Anonymous wrote:Not a trumper, but this ends badly for us citizens overall. Don’t care if Trump is the nominee or not, but you can’t just use courts to weaponize your opponents.

Had he been convicted of started an insurrection, I’d be onboard. But this is the worst way to do it. The ones who are ok with this are saying “hey I’m good with losing my rights and losing democracy to vote for who I want”. It has dangerous consequences.

Granted, Trump being elected is dangerous in itself. But at least the voters are making that decision. Not a handful of judges.

Be careful what you wish for…

Anonymous wrote:Not a trumper, but this ends badly for us citizens overall. Don’t care if Trump is the nominee or not, but you can’t just use courts to weaponize your opponents.

Had he been convicted of started an insurrection, I’d be onboard. But this is the worst way to do it. The ones who are ok with this are saying “hey I’m good with losing my rights and losing democracy to vote for who I want”. It has dangerous consequences.

Granted, Trump being elected is dangerous in itself. But at least the voters are making that decision. Not a handful of judges.

Be careful what you wish for…

Anonymous wrote:The Colorado case against Trump was brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), headed by President and CEO Noah Bookbinder, who sits on the Biden administration's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Advisory Council (HSAC), as the Daily Caller's James Lynch reports.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what happens (and it seems obvious that this decision was wrong on multiple levels), this basically guarantees that the next election will be far, far worse than the last. Republicans will think that lawfare was used against their candidate, essentially rigging the election. And democrats will think a person with no legitimate basis to be on the ballot won the presidency. No matter the outcome of the election, 50% of the public will think the election is illegitimate. If you are shrugging this stuff off, you've spent exactly zero time in a war zone.

Sadly, I agree with this. I've said before that America is over, and sadly, I think it really may be.

sadly I agree too. as a conservative and a Trump lover, I am almost hoping that all these awful tactics by the left succeed and get Trump out of the way, because any of the other 4-5 potential candidates would win pretty easily over corrupt senile Joe, and then the country would start to heal and get back to normal.

What are these tactics by the left?

The litigants in this matter are republicans.
The witnesses in the various J6 cases are all republicans.
The people testifying against Trump are all republicans.

But tell us about those evil democrats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like someone is smoking too much marijuana out in CO.

Trump must be on the ballot. Or CO will turn into a total $hith*le state.

I really don’t need to read any other replies. This this this.

Why a group of democrat judges thought a completely partisan ruling was wise is beyond me.

Narrator: it was republicans that brought the case.

Republicans brought the case. There was a trial in which Trump participated. The evidence demonstrated that he tried to use violence to prevent Congress from transferring power to the rightful President in order to take control of the government himself. That meets even the narrowest definition of "insurrection." The Constitution says that insurrectionists, like people under 35 and people not born in the U.S., can't hold federal office.

People are bending themselves in knots trying to pretend that attempting to violently overthrow the government isn't "insurrection," or that the office of the President isn't an "office," or that a five day trial isn't due process or any number of other contortions that would prevent their cult leader from taking control of the U.S. Because they hate liberals more than they love our country.

that you need to lie to have an argument speaks volumes. Also Trump wasn’t charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

Why the obsession with conviction? Did you figure out how that’s relevant yet?

DP, but we do have a presumption of innocence in our system. So a conviction, the only mechanism to officially declare culpability, seems pretty relevant.

And he’s still innocent, he’s just ineligible. Same as if he was 30, or if he was born in Germany.

Those are bright line tests. Being 30 or German is a statement of fact. Whether Trump is an insurrectionist is a matter of opinion until he's tried in court and convicted. In this case, they took the word of a sociologist who said that Trump speaks in code to instruct followers to do insurrection. That's kind of a bizarre line of logic (how do they know the code? Did he share the code through an intermediary? There's no explanation). Personally, while I don't believe I've heard every relevant fact, it sounded to me like he literally said to peacefully protest at the Capitol. I heard no calls for insurrection.

The court determined that he engaged in an insurrection.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like someone is smoking too much marijuana out in CO.

Trump must be on the ballot. Or CO will turn into a total $hith*le state.

I really don’t need to read any other replies. This this this.

Why a group of democrat judges thought a completely partisan ruling was wise is beyond me.

Narrator: it was republicans that brought the case.

Republicans brought the case. There was a trial in which Trump participated. The evidence demonstrated that he tried to use violence to prevent Congress from transferring power to the rightful President in order to take control of the government himself. That meets even the narrowest definition of "insurrection." The Constitution says that insurrectionists, like people under 35 and people not born in the U.S., can't hold federal office.

People are bending themselves in knots trying to pretend that attempting to violently overthrow the government isn't "insurrection," or that the office of the President isn't an "office," or that a five day trial isn't due process or any number of other contortions that would prevent their cult leader from taking control of the U.S. Because they hate liberals more than they love our country.

that you need to lie to have an argument speaks volumes. Also Trump wasn’t charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

Why the obsession with conviction? Did you figure out how that’s relevant yet?

DP, but we do have a presumption of innocence in our system. So a conviction, the only mechanism to officially declare culpability, seems pretty relevant.

And he’s still innocent, he’s just ineligible. Same as if he was 30, or if he was born in Germany.

Those are bright line tests. Being 30 or German is a statement of fact. Whether Trump is an insurrectionist is a matter of opinion until he's tried in court and convicted. In this case, they took the word of a sociologist who said that Trump speaks in code to instruct followers to do insurrection. That's kind of a bizarre line of logic (how do they know the code? Did he share the code through an intermediary? There's no explanation). Personally, while I don't believe I've heard every relevant fact, it sounded to me like he literally said to peacefully protest at the Capitol. I heard no calls for insurrection.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like someone is smoking too much marijuana out in CO.

