Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What If Dems Succeed in Keeping Trump Off the 2024 Ballot?
One theory about the J6 Committee is that its goal is to render President Trump ineligible for the 2024 ballot. Like the lawsuits brought against Republican Congressional Representatives Marjory Taylor Green, Madison Cawthorn, Tom Tiffany and Scott Fitzgerald, and Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, the objective is to disqualify Donald John Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution:
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.
Although this is laughable on its face (no “insurrection” took place much less was there any action on the part of any Republican officer accused to engage in such) let’s just imagine that the Democrats put on their “show trial” and create a record to be presented to a court. Let us further suppose that said court actually issues a decision, upheld on appeal, that President Trump is disqualified from running for President in 2024. Will this be a victory for the Democrats?
I would argue that this is the last thing they should want. Why? Because President Trump was a reaction to the Progressive takeover of the Democratic Party, not the cause of Progressive setbacks in 2016-2020. President Trump personified and articulated the concern of millions of patriotic Americans who felt abandoned by politicians of both parties. So when GOPe candidates in 2016 brought out all the bromides that had brought in campaign funds but never stopped and hardly slowed the progressive march through our institutions and government it is unsurprising to the “uninformed” and ordinary folks that Trump got the nomination. Since I was “informed” and expected him to fail in the electoral contest and was reluctant for his candidacy since I was so well “informed” I didn’t think he could win.
But I was delighted he did. His policies delighted me. His pre-pandemic economic moves were masterful. The country, even with the drag of the Russia hoax, was regaining its footing as a democratic republic. And then came the pandemic and the vultures swooped in and took away a slam-dunk reelection. The V-shaped economic dip was such that in November it was not all that surprising that the election day returns before the voting “pauses” were definitely favoring President Trump. And then things went south under what remain murky conditions. GOPe had their revenge and it was time to move on.
Just as the voters who supported President Trump did so for their own reasons distinct from his posturing and personality, so too did they (mostly) wander into the Capitol on January 6, 2021, for their own reasons and not at the command of President Trump. But suppose the Democrats succeed with the courts in their bit of theatre?
The people who voted for Trump will not change their minds or their political inclinations. They have watched as the levers of power have been turned against citizens. They will not come “home”, although it remains to be seen whether they can be tamed. They are ready to rally another politician who will champion their cause.
If he is no longer in the way, the problem doesn’t go away for the Democrats. It only becomes more obvious that it was never about Trump.
Published in General
The swap in men v women is kinda fascinating. What is driving that?
I get there’s the possibility he’ll change his mind, but all y’all DeSantis shippers are aware he said he wasn’t running, right? Trump is not the spoiler in a race where the favorite isn’t running.
I agree . . . and who grows the food? War won’t last long if that’s the break down.
Right, you answered before I expanded my comment. :-)
Well currently, bill gates owns the farmland, so I’m unsure how that plays out.
He might have title, but how would he control it from his besieged fortress up by Seattle?
In a way, “how many divisions does Bill Gates have?”
Yes, and the civil war was territorial, if there’s another it won’t be. It’ll be more guerilla. And off the top of my head my guess is that it will be composed of four groups: rich anarchists dynamiters and assassins; lawless welfare communities (urban and low income towns); and those with jobs; and the DHS and subsidiary military and law enforcement.
Obviously, I can’t foresee this very well. What would the battlescape look like?
That raises another good point. Who’s going to enforce ownership and possession? And how is Gates going to get diesel safely to the farms to run the big equipment? And if Gates can’t keep possession, and if diesel is in short supply to the squatters who’s going to eat the food that will be produced by small hard-won harvests?
Bring back squatter’s rights!
That could be problematic for those small farmers and land owners who want to be left in peace.
Only squatters on Gates’ land, that’s fair.
40 acres and an RV.
But more seriously, I’m thinking about Zimbabwe. The people rose up and kicked the owners off the land, but couldn’t cultivate their own smaller sections. The farms were only workable when tended by large combines, and the replacements couldn’t run or repair them.
I guess in a US crisis the renting farmers could say, I’m keeping the produce. But even then, I have doubts that diesel would reach them, or that replacement parts would arrive, and fertilizer would be available.
I guess it comes down to what part of the federal forces would choose to keep their social status and organizational structure and rations, and how many would help of the common people.
Is there evidence that Bill Gates actually wants to farm the land? Isn’t he trying to “reduce the surplus population?”
Well, then let there be a land rush for what he leaves fallow.
I expect there will be, when people get hungry enough.
The Jimmy Stewart movie Shenandoah does a good job portraying civil war impact on even those who think only soldiers are affected.
The person who grabs copies of voter registration lists will have a starting point.
Is that a real question?
I’ll assume it is and say the following.
We were bottom up, power rested with individual voters, Washington ran foreign policy, defense and the border; nothing else. Since the new Republic had borders and foreign friends and adversaries it had to have foreign and defense policy to survive in the world. I think we managed them well, kept Defense controlled and with each new threat they had to be brought out and trained for the new challenge. Individual companies became giant and some even global, but folks had the vote and Washington was constitutionally restricted. That changed with TR, Wilson and WWII. The diverse bottom up political system has been gradually deteriorating since, and was accelerated with FDR, and Obama. Throughout however, the bureaucracy grew and it is not accountable to citizens but has to share with increasingly fewer giant international companies that, being digital, don’t face the eventually rising costs that all companies faced throughout our history. Folks on our side believe that if we get the right folks in charge of Washington we’ll work it out. The right folks is leadership that cuts massively and returns power to the states because the top can’t run the US and will rot like every country that ever existed rotted.
No, that was my impersonation of a stupid voter.
(Re-)Read some of the stories of people who couldn’t figure out that (usually, especially in the US) an even-numbered address is on one side of the street and odd-numbered addresses are on the other side, and when you explain it to them for the 5th time, they still have a blank stare.
If a significant portion of people can’t figure THAT out, what do you expect to gain from talking to them about “top-down vs bottom-up government?”
Some examples contained herein: