https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/08/18/fbi_unit_leading_mar-a-lago_probe_previously_led_russiagate_hoax_848582.html?utm_source=rcp-today&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mailchimp-newsletter&mc_cid=0e690adc28&mc_eid=85efb95539

Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin: Trump should be disqualified from office for pleading the fifth https://t.co/XG0vBo3KqB

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 18, 2022

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

---

The second paragraph literally says "Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency."

lol at this semantic debate you're trying to have with your disqualify and ineligible nonsense.

My god you are dense.

The entire article from Rubin is EXTREMELY TDS though. Says a lot that you're defending her.

You figured out your response on the 12 hoaxes, err....13 hoaxes??

LMAO...

You are something else... even when you are shown factual evidence you still try and argue. You OD'd on the Kool-Aid...

But, you are a faithful comrade and the MARXIST PARTY is pleased to have you goose stepping with them.

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

---

The second paragraph literally says "Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency."

lol at this semantic debate you're trying to have with your disqualify and ineligible nonsense.

My god you are dense.

The entire article from Rubin is EXTREMELY TDS though. Says a lot that you're defending her.

---

Words have meanings. Sorry you don't like the very different meanings of "ineligible" and "disqualified," but that's on you.

The constitution does not prohibit voters from determining that Trump is not qualified for office based on his pleadings. (The point of Rubin's column.). The constitution would likely prohibit deeming him ineligible to run on that basis.

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

---

The second paragraph literally says "Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency."

lol at this semantic debate you're trying to have with your disqualify and ineligible nonsense.

My god you are dense.

The entire article from Rubin is EXTREMELY TDS though. Says a lot that you're defending her.

---

Words have meanings. Sorry you don't like the very different meanings of "ineligible" and "disqualified," but that's on you.

The constitution does not prohibit voters from determining that Trump is not qualified for office based on his pleadings. (The point of Rubin's column.). The constitution would likely prohibit deeming him ineligible to run on that basis.

---

Lol.

So much TDS.

The FOXNEWS!!!!!! Tweet that triggered Manny by using her exact words also has this at the bottom of the article linked.

"Rubin eventually admitted that "the Constitution spells out no disqualifications for federal office, other than conviction through impeachment and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment," but insists "voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.""

I'm sure Manny didn't read that far though….. because FOXNEWS!!!

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

---

The second paragraph literally says "Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency."

lol at this semantic debate you're trying to have with your disqualify and ineligible nonsense.

My god you are dense.

The entire article from Rubin is EXTREMELY TDS though. Says a lot that you're defending her.

---

Words have meanings. Sorry you don't like the very different meanings of "ineligible" and "disqualified," but that's on you.

The constitution does not prohibit voters from determining that Trump is not qualified for office based on his pleadings. (The point of Rubin's column.). The constitution would likely prohibit deeming him ineligible to run on that basis.

---

Lol.

So much TDS.

The FOXNEWS!!!!!! article that triggered Manny by using her exact words in the article also has this at the bottom

"Rubin eventually admitted that "the Constitution spells out no disqualifications for federal office, other than conviction through impeachment and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment," but insists "voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.""

I'm sure Manny didn't read that far though….. because FOXNEWS!!!

---

The word "ineligible" does not appear in Rubin's column. Even in the part quoted in the Fox article, Rubin's column says that it is up to the voters. Don't know how to make this any simpler: If Trump were ineligible to run, as the Fox article characterized, there would be no voters to make that judgement.

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

---

The second paragraph literally says "Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency."

lol at this semantic debate you're trying to have with your disqualify and ineligible nonsense.

My god you are dense.

The entire article from Rubin is EXTREMELY TDS though. Says a lot that you're defending her.

---

Words have meanings. Sorry you don't like the very different meanings of "ineligible" and "disqualified," but that's on you.

The constitution does not prohibit voters from determining that Trump is not qualified for office based on his pleadings. (The point of Rubin's column.). The constitution would likely prohibit deeming him ineligible to run on that basis.

---

Lol.

So much TDS.