Trump must be on the ballot. Or CO will turn into a total $hith*le state.

I really don’t need to read any other replies. This this this.

Why a group of democrat judges thought a completely partisan ruling was wise is beyond me.

Narrator: it was republicans that brought the case.

Republicans brought the case. There was a trial in which Trump participated. The evidence demonstrated that he tried to use violence to prevent Congress from transferring power to the rightful President in order to take control of the government himself. That meets even the narrowest definition of "insurrection." The Constitution says that insurrectionists, like people under 35 and people not born in the U.S., can't hold federal office.

People are bending themselves in knots trying to pretend that attempting to violently overthrow the government isn't "insurrection," or that the office of the President isn't an "office," or that a five day trial isn't due process or any number of other contortions that would prevent their cult leader from taking control of the U.S. Because they hate liberals more than they love our country.

that you need to lie to have an argument speaks volumes. Also Trump wasn’t charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

Why the obsession with conviction? Did you figure out how that’s relevant yet?

DP, but we do have a presumption of innocence in our system. So a conviction, the only mechanism to officially declare culpability, seems pretty relevant.

And he’s still innocent, he’s just ineligible. Same as if he was 30, or if he was born in Germany.

Those are bright line tests. Being 30 or German is a statement of fact. Whether Trump is an insurrectionist is a matter of opinion until he's tried in court and convicted. In this case, they took the word of a sociologist who said that Trump speaks in code to instruct followers to do insurrection. That's kind of a bizarre line of logic (how do they know the code? Did he share the code through an intermediary? There's no explanation). Personally, while I don't believe I've heard every relevant fact, it sounded to me like he literally said to peacefully protest at the Capitol. I heard no calls for insurrection.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what happens (and it seems obvious that this decision was wrong on multiple levels), this basically guarantees that the next election will be far, far worse than the last. Republicans will think that lawfare was used against their candidate, essentially rigging the election. And democrats will think a person with no legitimate basis to be on the ballot won the presidency. No matter the outcome of the election, 50% of the public will think the election is illegitimate. If you are shrugging this stuff off, you've spent exactly zero time in a war zone.

Sadly, I agree with this. I've said before that America is over, and sadly, I think it really may be.

sadly I agree too. as a conservative and a Trump lover, I am almost hoping that all these awful tactics by the left succeed and get Trump out of the way, because any of the other 4-5 potential candidates would win pretty easily over corrupt senile Joe, and then the country would start to heal and get back to normal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what happens (and it seems obvious that this decision was wrong on multiple levels), this basically guarantees that the next election will be far, far worse than the last. Republicans will think that lawfare was used against their candidate, essentially rigging the election. And democrats will think a person with no legitimate basis to be on the ballot won the presidency. No matter the outcome of the election, 50% of the public will think the election is illegitimate. If you are shrugging this stuff off, you've spent exactly zero time in a war zone.

Sadly, I agree with this. I've said before that America is over, and sadly, I think it really may be.

sadly I agree too. as a conservative and a Trump lover, I am almost hoping that all these awful tactics by the left succeed and get Trump out of the way, because any of the other 4-5 potential candidates would win pretty easily over corrupt senile Joe, and then the country would start to heal and get back to normal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like someone is smoking too much marijuana out in CO.

Trump must be on the ballot. Or CO will turn into a total $hith*le state.

I really don’t need to read any other replies. This this this.

Why a group of democrat judges thought a completely partisan ruling was wise is beyond me.

Narrator: it was republicans that brought the case.

Republicans brought the case. There was a trial in which Trump participated. The evidence demonstrated that he tried to use violence to prevent Congress from transferring power to the rightful President in order to take control of the government himself. That meets even the narrowest definition of "insurrection." The Constitution says that insurrectionists, like people under 35 and people not born in the U.S., can't hold federal office.

People are bending themselves in knots trying to pretend that attempting to violently overthrow the government isn't "insurrection," or that the office of the President isn't an "office," or that a five day trial isn't due process or any number of other contortions that would prevent their cult leader from taking control of the U.S. Because they hate liberals more than they love our country.

that you need to lie to have an argument speaks volumes. Also Trump wasn’t charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

Why the obsession with conviction? Did you figure out how that’s relevant yet?

DP, but we do have a presumption of innocence in our system. So a conviction, the only mechanism to officially declare culpability, seems pretty relevant.

And he’s still innocent, he’s just ineligible. Same as if he was 30, or if he was born in Germany.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what happens (and it seems obvious that this decision was wrong on multiple levels), this basically guarantees that the next election will be far, far worse than the last. Republicans will think that lawfare was used against their candidate, essentially rigging the election. And democrats will think a person with no legitimate basis to be on the ballot won the presidency. No matter the outcome of the election, 50% of the public will think the election is illegitimate. If you are shrugging this stuff off, you've spent exactly zero time in a war zone.

Sadly, I agree with this. I've said before that America is over, and sadly, I think it really may be.

sadly I agree too. as a conservative and a Trump lover, I am almost hoping that all these awful tactics by the left succeed and get Trump out of the way, because any of the other 4-5 potential candidates would win pretty easily over corrupt senile Joe, and then the country would start to heal and get back to normal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what happens (and it seems obvious that this decision was wrong on multiple levels), this basically guarantees that the next election will be far, far worse than the last. Republicans will think that lawfare was used against their candidate, essentially rigging the election. And democrats will think a person with no legitimate basis to be on the ballot won the presidency. No matter the outcome of the election, 50% of the public will think the election is illegitimate. If you are shrugging this stuff off, you've spent exactly zero time in a war zone.

Sadly, I agree with this. I've said before that America is over, and sadly, I think it really may be.