This was almost inevitable. The democrats took a shot at Trump, the republican's returned fire.
Americans took a shot at Trump, treasonous Republican shitbag justices disregarded the Constitution and kept Trump on the ballot. Other treasonous shitbag Republicans took a shot at Biden.This was almost inevitable. The democrats took a shot at Trump, the republican's returned fire.
Trying to run the government and elections in good faith based on the constitution vs running the government in bad faith using petty grievances. I can't see a difference at all.This was almost inevitable. The democrats took a shot at Trump, the republican's returned fire.
It's sad when someone is completely incapable of forming their own opinions.Look I was asked a question and answered it honestly. Sorry you don't like it. I'm not going to continue beating this dead horse. Let the courts decide. I'll live with that decision when it happens.
This is not knowable unless debated in a court of law, and is only valid if the judge is a Republican.Someone should tell Greenman that Republicans tried to remove Trump from the ballot in Colorado, not Democrats.
This has been asked in this thread and in others and I don’t think I’ve ever seen it answered.Why wasn't he charged and convicted?
Look I was asked a question and answered it honestly. Sorry you don't like it. I'm not going to continue beating this dead horse. Let the courts decide. I'll live with that decision when it happens.
This has been asked in this thread and in others and I don’t think I’ve ever seen it answered.Why wasn't he charged and convicted?
Look I was asked a question and answered it honestly. Sorry you don't like it. I'm not going to continue beating this dead horse. Let the courts decide. I'll live with that decision when it happens.
Impotent anger like that will give you an ulcer and high blood pressure.Americans took a shot at Trump, treasonous Republican shitbag justices disregarded the Constitution and kept Trump on the ballot. Other treasonous shitbag Republicans took a shot at Biden.
So the accusation become the conviction? Do you think the framers wanted that? No hearing, no ability to address the charges, no defense? "Everyone knows" suddenly becomes the standard for denial of rights?This has been asked in this thread and in others and I don’t think I’ve ever seen it answered.
This logic means the people who wrote the 14th amendment thought it should be legal Robert E. Lee and/or Jefferson Davis to become president of the United States in 1868.
Do you think that’s the case? If so, why. If not, then clearly they did not consider being tried and convicted of a crime to be necessary. Which side do you land on?
Even when they are in violation of the Constitution?Don't be obtuse.
All VALID Candidates.... What they are trying to do is BS just like those other states playing BS with Trump.
We've got people in prison today for seditious conspiracy. Think they all did that in a vaccuum?If he is an insurrectionist he should be in prison and not a valid candidate for President.
Trump was in violation of the Constitution. Does that matter?This was almost inevitable. The democrats took a shot at Trump, the republican's returned fire.
If Taylor Swift tries to get on a ballot, do we have to have a trial and conviction to conclude she is 34?So the accusation become the conviction? Do you think the framers wanted that? No hearing, no ability to address the charges, no defense? "Everyone knows" suddenly becomes the standard for denial of rights?
It's well established that amendments can be limited, interpreted, constrained. It's been done to the second, why not the fourteenth?
It's well established that amendments can be limited, interpreted, constrained. It's been done to the second, why not the fourteenth?
The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that Trump is an insurrectionist after due process.But you already knew that and are pulling your usual dishonest shit.So the accusation become the conviction? Do you think the framers wanted that? No hearing, no ability to address the charges, no defense? "Everyone knows" suddenly becomes the standard for denial of rights?
It's well established that amendments can be limited, interpreted, constrained. It's been done to the second, why not the fourteenth?
Don't believe your lying eyes, right? (Nevermind the CO court records that support the fact finding).So the accusation become the conviction? Do you think the framers wanted that? No hearing, no ability to address the charges, no defense? "Everyone knows" suddenly becomes the standard for denial of rights?
It's well established that amendments can be limited, interpreted, constrained. It's been done to the second, why not the fourteenth?
No, it was adjudicated by a court. So the exact opposite of what you claim.So the accusation become the conviction? Do you think the framers wanted that? No hearing, no ability to address the charges, no defense? "Everyone knows" suddenly becomes the standard for denial of rights?
It's well established that amendments can be limited, interpreted, constrained. It's been done to the second, why not the fourteenth?
And again, everyone tries to avoid the question because the answer is so obvious. It is entirely clear that the people who framed the 14th amendment intended to bar Jefferson Davis from becoming president of the US if he chose to run, and Davis was never convicted of any crime.The argument that Trump has innovated a kind of insurrection unforeseen by the people who wrote an amendment in the wake of the CIVIL WAR and thus merits unique treatment is absolutely delusional.
Greenman And pcgeek. Such a fabulous world .And again, everyone tries to avoid the question because the answer is so obvious. It is entirely clear that the people who framed the 14th amendment intended to bar Jefferson Davis from becoming president of the US if he chose to run, and Davis was never convicted of any crime.
So the logic is very simple. You either say:
1) Conviction of a crime is not required to bar someone from the presidency for engaging in insurrection.
OR
2) The people who wrote the 14th amendment intended for Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee to be the potentially elected president of the US in 1868.
Those are the two options.
@Greenman and @pcgeek11 - which one is it?
What’s annoying is the answer is so obvious but because it leads to a result republicans don’t want people pretend it isn’t.Greenman And pcgeek.
God you are pathetic. I mean your level of self-delusion is incredible. Keeping sucking on the orange traitor cream sickle. He had fake electors in multiple states and tried to get the vice president to not certify an election. Those are basic undisputed facts. How are you such a loser to not even address those basic facts? Oh, I remember; you are a pathetic loser magat.This was almost inevitable. The democrats took a shot at Trump, the republican's returned fire.
The issue many Republicans are running into is that their choice is now either to vote for people who attempted a coup or not vote for republicans. Since they want to vote for republicans they are now trying to convince themselves that the coup attempt didn’t really happen.God you are pathetic. I mean your level of self-delusion is incredible. Keeping sucking on the orange traitor cream sickle. He had fake electors in multiple states and tried to get the vice president to not certify an election. Those are basic undisputed facts. How are you such a loser to not even address those basic facts? Oh, I remember; you are a pathetic loser magat.
O’Bummer is/was proof we can’t trust birth certificates.If Taylor Swift tries to get on a ballot, do we have to have a trial and conviction to conclude she is 34?
This was almost inevitable. The democrats took a shot at Trump, the republican's returned fire.