The FOXNEWS!!!!!! article that triggered Manny by using her exact words in the article also has this at the bottom

"Rubin eventually admitted that "the Constitution spells out no disqualifications for federal office, other than conviction through impeachment and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment," but insists "voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.""

I'm sure Manny didn't read that far though….. because FOXNEWS!!!

---

The word "ineligible" does not appear in Rubin's column. Even in the part quoted in the Fox article, Rubin's column says that it is up to the voters. Don't know how to make this any simpler: If Trump were ineligible to run, as the Fox article characterized, there would be no voters to make that judgement.

---

Cool story,bro. Semantic nonsense that nobody but a radlib would care about. Cheers!!!!

I'm starting to here a car running down the road. It appears that a gun just went off… no, that's a backfire…

Crossfire Hurricane

packgrad said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

---

The second paragraph literally says "Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency."

lol at this semantic debate you're trying to have with your disqualify and ineligible nonsense.

My god you are dense.

The entire article from Rubin is EXTREMELY TDS though. Says a lot that you're defending her.

---

Words have meanings. Sorry you don't like the very different meanings of "ineligible" and "disqualified," but that's on you.

The constitution does not prohibit voters from determining that Trump is not qualified for office based on his pleadings. (The point of Rubin's column.). The constitution would likely prohibit deeming him ineligible to run on that basis.

---

Lol.

So much TDS.

The FOXNEWS!!!!!! article that triggered Manny by using her exact words in the article also has this at the bottom

"Rubin eventually admitted that "the Constitution spells out no disqualifications for federal office, other than conviction through impeachment and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment," but insists "voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.""

I'm sure Manny didn't read that far though….. because FOXNEWS!!!

---

The word "ineligible" does not appear in Rubin's column. Even in the part quoted in the Fox article, Rubin's column says that it is up to the voters. Don't know how to make this any simpler: If Trump were ineligible to run, as the Fox article characterized, there would be no voters to make that judgement.

---

Cool story,bro. Semantic nonsense that nobody but a radlib would care about. Cheers!!!!

---

Goodness me…. packgrad, I admire you!

---

Manny is unfamiliar with synonyms. Better not look up synonyms for ineligible.

That was truly one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read on here.

---

Manny is a gluten for punishment.... after that smackdown yesterday over semantics and his showing today... damn... just damn....

^^ LMAO
^ LMAOM

Love some more Foghorn :-)

packgrad said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

---

The second paragraph literally says "Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency."

lol at this semantic debate you're trying to have with your disqualify and ineligible nonsense.

My god you are dense.

The entire article from Rubin is EXTREMELY TDS though. Says a lot that you're defending her.

---

Words have meanings. Sorry you don't like the very different meanings of "ineligible" and "disqualified," but that's on you.

The constitution does not prohibit voters from determining that Trump is not qualified for office based on his pleadings. (The point of Rubin's column.). The constitution would likely prohibit deeming him ineligible to run on that basis.

---

Lol.

So much TDS.

The FOXNEWS!!!!!! article that triggered Manny by using her exact words in the article also has this at the bottom

"Rubin eventually admitted that "the Constitution spells out no disqualifications for federal office, other than conviction through impeachment and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment," but insists "voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.""

I'm sure Manny didn't read that far though….. because FOXNEWS!!!

---

The word "ineligible" does not appear in Rubin's column. Even in the part quoted in the Fox article, Rubin's column says that it is up to the voters. Don't know how to make this any simpler: If Trump were ineligible to run, as the Fox article characterized, there would be no voters to make that judgement.

---

Cool story,bro. Semantic nonsense that nobody but a radlib would care about. Cheers!!!!

---

Goodness me…. packgrad, I admire you!

---

Manny is unfamiliar with synonyms. Better not look up synonyms for ineligible.

That was truly one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read on here.

---

There is a fundamental difference between saying that voters should decide that a candidate's actions make him unqualified for office when he is on a ballot (i.e., they should vote against him), as Rubin argued, and saying that a candidate should not be eligible to even appear on the ballot, which how Fox characterized it. Sorry that difference is too subtle for you.

Do you think that a candidate's position favoring abortion rights makes that person unqualified for office (i.e., a reason to vote against them)?

