comment: >
  
  Now they want to disqualify him because he threatens to split the vote...
  This people are truly disgusting, they make the mafia look like girl scouts.
context: Letting him run all but guarantees a win for democrats. He won't win the GOP primary and will run as an independent and split the vote.  
  That being said, anyone involved in Jan 6th should be disqualified from office from president all the way down. >
  
  Here’s the thing: Trump may not “win it” for the GOP but the Democrats could “”lose it”. Just letting him run opens the door to that possibility. >
  
  Trump has done nothing but lose supporters since 2020. Prison, COVID, just tired of his shit. There's no way he'd win again. Dems could put up the worst option and it'd still not even be close because they'll always vote against Trump. Hopefully they'll put up an actual good candidate and not just Biden again. >
  
  That’s arrogance speaks. Fate is a cruel mistress. Do not provoke her and remember the wisdom of ancestors: “better safe than sorry”. >
  
  He lost, with the full weight of the government behind him. He has only lost supporters since then. I'm not worried. >
  
  I’d counter that with 1. Trump was wrongly written off in 2016; 2. Hillary wasn’t a great candidate and helped Trump win because she isn’t great on the stump or an inspiring speaker and there’s a long and deep dislike of her across the political spectrum; and 3. Trump had trouble landing a punch on Biden who stayed off social media and presented himself as a bland but reliable moderate.
  If the Dems draw the wrong lessons from 2020 and 2022 and, say, run a far left candidate or a lightweight and the GOP close ranks around Trump (Desantis may score points as gov but he’s likely to wither in a national primary. Granted, he does have the momentum at this point.) I see Trump flags but not Desantis (granted, that’s as scientific as “boat parades” in determining relative popularity).
  And outside of Trump himself, banning him from office is a minimal lesson to future emulators. >
  
  I think the GOP will run with DeSantis for 2024. Anyone who would vote for Trump would vote for DeSantis and he would also gain some of the independents that Trump couldn’t get from being a divisive candidate. 
  As for the Dems I’ll be curious to see if they plan to stick with Biden. I don’t think the original plan of Harris running will work out (my assumption in 2020 was the Dems would want her to run in 2024). Just my opinion… >
  
  I agree (with the caveat that Trump is down but by no means out). And I think it’s the current majority opinion.
  The possible X factor that sinks Trump? Murdoch has moved on. And all those “independent-minded” Fox viewers will go along for the ride. >
  
  The Constitution does in fact say that. 
  We should probably do what it says.
  
  "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
  
  If Republicans want him to run, they're more than welcome to hold a Congressional vote.  I somehow don't expect that vote to be held anytime soon. >
  
  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.
  Sounds like he would have to be convicted of insurrection first, though.   That would take years.
  Edit:   I'd really like to be wrong, but so far, no one has pointed out how the "disability" is to be applied to Trump.   When this amendment was written, it was obvious, since the person had been a Senator or Congressman from a state that seceded.
  No one seems to want to really delve into how a legal challenge to keep Trump off the ballot in a state or otherwise bar him from running would play out, or for that matter, even seriously get started.   I don't think the 14th Amendment is going to be of any help here, but again, I'd love to hear why someone thinks it is, other than just "because" or "mountains of evidence". >
  
  I don't read that anywhere in the text either explicit or implied.
  But that may very well be the prevailing legal theory.  (Although, I would probably take issue with that as well.  Which statute would he have to be convicted under to qualify under this clause? We have multiple that cover this behavior and "insurrection".)  We don't do this very often, in other words.  In modern times, it's a largely unknown procedure. >
  
  This amendment was written to prohibit office holders in confederate states from ever holding office again, unless 2/3 of the Senate and the House voted them back in.     I was thinking a conviction of insurrection might meet the intent of the amendment, but not a lawyer.
  
  shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
  
  This seems incredibly vague to me, and it seems like any legal move to bar him from office on the basis of the 14th amendment would probably be appealed to the Supreme Court, who knows what they would do? >
  
  Bingo.
  The 14th amendment is a classic example of bad law-making due to a desire for something expedient but locked into whatever the context was at that moment.
  You'd think folk would have figured out how to do this better after almost a century after the Bill of Rights.
  It probably could be argued that it was left vague with the expressed purpose that it could be interpreted as needed in the future.  For me, this argument is weak.  They stuck in there some specifics on how to undo the prohibition and provided no clarity on how to apply the prohibition.
  So... yes... of course it's all up in the air and will have to be hashed out in the courts... which will never happen... until someone attempts to apply it. >
  
  
  They stuck in there some specifics on how to undo the prohibition and provided no clarity on how to apply the prohibition.
  
