Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Perhaps, but I think Don Jr is more likely.  People are already talking about Trump 2024, but to me, there's no saying that Biden or Trump will even be alive in 2024. Talking natural causes of course.

It will be months before the new venture publicly releases its first product, a social-media platform called Truth Social. And there are already technical issues. On Thursday, the Truth Social page was hacked to make it appear that Trump shared a photo of a defecating pig.

It’s also unclear how Trump plans to build a social-media platform on the scale of Twitter over the next few months, let alone a streaming service, which is the next phase of Trump Media’s plans, according to the press release announcing the company. That statement was light on numbers even by SPAC standards.

“We have no financials. We have no business plan. We don’t know how they got to the valuation. We have no information,” said Kristi Marvin, chief executive of research firm SPAC Insider. “That’s the fundamental problem.”

[...]

[Trump's media] enterprise is being valued by the market at about $8.2 billion, compared with Twitter Inc.’s almost $50 billion equity valuation.

[...]

When Trump first ran for president, he claimed to have a fortune of $10 billion. Now the retail trading frenzy may bring him somewhat closer to getting there.

I predict this plan will be as successful as Trump's earlier "media platform" that turned out to be simply his own microblog. With far more money involved, the new one will be a much more spectacular failure.

Republican Party says they will not do presidential debates anymore. The party now only exists because Democrats allow it. There needs to be at least some seeming opposition. In themselves, Republicans have lost all purpose.

Americans — bossy, querulous, ubiquitous — have for the last two years been almost entirely absent. Foreign countries suddenly feel more foreign. Long before the invasion of Ukraine, the era in which we exuberantly measured our civilization’s advance by tallying new McDonald’s had come to an end.

(source)

Anyway, his influence is fading. He cannot sustain the momentum anymore.

How do the foreigners like the absence of Americans? Other things being equal, they probably like it quite a bit. Hordes of visitors tend to disrupt settled arrangements. But if you come from a country like Antigua or Aruba, in which upwards of 80 percent of the workforce are employed in tourism, the past couple of years have been calamitous. There are even some “real” countries in which around a fifth of the people make their living off some kind of tourism — like Greece, Portugal, New Zealand and Thailand. When you speak more generally about “travel” — just moving people around — that accounts for about a tenth of the world economy. The United States and Britain are more or less normal in this regard, at around 9 percent.

How does it feel to be an American tourist in such a tourist-free world? That is a more paradoxical subject.

(same article as above)

¹ Which is why so many of your responses devolve into mere name-calling... I myself like a well-put pejorative and I do still appreciate the hoary fine art of invective!
But, sans substantive comment it's not just tiring; it's a waste of time.↵

² And you likely think of yourself as one of the Lions! ↵

³ If your site's name makes a political point, it promotes the perception of an enforced bias, no?↵

Of course, you probably find that unconscionable, and likely cowardly behavior.

The RNC's decision follows grievances aired by former President Donald Trump and other Republicans about the timing of debates, debate formats and the selection of moderators.

Which is why so many of your responses devolve into mere name-calling... I myself like a well-put pejorative and I do still appreciate the hoary fine art of invective! But, sans substantive comment it's not just tiring; it's a waste of time.

That slavery continued at least a hundred years after civil war? That Trump is a treasonous nepotist dictator-worshipping compulsive liar? These are plain facts.

you just whined that my responses devolve to name-calling without a substantive comment, but in fact it is you doing it, posting an insult with no relation to the topic. Sheer projection.

I also think that a Trump will run, but it is going to be a very short run, either utterly embarrassing or utterly forgettable. He won't get half as far as Larry Elder, not even a quarter.

The Select Committee has referred Donald Trump and others for possible prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 2383, including for assisting and providing aid and comfort to an insurrection.

To deter other future attempts to overturn Presidential Elections, the House of Representatives has passed H.R. 8873, “The Presidential Election Reform Act,” and the Senate should act promptly to send a bill with these principles to the President. H.R. 8873 reaffirms that a Vice President has no authority or discretion to reject an official electoral slate submitted by the Governor of a state.

The Committee believes that those who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and then, on January 6th, engaged in insurrection can appropriately be disqualified and barred from holding government office—whether federal or state, civilian or military—absent at least two-thirds of Congress acting to remove the disability pursuant to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As indicated in the Report, the Committee believes that 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)2 and other existing provisions of law can be applied to efforts to obstruct, influence, or impede the joint session on January 6th, including to related planning efforts to overturn the lawful election results on that date. To the extent that any court or any other prosecutorial authorities ultimately reach any differing conclusion, Congress should amend those statutes to cover such conduct. Congress should also consider whether the severity of penalties under those statutes is sufficient to deter unlawful conduct threatening the peaceful transfer of power.

Tell Trump that he breached the protective order and therefore he must now be locked up until trial.

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.

The first question under Section 3 is who decides whether someone is ineligible. The answer is that a court must determine if someone outside of Congress is subject to the disability.

[...]

Second, there is the question of whether Section 3 is self-enforcing. The answer is probably not. [...] Congress enacted Section 3 enforcement legislation in 1870 that authorized the Department of Justice to bring quo warranto actions—a common-law writ asking, “by what warrant” does someone lawfully hold office—to oust from office some ineligible officials. But Congress repealed this statute in the 1940s as part of a broad cleanup of “obsolete” provisions. If Chase was right, then Congress would be well advised to enact new Section 3 enforcement legislation.

[...]

Third, a presidential pardon cannot cure Section 3 ineligibility.

[...]