Do you think that a candidate who favors abortion rights should be ineligible to even appear on a ballot?

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

---

The second paragraph literally says "Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency."

lol at this semantic debate you're trying to have with your disqualify and ineligible nonsense.

My god you are dense.

The entire article from Rubin is EXTREMELY TDS though. Says a lot that you're defending her.

---

Words have meanings. Sorry you don't like the very different meanings of "ineligible" and "disqualified," but that's on you.

The constitution does not prohibit voters from determining that Trump is not qualified for office based on his pleadings. (The point of Rubin's column.). The constitution would likely prohibit deeming him ineligible to run on that basis.

---

Lol.

So much TDS.

The FOXNEWS!!!!!! article that triggered Manny by using her exact words in the article also has this at the bottom

"Rubin eventually admitted that "the Constitution spells out no disqualifications for federal office, other than conviction through impeachment and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment," but insists "voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.""

I'm sure Manny didn't read that far though….. because FOXNEWS!!!

---

The word "ineligible" does not appear in Rubin's column. Even in the part quoted in the Fox article, Rubin's column says that it is up to the voters. Don't know how to make this any simpler: If Trump were ineligible to run, as the Fox article characterized, there would be no voters to make that judgement.

---

Cool story,bro. Semantic nonsense that nobody but a radlib would care about. Cheers!!!!

---

Goodness me…. packgrad, I admire you!

---

Manny is unfamiliar with synonyms. Better not look up synonyms for ineligible.

That was truly one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read on here.

---

There is a fundamental difference between saying that voters should decide that a candidate's actions make him unqualified for office when he is on a ballot (i.e., they should vote against him), as Rubin argued, and saying that a candidate should not be eligible to even appear on the ballot, which how Fox characterized it. Sorry that difference is too subtle for you.

Do you think that a candidate's position favoring abortion rights makes that person unqualified for office (i.e., a reason to vote against them)?

Do you think that a candidate who favors abortion rights should be ineligible to even appear on a ballot?

---

Take the L. This is ridiculous.

---

Beyond ridiculous. I get the feeling that our friend here is reaching beyond his "limits" and has pee wee football skills trying to play in the NFL......

Give him the paddle again.... if you have time.

I'm still waiting on him to rationalize the 12, 13 hoaxes perpetrated against Trump.... Wonder why he hasn't responded to that one?

I'm pretty sure I know.

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

---

The second paragraph literally says "Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency."

lol at this semantic debate you're trying to have with your disqualify and ineligible nonsense.

My god you are dense.

The entire article from Rubin is EXTREMELY TDS though. Says a lot that you're defending her.

---

In her mind, he's already disqualified. But the greater issue here, is something above and beyond any individual including Trump, and that issue in the minds of the political elites such as Rubin, should be clearly spelled out for the entire country, which is that "we don't trust the voters to make the right choice, and therefore we intend to remove the wrong choice from the ballot."

BBW12OG said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

---

The second paragraph literally says "Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency."

lol at this semantic debate you're trying to have with your disqualify and ineligible nonsense.

My god you are dense.

The entire article from Rubin is EXTREMELY TDS though. Says a lot that you're defending her.

---

Words have meanings. Sorry you don't like the very different meanings of "ineligible" and "disqualified," but that's on you.

The constitution does not prohibit voters from determining that Trump is not qualified for office based on his pleadings. (The point of Rubin's column.). The constitution would likely prohibit deeming him ineligible to run on that basis.

---

Lol.

So much TDS.

The FOXNEWS!!!!!! article that triggered Manny by using her exact words in the article also has this at the bottom

"Rubin eventually admitted that "the Constitution spells out no disqualifications for federal office, other than conviction through impeachment and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment," but insists "voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.""

I'm sure Manny didn't read that far though….. because FOXNEWS!!!

---

The word "ineligible" does not appear in Rubin's column. Even in the part quoted in the Fox article, Rubin's column says that it is up to the voters. Don't know how to make this any simpler: If Trump were ineligible to run, as the Fox article characterized, there would be no voters to make that judgement.

