|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 28, 2023 16:19:55 GMT -8
Maine SoS rules Trump is ineligible for the ballot based on 14/3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Dec 28, 2023 19:50:53 GMT -8
Based on his lack of response to the riot other than to watch it go on for hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Dec 29, 2023 14:47:27 GMT -8
No GOP supporters want to be put on the no fly list. Expect another bump in the polls for Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by North County Aztec on Dec 29, 2023 16:14:20 GMT -8
Who cares about another California clone like Colorado. It is going blue even with a psycho like Dementia Joey. I spent 14 weeks in Colorado this year and enjoyed every piss I took. Come spring the snowflakes melt.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Dec 29, 2023 17:02:40 GMT -8
Well, it was a nice democracy we used to have.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 29, 2023 17:05:03 GMT -8
Who cares about another California clone like Colorado. It is going blue even with a psycho like Dementia Joey. I spent 14 weeks in Colorado this year and enjoyed every piss I took. Come spring the snowflakes melt. .....Weird. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 29, 2023 17:05:43 GMT -8
Well, it was a nice democracy we used to have. Still there. It's pretty laughable when you fail to recognize this is happening BECAUSE we have a democracy. Individual state elections are governed by, yep, you guessed it, the state. They have power and authority to run their elections as they see it. If your argument is somehow that Trump shouldn't be disqualified from running based on the 14th Amendment, I suggest reading it more carefully. There's no credible argument to be made against it, knowing what is publicly available and acknowledged. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 30, 2023 10:39:27 GMT -8
Seen this premise floating around from the MAGA crowd repeatedly: Red states will remove Biden from their state ballots under the same auspices of the 14th Amendment based on the border "crisis."
Except...no, that's not how this works. An insurrection is defined as a "violent uprising against an authority or government." What we saw on January 6th: A *violent* uprising against an authority (Congress) to delay/interfere/obstruct the certification of votes and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. Even if this were to somehow happen, it would be overturned on immediate appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Dec 30, 2023 12:14:09 GMT -8
Well, it was a nice democracy we used to have. Still there. It's pretty laughable when you fail to recognize this is happening BECAUSE we have a democracy. Individual state elections are governed by, yep, you guessed it, the state. They have power and authority to run their elections as they see it. If your argument is somehow that Trump shouldn't be disqualified from running based on the 14th Amendment, I suggest reading it more carefully. There's no credible argument to be made against it, knowing what is publicly available and acknowledged. He was accused but never convicted of, whatever witchcraft you’re accusing him of. The 14th Amendment isn’t in play yet. These are incredibly broad stretches of our Constitution. You can’t seriously expect the Supreme Court or any non partisan court to rule based on something that doesn’t exist. A total swing and miss. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 30, 2023 12:27:34 GMT -8
Still there. It's pretty laughable when you fail to recognize this is happening BECAUSE we have a democracy. Individual state elections are governed by, yep, you guessed it, the state. They have power and authority to run their elections as they see it. If your argument is somehow that Trump shouldn't be disqualified from running based on the 14th Amendment, I suggest reading it more carefully. There's no credible argument to be made against it, knowing what is publicly available and acknowledged. He was accused but never convicted of, whatever witchcraft you’re accusing him of. The 14th Amendment isn’t in play yet. These are incredibly broad stretches of our Constitution. You can’t seriously expect the Supreme Court or any non partisan court to rule based on something that doesn’t exist. A total swing and miss. As I said, read it again. There is no requirement for a conviction, nor is there a requirement for a charge to be levied against him. Two different courts in Colorado found the evidence met the bar for insurrection, which is plainly obvious if you read the text of the 14th Amendment. Trump's actions before, on and after January 6th are the literal definition of what the 14th Amendment was designed to prohibit. Section 3 isn't broad at all: "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." Not only did Trump engage in the incitement of the insurrection, he gave aid to those who attempted to overturn the results of the election itself, in multiple capacities. The 39th Congress established the presidency as an "officer of the United States" - Clearing that hurdle, as well. Ironically, one of Trump's legal arguments in his filings is that his oath of office was NOT to support the Constitution. Even you can see how much of a farce that is, surely. The only thing that doesn't exist is common sense in your MAGA-filled brain that absorbs propaganda as gospel. You've been spoonfed nonsense for years, refusing to fact check basic laws and provisions. *IF* the Supreme Court overturns this based on partisan votes, it's a permanent stain on the legitimacy, impartiality and establishment of justice under the law in this country. The Court would be a laughingstock for the rest of time. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Dec 30, 2023 12:57:30 GMT -8