The harder question is what constitutes an “insurrection,” a point on which I have thus far been unable to find any particularly helpful authority. [...] Almost immediately after the riot, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle described the violence as an insurrection. Why was that? The most logical answer is that the violence was intended to disrupt a constitutionally mandated process—the 12th Amendment’s electoral vote count—for the formal recognition of the presidential election results. In other words, this was not just a violent attack upon Congress, as bad as that would be. The mob was seeking to halt or overturn a core constitutional function at the seat of government, which can reasonably be described as an attempt to replace law with force. The criminal charges subsequently brought against the people who entered the Capitol also indicate that some of them intended to inflict bodily harm on members of Congress, which can be reasonably understood as a direct attack on the legislative branch itself and, more generally, the existing government. Notably, federal prosecutors described the riot as a “violent insurrection” in at least one recent court filing.

What’s more, the article of impeachment adopted against President Trump by the House of Representatives expressly describes what occurred as an insurrection and cites Section 3. In a Section 3 case, courts will probably defer to this conclusion, especially since the members of Congress were direct witnesses to the event. An acquittal of Trump in the impeachment trial may undercut that deference somewhat, but not fully.

(It mentions senator, representative, elector and vice president, but not president. However, it also mentions anyone who has previously taken an oath, so there's no reason why this should not apply to the president.)

With his actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled, Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution, an offense that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which was ratified in 1868 to keep former Confederates out of the government — deems disqualifying for people who previously took an oath to support the Constitution.

But Judge Wallace, a state district court judge in Denver, concluded that Section 3 did not include the presidential oath in that category.

The clause does not explicitly name the presidency, so that question hinged on whether the president was included in the
category “officer of the United States.”

Because of “the absence of the president from the list of positions to which the amendment applies combined with the fact that Section 3 specifies that the disqualifying oath is one to ‘support’ the Constitution whereas the presidential oath is to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution,” Judge Wallace wrote, “it appears to the court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section 3 did not intend to include a person who had only taken the presidential oath.”

[...]

Judge Wallace is the first judge to rule on the merits of whether Section 3 applies to Mr. Trump. Similar lawsuits in Minnesota and New Hampshire have been dismissed on procedural grounds, and a judge in Michigan recently ruled that the questions were political ones that courts did not have the authority to decide.

The Court agrees with Petitioners that an oath to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution encompasses the same duties as an oath to support the Constitution. The Court,
however, agrees with Intervenors that given there were two oaths in the Constitution at the time,
the fact that Section Three references the oath that applies to Article VI, Clause 3 officers
suggests that that is the class of officers to whom Section Three applies.

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.

310.
Magliocca further argued that contemporary usage supports the view that
the President is an “officer of the United States.” Andrew Johnson repeatedly referred to
himself as such in presidential proclamations, members of Congress both during the
39th Congress that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and during Johnson’s
impeachment several years later repeatedly referred to the President the same way, and
earlier presidents in the Nineteenth Century were referred to the same way. 11/01/23 Tr.
56:3–59:16, 69:21–71:21.

311.
On the other hand, Intervenors argue that five constitutional provisions
show that the President is not an “officer of the United States.”
•The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 distinguishes
between the President and officers of the United States. Specifically, the
Appointments Clause states that the President “shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are
not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.”
U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
•The Impeachment Clause in Article II, Section 4 separates the President
and Vice President from the category of “civil Officers of the United
States:” “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 4.
•The Commissions Clause in Article II, Section 3 specifies that the
President “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 3.
•In the Oath and Affirmation Clause of Article VI, Clause 3, the President is
explicitly absent from the enumerated list of persons the clause requires to
take an oath to support the Constitution. The list includes “[t]he 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.” US. CONST. art. VI, cl. 3.
•Article VI provides further support for distinguishing the President from
“Officers of the United States” because the oath taken by the President
under Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 is not the same as the oath prescribed
for officers of the United States under Article VI, Clause 3.

The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 distinguishes
between the President and officers of the United States. Specifically, the
Appointments Clause states that the President “shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are
not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.”
U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.

•The Impeachment Clause in Article II, Section 4 separates the President
and Vice President from the category of “civil Officers of the United
States:” “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 4.

•The Commissions Clause in Article II, Section 3 specifies that the
President “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 3.

•In the Oath and Affirmation Clause of Article VI, Clause 3, the President is
explicitly absent from the enumerated list of persons the clause requires to
take an oath to support the Constitution. The list includes “[t]he 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.” US. CONST. art. VI, cl. 3.

    - Trump is disqualified from the ballot in Colorado, the state's Supreme Court ruled.
    - But the case is sure to go to the Supreme Court.
    - Colorado's court cited Justice Neil Gorsuch in their decision.

The Colorado Supreme Court cited Gorsuch's ruling as cover for its unprecedented decision to kick Trump off a primary ballot based on the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

"As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is 'a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process' that 'permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office,'" the state opinion reads.

Wasn't Gorsuch one of Oakdale's favourites?

¹ He could easily avoid his mistakes, if he'd learn some modern techniques... ↵

But -of course- because Gorsuch has been described as "Conservative" and something he said may support an ultra-liberal (for ersi, any anti Trump) stance, I must be a hypocrite!

the leading Republican presidential candidate Trump who is at the same time election head-fraudster and insurrection arch-conspirator. You always miss the point in every topic every single time.

In what (try to be specific!) am I hypocritical?

You are a hyper-partisan QAnon Trumpite of the alt-facts gang. Is this specific enough? Need more details?