof, and will on application, in proper cases, issue certificates of such records in the customary form of official certificates.

    In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

    Done at the city of Washington, the 26th day of March, A.D. 1864, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-eighth.

    ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
    By the President:

    WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
    Secretary of State

    * Andrew Johnson: Proclamation of May 29, 1865, Proclamation Pardoning Persons who Participated in the Rebellion:

    Whereas the President of the United States, on the 8th day of December, A. D. 1863, and on the 26th day of March, A. D. 1864, did, with the object to suppress the existing rebellion, to induce all persons to return to their loyalty, and to restore the authority of the United States, issue proclamations offering amnesty and pardon to certain persons who had, directly or by implication, participated in the said rebellion; and

    https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/may-29-1865-proclamation-pardoning-persons-who-participated

    Johnson, of course, is referring to Lincoln's proclamations and goes on to further pardon the traitors to America, with exceptions in this particular pardon.

    * Johnson, December 25, 1868... The one I like to refer to as "Merry Christmas, Traitors to America"

    * Ulysses S. Grant, as outlined in today's commentary.

    ____________________

    And are these all the pardons of the traitors? Nope. Those are some major ones, though. Johnson issued thousands of them to individual traitors, of course.

    So how many pardons did the traitors need? Indeed.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    That's exactly what we'll have.

    And we'll be in no position to complain.

    Exactly...

    You obviously see how far Democrats have gone off the reservation...

    The fact that they are even ATTEMPTING to do something like this should be APPALLING and FRIGHTENING to every REAL patriotic American in this country..

    The requirements for POTUS are established in the US Constitution.. For Democrats to think they can alter the US Constitution to fit their anti-America agenda simply shows had badly Democrats have lost their senses...

  18. [18] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW

    ... they are already getting ready to essentially run their entire 2022 campaign on the sole issue of "Vengeance!" so adding this in would be a piece of cake for them.

    Revenge to Democrats? How's that going to look when Americans are reminded that those seeking "revenge" are already on record agreeing that Trump was responsible?

    Kevin McCarthy (yes, that Kevin McCarthy) called into CBS News while the insurrection was occurring and condemned the actions of the Trump mob. McCarthy further stated that anyone who participated should be held accountable. He went on to claim it was obviously planned and stated in no uncertain terms that he had phoned Trump to discuss it.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/video/house-minority-leader-kevin-mccarthy-condemn-the-violence/

    He stated on multiple times during the interview that he'd spoken with the President and others at the White House and that anyone who involved must be held accountable for it. He was specifically asked about the rally at the Ellipse, and he responded that he renounced Rudy Giuliani's words. You may remember "trial by combat." McCarthy also said he knew people were being hurt by the mob and reiterated he'd never seen anything like this.

    You will remember that McCarthy further reiterated much of this on the floor of the House days later and said "the President bears responsibility" and referred to Biden as president elect.

    So I am liking "revenge" as their campaign plan because... roll tape. :)

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    @SF Bear,

    Exactly how are Dems "breaking down the trust of the American people"? From where I sit it appears to be an exclusively Republican project.

    Which shows conclusively the hate and the bigotry that is at work here.. :^/

    It's not the Republicans who are trying to circumvent and subvert the US Constitution... It's not the Republicans that are trying to disenfranchise TENS OF MILLIONS of American voters by silencing their voices in the US Senate..

    That is ALL on your Democrat Party, son...

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    This is precisely what worries Gabe Sterling.

    Republicans and Democrats are in danger of completely breaking down the trust of the American people in the integrity of elections.

    His frustration about all of this is palpable.

    EXACTLY...

    Democrats are taking this country into a very deep and dark place..

    And, judging by Biden's poll numbers, Americans are wising up to just how badly Democrats are screwing up..

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    nypoet22
    8

    manchin wants attention, and sinema wants money. democrats have lots of both to spare, so why oh why is chuck so shy about wielding those tools? you know nancy wouldn't be.

    I love to see someone who knows what they're talking about just come right out and state the palpable and patently obvious. :)

  22. [22] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    14

    You forgot the part about Judas Iscariot being eternally torn apart in one of Satan's three mouths.

    Heh. You clearly know very well that I know you well enough to know that you knew perfectly well that I could not not respond to your brilliant observation.

    You, of course, are referring to the head/mouth in the middle. I admit to omitting the multiple heads/mouths; however, I freely confess I did not forget them... and neither did Judas... or Cassius... or Brutus.

    I suddenly desire a piece of chewing gum. ;)

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    15

    Until I see otherwise, here on Earth 1 we quite possibly will see Trump's serial losses in court solidifying his place in history as America's foremost serial loser.

    Benedict Arnold will have to reluctantly pass off the title to Benedict Donald, the autocrat turncoat willing to torch democracy in order to cling to power via any means necessary... including his conspiring in the failed coup he instigated against millions of American voters to overturn an election his ego will not allow him to admit he lost.

    Sure, he'll drag it out for as long as he can but the rest of Trump's life is about to become singularly unenviable.

    Trump has comically and in flailing fashion decided publicly take on Mitch McConnell:

    https://www.axios.com/trump-mcconnell-loser-npr-d9160665-e4e4-40a3-ac5a-64f5b2e9b688.html

    You may remember Mitch McConnell as the lawmaker who castigated Trump for spinning "increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup."

    Now that "secret coup" McConnell described has been elevated to Republican Party purity test and guiding GOP principle. Unwilling to declare that 2+2=5, Winston Smith? Torture awaits you, you... you "loser." What, you can't see the Emperor's new clothes? Heh.

    But, but, WiNo less ominous has been the whitewashing of the insurrection itself. Ten months ago, McConnell declared the “mob … assault[ed] the Capitol in [Trump’s] name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags, and screaming their loyalty to him.” Hardly a day passes without fresh revelations from the House select committee, documenting the shocking steps Trump contemplated in his effort to remain in the White House. Yet despite the intrepid work of Liz Cheney, the larger Republican response has been to distort and suppress the committee’s findings. Paul Gosar, the Arizona congressman who recently posted an animated video that depicted him slashing to death his House colleague Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has recast the insurrectionists as patriots. Others, including Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, have insisted the attack was a false-flag operation, a conspiracy theory given traction by Tucker Carlson’s three-party series.

    Republican state lawmakers have in turn weaponized the lies about the 2020 election and the 6 January insurrection to gain control over the local administration of elections. Bad enough are the 33 laws that have been passed in 19 states designed to make it harder for persons of color to vote. But more disturbing still are the Republican party’s radical efforts to purge officials who resisted Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 results and replace them with loyalists who have bought into the big lie. Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin are seeking to eliminate the state’s bipartisan elections commission altogether and to install themselves as the sole arbiter of state election results. And more than a dozen other red states have similarly enacted laws to transform the counting and review of ballots cast into a carefully monitored partisan exercise.

    By the time insurrectionists stormed the Capitol on 6 January, the 2020 election was a fait accompli. True, Trump tried desperately to forestall Congress from counting and accepting the duly certified state electoral certificates attesting to Biden’s victory. What ultimately frustrated Trump’s putsch attempt was the fact that election officials in Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania had already accurately and honestly reported the results. Many of these officials were Republicans. They acted in simple defense of democracy and were rewarded with death threats, ostracism and now ouster.