---

Cool story,bro. Semantic nonsense that nobody but a radlib would care about. Cheers!!!!

---

Goodness me…. packgrad, I admire you!

---

Manny is unfamiliar with synonyms. Better not look up synonyms for ineligible.

That was truly one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read on here.

---

There is a fundamental difference between saying that voters should decide that a candidate's actions make him unqualified for office when he is on a ballot (i.e., they should vote against him), as Rubin argued, and saying that a candidate should not be eligible to even appear on the ballot, which how Fox characterized it. Sorry that difference is too subtle for you.

Do you think that a candidate's position favoring abortion rights makes that person unqualified for office (i.e., a reason to vote against them)?

Do you think that a candidate who favors abortion rights should be ineligible to even appear on a ballot?

---

Take the L. This is ridiculous.

---

Beyond ridiculous. I get the feeling that our friend here is reaching beyond his "limits" and has pee wee football skills trying to play in the NFL......

Give him the paddle again.... if you have time.

I'm still waiting on him to rationalize the 12, 13 hoaxes perpetrated against Trump.... Wonder why he hasn't responded to that one?

I'm pretty sure I know.

---

Hey, Lucy. Sorry I haven't had time to give a thorough analysis of your 12/13 theses. Might try to make time over the weekend.

In the meantime, do you think that something about a candidate (their actions or their position on a particular issue) can make then unqualified for office (i.e., a reason to vote against them) but not be enugh to make them ineligible to even appear on a ballot? Just curious.

caryking said:

---

This is a good read…

https://nypost.com/2022/08/18/inside-the-controversial-fbi-unit-behind-the-trump-raid/

---

Quote:

---

Jay Bratt, the top counterintelligence official at Justice, traveled to Mar-a-Lago in early June and personally inspected the storage facility while interacting with both Trump and one of his lawyers. Trump allowed the three FBI agents Bratt brought with him to open boxes in the storage room and look through them. They left with some documents.

According to Federal Election Commission records, Bratt has given exclusively to Democrats, including at least $800 to the Democratic National Committee. The sources said he is close to David Laufman, whom he replaced as the top counterintelligence official at Justice. An Obama donor, Laufman helped oversee the Russiagate probe, as well as the Clinton email case, which also involved classified information.

A Senate investigator said that Laufman was the "mastermind" behind the strategy to dust off and "weaponize" the rarely enforced statutory relic the Foreign Agents Registration Act against Trump campaign officials, a novel legal move that the investigator noted is similar to the department's current attempts to enforce the Presidential Records Act against Trump which is a civil, not a criminal, statute by invoking the Espionage Act of 1917.

---

Very interesting ...

Oldsouljer said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

---

The second paragraph literally says "Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency."

lol at this semantic debate you're trying to have with your disqualify and ineligible nonsense.

My god you are dense.

The entire article from Rubin is EXTREMELY TDS though. Says a lot that you're defending her.

---

In her mind, he's already disqualified. But the greater issue here, is something above and beyond any individual including Trump, and that issue in the minds of the political elites such as Rubin, should be clearly spelled out for the entire country, which is that "we don't trust the voters to make the right choice, and therefore we intend to remove the wrong choice from the ballot."

---

The Fox tweet and article said that Rubin argued in her column that Trump should be kept off the ballot ("ineligible") because he pleaded the fifth amendment. In that column, she only argued that voters should find that to be a reason to vote against him. (She may well think there are other reasons he should not be on the ballot, but that was not the subject of this column.). If you see something in her column about Trump pleading the fifth that shows her saying he should be kept of the ballot for that reason, I would be interested in that.

PackFansXL said:

---

caryking said:

---

This is a good read…

https://nypost.com/2022/08/18/inside-the-controversial-fbi-unit-behind-the-trump-raid/

---

Quote:

---

Jay Bratt, the top counterintelligence official at Justice, traveled to Mar-a-Lago in early June and personally inspected the storage facility while interacting with both Trump and one of his lawyers. Trump allowed the three FBI agents Bratt brought with him to open boxes in the storage room and look through them. They left with some documents.

