Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is plainly unconstitutional to remove Trump from the ballot, and his voters will be more galvanized than ever. Mark it down, this will not turn out well for Dems.

It's literally in the Constitution that he cannot be on the ballot. Period. Sure, it might have been nice to have seen him lose in an election again, but Trump disqualified himself. If you are mad about it, argue to repeal the 14th Amendment.

IF he is allowed to run, then the Republican party is basically nullifying the 14th Amendment without following the proper democratic process for repealing a constitutional amendment.

Really? In what court was he convicted of the charges you cite?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't find another thread about this but it is fascinating. My question is if Colorado case agrees that Trump incited an insurrection and refuse to put his no name on the ballot is this a state's right or is it federal. Where can Trump appeal?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/01/politics/colorado-14th-amendment-trump-day-three-takeaways/index.html

Question? It's totally partisan and they will. Supreme Court will rightfully overturn it but the state of CO will draaaaaagggg it out, hoping they can beat the clock.

Why do you think it’s partisan? If Trump planned the 1/6 events, how is it not violence against the government?

There is no evidence at ALL that Trump planned the 1/6 events. In fact, evidence shows he offered the National Guard when chatter suggested there might be violent parties there.

The judge is highly partisan.

Well, you are incorrect, as many have pointed out, but since you blew the others off, maybe you'll believe citations:

From the National Guard:
https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Article/2466077/dod-details-national-guard-response-to-capitol-attack/

McCarthy, Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Rath Hoffman and Kenneth P. Rapuano, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, put the timeline of the National Guard response in perspective during the call.

District of Columbia officials knew of the planned protests and had requested some assistance when the "First Amendment demonstrations" were planned for Jan. 5 and 6, McCarthy said. Based on this request, officials called up 340 National Guardsmen to help. The Guardsmen were assigned mainly to traffic control, Metro crowd control, some logistics support and a 40-member quick reaction force to be based at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.

"No other requests were made," the Army secretary said.

But the protests turned into a mob rioting through the halls, chambers and offices of the U.S. Capitol. At around 2 p.m., D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser requested more assistance. Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller immediately called up 1,100 members of the D.C. National Guard.

At the same time, officials were collecting Guardsmen at traffic points and Metro stations and returning them to the D.C. Armory to refit for a crowd control mission, the secretary said. Their mission was to support D.C. Metropolitan Police and Capitol Hill Police.

Guardsmen started flowing into the area of the Capitol soon after and reinforced Metro Police on the perimeter of the Capitol. This allowed the police and FBI to clear the chambers and offices of the U.S. Capitol, McCarthy said. "By 7:15, both chambers and leadership offices were cleared, and members were able to return to business, and we began the planning for the following day," he said.

At 6 p.m., Miller authorized the mobilization of up to 6,200 National Guard members from Maryland, Virginia, New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania. These service members will flow into the city over the next few days and will help secure the peaceful transfer of power to President-elect Joseph Biden on Jan. 20.

Trump never offered up the National Guard. All he had to do was make a phone call. As the phone records from Jack Smith's case have shown, he was on his phone all day that day calling everyone around him. Around noon, he went to the rally, addressed the crowd, and he roused the crowd into a mob and told them to march up the street to the Capitol by about 1:00 PM. It took an hour for the Mayor to realize that he had incited a mob and she wasn't even there. He was on the ground and he just ignored the situation despite sending a mob to the Capitol. He calmly went back to the White House and watched it all unfold and never once made a call. The National Guard said that they had had no contact from anyone other than the request from the mayor.

So, regardless of whether your source was Fox News or OAN or another MAGA news outlet, there is no evidence that "shows he offered the National Guard when chatter suggested there might be violent parties there." The only time he made any such suggestion was the night before. And that was before he had made his speech to incite the mob and insurrection.

At 2:00 PM Mayor Bowser called for assistance and the DC National Guard was called up and were on-site within about an hour based on other reports.

Anonymous wrote:If the SCOTUS overrules this, then Biden may as well start planning the insurrection immediately, because it won't matter whether he wins at the ballot box or by force, and good thing Kamala will be there to decide the fate of the republic on January 6, 2025, right?

Unlike Republicans, Democrats prefer to plan things be done in legal and democratic ways.