    Come 2024 these quiet custodians of democracy will have been replaced with loyalists and hacks ready to muddy the waters or supply the votes to secure a Trump win. The 2024 election will not witness a repeat of the events of 6 January. By the time Congress tallies the electoral votes on 6 January 2025, the putsch could be complete. And if it is, it will have been staged in the small offices of the election officials in the key swing states. And it’s all being scripted now.

    is taking on Mitch McConnell and will forgot to mention his

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    HOW DID THAT POST PREMATURELY?

    Anyway... I was going to post the astute observations at the article at this link until it posted prematurely and got accidentally mangled:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/17/republicans-plotting-destroy-democracy

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    SF Bear...

    After thinking about it, allow me to apologize for the snarky tone of my previous comment..

    You were smart enough to recognize the facts on the ground here in Weigantia(™michale) and because of that, I should treat you with more respect..

    I will do so from here on out...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    A very good indication that President Trump will run again in 2024....

    Democrats are contemplating running Hillary again.... :D

    From the Democrat/Pedo News Network...

    (CNN)Hillary Clinton is perfectly positioned to step into the breach created by an unpopular Joe Biden and a shaky Kamala Harris in 2024, according to a new op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by pollster Doug Schoen and former New York City Council president Andrew Stein.

    "Several circumstances—President Biden's low approval rating, doubts over his capacity to run for re-election at 82, Vice President Kamala Harris's unpopularity, and the absence of another strong Democrat to lead the ticket in 2024—have created a leadership vacuum in the party, which Mrs. Clinton viably could fill," the two write. "She is already in an advantageous position to become the 2024 Democratic nominee."

    Before we go any further, it's worth noting that neither Schoen nor Stein have sterling credentials as Democrats. Schoen worked for former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg while Stein endorsed none other than Donald Trump in the 2016 election against, wait for it, Hillary Clinton.

    Their backgrounds should give you pause about a) their intentions and b) their analysis of the state of the Democratic Party and the 2024 field.

    The mere fact that prominent Democrats are confirming what everyone already knows, but some won't admit..

    Basement Biden is senile.. It's a toss up whether he will finish out his term or not.. The longer he stays in the Oval Office, the deeper he will drag the Democrat Party down..

    Headboard Harris is a wash-out.. Even DICK CHENEY has better VP numbers than Headboard Harris.. So, she will DEFINITELY not be the Democrat Nominee.. Democrats own polls show her losing to EVERY likely GOP Candidate, including President Trump..

    So, Democrats are thinking about dusting off Hillary and taking her for one last ride.. :D

    Gods, I would love to see Hillary decimated again!!! :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    And from the ONLY OFFICIAL unbiased and objective News Source Of Weigantia(™michale)...

    Democrats claim that they are ALL about "democracy"...

    Turley to Marc Elias: Nothing Says Democracy Like Barring Republican Members Of Congress From Running For Office

    George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley on Monday weighed in on Democratic strategist Marc Elias' push to disqualify certain members of Congress from running for office over the Capitol Riot.

    "Nothing says democracy like barring people from running for office apparently," Turley told Tucker Carlson. "It's very common in countries like Iran. They just disqualified hundreds of people from their ballot. This is a much more modest idea, but it's an equally dangerous one. It's based on a very flawed understanding of what's called the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment."
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/01/04/turley_to_marc_elias_nothing_says_democracy_like_barring_republicans_running_for_office.html

    So, Democrats want to be like IRAN and designate candidates who CAN'T run for office.. SOLELY because Democrats KNOW that they will LOSE to said candidates..

    Congrats people.. Your Democrat Party is just like the Iran government... :eyeroll:

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    26

    The mere fact that prominent Democrats are confirming what everyone already knows, but some won't admit..

    The mere fact that you're claiming these characters are actually "prominent Democrats" is confirming what everyone already knows about you and will readily admit. You should have read what you posted that confirms exactly the opposite of what you're claiming.

    Bashi is right about this, of course. Your sources impeach your own drivel and spew.

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    SF Bear,

    From all indications, the last presidential election was very well run, on all counts. Those who know have called it the one of the most secure, fair and free elections ever.

    And, yet, there are movements underway that seek to convince the American people that fraudulent elections and voter suppression and election subversion are running rampant in your country. This has reached fever pitch of late, in the wake of the former president's neverending claims of having the election stolen from him.

    But, Democrats are also finding voter suppression and election subversion everywhere they look. And, Biden's speech the other day was more that a little disingenuous with some of his claims about the new Georgia election law.

    All of these actions, over the years, have been inexorably leading to a situation where a huge percentage of Americans are losing faith in the electoral process.

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    HOW DID THAT POST PREMATURELY

    Do you want me to answer that? Heh.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you want me to answer that? Heh.

    Oh I already answered that for her in a previous commentary.. :D

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    27

    Oh, I see, the headline is misleading since Turley wasn't actually talking to Marc Elias and was obviously on Fox News Entertainment propaganda television and was actually talking to Effer Carlson.

    "Nothing says democracy like barring people from running for office apparently," Turley told Tucker Carlson.

    So who here wants to man up and inform this... ahem... "law professor" that the Constitution of our federal democratic republic actually contains multiple ways in which people can be barred from running for office?

    Seriously: Who will inform the dumb professor? Show of hands.

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    30

    Do you want me to answer that? Heh.

    You are free to demonstrate the utter asinine idea that you are clairvoyant. It'll naturally sound like trolling behavior, of course, and you naturally wouldn't want to do anything to encourage that here... now, would you?

    Heh. :)

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    From all indications, the last presidential election was very well run, on all counts.

    Yes, Democrats ran the election very well.. They just didn't pay attention to the down stream races because they were so consumed with defeating President Trump...

    And, yet, there are movements underway that seek to convince the American people that fraudulent elections and voter suppression and election subversion are running rampant in your country.

    2016 and the Democrats' Russia Collusion Delusion is a perfect example of that..

    But, Democrats are also finding voter suppression and election subversion everywhere they look. And, Biden's speech the other day was more that a little disingenuous with some of his claims about the new Georgia election law.

    Exactly so... Even prominent Democrats are on record as stating it was over the top and very counter-productive..

    And the funny thing about Democrats and their voter suppression claims is that there are ZERO facts to support the claims...

    It's like Democrats' and their claims of systemic racism.. Democrats claim that it is "obvious" and "prevalent" but have ZERO facts that prove the claim...

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You'll have to forgive Victoria.. She is butthurt bad from a previous commentary and tends to lash out when she is on the ropes.. :D

    To her, everyone who disagrees with her is a troll and everyone who uses FACTS to prove she is wrong is trolling...

    She's also more than a little depressed that she once again has to play second fiddle to me.. :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like the Democrats Wet Dream bill, AKA BUILD BACK BROKE.....

    Banning Trump from re-election is a constitutional pipe dream

    Democrats will need more than the 14th Amendment to keep Trump out of office

    Could former President Donald Trump be barred from returning to the White House?