According to Federal Election Commission records, Bratt has given exclusively to Democrats, including at least $800 to the Democratic National Committee. The sources said he is close to David Laufman, whom he replaced as the top counterintelligence official at Justice. An Obama donor, Laufman helped oversee the Russiagate probe, as well as the Clinton email case, which also involved classified information.

A Senate investigator said that Laufman was the "mastermind" behind the strategy to dust off and "weaponize" the rarely enforced statutory relic the Foreign Agents Registration Act against Trump campaign officials, a novel legal move that the investigator noted is similar to the department's current attempts to enforce the Presidential Records Act against Trump which is a civil, not a criminal, statute by invoking the Espionage Act of 1917.

---

Very interesting ...

---

Indeed. Could lead one to question the propriety of the warrant.

Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

---

The second paragraph literally says "Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency."

lol at this semantic debate you're trying to have with your disqualify and ineligible nonsense.

My god you are dense.

The entire article from Rubin is EXTREMELY TDS though. Says a lot that you're defending her.

---

Words have meanings. Sorry you don't like the very different meanings of "ineligible" and "disqualified," but that's on you.

The constitution does not prohibit voters from determining that Trump is not qualified for office based on his pleadings. (The point of Rubin's column.). The constitution would likely prohibit deeming him ineligible to run on that basis.

---

Lol.

So much TDS.

The FOXNEWS!!!!!! article that triggered Manny by using her exact words in the article also has this at the bottom

"Rubin eventually admitted that "the Constitution spells out no disqualifications for federal office, other than conviction through impeachment and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment," but insists "voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.""

I'm sure Manny didn't read that far though….. because FOXNEWS!!!

---

The word "ineligible" does not appear in Rubin's column. Even in the part quoted in the Fox article, Rubin's column says that it is up to the voters. Don't know how to make this any simpler: If Trump were ineligible to run, as the Fox article characterized, there would be no voters to make that judgement.

---

Cool story,bro. Semantic nonsense that nobody but a radlib would care about. Cheers!!!!

---

Goodness me…. packgrad, I admire you!

---

Manny is unfamiliar with synonyms. Better not look up synonyms for ineligible.

That was truly one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read on here.

---

There is a fundamental difference between saying that voters should decide that a candidate's actions make him unqualified for office when he is on a ballot (i.e., they should vote against him), as Rubin argued, and saying that a candidate should not be eligible to even appear on the ballot, which how Fox characterized it. Sorry that difference is too subtle for you.

Do you think that a candidate's position favoring abortion rights makes that person unqualified for office (i.e., a reason to vote against them)?

Do you think that a candidate who favors abortion rights should be ineligible to even appear on a ballot?

---

Take the L. This is ridiculous.

---

Beyond ridiculous. I get the feeling that our friend here is reaching beyond his "limits" and has pee wee football skills trying to play in the NFL......

Give him the paddle again.... if you have time.

I'm still waiting on him to rationalize the 12, 13 hoaxes perpetrated against Trump.... Wonder why he hasn't responded to that one?

I'm pretty sure I know.

---

Hey, Lucy. Sorry I haven't had time to give a thorough analysis of your 12/13 theses. Might try to make time over the weekend.

In the meantime, do you think that something about a candidate (their actions or their position on a particular issue) can make then unqualified for office (i.e., a reason to vote against them) but not be enugh to make them ineligible to even appear on a ballot? Just curious.

---

Sure I do.

Especially when as VP they flew their crack head son on Air Force 2, met with Chinese business leaders, his son was given tens of millions of dollars as an "advisor" in an industry that he had zero experience in and had emails stating that "(sic) 10% for the ""big guy""

Now if you can remove your blue tinted glasses and open your eyes long enough to see how that should be more of a story than the BS hoaxes against Trump you there may be hope for you.

But you are gaslighting a non-issue and spinning words out of context and using grade school semantics to try and prove a point.

You got you ass handed to you yesterday just like before. Like grad said, take the "L" and move on. Try and show some sign of dignity....

BBW12OG said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

---

The second paragraph literally says "Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency."

lol at this semantic debate you're trying to have with your disqualify and ineligible nonsense.