He was accused but never convicted of, whatever witchcraft you’re accusing him of. The 14th Amendment isn’t in play yet. These are incredibly broad stretches of our Constitution. You can’t seriously expect the Supreme Court or any non partisan court to rule based on something that doesn’t exist. A total swing and miss. As I said, read it again. There is no requirement for a conviction, nor is there a requirement for a charge to be levied against him. Two different courts in Colorado found the evidence met the bar for insurrection, which is plainly obvious if you read the text of the 14th Amendment. Trump's actions before, on and after January 6th are the literal definition of what the 14th Amendment was designed to prohibit. Section 3 isn't broad at all: "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." Not only did Trump engage in the incitement of the insurrection, he gave aid to those who attempted to overturn the results of the election itself, in multiple capacities. The 39th Congress established the presidency as an "officer of the United States" - Clearing that hurdle, as well. Ironically, one of Trump's legal arguments in his filings is that his oath of office was NOT to support the Constitution. Even you can see how much of a farce that is, surely. The only thing that doesn't exist is common sense in your MAGA-filled brain that absorbs propaganda as gospel. You've been spoonfed nonsense for years, refusing to fact check basic laws and provisions. *IF* the Supreme Court overturns this based on partisan votes, it's a permanent stain on the legitimacy, impartiality and establishment of justice under the law in this country. The Court would be a laughingstock for the rest of time. According to your answer, the Supreme Court will obviously uphold the decision of the Colorado SC, correct? You make it sound like a no brainer. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 30, 2023 13:03:04 GMT -8
As I said, read it again. There is no requirement for a conviction, nor is there a requirement for a charge to be levied against him. Two different courts in Colorado found the evidence met the bar for insurrection, which is plainly obvious if you read the text of the 14th Amendment. Trump's actions before, on and after January 6th are the literal definition of what the 14th Amendment was designed to prohibit. Section 3 isn't broad at all: "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." Not only did Trump engage in the incitement of the insurrection, he gave aid to those who attempted to overturn the results of the election itself, in multiple capacities. The 39th Congress established the presidency as an "officer of the United States" - Clearing that hurdle, as well. Ironically, one of Trump's legal arguments in his filings is that his oath of office was NOT to support the Constitution. Even you can see how much of a farce that is, surely. The only thing that doesn't exist is common sense in your MAGA-filled brain that absorbs propaganda as gospel. You've been spoonfed nonsense for years, refusing to fact check basic laws and provisions. *IF* the Supreme Court overturns this based on partisan votes, it's a permanent stain on the legitimacy, impartiality and establishment of justice under the law in this country. The Court would be a laughingstock for the rest of time. According to your answer, the Supreme Court will obviously uphold the decision of the Colorado SC, correct? You make it sound like a no brainer. Nothing is ever that simple in politics and we are WAY too early in the process to make any kind of summary judgment. I said months ago that Trump had very little chance to win the election based on the amount of hurdles he had to clear legally and constitutionally, that I will maintain. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 30, 2023 13:06:37 GMT -8
Jack Smith has just filed the reply brief challenging Trump's immunity in the DC case. Oral arguments are set for January 9th.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Dec 30, 2023 13:36:10 GMT -8
According to your answer, the Supreme Court will obviously uphold the decision of the Colorado SC, correct? You make it sound like a no brainer. Nothing is ever that simple in politics and we are WAY too early in the process to make any kind of summary judgment. I said months ago that Trump had very little chance to win the election based on the amount of hurdles he had to clear legally and constitutionally, that I will maintain. In another prior post, in a conversation with me, you had said that that the SCOTUS would overturn this. What has changed your from that, to its too early to make a judgment? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 30, 2023 13:52:24 GMT -8
Nothing is ever that simple in politics and we are WAY too early in the process to make any kind of summary judgment. I said months ago that Trump had very little chance to win the election based on the amount of hurdles he had to clear legally and constitutionally, that I will maintain. In another prior post, in a conversation with me, you had said that that the SCOTUS would overturn this. What has changed your from that, to its too early to make a judgment? I said they would likely overturn the general election ruling in the specific situation in Colorado, yes. Now that other states have followed with expediency, I'm not convinced of that anymore. This is an extremely complex set of political circumstances. We're in completely uncharted waters and setting a historical precedent is not something to be taken lightly. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Dec 30, 2023 14:00:34 GMT -8
In another prior post, in a conversation with me, you had said that that the SCOTUS would overturn this. What has changed your from that, to its too early to make a judgment? I said they would likely overturn the general election ruling in the specific situation in Colorado, yes. Now that other states have followed with expediency, I'm not convinced of that anymore. This is an extremely complex set of political circumstances. We're in completely uncharted waters and setting a historical precedent is not something to be taken lightly. Well, you said that it would OBVIOUSLY be overturned, not just likely overturned, and that the SCOTUS would not want to break new ground. Are you changing your tune because more states are getting involved? Why would that influence the SCOTUS to not worry about "breaking new ground" anymore? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 30, 2023 14:19:55 GMT -8