    To most Democrats and a few Republicans, disqualification seems like simple justice — and an answer to their political prayers. Unfortunately, the opportunity seems to have passed. The Constitution gives Congress the power to ban an impeached president from "any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States" as a penalty for impeachment. But in January, the Senate refused for a second time to convict Trump of charges that the House of Representatives laid against him.

    But some legislators and scholars think there's a way around that failure. According to The Hill, there's growing interest in the possibility of using the 14th Amendment to accomplish what impeachment could not. Ratified in the wake of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment states that "no person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military" if they've "previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States" and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

    The problem is that there's currently no legal judgment that Trump participated in "insurrection or rebellion." The new theory is that a Senate trial is not necessary to make that determination, which could perhaps be imposed by Congressional resolution or bill to empower a special judicial body.
    https://theweek.com/politics/1008698/some-democrats-want-to-bar-trump-from-office-it-wouldnt-work

    Once again... Democrats have a Wet Dream they want to make a reality..

    And, just as with their Build Back Broke crap, they are learning that reality and FACTS always trump Democrats hate and bigotry...

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    31

    Oh I already answered that for her in a previous commentary.. :D

    Triggered troll says what?

    Thank you, M... but who here couldn't have predicted that? Heh. :)

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    The appeal of this strategy is obvious. Trump's enduring and overwhelming popularity among Republican voters makes him the favorite for the 2024 nomination if he chooses to run. It's far too early to forecast his prospects in the general election. But negative partisanship is probably sufficient to give him a good chance of victory.

    Democrats OWN polls show that President Trump will beat ANY possible Democrat nominee... :D

    But a 14th Amendment gambit would almost certainly fail. In the first place, it's constitutionally dubious.

    Much like the Democrats' and their Election Cheat laws.. They will also fail because they are in violation of the US Constitution..

    Articles I and II make it clear that the impeachment process is Congress' main tool for holding presidents accountable for conduct inconsistent with their office. If the Framers had wanted to empower simple majorities or special tribunals to exclude former presidents from returning to the arena, they presumably would have said so. In the weeks before Jan. 6, lawyers who supported the president tried to derive vast, hitherto unknown powers from the ambiguities of the Constitution. Now, some of his opponents are trying to do the same thing.

    Once again, proof positive that Democrats are guilty of what they accuse others of....

    Look people.. The simple fact is, barring an assassination, President Trump is going to be POTUS again in 2025...

    Again, that's not my prediction.. That's the Democrat Party prediction..

    Ya'all better get used to the idea...

  39. [39] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    35

    Like I said: Triggered troll... performs on cue for Elizabeth M <----- M, for short.

    Cue it some more, M. I don't think it's tired of performing on cue and proving every chance that it gets that I live rent free in its tiny head. :)

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    PWN'ed and Dominated Troll says what??

    Thank you, M... but who here couldn't have predicted that? Heh. :)

    Oh, everyone here KNEW that once I returned, you would be PWN'ed and dominated.. :D

    Come talk to me when you actually have something beyond single-cell illiteracy and political hate and bigotry... :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Watch how I keep Victoria posting and posting..

    She's a kept girl.. :D Hehehe Demonstrating with every comment how much room I have in that angst-riddled noggin' of hers.. :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You can't run, {Victoria}. Not from me. I'm inside that angsty little noggin of yours."
    -Alastair, SUPERNATURAL

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    On Sept. 9, 2016, Hillary Clinton said of then-candidate Donald Trump that “you can put half of (his) supporters into what I call a basket of deplorables.”

    On Jan. 20, 2017, Inauguration Day, The Washington Post ran an article about a campaign to impeach President Trump that began on the day he was sworn in.

    After five years of vilification and dishonest smears about unproven Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election, more than 74 million Americans voted for President Trump.

    This means that despite efforts by the news media, the internet giants and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — and the ravages of COVID-19 — more Americans voted for President Trump than voted for Presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton or even Ronald Reagan.

    The simple fact is.. Democrats are TERRIFIED of President Trump..

    That is why they are trying EVERY hook or crook to prevent him from running in 2024...

    And, if by some miracle, they actually succeed???

    Then there will be a civil war the likes this country hasn't seen since 1861....

    And just keep in mind.. MY side in the conflict is 98% well armed and well trained..

    YA'ALL'S side in the conflict is un-armed and afraid of guns..

    It's going to be a VERY short civil war with the outcome pre-determined...

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, once again, the ONLY OFFICIAL unbiased and objective News Source in Weigantia(™michale)...

    The Escalating Nationwide Battle Over Private Millions to Bankroll Public Elections

    Democrats across the country are pushing to continue allowing private money to fund public elections as Republicans try to limit the practice, which they say gave Joe Biden an unfair and perhaps decisive advantage in his victory over Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential contest.

    So far at least 10 Republican-controlled states have passed laws to prohibit or limit the use of private money in public elections. These include the swing states of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Ohio. In another swing state, North Carolina, Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed such legislation, as did other Democratic governors.

    During 2020, nonprofits donated more than $400 million to state and local election boards to support their work and get out the vote. Most of the funding, around $350 million, came from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, distributed primarily through the Center for Tech and Civic Life, or CTCL, a Chicago-based progressive-led group that includes former operatives of President Obama.
    https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/01/12/the_escalating_nationwide_battle_over_private_millions_to_help_run_public_elections_811521.html

    You see, Liz....

    This belies your claim that the 2020 elections were fair...

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans assert that the private grants were disproportionately allocated to counties eventually won by Biden, a mismatch that hurt them in 2020 and, if continued, would damage their chances in future elections.

    “Our elections should never be for sale, but they were in 2020,” Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) said last month, calling the private funding a “partisan exercise.”

    This explains how Basement Biden and Headboard Harris were able to eek out a win, despite MASSIVE leads by President Trump at the close of the business day on election day...

    The 2020 election was ANYTHING but fair..

    The FACTS prove this beyond ANY doubt...

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Capital Research Center, a conservative group that describes its study of election 2020 as “exposing how one billionaire privatized a presidential election,” estimates that in Georgia, the Zuckerberg-aligned center gave $5.06 per capita in counties that went for Joe Biden and 98 cents in counties that went for Donald Trump.

    In Pennsylvania, another swing state, the group estimates that the center gave $3.11 per capita in counties that went for Biden, while Trump counties received 57 cents per capita. In Arizona, the group says, the breakdown was $5.83 for Biden counties and $1.29 for Trump counties.

    FAIR election my right arse cheek!!!

    Basement Biden's and Headboard Harris' win was bought and paid for by Facebook... Along with Zuckerberg tweaking his baby to boost Democrats and punish conservatives, there can be no doubt that the 2020 election was ANYTHING but fair...

    The facts are as plentiful as they are conclusive..

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://assets.realclear.com/images/56/566162_5_.png

    ANYONE with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows that the Election was rife with fraud to coronate Basement Biden and Headboard Harris in office..

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    As a result of the vetoes, several states governed by Democrats are now fully open to receiving largesse from partisan sources in 2022, a year in which both houses of Congress are up for grabs in the midterm elections.