How will SCOTUS rule on this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't find another thread about this but it is fascinating. My question is if Colorado case agrees that Trump incited an insurrection and refuse to put his no name on the ballot is this a state's right or is it federal. Where can Trump appeal?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/01/politics/colorado-14th-amendment-trump-day-three-takeaways/index.html

Question? It's totally partisan and they will. Supreme Court will rightfully overturn it but the state of CO will draaaaaagggg it out, hoping they can beat the clock.

Why do you think it’s partisan? If Trump planned the 1/6 events, how is it not violence against the government?

There is no evidence at ALL that Trump planned the 1/6 events. In fact, evidence shows he offered the National Guard when chatter suggested there might be violent parties there.

The judge is highly partisan.

This is alternative facts/ fiction to most of us.

There is overwhelming evidence he planned the events and carried them out.

Now watch Trump win Colorado lol

If the SCOTUS overrules this, then Biden may as well start planning the insurrection immediately, because it won't matter whether he wins at the ballot box or by force, and good thing Kamala will be there to decide the fate of the republic on January 6, 2025, right?

If you’re upset about the optics of this ruling, then you’re suggesting that we need to remove clause 3 of 14th amendment of the US Constitution and allow people who are insurrectionist to run for and win the presidency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is plainly unconstitutional to remove Trump from the ballot, and his voters will be more galvanized than ever. Mark it down, this will not turn out well for Dems.

The constitution literally calls for it. Clearly.

His voters may be more galvanized, but the rest of us on planet earth will be more than happy to move on from him.

Just wait and see, SCOTUS will reverse. And this is certainly not playing out in the minds of voters across the nation like most posters on this forum think it is.

Either the law matters, or it doesn't.
Either the Constitution matters, or it doesn't.

The F your feeling crowd are now experiencing hurt feelings. Karma.

Maybe they shouldn't have believed a serial liar and con man.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is plainly unconstitutional to remove Trump from the ballot, and his voters will be more galvanized than ever. Mark it down, this will not turn out well for Dems.

The constitution literally calls for it. Clearly.

His voters may be more galvanized, but the rest of us on planet earth will be more than happy to move on from him.

Just wait and see, SCOTUS will reverse. And this is certainly not playing out in the minds of voters across the nation like most posters on this forum think it is.

It's frankly irrelevant what some voters, who are not constitutional experts, think about it. What a group of voters think does not change the Constitution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is plainly unconstitutional to remove Trump from the ballot, and his voters will be more galvanized than ever. Mark it down, this will not turn out well for Dems.

The constitution literally calls for it. Clearly.

His voters may be more galvanized, but the rest of us on planet earth will be more than happy to move on from him.

Just wait and see, SCOTUS will reverse. And this is certainly not playing out in the minds of voters across the nation like most posters on this forum think it is.

There isn't a single constitutional expert or former judge or attorney who agrees with you. What basis of law are you pinning your statement on? Please be specific.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is plainly unconstitutional to remove Trump from the ballot, and his voters will be more galvanized than ever. Mark it down, this will not turn out well for Dems.

The constitution literally calls for it. Clearly.

His voters may be more galvanized, but the rest of us on planet earth will be more than happy to move on from him.

Just wait and see, SCOTUS will reverse. And this is certainly not playing out in the minds of voters across the nation like most posters on this forum think it is.

Anonymous wrote:It is plainly unconstitutional to remove Trump from the ballot, and his voters will be more galvanized than ever. Mark it down, this will not turn out well for Dems.

It's literally in the Constitution that he cannot be on the ballot. Period. Sure, it might have been nice to have seen him lose in an election again, but Trump disqualified himself. If you are mad about it, argue to repeal the 14th Amendment.

IF he is allowed to run, then the Republican party is basically nullifying the 14th Amendment without following the proper democratic process for repealing a constitutional amendment.

Anonymous wrote:It is plainly unconstitutional to remove Trump from the ballot, and his voters will be more galvanized than ever. Mark it down, this will not turn out well for Dems.

The constitution literally calls for it. Clearly.

His voters may be more galvanized, but the rest of us on planet earth will be more than happy to move on from him.

It is plainly unconstitutional to remove Trump from the ballot, and his voters will be more galvanized than ever. Mark it down, this will not turn out well for Dems.