Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

melm00se

(5,081 posts)
35. The reality
Sun Dec 1, 2024, 04:07 PM
Dec 1

was that our Founding Fathers never considered that Americans would be so stupid to have someone like Trump elected president so they didn't really place limits on who could be president. They figured that the Electoral College, which is made up who are not "Senator(s) or Representative(s), or Person(s) holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States", would intervene if the state's did something really stupid. Unfortunately, being an elector is now just as political as any traditional role that is filled via a partisan election.

They thought that including the impeachment process as a last ditch effort to prevent a "crisis of a national revolution" was sufficient.

I doesn't appear that they consulted with the man who would be the 1st president because if they had he would have said what was in his farewell address:

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.


His warning was and has been ignored for more than 200 years and we are reaping what we have sown.

(Most people's understanding of Washington begins and ends with "he was a general in War for Independence and the 1st president". He was an incredibly wise and perceptive individual, far more than we expose in traditional education).

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

That's a damn shame! Dem4life1234 Nov 30 #1
The founders never imagined this situation. COL Mustard Dec 1 #7
I admit I'm a bit ignorant of the law Dem4life1234 Dec 1 #9
Unfortunately Article II of the Constitution establishes who can be President. COL Mustard Dec 1 #11
Absolutely! Dem4life1234 Dec 1 #15
The reality melm00se Dec 1 #35
Turns out, Nixon actually had it right !!!!!!!!!!! DENVERPOPS Dec 1 #22
The Democratic party has always let them get away with it... RhapsodyFav Dec 1 #37
This! Dem4life1234 Dec 1 #39
Trump will only go to Russia when summoned. 33taw Nov 30 #2
Trump is considered "criminally inadmissible" to Canada, but he could apply for a "parole" of that status. C0RI0LANUS Nov 30 #3
i googled and this was the a.i. response: orleans Dec 1 #40
Thank you for the clarification, orleans. The TRP sounds like the "parole" term I used. C0RI0LANUS Dec 1 #42
Oh Canada! SNAP! IzzaNuDay Nov 30 #4
It is true. I Googled it and posted a couple of times. Canada isn't the only country, either Deuxcents Nov 30 #5
Yeah, but they let Bush and Cheney in. LisaM Nov 30 #6
Is a DUI a felony though? Polybius Dec 1 #24
I mostly remember that they wouldn't let you in Canada if you had one. LisaM Dec 1 #27
As much as I can't stand drinking and driving, a forever ban seems a bit extreme Polybius Dec 1 #29
The orange one brought the ring to Biden to kiss. That's called professional courtesy. Hotler Dec 1 #8
... ancianita Dec 1 #10
Thank you Unwind Your Mind Dec 1 #12
Absolutely. The facts should be known and shared. ancianita Dec 1 #13
I'll add my thanks to the above. The vilification of Garland has always struck me as loonacy. EarnestPutz Dec 1 #14
Empty Wheel? msfiddlestix Dec 1 #16
What about it? You got fact based info from them? If so, please post it. ancianita Dec 1 #17
Not I. Just checking my gut impression. I had got a "hit" you might be connected. msfiddlestix Dec 1 #20
I see. Well, I do have Empty Wheel bookmarked, for sure. ancianita Dec 1 #21
Well that leaves DOJ and AG off the hook, then. So all we have to do is blame our outdated Constitution msfiddlestix Dec 1 #19
The Garland DOJ did its job, so why should it even be on the hook? There's WAY more evidence that it shouldn't be at all ancianita Dec 1 #23
"Nov 18 2022 Garland appoints Jack Smith" Polybius Dec 1 #25
Thanks for that timeline BDavinciNY Dec 1 #34
+1, Garland ***COULD HAVE*** assigned an SC first day in office knowing J6 could've been a big deal that involved MAGA uponit7771 Dec 1 #43
Makes total sense. Emile Dec 1 #18
It's funny, but it's just trump being himself and enjoying making people squirm and sit at his feet. C Moon Dec 1 #26
No joke! elleng Dec 1 #28
I just figured that those Trumpists' wives were thirsty for him, and demanded a meet. LudwigPastorius Dec 1 #30
Well, probably since the five eyes monitor international phone calls, Trudeau did not want anyone else to know what he LiberalArkie Dec 1 #31
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 1 #32
"You're" wondering. Spelled correctly in the tweet. Maru Kitteh Dec 1 #33
Ha! Beautiful! Joinfortmill Dec 1 #36
Bullshit. Under Canadian law, if the government opts to allow him to enter the country, he can enter the country onenote Dec 1 #38
stop it! you're spoiling the magic of the moment orleans Dec 1 #41
I think it was intended as humor. nt Xipe Totec Dec 1 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If your wondering why Tru...»Reply #35