    “It remains to be seen if there will be more people dumping money through private foundations into our election system,” said Jason Snead, executive director of the conservative Honest Elections Project. “There’s unquestionably a need for adequate public funding to run an election, and the money should come from the states. I encourage states to close this [private] money off.”

    Democrats decry Election money, but have NO PROBLEM taking it all, hand over fist...

    Hypocrisy.. It's not a bug in Democrat programming. It's a feature.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    “The average American does not want to see this practice going forward,” said Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican who took some of the private grant money in 2020, which was approved by state legislators. Some states require such approval while others do not.

    “That was an extraordinary circumstance, and I would not accept that money now,” LaRose said. The practice should be halted, he said.

    “Ideally, maybe something should be done at the federal level, sort of putting a line in the sand on private funding. I think it’s time for that.”

    Were it not for all that private funding and Democrats buying ENTIRE election boards and installing Democrat operatives on those boards, President Trump would be sitting in the Oval Office today...

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought this was the Chris Weigant column but it appears to be the Michale column.
    chrisweigant.com/2021/12/30/from-the-archives-politically-correct-seasons-greetings/#comment-182478

    I gotta hand it to you Michale you have successfully commandeered Chris's blog. Twenty one comments today and two days ago a whopping seventy four. It is your blog now.
    chrisweigant.com/2022/01/04/january-6th-investigations-need-to-speed-up/#comment-182501

    So factually accurate, friend Bear...

    So factually accurate... :D

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald Trump was an existential threat to the liberal establishment. Another 4 years of him, they were finished, and they knew it. It was THAT worth it to them to go to all the lengths they did to rig the election. The pandemic, mail in ballot operations, getting their media friends to blame Trump for every death (all of which are coming up with one excuse after another now for Biden), the BLM riots to intimidate any judge who dared hear a ballot fraud case, and of course, privately funding these mail in ballot operations mainly in the 5 battleground states. That's the reason for this big push for "voting rights" bill by Democrats. Without the mass mail in ballots again, they will surely lose their majorities.
    -Princes Bay

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's shoot for 100 comments today, people.. :D

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats Still Obsessed With Barring Trump From Future Office

    Some Democrats remain fixated on trying to prevent former President Donald Trump from running again, The Hill reported.

    Since the Jan. 6, 2020, attack on the Capitol, nearly a dozen Democrat lawmakers have spoken publicly or privately about using a post-Civil War constitutional amendment to disqualify Trump from holding office again, The Hill reported Thursday.

    Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says that officeholders who "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same" are disqualified from future office.
    https://www.newsmax.com/politics/democrats-trump-bar-office/2022/01/06/id/1051277/

    So, all Democrats have to do is PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that A> there was a rebellion or insurrection and B> that President Trump engineered it...

    "Well.. Good luck with that..."
    -Jim Carrey, BRUCE ALMIGHTY

    Face reality, people.. There was no insurrection or rebellion... President Trump is NOT responsible for the events of 6 Jan anymore than Democrats are responsible for 22 years (collectively) of Democrat BLM and AntiFa riots.. A BETTER case can be made against Democrats for culpability than can be made against President Trump..

    President Trump is going to be on the ballot in 2024.. And President Trump will win..

    If Democrats are so sure I am wrong, why are they so afraid of letting President Trump be on the ballot??

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    DEMOCRATS CONSPIRE TO BAR TRUMP FROM RUNNING IN 2024
    Share
    Tweet
    If you’ve been wondering why democrats are so keen on selling the January 6 nothing burger as a “deadly insurrection” it’s because they think it’s a way to keep Trump from running for president in 2024. If they can prove it was an insurrection and Trump incited it, he would be ineligible to run for office. It’s also an indication that democrats are pretty sure if Trump does run, he will win.

    Check out this ominous headline from The Hill: Democrats quietly explore barring Trump from office over Jan. 6

    That sounds like democrats are conspiring or even colluding. I’m told that collusion is a bad thing, but probably only when a Republican is accused of it.

    In any case, here’s what those sneaky democrats are up to:

    In the year since the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, a handful of Democrats, constitutional scholars and pro-democracy advocates have been quietly exploring how a post-Civil War amendment to the Constitution might be used to disqualify former President Trump from holding office again.
    https://defconnews.com/2022/01/07/democrats-conspire-to-bar-trump-from-running-in-2024/

    Democrats KNOW President Trump will prevail in 2024...

    Democrats KNOW that they shot their cheating and fraud wad in the 2020 election. They KNOW they won't be able to do that again because the American people are wise to Democrat cheating..

    So, the ONLY recourse that Democrats have is to try to legal fantasies to prevent President Trump from being on the ballot..

    Democrats will fail..

    But if they DO, by some miracle, succeed??

    Democrats won't like what happens next...

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Watch how I keep Victoria posting and posting..

    Not content to be consumed over me yourself, you beseech the entire forum to join in your obvious obsession. Got it.

    She's a kept girl.. :D

    Well, you quite obviously keep me in your thoughts... and now exhorting that everyone join you because... you need help.

    Demonstrating with every comment how much room I have in that angst-riddled noggin' of hers.. :D

    Said the poster asking everyone here to join in his demonstrable obsession with me. :)

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    And here Victoria is, just as I commanded.. :D

    Yer so predictable, Victoria..

    Now... Go and and spew some fact-less and bigoted hysteria... Go ahead.. :D

  57. [57] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "...no one who has tried to overthrow the government should be allowed to participate in that government in the future."

    Since both the Republikillers and Deathocrats have spent decades undermining the electoral process to suppress third parties and independents a case could be made that undermining the process to elect our government is a way of overthrowing our government so both parties should be banned from participating in our government in the future.

    While I do not think that will or should actually happen, the behavior of the Deathocrats and Republikillers should be enough that any citizen that believes in democracy should not be enabling and aiding either half of the one big money party with their votes, their contributions or in their "reporting" of our political process.

    You may not be legally responsible, CW, but you are still morally responsible for enabling and aiding the Deathocrats in their deceptions which made Trump in 2016 and Jan. 6 not only possible, but inevitable.

    Shame on you.

    GET REAL.

    TAKE THE VACCINE!

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pro-democracy advocates who want to lie to bar a person from participating in a democratic process? That’s a good one.

    Calls for Congress to take steps to strip Trump of his eligibility, which reached a crescendo in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 riot, have since decreased. But those who remain engaged on the issue say discussions about applying Section 3 of the 14th Amendment have been ongoing.

    Once again, Democrats prove how afraid they are of President Trump..

    NOTHING else explains how desperate and hysterical they are to prevent him from running in 2024...

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since both the Republikillers and Deathocrats have spent decades undermining the electoral process to suppress third parties and independents a case could be made that undermining the process to elect our government is a way of overthrowing our government so both parties should be banned from participating in our government in the future.

    The logic is sound..

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Merriam-Webster


    TROLL

    : to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts

    Once again, Victoria proves who the troll is... :D She is defining herself with every comment..

