I'm sure if I was a Republican I'd understand the link here - I don't ever remember Nelson Mandela having told people to shoot Muslims.
See below but also if he is allowed any mouthpiece he will continue to stir up prejudice and mis-information. Mind you muzzling him will just raise his profile. He might just quietly go away but I very much doubt it.
Therefore, unfortunately, the GOP will keep him on side as a means to their survival. Otherwise he will quite happily attempt to dismantle the democracy that he asserts (incorrectly) is flawed.
Trump has awakened a lot of misinformed radicals with irrational promises (lies). It is not going to be easy at all to diffuse that.
Yes I don’t think they mention this when teaching in schools about him!
I'm not too sure about that he would still only be the age Biden is now
Quote by Candace Owens:
No, that is not the problem, it was that he set out to eliminate whole sections of society on the strength of their race, religion, sexuality, beliefs, and probably more besides and this happened both outside and inside Germany.
My fear is that this will just make him become a martyr.
If bringing a megalomaniac sociopath to justice is judged too difficult to do in case rabid, brain-dead members of his personality cult get angry then there really is no hope for the human race, let alone democracy. The most urgent imperative, along with all the others Joe Biden faces, is to seek amendments to the American Constitution to make some of the breathtaking actions taken 'legally' by Trump out of bounds to any future President: after all, the parroted 'inalienable right to bear arms' was an addition to the Constitution many years post Abraham Lincoln in the form of an Amendment. Oh, and end the nonsense of Supreme Court judges being Presidential appointments, and for life. Even the U.K., not the most progressive in this regard, realised after the disaster of Lord Denning continuing as highest judge long after his senility became obvious that an age cut-off was necessary.
So the GOP's best strategy may be to support the Democrat impeachment of him in the Senate and see him barred from holding public office again. Mitch McConnell has been making noises in recent days about Trump's involvement in the storming of the Capitol, and he's not usually one for making such pronouncements without having thought through the politics of it.
I doub't it will make any difference if he is impeached, in fact it will be grist to the mill.
While I get the sentiment, it doesn't help the discussion to post factual inexactitudes. The second amendment was passed eighteen years before Abraham Lincoln was born.
Presidential appointments, with Congressional confirmation for the precise reason that they should be apolitical, and equal to the other two branches of government. The change that needs to happen is figuring out how to what happened with Merit Garland happening again.
Perhaps so. The idea behind the lifetime appointment is to mirror the idea of a tenured professor - it's supposed to be for someone who is extremely experienced (read: old), who will serve for as long as they are able without having to worry about their next job, pleasing the person who appointed them, etc.
As I understand it, the idea was that someone who two-thirds of senators could agree on would be equally disagreeable to all sides.
He helped to incite a riotous mob to try and overthrow another branch of the government, resulting in the multiple deaths, and your suggestion is that he shouldn't face any consequence whatsoever? What happened to "law and order"?
Why?
It's one law for Trump and another for his opponents. On 6/1/21, he may have used excessive rhetoric in his speech, but has made it clear in a subsequent statement that in no way did he approve of the violence at the Capitol later that day.
Yes, your honour, I did stab the victim multiple times, but in a statement later that day I made it clear that I don't approve of stabbing in any way.
Hahahahahahahahahahhaaaaaaa!!!!!
But it had been decided on by elected representatives. The ruling in Roe v Wade was that the law that the Texas legislature had passed and was on the books violated constitutionally protected rights. This is no different to the UK system where courts can rule on conflicts and contradictions in laws enacted by Parliament.
