Will Trump be on the debate stage later this month?

At this point he won't show. He has everything to lose and very little to gain by showing up and members of his cult will continue to worship him whether or not he participates in the debate. He needed the exposure in the 2016 campaign he doesn't need it now.

 

Yeah the debate will be a giant trump bash fest and he will be furiously truth socialing in response.

 

Probably correct. He’s not a good debater. He won’t likely win any additional supporters among Republicans by simply insulting the other candidates and coming up with cute nicknames. And he can’t or won’t answer any questions about his mounting legal woes, real and/or imagined (but we would get questions about them, no doubt). Unless and until the other candidates get together and endorse one of themselves (two with a Vice) to unite the majority of the party against Trump’s strong plurality, he has no motivation whatsoever to engage in debate.

 

Also probably true.

 

He should be disqualified from being on the ballot

 

Clause 3 of the 14th Amendment

 

Man, I knew he was old. But I didn’t think he was that old.

 

We can have the Constitution...
Or we can have Trump

So I was heartened just now to read a comprehensive, powerfully argued (and beautifully written) article by the (conservative) legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen. It defends the plain reading of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment on what would seem to be every historical and interpretive ground. It was written with all possible objections in mind. Rather than belabor these, I suggest you read the article itself (which should be published as some sort free ebook.)

The authors conclude that Trump is “no longer eligible to the office of Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution. All who are committed to the Constitution should take note and say so.” Although I am focusing on Trump here, the authors of the article are concerned with insurrectionists in general. For them, Trump is one of many people who are now, given their participation in Trump’s coup attempt, ineligible for office.


https://snyder.substack.com/p/we-ca...id=135977710&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email


The article - summary - deeper analysis at link

First. Section Three remains legally operative. It is no less part of the Constitution than the other provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is not a dead letter.
The Constitution is a binding, authoritative written text, not a collection of specific historical purposes and intentions. Where the text applies, it applies. Its legal force
is not limited to the immediate problem or purpose that prompted its enactment. Section Three is not limited to the circumstances of the Civil War and Reconstruction,
even if the meaning of its terms may be illuminated by that experience and history.

Nor has Section Three somehow been “repealed” by Congress’s two major nineteenth-century statutes granting amnesty to those covered by Section Three. This is
not because it would be impossible for a constitutional provision to expire by its terms after a period of time, or upon the occurrence of a particular event, or upon action
taken by future actors. Article I, Section 9, for example, created a constitutional prohibition of most congressional regulation of the international slave trade for a period
of twenty years—but its prohibition then vanished in 1808. Section Three, however, does not work that way. It imposes a general, prospective, rule of disqualification,
which Congress may remove by two-thirds vote of both houses only once it has occurred. Section Three is prospective; Congressional amnesty is retrospective.


The Sweep and Force of Section Three by William Baude, Michael Stokes Paulsen :: SSRN

 

I agree in principle, and I’m all for any legal and ethical way to make Trump disappear from public life altogether. But I don’t think this is it. Just as it’s important not to minimize January 6th for political purposes, it’s also important not to exaggerate it for the same reasons. I’ve got no excuses for the people involved in that riot, and I am pleased whenever someone is held accountable for their role in it. But it wasn’t the Civil War, not even close, and speak of it in the same category as the Civil War doesn’t highlight the national embarrassment of January 6th as much as it seems to minimize what was truly the darkest period in our history.

And if that’s not persuasive, maybe this will be. You don’t want the line blurred between rioting and insurrection. It probably won’t be in 2024, but some day the Republicans are going to have control of the government again. And my guess is you probably don’t want them deciding the difference between a riot (a law enforcement matter) and an insurrection (a military matter) based on what gets them more political currency.

Just my thoughts, though.

 

Stop being so pragmatic.

 

Fair argument, but insurrections are not differentiated from riots as a military vs LE matter but differentiated by what/who is attacked or rebelled against--govt vs not govt. Both are defined in federal criminal statutes.

 

Just run a candidate who beats him at the ballot box.......again. And if the US can't do that, then we deserve what we get. "First person in history to lose 3 popular elections, 2 electoral elections, House control and Senate control" would be a fitting legacy for the man, making him the greatest loser in US political history.

 

Yeah, I don’t know. George Wallace would still be hard to beat. He’s, like, the Cy Young of political losers.

 

To be fair, I'm not sure DeSantis, Vivek, Pence or any of them want to walk that tightrope of not being overly critical of Trump and not being too supportive of the DOJ's efforts. They are probably better off without Trump on that stage. It may seem Trump has everything to lose by debating, but they've all been handling Trump with kid gloves purposefully and having to confront him on a stage is probably not in their best interests.

Trump won't debate and then we'll have a general election with two candidates who refused to debate any of their primary opponents.

 

I think he's a pretty good stand up comedian.

Oh, wait. you mean THAT George Wallace. Well he did somehow get elected governor of Alabama 4 times.

 

I think his wife ran once and won. A placeholder for George Wallace since he'd reached consecutive term limits.