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says:

    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    As you can see, if democrats can prove that January 6 was an insurrection and that Trump was responsible for it, they can keep him from running and winning in 2024. Trump telling his supporters to “go in peace” may be a slight roadblock to that effort, but the democrats did impeach him for starting an insurrection so they aren’t all that concerned with making a factual case.

    The mere fact that Democrats can't even prove in a court of law that an insurrection occurred kinda puts a HUGE roadblock in their way... :D

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    43

    The simple fact is.. Democrats are TERRIFIED of President Trump..

    I don't think they are. Republicans are terrified of Trump, obviously, but beginning to show a little backbone by stating the obvious that they had already voiced during and in the hours immediately after Trump and his gullible ilk's failed attempts with representatives of multiple states and pathetic active measures to get Mike Pence to throw out the electors of certain states in order for Trump to remain in power.

    That is why they are trying EVERY hook or crook to prevent him from running in 2024...

    No one is above the law in America. Trump can no longer hide behind the office of the presidency and can be prosecuted for his crimes now.

    And, if by some miracle, they actually succeed???

    Then there will be a civil war the likes this country hasn't seen since 1861....

    Your talk of violence isn't necessary.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    More claims.. No facts...

    Republicans are terrified of Trump,

    Relatively few... They are simply Trump/America haters who are irrelevant...

    No one is above the law in America. Trump can no longer hide behind the office of the presidency and can be prosecuted for his crimes now.

    And yet, there are NO CRIMES... Like with impeachment, Democrats are MAKING UP crimes that have no factual basis..

    Your talk of violence isn't necessary.

    Says the girl who supports Democrat BLM and AntiFa violence...

    SILENCE GIVES ASSENT

    It's Democrats who are pushing this country towards violence..

    I simply point out the utter foolishness of a group that is unarmed, untrained and afraid of guns pushing towards a shooting war with a group that is 98% armed and 98% trained in the art of war..

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Hill named Jamie “The Rodent” Raskin, “Fat” Jerry Nadler, and Debbie “Fish Face” Wasserman Schultz as the democrats conspiring to bar Trump from presidential eligibility. I would say that’s a collection of the worst democrats but all democrats are equally as terrible.

    It’s unclear if the democrats will be able to pull this off, but it certainly shows how scared they are that Trump will regain his rightful place in The White House.

    Today's Democrat Party is LAUGHABLE....

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:
  66. [66] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Day-yam, Kick! You're just kicking out the history lessons in this edition of Weigantia. Glad that you're back in participation mode.

  67. [67] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    FPC

    And we have a Best Body Slamof the Week, from last Friday,

    Kick wrote,

    Kick wrote:
    Sorry, trailer poon, you have obviously confused your actual reality with somebody else's... not a new revelation to anyone who is a regular reader, that is without question.

    While I obviously do live perpetually and metaphorically rent free in your demonstrably little head, you shouldn't confuse that with having anything whatsoever to do with your pathetic existence, your trailer life, your swampland, or anything else to do with you, your shithole, your aforementioned "bimbo," or your admitted tiny little hands or fingers. :D

    That rent free phenomena means that if I can only meet you (and Elizabeth) in my dreams, does that mean that I could meet you in troll's dreams as well? Kinda doubles my chances of having a Dream Date, amirite?

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats explore barring Trump from holding office over Jan. 6 riot

    It’s unclear what mechanism would be used to apply Section 3 to Trump. Some experts say the House and Senate could vote by a simple majority to find the 45th president engaged in insurrection against the government. Others, including Tribe, say the determination would need to be made by a federal court or a neutral fact-finding body.

    Some left-wing groups are also exploring the possibility of applying the amendment without going through Congress.
    https://nypost.com/2022/01/06/democrats-hope-14th-amendment-can-bar-donald-trump-from-holding-office/

    Typical Democrats...

    Making up the law as they go along..

    This is just as short-sighted as Democrats getting rid of or carving an exemption on the filibuster..

    Democrats will NOT like what happens in retaliation...

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    And once again, the official Weigantian(™michale) Troll shows up..

    Merriam-Webster

    TROLL

    : to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts

    And as usual, he is riding someone else's coattails. Because he has neither the brain cells nor testicular fortitude to face me hisself.. :D

    Once again, it's AWESOME to be *the* Dominant Force here in Weigantia(™michale).. :D

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    That rent free phenomena means that if I can only meet you (and Elizabeth) in my dreams, does that mean that I could meet you in troll's dreams as well? Kinda doubles my chances of having a Dream Date, amirite?

    EEeewwwwwwwww.... Liz, MC is dreaming about you...

    How creepy is THAT!!??

    Shirley, you must be getting that icky stalker feeling, eh?? :D

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    One such group, Free Speech For People, has urged state election officials to apply the amendment if Trump decides to run for president again, which would prevent his name from showing up on ballots.

    “Just as states are permitted (if not required) to exclude from the presidential ballot a candidate who is not a natural-born citizen, who is underage, or who has previously been elected twice as president, so too states should exclude from the ballot a candidate, such as Mr. Trump, who previously swore to support the Constitution, but then engaged in insurrection,” the group wrote in a letter sent to chief election officials in all 50 states last summer.

    Except it has NOT been proven that President Trump engaged in an insurrection... It has not even been proven that an insurrection happened..

    Ergo, Democrats are trying to usurp the Constitution of the United States...

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, since we're talking about the Rule Of Law and Democrats breaking laws and making up their own laws...

    Former Ohio sheriff switches parties to join Republicans: 'Democrats showed me the door'
    Jim Neil says he believes GOP fits his values, accepts rule of law

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-sheriff-leaves-democratic-party-join-republicans

    And another Democrat realizes that his Party is the Racist Party, the Party of Make Up Their Own Laws, the Party Of Hate And Bigotry....

    He joins the America-loving Republican Party...

    Welcome aboard, Sheriff

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    We seem to have a lot of MIAs here in Weigantia(™michale)....

    andygaus... Speak2.... John M from Ct.... Mezzomamma....
    italyrusty... MyVoice....

    Wonder where they all went?? :D

    Well, I don't want to toot my own horn.. But... BEEP BEEP...
    -Michael J Fox, FAMILY TIES

    :D

  74. [74] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Wow. Looks like yet another troll's lengthy look down the rabbit hole.

    Pity that I'll probably never see a single word of it.*sarcasm off*

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gettin' closer to that 100 comment mark!!! :D WOOT!!! :D

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow. Looks like yet another troll's lengthy look down the rabbit hole.

    Pity that I'll probably never see a single word of it.*sarcasm off*

    Once again, MC acknowledges my comments and projects his own hatred and inadequacies.. :D

    Hay MC... Lemme ask you something.. Why did you advise people to ignore my comments when you are incapable of doing so..???

    Hypocrisy.. It's not a bug in Democrat programming. It's a feature.

    I mean, how shitty is your advice that you can't even follow it yourself??? :D

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the fact that you keep coming back to my Weigantia(™michale) for more and more abuse???

    "Such masochistic tendencies must be indicative of a deeper psychological disorder."
    -Spock, STAR TREK, My Enemy, My Ally

    :D

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    What with this push to illegally invoke an obscure Civil War era portion of the 14th Amendment....