My god you are dense.

The entire article from Rubin is EXTREMELY TDS though. Says a lot that you're defending her.

---

Words have meanings. Sorry you don't like the very different meanings of "ineligible" and "disqualified," but that's on you.

The constitution does not prohibit voters from determining that Trump is not qualified for office based on his pleadings. (The point of Rubin's column.). The constitution would likely prohibit deeming him ineligible to run on that basis.

---

Lol.

So much TDS.

The FOXNEWS!!!!!! article that triggered Manny by using her exact words in the article also has this at the bottom

"Rubin eventually admitted that "the Constitution spells out no disqualifications for federal office, other than conviction through impeachment and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment," but insists "voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.""

I'm sure Manny didn't read that far though….. because FOXNEWS!!!

---

The word "ineligible" does not appear in Rubin's column. Even in the part quoted in the Fox article, Rubin's column says that it is up to the voters. Don't know how to make this any simpler: If Trump were ineligible to run, as the Fox article characterized, there would be no voters to make that judgement.

---

Cool story,bro. Semantic nonsense that nobody but a radlib would care about. Cheers!!!!

---

Goodness me…. packgrad, I admire you!

---

Manny is unfamiliar with synonyms. Better not look up synonyms for ineligible.

That was truly one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read on here.

---

There is a fundamental difference between saying that voters should decide that a candidate's actions make him unqualified for office when he is on a ballot (i.e., they should vote against him), as Rubin argued, and saying that a candidate should not be eligible to even appear on the ballot, which how Fox characterized it. Sorry that difference is too subtle for you.

Do you think that a candidate's position favoring abortion rights makes that person unqualified for office (i.e., a reason to vote against them)?

Do you think that a candidate who favors abortion rights should be ineligible to even appear on a ballot?

---

Take the L. This is ridiculous.

---

Beyond ridiculous. I get the feeling that our friend here is reaching beyond his "limits" and has pee wee football skills trying to play in the NFL......

Give him the paddle again.... if you have time.

I'm still waiting on him to rationalize the 12, 13 hoaxes perpetrated against Trump.... Wonder why he hasn't responded to that one?

I'm pretty sure I know.

---

Hey, Lucy. Sorry I haven't had time to give a thorough analysis of your 12/13 theses. Might try to make time over the weekend.

In the meantime, do you think that something about a candidate (their actions or their position on a particular issue) can make then unqualified for office (i.e., a reason to vote against them) but not be enugh to make them ineligible to even appear on a ballot? Just curious.

---

Sure I do.

Especially when as VP they flew their crack head son on Air Force 2, met with Chinese business leaders, his son was given tens of millions of dollars as an "advisor" in an industry that he had zero experience in and had emails stating that "(sic) 10% for the ""big guy""

Now if you can remove your blue tinted glasses and open your eyes long enough to see how that should be more of a story than the BS hoaxes against Trump you there may be hope for you.

But you are gaslighting a non-issue and spinning words out of context and using grade school semantics to try and prove a point.

You got you ass handed to you yesterday just like before. Like grad said, take the "L" and move on. Try and show some sign of dignity....

---

Huh. So you think someone can be not qualified but also not ineligible. But I thought "disqualified" and "ineligible" meant the same thing.

I responded to one post about how Fox mischaracterized one newspaper column. I did not take on any and all grievances against Trump or Biden (as much as you would like to move the goalposts - which must get exhausting).

bigeric said:

---

You're asking me to understand the difference between "ineligible" and "disqualified" when I have a problem defining "is."

---

I can see how that would create a problem.

Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

---

The second paragraph literally says "Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency."

lol at this semantic debate you're trying to have with your disqualify and ineligible nonsense.

My god you are dense.

The entire article from Rubin is EXTREMELY TDS though. Says a lot that you're defending her.

---

Words have meanings. Sorry you don't like the very different meanings of "ineligible" and "disqualified," but that's on you.

The constitution does not prohibit voters from determining that Trump is not qualified for office based on his pleadings. (The point of Rubin's column.). The constitution would likely prohibit deeming him ineligible to run on that basis.