  That's the whole problem.   And it would be up to today's Supreme Court to decide that, and I think I have a pretty good idea of what would happen if some jurisdiction somewhere tried to bar Trump from the ballot on the basis of the 14th Amendment. >
  
  This idiot thinks he’s going to run for president, that’s why he’s saying this.  Don’t think for a second this isn’t anything more than posturing and positioning himself >
  
  Anybody who is still here with us in reality obviously agree. >
  
  I'm sure we agree for different reasons though. A lot of GOP officials are starting to view him as an albatross. They don't want him to cost them a victory, they don't care about the coup attempt in and of itself. >
  
  Trump's mental unstability should disqualify him from using metal cutlery. >
  
  It’s true: there are handful of Republicans who now suddenly think an attempt to overthrow the US government is disqualifying. 
  A handful. >
  
  This guy must have got a spine for Christmas. >
  
  See, I can agree with a Republican. I’m doing it right now. >
  
  Here’s the thing if he can’t hold office because of his criminal actions on J6 then he also can’t be a free man >
  
  That would be nice as well. >
  
  If only these cowardly GOP would have convicted on Impeachment 2.
  We clearly do not have strong enough checks/balances against a rogue executive branch.  The impeachment process becomes a partisan exercise.  Every time. >
  
  OK, Governor Hutchinson, can you go into detail how such a suggestion would be implemented?    
  Short of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, there seems to be no laws or mechanisms in place to prohibit him from holding office.  And even at that, the 14th amendment is pretty vague, and who knows how our current Supreme Court would interpret it? >
  
  Yeah, and January 20th should disqualify Pence from holding office. >
  
  Republicans' actions since January 6th, as a whole, should disqualify all of them, and they should be designated a terrorist group. I mean, they continue to support trump. As the January 6th committee argued, giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists is a crime. It is the gravest of crimes. They are, to this day, giving trump and other's responsible for January 6th aid and comfort. >
  
  Thanks for saying the obvious part out loud. >
  
  He already is disqualified. >
  
  Nice!
  What was Asa's position on Trump before he (Asa) decided to run for president? >
  
  jan 6 should disqualify a lot of GOP folks from holding office, but yet here we are. >
  
  Being an enormous asshole is what should have disqualified Trump from running for president in the first place, but the GOP would know more about that than I do. >
  
  All these Republicans finally coming out and saying Trump should be disqualified while they held their tongues for two years don’t actually give a shit about Trump destroying democracy, theyre just being political opportunists who want trump out of the field to run themselves.
  If they actually cared they wouldn’t have waited until now to speak up. >
  
  We’ve now reached the “I was never a huge fan of Trump” era of history. >
  
  “I was against him before I voted for him and I only voted for him because of the democrats and I’d do it again for murica” >
  
  There's a lot of things that should disqualify him. Including the mountains of corruption. >
  
  One of the biggest arguments I see against J6 is people not getting over it and moving on. Blows my mind as these same people are the same ones stuck on Hillary and a laptop. >
  
  trump should disqualify trump from holding a manager spot and berder world >
  
  Duh >
  
  Should but won't. >
  
  And that's possibly the end of Hutchinson's political career. >
  
  if more people here in arkansas gave a shit about their local politics lol >
  
  I'm tired of hearing this shit. Isn't this the 100th different thing he's done or said since 2015 that someone has said should disqualify him? >
  
  Republicans had the opportunity to solve their own problems years ago and they were too greedy, now the wanna act like years of their self-serving lies aren’t their problem? Can’t have your cake and eat it too, Trump needs to go to jail, and Republicans need to start doing their job for a change, lazy self-serving hacks. >
  
  Take his entry $ and then disquify him.