    The fact Basement Biden's FBI refuses to deny that their agents/informants were involved in the 6 Jan riot takes on a whole new meaning...

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jen Psaki hammered for dismissing criticism of Biden speech by redirecting to Trump
    Romney voted twice to remove Trump from office, despite Psaki's claims he 'sat silently'

    White House press secretary Jen Psaki was hammered by critics Wednesday for invoking former President Trump while dismissing condemnation of the vitriolic language used by President Biden in his voting address.

    During the daily White House press briefing, Psaki was asked by a reporter specifically about Sen. Mitt Romney's, R-Utah, criticism, in which he slammed Biden for not using the speech to unite Americans. In the speech, Biden likened foes of proposed Democratic election overhauls to segregationists.
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/jen-psaki-hammered-dismissing-criticism-biden-speech-redirecting-trump

    So much for the claim that Basement Biden was going to "unite" Americans... :eyeroll:

    While Weigantians predominantly lauded and swooned over Basement Biden't hate-filled divisive (Shout Out to Liz who stuck with the FACTS and reality) rhetoric, the simple fact is that Basement Biden is the most divisive POTUS in the history of the Republic...

    Hell, even Uber Democrat Racist Al Sharpton slammed Basement Biden's speech for being hate-filled and bigoted...

    You just HAVE to know that, if the biggest racist on the planet, says a speech is hate-filled and bigoted, that actually MEANS something..

    Psaki is an embarrassment to this country.. She makes Baghdad Bob look honest and truthful...

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can accuse Romney of a lot of things, but I'm not sure "sitting silently over the last four years for the former president" is one of them.

    Basement Biden's own Baghdad Bob get's caught in a lie and is severely body-slammed to the ground..

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yep she nailed it: Mitt Romney stayed silent on Trump. Extremely Psaki Bomb.

    Psaki wouldn't know a fact if it came up to here and slapped her upside the head....

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can vote to impeach Trump twice and the Biden Admin will still use But Trump as an excuse to call you a racist akin to George Wallace, Bull Connor, & Jefferson Davis.

    Yea.. Basement Biden Administration is going to "unite" Americans.. :eyeroll:

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aside from Mitt being silent about Trump being hilarious, the selling point of Biden was allegedly that he was "not Trump." So, I'm sorry if I'd like to hold President Biden to the expectation that he be more truthful and less a demagogue than his predecessor.

    Basement Biden is everything Democrats accuse President Trump of being...

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    POLL: BIDEN APPROVAL SINKS TO 33%...
    Political Instability Not U.S. Adversaries, Seen As Bigger Threat, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Nearly 6 In 10 Think Nation's Democracy Is In Danger Of Collapse

    In a sharply divided country, Americans agree on this: the bigger danger to the United States comes from within. Seventy-six percent say they think political instability within the country is a bigger danger to the United States compared to the 19 percent who think other countries that are adversaries of the United States are the bigger danger, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll of adults released today.

    Democrats say 83 - 13 percent, independents say 78 - 19 percent, and Republicans say 66 - 29 percent that political instability in the U.S. is the bigger danger.

    A majority of Americans, 58 - 37 percent, think the nation's democracy is in danger of collapse.
    https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3831

    Basement Biden is doing a helluva job.. :eyeroll:

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK I'll take a break and let someone else get a word in edge-wise.. :D

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Time's up... :D

    And just like the Democrats' OTHER Wet Dream....

    Sinema doubles down on filibuster support, dealing likely fatal blow to Dems' election bills
    Sinema is a longtime supporter of the filibuster

    Sen. Kyrsten Sinema said Thursday that she will not vote to weaken the Senate's 60-vote filibuster threshold, bucking her party leaders yet again and dealing a major blow to Democrats' election reform effort.

    The comments, which match Sinema's long-held stance on the filibuster, are effectively the final nail in the coffin of Democrats' longshot effort to pass two elections bills over unified Senate GOP opposition.

    "There's no need for me to restate my longstanding support for the 60-vote threshold to pass legislation. There's no need for me to restate its role in protecting our country from wild reversals of federal policy," Sinema, D-Ariz., said. "This week's harried discussions about Senate rules are but a poor substitute for what I believe could have and should have been a thoughtful public debate at any time over the past year."
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sinema-senate-filibuster-schumer-democrats-elections-bills-voting-rights

    Democrats elimination or carve out of the Filibuster is DOA...... :D

    What *IS* it about Democrats that they CONSTANTLY lose??? :D

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    She added: "But what is the legislative filibuster, other than a tool that requires new federal policy to be broadly supported by senators, representing the broader cross-section of Americans… Demands to eliminate this threshold from whichever party holds the fleeting majority amount to a group of people separated on two sides of a canyon, shouting that solution to their colleagues."

    Democrats will NOT be able to disenfranchise TENS OF MILLIONS of American Voters by negating their will in the US Senate...

    It's THAT simple that even a single brain cell person could understand... :D

    Ironically enough we have a couple of those here... :D

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is not immediately clear whether Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., will still try to force a "nuclear option" vote to carve out an exception to the filibuster for voting rights. Such a vote would likely fail, but would continue to ratchet up pressure on Sinema, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and other Democrats who less vocally back the filibuster.

    But pressure has not worked on those senators so far this Congress, and it appears unlikely to work this time either.

    "Today marks the longest time in history that the Senate has been equally divided. The House of Representatives is nearly equally divided as well. Our mandate it seems evident to me work together and get stuff done for America," Sinema said Thursday.

    Unfortunately, Democrats don't know the meaning of the WORDS "work together".... :^/

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    "It’s time for us to do what we have been doing and that time is every day."
    -Vice President Headboard Harris

    huh.... er... Wait...??? What???

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Notice the resemblance??

    "Do? Do? Hey, I'm doing what I do. You know, I've always done what I do. I'm doing what I do, the way I've always done and the way I'll always do it."
    -Cosmo Kramer

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    The above illustrates PERFECTLY the problems caused by diversity hires... :eyeroll:

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Headboard Harris' answer to substantiative questions always sounds like a book report on a book she hasn't read... :D

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even though it's a moot point, as the Democrats' plan to eliminate or carve out the filibuster is dead...

    McConnell threatens Senate shutdown if Democrats nuke filibuster

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Tuesday threatened to essentially shut down a "post-nuclear Senate" as Democrats speed toward a potential vote on altering the Senate's 60-vote filibuster in the next week.

    "I think it's appropriate to ask: What would the Senate look like in a post-nuclear world?" McConnell said, referring to the "nuclear option" of creating a new Senate precedent with just 50 votes needed to allow passage of legislation.

    "A post-nuclear Senate would not be more efficient or more productive. I personally guarantee it," McConnell also said. "Do my colleagues understand how many times per day the Senate needs and gets unanimous consent for basic housekeeping? Do they understand how many things could require roll call votes? How often the minority could demand lengthy debate?"
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-filibuster-threat-schumer-senate

    Democrats just dodged a HUGE bullet..