I said they would likely overturn the general election ruling in the specific situation in Colorado, yes. Now that other states have followed with expediency, I'm not convinced of that anymore. This is an extremely complex set of political circumstances. We're in completely uncharted waters and setting a historical precedent is not something to be taken lightly. Well, you said that it would OBVIOUSLY be overturned, not just likely overturned, and that the SCOTUS would not want to break new ground. Are you changing your tune because more states are getting involved? Why would that influence the SCOTUS to not worry about "breaking new ground" anymore? As usual, you're reading way too much into things. The emphasis is yours, not mine, to be crystal clear. And yes, things can and will change rapidly. Since I said what I said, we've had at least two other states make rulings on Trump's eligibility *and* we have new evidence coming to light in the immunity trial in the DC Circuit, which directly influences this ruling. Note the specificity of the examples utilized in this brief. Those aren't random, they aren't innocuous, they aren't benign. Why would more states getting involved to remove Trump from eligibility matter? Um, well, the more states that get involved to eliminate him from the presidency puts more pressure on SCOTUS to issue a ruling more expediently. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Dec 30, 2023 14:22:20 GMT -8
He was accused but never convicted of, whatever witchcraft you’re accusing him of. The 14th Amendment isn’t in play yet. These are incredibly broad stretches of our Constitution. You can’t seriously expect the Supreme Court or any non partisan court to rule based on something that doesn’t exist. A total swing and miss. As I said, read it again. There is no requirement for a conviction, nor is there a requirement for a charge to be levied against him. Two different courts in Colorado found the evidence met the bar for insurrection, which is plainly obvious if you read the text of the 14th Amendment. Trump's actions before, on and after January 6th are the literal definition of what the 14th Amendment was designed to prohibit. Section 3 isn't broad at all: "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." Not only did Trump engage in the incitement of the insurrection, he gave aid to those who attempted to overturn the results of the election itself, in multiple capacities. The 39th Congress established the presidency as an "officer of the United States" - Clearing that hurdle, as well. Ironically, one of Trump's legal arguments in his filings is that his oath of office was NOT to support the Constitution. Even you can see how much of a farce that is, surely. The only thing that doesn't exist is common sense in your MAGA-filled brain that absorbs propaganda as gospel. You've been spoonfed nonsense for years, refusing to fact check basic laws and provisions. *IF* the Supreme Court overturns this based on partisan votes, it's a permanent stain on the legitimacy, impartiality and establishment of justice under the law in this country. The Court would be a laughingstock for the rest of time. You are using a very partisan and broad left wing interpretation, looking to throw the entire library of congress at the January 6th people. If it were Democrats who did this, the issue would have been forgotten by January 10th. In the end it will come down to the Supreme Court. Biden’s impeachment will come down to the hyper partisan Congress. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 30, 2023 14:24:36 GMT -8
I said they would likely overturn the general election ruling in the specific situation in Colorado, yes. Now that other states have followed with expediency, I'm not convinced of that anymore. This is an extremely complex set of political circumstances. We're in completely uncharted waters and setting a historical precedent is not something to be taken lightly. Well, you said that it would OBVIOUSLY be overturned, not just likely overturned, and that the SCOTUS would not want to break new ground. Are you changing your tune because more states are getting involved? Why would that influence the SCOTUS to not worry about "breaking new ground" anymore? Understand the magnitude of what's happening here. If SCOTUS rules that a president has "absolute immunity" from prosecution because their official duties/status/etc somehow shield them from being held liable for criminal actions while in office, it will create a shockwave that will change the political landscape forever. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 30, 2023 14:30:25 GMT -8
As I said, read it again. There is no requirement for a conviction, nor is there a requirement for a charge to be levied against him. Two different courts in Colorado found the evidence met the bar for insurrection, which is plainly obvious if you read the text of the 14th Amendment. Trump's actions before, on and after January 6th are the literal definition of what the 14th Amendment was designed to prohibit. Section 3 isn't broad at all: "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." Not only did Trump engage in the incitement of the insurrection, he gave aid to those who attempted to overturn the results of the election itself, in multiple capacities. The 39th Congress established the presidency as an "officer of the United States" - Clearing that hurdle, as well. Ironically, one of Trump's legal arguments in his filings is that his oath of office was NOT to support the Constitution. Even you can see how much of a farce that is, surely. The only thing that doesn't exist is common sense in your MAGA-filled brain that absorbs propaganda as gospel. You've been spoonfed nonsense for years, refusing to fact check basic laws and provisions. *IF* the Supreme Court overturns this based on partisan votes, it's a permanent stain on the legitimacy, impartiality and establishment of justice under the law in this country. The Court would be a laughingstock for the rest of time. You are using a very partisan and broad left wing interpretation, looking to throw the entire library of congress at the January 6th people. If it were Democrats who did this, the issue would have been forgotten by January 10th. In the end it will come down to the Supreme Court. Biden’s impeachment will come down to the hyper partisan Congress. I'm not using any partisan interpretation, I'm reading exactly what it says and telling you what Congress has already ruled previously and established in their findings. Pretty clear what the word insurrection means. You can keep lying to yourself, though. I thought it was Democrats who did this, or Antifa, or the FBI, or whatever conspiracy whackjob theory you're going with. Biden's impeachment is never going to happen, so you can move on. |
|
