Tiger337 Posted October 8, 2023 Share Posted October 8, 2023 (edited) I don't get why people think Trump would want to be Speaker of the House. How does that help him? He is not interested in helping Republicans. He is only interested in himself and I don't believe being Speaker would help him advance his status or wealth. I guess I could see him doing it for a few weeks just to stir up trouble and keep himself in the news, but he'd get bored really quick. Edited October 8, 2023 by Tiger337 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted October 8, 2023 Share Posted October 8, 2023 11 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: I don't get why people think Trump would want to be Speaker of the House. How does that help him? He is not interested in helping Republicans. He is only interested in himself and I don't believe being Speaker would help him advance his status or wealth. I guess I could see him doing it for a few weeks just to stir up trouble and keep himself in the news, but he'd get bored really quick. He could drive the impeachment of all his enemies from there. It would require more work than he is capable of though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edman85 Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 8 hours ago, Tiger337 said: I don't get why people think Trump would want to be Speaker of the House. How does that help him? He is not interested in helping Republicans. He is only interested in himself and I don't believe being Speaker would help him advance his status or wealth. I guess I could see him doing it for a few weeks just to stir up trouble and keep himself in the news, but he'd get bored really quick. Immunity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 42 minutes ago, Edman85 said: Immunity? I don't think he would qualify since he was charged with felonies. "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edman85 Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: I don't think he would qualify since he was charged with felonies. "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." Yeah, and we have a recent history. Hastert didn't get immunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 it is a pretty powerful position from which to attack and sabotage biden agenda. MyKevin unilaterally declared the "impeachment inquiry" and a Speaker Chump would be able to do the same. Moreover, Chump himself said he would take the job.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted October 9, 2023 Author Share Posted October 9, 2023 Being the Speaker would also make him third in line to the presidency, should the unthinkable happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 10 minutes ago, chasfh said: Being the Speaker would also make him third in line to the presidency, should the unthinkable happen. which they are clearly thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted October 10, 2023 Author Share Posted October 10, 2023 3 hours ago, CMRivdogs said: This is the kind of sht you see in failing democracies and banana republics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted October 10, 2023 Share Posted October 10, 2023 Interesting 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 Sheesh...we were all fooled Quote Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."[2] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 so all of his constitution supporting was an act of charity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 4 hours ago, romad1 said: Sheesh...we were all fooled Stupid tack to take. Given standard usage, (and SCOTUS has been known to resolve such cases with direct reference to the dictionary) 'Defend' is a higher obligation than 'Support'. You can support without defending, you can't defend without supporting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: Stupid tack to take. Given standard usage, (and SCOTUS has been known to resolve such cases with direct reference to the dictionary) 'Defend' is a higher obligation than 'Support'. You can support without defending, you can't defend without supporting. And if the highest Constitutional established co-equal branch doesn't have an obligation to support I guess it was always hanging by a thread. But whatever, he was good on TV and he shakes things up in Warsheengtun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 So, I guess this is also very related. A bunch of godless hippies want to presume to tell the good godfearing uneducated marks out there that the Constitution -- which they and their Orange Godking otherwise do not support -- contains this garbage about no religious tests. Quote The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 Shot: Chaser: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerbomb13 Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 He’s as selfless and charming as ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 4 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said: He’s as selfless and charming as ever Honestly, his comments above are a decent test for GOP resolve in backing him.... at least for as long as I've been alive, Israel has been a third rail of GOP politics. In a different time, trashing Israel (and personally attacking a Likud Party Israeli PM) would be a career-ender. Particularly if it occurred after an attack like this one. But the more likely result is that he'll either be defended / buttressed or excused for "being taken out of context" or some **** because reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted October 12, 2023 Author Share Posted October 12, 2023 11 hours ago, romad1 said: Sheesh...we were all fooled This will not bother anyone who believes our country is a republic and not a democracy, not will it strike them as antithetical to the Constitution itself, since they will draw some sort of semantic distinction between "preserve, protect, and defend" and "support", a distinction they will fail to even be able to sufficiently explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted October 12, 2023 Author Share Posted October 12, 2023 6 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: Stupid tack to take. Given standard usage, (and SCOTUS has been known to resolve such cases with direct reference to the dictionary) 'Defend' is a higher obligation than 'Support'. You can support without defending, you can't defend without supporting. Nor can one preserve or protect without supporting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted October 12, 2023 Author Share Posted October 12, 2023 1 hour ago, mtutiger said: Honestly, his comments above are a decent test for GOP resolve in backing him.... at least for as long as I've been alive, Israel has been a third rail of GOP politics. In a different time, trashing Israel (and personally attacking a Likud Party Israeli PM) would be a career-ender. Particularly if it occurred after an attack like this one. But the more likely result is that he'll either be defended / buttressed or excused for "being taken out of context" or some **** because reasons. Although if anyone can get the religious right off the Israel tip, despite what their bible tells them, it's Trump. The only reason evangelicals fetishize Israel at all is because certain parts of their bible says they should, and also because Jesus was born there. But when it comes right down to it, all Jews are going to Hell anyway since they don't accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior, so fck those guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 14 minutes ago, chasfh said: Although if anyone can get the religious right off the Israel tip, despite what their bible tells them, it's Trump. The only reason evangelicals fetishize Israel at all is because certain parts of their bible says they should, and also because Jesus was born there. But when it comes right down to it, all Jews are going to Hell anyway since they don't accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior, so fck those guys. I've heard it said growing up from some preachers in the Evangelical world that Jews are given an exception as The Chose Ones. There's also this weird connection now between the hard right and Muslims/Arabs. There's a bond over Ukraine (the Muslims don't like the aid because it's money not sent to Palestine and Ukraine's led by a jew) and over anti gay/book banning. Nationally not much of an electoral change but in places like Michigan with narrow margins it could matter. There was a pro palestinian rally here in my city on Tuesday night at the civic center where all the D office holders were booed mercilessly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 9 minutes ago, chasfh said: Although if anyone can get the religious right off the Israel tip, despite what their bible tells them, it's Trump. The thing with a cult is that for each member there is some lever which is the key. If Trump's pique at Netanyahu puts a few more MAGA off their feed, it may be marginal but it all helps. The other piece with some of the more out-there Evangelicals is that they need Israel to demolish Al Aqsa and start on a new Temple before the events of the 2nd coming can get underway - so the success of the Jewish state is a sine qua non for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 (edited) 11 minutes ago, oblong said: There's also this weird connection now between the hard right and Muslims/Arabs The strain of Patriarchal Authoritarianism is a common bond. You also see that predisposition with the revanchist anti-Vatican II, anti-Francis sector of the US Catholic hierarchy as well. Edited October 12, 2023 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.