    If Democrats would have been able to disable or eliminate the filibuster and disenfranchise TENS OF MILLIONS of American voters, Democrats would have lived long enough in the Senate to regret it...

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The filibuster has no basis in the Constitution. Historically, the parliamentary tactic was used sparingly – most notably by Southern senators to block civil rights legislation and prop up Jim Crow. In recent years, the filibuster became a routine way for the Senate minority to block important progress on issues supported by the majority of voters. But we can’t allow it to be used to block efforts to protect our democracy."
    -Barack Odumbo

    What Odumbo DOESN'T say is that those "Southern Senators" were ALL Democrats..

    Also, it was also DEMOCRATS who fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights laws of the 50s and 60s...

    "Just the facts..."
    -Sgt Friday, DRAGNET

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Americans don’t expect political parties to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet."
    -Barack Odumbo, 2005

    Once again... The FACTS are proven beyond any doubt..

    Hypocrisy.. It's not a bug in Democrat programming. It's a feature.

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    "If the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to Democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse."
    -Barack Odumbo, 2005

    Democrats want to NOW disenfranchise tens of millions of American voters after voraciously and passionately defending the filibuster and the rights of the minority...

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, once again, from the ONLY OFFICIAL unbiased and objective Weigantian(™michale) News Source..

    Senate Filibuster: The Constant and the Variable

    McConnell’s prediction came true, as he reminded Democrats in a 2019 New York Times op-ed, and it took only four years. “In 2017, we took the Reid precedent to its logical conclusion, covering all nominations up to and including the Supreme Court,” the Senate Republican leader wrote.

    “So this is the legacy of the procedural avalanche Democrats set off: Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and 43 new lifetime circuit judges — the most ever at this point in a presidency,” McConnell added. “The consequences of taking Senator Reid’s advice will haunt liberals for decades.”

    Liberals don’t seem to have absorbed this history lesson. Under the coaching of Chuck Schumer, Reid’s successor, Senate Democrats apparently can’t envision an adverse outcome in the next election, which is this year, or the possibility Republicans might turn their own tactics on the filibuster against them. This failure of imagination is not a new phenomenon. Neither is situational ethics on Capitol Hill.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/01/13/senate_filibuster_the_constant_and_the_variable_147023.html

    Democrats are the masters of hypocrisy and short term thinking.. Totally ignoring everything but the minimal short term gain..

    It's why we have a 6-3 Conservative SCOTUS and likely will for the rest of at least my life...

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Moreover, in real life the filibuster itself wasn’t always used for noble purposes. In the 1960s, for example, it was used by Southern Democrats to stall civil rights legislation. So, describing the filibuster as a “Jim Crow relic,” as former president Barack Obama did in 2020 while eulogizing civil rights icon John Lewis, strikes a chord with many Americans, even if it wasn’t altogether accurate. The problem here wasn’t the disparagement of the filibuster. It was the hypocrisy of the man doing the disparaging: When it served his political purposes, Obama loved the filibuster.

    Although he served less than one term in the U.S. Senate, Obama often joined with the Democratic leadership in signing on to filibusters that blocked GOP-backed legislation he opposed. These thwarted bills ranged from defense appropriations and tightening border security to repealing the federal estate tax. Curbing the filibuster in those days was considered so taboo it was dubbed “the nuclear option.” When Republicans proposed invoking it to help confirm George W. Bush’s judges, Obama was among those who went ballistic. In a floor speech just 3½ months after he arrived in Washington, freshman Sen. Obama said it was “more about power than fairness” and that Republicans were using “an ends-justify-the-means mentality.”

    “At the end of the day, [voters] expect both parties to work together to get the people’s business done,” Obama added in that April 13, 2005, soliloquy. “What they do not expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet.”

    Only a few years later, however, President Obama lauded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s efforts to curb the practice for judicial appointments. As some journalists noted, this constituted an unambiguous flip-flop.

    Democrats never met an issue they didn't want to flip flop on... :eyeroll:

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    “The bottom line is very simple: The ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the Founding Fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into the rubber stamp of dictatorship.” That was Schumer on March 16, 2005.

    “They believe if you get 51% of the vote, there should be one party rule. We will stand in their way! Because an America of checks and balances is the America we love. It’s the America the Founding Fathers created. It’s been the America that’s kept us successful for 200 years and we’re not going to let them change it! … We will fight, and we will preserve the Constitution!”
    -Democrat Chuck Schumer, 2005

    “The Senate was designed to protect the political rights of the minority in the chamber, through the promise of debate and the opportunity to amend. But over the years, those rights have been warped and contorted to obstruct and embarrass the will of majority – something our Founders explicitly opposed. The Constitution specified what measures demanded a supermajority — including impeachment or the ratification of treaties. But they explicitly rejected supermajority requirements for legislation, having learned firsthand of such a requirement’s defects under the Articles of Confederation. The weaponization of rules once meant to short-circuit obstruction have been hijacked to guarantee obstruction.”
    -Democrat Chuck Schumer, 2022

    And you can bet that, when the GOP takes control of the Senate in 2023, Schumer will once again be the Champion Of The Senate Filibuster... :eyeroll:

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    “At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill. It’s about compromise and moderation. That’s why the Founders put unlimited debate in. … The purpose would be you have to deal with me as one senator. It doesn’t mean I get my way. It means you have to compromise. You may have to see my side of the argument. I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever. I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”
    -Joe Biden, 2005

    “The United States Senate, designed to be the world’s greatest deliberative body, has been rendered a shell of its former self. We have no option but to change the Senate rules, including getting rid of the filibuster for this.”
    -Joe Biden, 2022

    The hypocrisy is GLARING... And blatant.... And obvious...

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Taaa Daaaaa..... 100 Comments!!! :D

    "DOMINATION!!!"
    -Mortal Kombat

    :D

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Well, I can tell you that would be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to our Founding Fathers. We have to acknowledge our respect for the minority, and that is what the Senate tries to do in its composition and in its procedure.”
    Democrat Dick Durbin, 2018

    “The filibuster has a death grip on American democracy. It’s time we end its power to hold the Senate hostage.”
    -Democrat Dick Durbin, 2021

    Ya'all seeing the pattern???

    When Democrats are the Minority Party, they LOVE the filibuster...

    When Democrats are the Majority Party, they hate the filibuster and want to get rid of it..

    Hypocrisy.. It's not a bug in Democrat programming. It's a feature.

    Ya'all getting the point yet???

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all getting the point yet???

    Nope??

    OK then.. Let the lessons continue..

    “I think it’s useful to bring people together. And I don’t mind that you have to get 60 votes for cloture because … if you’re not able to get 60 votes on something, it just means you haven’t worked hard enough, haven’t talked to enough people and trying to listen to their concerns and coming up with something they can support.”
    Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, 2019

    “I support getting rid of the filibuster, because the purpose of keeping the filibuster in place is to prevent bad things from happening when you're not in charge,” she said on Nov. 21, 2021. “But the truth is, those bad things are happening right now, even though we have the majority.”
    -Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, 2021

    Does anyone DENY the FACT that Democrats are blatantly hypocritical???

    "Anyone??? Anyone?? Buehler..???"