---

Lol.

So much TDS.

The FOXNEWS!!!!!! article that triggered Manny by using her exact words in the article also has this at the bottom

"Rubin eventually admitted that "the Constitution spells out no disqualifications for federal office, other than conviction through impeachment and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment," but insists "voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.""

I'm sure Manny didn't read that far though….. because FOXNEWS!!!

---

The word "ineligible" does not appear in Rubin's column. Even in the part quoted in the Fox article, Rubin's column says that it is up to the voters. Don't know how to make this any simpler: If Trump were ineligible to run, as the Fox article characterized, there would be no voters to make that judgement.

---

Cool story,bro. Semantic nonsense that nobody but a radlib would care about. Cheers!!!!

---

Goodness me…. packgrad, I admire you!

---

Manny is unfamiliar with synonyms. Better not look up synonyms for ineligible.

That was truly one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read on here.

---

There is a fundamental difference between saying that voters should decide that a candidate's actions make him unqualified for office when he is on a ballot (i.e., they should vote against him), as Rubin argued, and saying that a candidate should not be eligible to even appear on the ballot, which how Fox characterized it. Sorry that difference is too subtle for you.

Do you think that a candidate's position favoring abortion rights makes that person unqualified for office (i.e., a reason to vote against them)?

Do you think that a candidate who favors abortion rights should be ineligible to even appear on a ballot?

---

Take the L. This is ridiculous.

---

Beyond ridiculous. I get the feeling that our friend here is reaching beyond his "limits" and has pee wee football skills trying to play in the NFL......

Give him the paddle again.... if you have time.

I'm still waiting on him to rationalize the 12, 13 hoaxes perpetrated against Trump.... Wonder why he hasn't responded to that one?

I'm pretty sure I know.

---

Hey, Lucy. Sorry I haven't had time to give a thorough analysis of your 12/13 theses. Might try to make time over the weekend.

In the meantime, do you think that something about a candidate (their actions or their position on a particular issue) can make then unqualified for office (i.e., a reason to vote against them) but not be enugh to make them ineligible to even appear on a ballot? Just curious.

---

Sure I do.

Especially when as VP they flew their crack head son on Air Force 2, met with Chinese business leaders, his son was given tens of millions of dollars as an "advisor" in an industry that he had zero experience in and had emails stating that "(sic) 10% for the ""big guy""

Now if you can remove your blue tinted glasses and open your eyes long enough to see how that should be more of a story than the BS hoaxes against Trump you there may be hope for you.

But you are gaslighting a non-issue and spinning words out of context and using grade school semantics to try and prove a point.

You got you ass handed to you yesterday just like before. Like grad said, take the "L" and move on. Try and show some sign of dignity....

---

Huh. So you think someone can be not qualified but also not ineligible. But I thought "disqualified" and "ineligible" meant the same thing.

I responded to one post about how Fox mischaracterized one newspaper column. I did not take on any and all grievances against Trump or Biden (as much as you would like to move the goalposts - which must get exhausting).

---

They didn't mischaracterize the column. You are making a fool of yourself.

I encourage you to visit the below websites for educational purposes.

www.dictionary.com
www.thesaurus.com

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

bigeric said:

---

Jennifer needs to read the Constitution.

---

Or, people should read Rubin's actual column rather than rely on the Fox tweet or article.

For example, the Fox article claims that Rubin asserted that "former President Trump should be ineligible to run for re-election" (my emphasis), that is, unable to run as a matter of law, but that's not what the column says. The column actually says:

Quote:

---

[Trump] has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't mean he's protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters

---

That is, in Rubin's opinion, voters should take this a reason not to vote for him, which is certainly allowed under the constitution.

(For the record, I do not think that pleading the fifth should make anyone inelgible for office.)

---

Maybe you should read the title of your linked article, instead of FOXNEWSS!!! response.

---

The title of the column is "Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office." "Disqualified" ("deprived of the required qualities, properties, or conditions : made unfit") and "ineligible" ("legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit") are not synonymous in this context. The column clearly states that the voters' judgement should prevent him from holding office. If he were ineligible to run, the voters would not have a chance to make that choice.