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    OH SNAP!!!!

    For the Basement Biden and Headboard Harris administration.....

    Supreme Court blocks Biden OSHA vaccine mandate, allows rule for health care workers
    Court ruled that COVID-19 is not an occupational hazard but a 'universal risk'

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/supreme-court-biden-vaccine-mandates-osha-health-care-workers

    The HITS just keep on comin'!!!! :D

    What a great day to be an American, eh?? :D

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Court ruled that OSHA lacked the authority to impose such a mandate because the law that created OSHA "empowers the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures."

    "Although COVID-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most," the Court ruled. "COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases."

    For these reasons, the OSHA mandate "would significantly expand" the agency's authority beyond the limits Congress set, the Court ruled.

    To sum up the SCOTUS ruling???

    WHAT PART OF 'NO!!!' DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND!!??

    :D

  106. [106] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    As far as a second American Civil War it ain't gonna happen. When I served in the Army back in the 1980s I was greatly impressed with how seriously every last man and woman took our Oath to defend the Constitution, and if anything that sentiment is likely stronger today. Non Vets don't have the frame of reference to appreciate this. We have a very fucking good military for reasons like that.

    TOO MANY fools in the Second Amendment crowd think that having an AR-15 is going to protect them from "governmental tyranny" but even the State National Guard by itself would snuff that fantasy out in a New York second. I'm talking bloodbath.

    Oh yeah, every State has a mix of both parties so how does that even work?

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as a second American Civil War it ain't gonna happen. When I served in the Army back in the 1980s I was greatly impressed with how seriously every last man and woman took our Oath to defend the Constitution, and if anything that sentiment is likely stronger today. Non Vets don't have the frame of reference to appreciate this. We have a very fucking good military for reasons like that.

    And yet, it's the Democrats who are violating the US Constitution daily...

    So, yes... The US Military will defend the US Constitution against ALL enemies FOREIGN *AND* Domestic..

    And it's the Democrat Party that is violating the US Constitution.. Them trying to bar President Trump from running in 2024 is a PERFECT example of that..

    TOO MANY fools in the Second Amendment crowd think that having an AR-15 is going to protect them from "governmental tyranny" but even the State National Guard by itself would snuff that fantasy out in a New York second. I'm talking bloodbath.

    "We cannot invade the United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.."
    -Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, 1943

    While it is disputed that Yamamoto actually said this, the concept is perfectly clear and perfectly valid...

    You mention above that the US Military would defend the US Constitution..

    What do you think would happen if the US Government started a wholesale slaughter of US citizens with overwhelming firepower???

    Which side would the US Military come down on??

    Would they follow orders and commence a wholesale slaughter of US citizens??

    Or would they defend US citizens against a tyrannical government bent on subjugating US citizens??

    This is where the value of the 2nd Amendment comes in..

    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for lunch. Liberty, thanks to the 2nd Amendment, is the well armed sheep disputing the outcome of the vote.

    Oh yeah, every State has a mix of both parties so how does that even work?

    Really??? You don't get it???

    Then there is no sense trying to explain it to you...

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for Basement Biden, the HITS just keep on coming..

    Biden: 'I don't know whether we can get this done'

    President Biden in a moment of brutal honesty on Thursday admitted that his push to enact changes to voting laws and the Senate’s filibuster rule may be doomed.

    “The honest-to-God answer is I don’t know whether we can get this done,” Biden said after leaving a more-than-hour-long meeting with Senate Democrats to persuade them to change the Senate’s rules.

    “I hope we can get this done but I’m not sure,” he said.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/589635-biden-i-dont-know-if-we-can-get-this-done

    Everything Basement Biden and the Democrats touch turns to kaa-kaa...

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liberal pundits melt down after Sinema doubles down on filibuster support: 'Resign or be removed from office'

    'This is worse than incoherent or cowardice. It's a moral disgrace,' Jennifer Rubin tweeted

    Liberal pundits melted down Thursday after Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., said she will not vote to weaken the Senate's 60-vote filibuster threshold, bucking her party leaders yet again and dealing a major blow to Democrats' election reform effort.

    "There's no need for me to restate my longstanding support for the 60-vote threshold to pass legislation. There's no need for me to restate its role in protecting our country from wild reversals of federal policy," Sinema said. "This week's harried discussions about Senate rules are but a poor substitute for what I believe could have and should have been a thoughtful public debate at any time over the past year."
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/liberal-pundits-lose-their-minds-over-sinema

    Who could have POSSIBLY seen this coming??

    Oh wait... :D

    "{radio static} Base, this is Med 3... Be advised.. {radio static} Democrats Wet Dream, Election Cheat Bills are DOA.. {radio static} We're RTB...{radio static}.."

    :D

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden White House reeling after week of defeats, setbacks, and policy flops

    The president's week was mired by a court defeat, cratering poll numbers, inflation woes, and other setback

    President Joe Biden is on track for what could be one of the worst weeks of his presidency as his poll numbers continue to crater at the same time his legislative agenda stalls and court battles fail.

    The Supreme Court blocked President Biden’s push to force employers across the country with over 100 employees to vaccinate their workers in a 6-3 ruling that dealt a sizable blow to the administration’s vaccination push.

    That ruling came down as the president was on Capitol Hill trying to lobby support for his party’s bill that would overhaul the federal election system in the United States. As part of that push, the president gave a racially charged speech Tuesday linking his GOP opposition to Democrat segregationists like George Wallace and called for the filibuster to be suspended to pass the bill.

    The president learned on Thursday that his speech, which was widely panned by Republicans and even drew criticism from his longtime friends Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin and Rev. Al Sharpton, along with his appearance on Capitol Hill were not enough to sway Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, whose support he needed.

    "I will not vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster," Manchin announced Thursday to go along with Sinema’s speech on the Senate floor opposing the move which delivers a fatal blow to the bill.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-white-house-policy-flops-defeats

    Who knew that Basement Biden would look back fondly on 2021 and would wish for those "good" days to return! :D

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Biden's overall approval rating in the last seven Quinnipiac polls: 49%, 46%, 42%, 38%, 37%, 36%, 33%.

    So, basically, the ONLY question is....

    How low can Basement Biden go???

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:


    This is really not Biden's week:

    Federal takeover of elections: DOA.
    Nuking legislative filibuster: impossible.
    Private employer vax mandate: struck down.
    Producer Price Index: surges to all-time high.
    Consumer Price Index: highest since 1982.
    Public support: craters to 33%

    Jen 'Baghdad Bob' Psaki says that Biden is having a GREAT week!!! :D

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    And let me end the days festivities on a GREAT note.. Great for patriotic Americans and for me, personally.. :D

    Not a great week for Democrats:

    • SCOTUS strikes down OSHA Mandate
    • Nashville becomes Republican district
    • Dems partisan election bill is dead
    • Manchin refuses to kill filibuster
    • Biden’s approval drops to 33%
    • #BareShelvesBiden trending
    • Inflation at a 40-year high

    Ni ni ya'all.. See ya'all in the morning..

    It's safe now, MC & Victoria... You can come out now..

    :D

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]