---

The second paragraph literally says "Indeed, taking the Fifth especially concerning his alleged misconduct related to the attempted coup should disqualify him from the presidency."

lol at this semantic debate you're trying to have with your disqualify and ineligible nonsense.

My god you are dense.

The entire article from Rubin is EXTREMELY TDS though. Says a lot that you're defending her.

---

Words have meanings. Sorry you don't like the very different meanings of "ineligible" and "disqualified," but that's on you.

The constitution does not prohibit voters from determining that Trump is not qualified for office based on his pleadings. (The point of Rubin's column.). The constitution would likely prohibit deeming him ineligible to run on that basis.

---

Lol.

So much TDS.

The FOXNEWS!!!!!! article that triggered Manny by using her exact words in the article also has this at the bottom

"Rubin eventually admitted that "the Constitution spells out no disqualifications for federal office, other than conviction through impeachment and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment," but insists "voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.""

I'm sure Manny didn't read that far though….. because FOXNEWS!!!

---

The word "ineligible" does not appear in Rubin's column. Even in the part quoted in the Fox article, Rubin's column says that it is up to the voters. Don't know how to make this any simpler: If Trump were ineligible to run, as the Fox article characterized, there would be no voters to make that judgement.

---

Cool story,bro. Semantic nonsense that nobody but a radlib would care about. Cheers!!!!

---

Goodness me…. packgrad, I admire you!

---

Manny is unfamiliar with synonyms. Better not look up synonyms for ineligible.

That was truly one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read on here.

---

There is a fundamental difference between saying that voters should decide that a candidate's actions make him unqualified for office when he is on a ballot (i.e., they should vote against him), as Rubin argued, and saying that a candidate should not be eligible to even appear on the ballot, which how Fox characterized it. Sorry that difference is too subtle for you.

Do you think that a candidate's position favoring abortion rights makes that person unqualified for office (i.e., a reason to vote against them)?

Do you think that a candidate who favors abortion rights should be ineligible to even appear on a ballot?

---

Take the L. This is ridiculous.

---

Beyond ridiculous. I get the feeling that our friend here is reaching beyond his "limits" and has pee wee football skills trying to play in the NFL......

Give him the paddle again.... if you have time.

I'm still waiting on him to rationalize the 12, 13 hoaxes perpetrated against Trump.... Wonder why he hasn't responded to that one?

I'm pretty sure I know.

---

Hey, Lucy. Sorry I haven't had time to give a thorough analysis of your 12/13 theses. Might try to make time over the weekend.

In the meantime, do you think that something about a candidate (their actions or their position on a particular issue) can make then unqualified for office (i.e., a reason to vote against them) but not be enugh to make them ineligible to even appear on a ballot? Just curious.

---

Sure I do.

Especially when as VP they flew their crack head son on Air Force 2, met with Chinese business leaders, his son was given tens of millions of dollars as an "advisor" in an industry that he had zero experience in and had emails stating that "(sic) 10% for the ""big guy""

Now if you can remove your blue tinted glasses and open your eyes long enough to see how that should be more of a story than the BS hoaxes against Trump you there may be hope for you.

But you are gaslighting a non-issue and spinning words out of context and using grade school semantics to try and prove a point.

You got you ass handed to you yesterday just like before. Like grad said, take the "L" and move on. Try and show some sign of dignity....

---

Huh. So you think someone can be not qualified but also not ineligible. But I thought "disqualified" and "ineligible" meant the same thing.

I responded to one post about how Fox mischaracterized one newspaper column. I did not take on any and all grievances against Trump or Biden (as much as you would like to move the goalposts - which must get exhausting).

---

They didn't mischaracterize the column. You are making a fool of yourself.

I encourage you to visit the below websites for educational purposes.

www.dictionary.com
www.thesaurus.com

---

BBW just said that someone can be not qualified but also not ineligible. Do you disagree with BBW on that?

If you do, does that mean thay you think that a candidate that you disagree with very strongly on a core issue (i.e., someone you think is not qualified for office) should also be ineligible to even appear on a ballot for that reason?