Anonymous
01/02/2024 10:54
Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:
I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.
You’re a traitor to your country.
Anonymous
01/02/2024 10:29
Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
MAGAs gotta MAGA.
Anonymous
01/02/2024 10:10
Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Man breaks into Colorado Supreme Court overnight and opens fire, police say
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/us/colorado-supreme-court-arrest
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/us/colorado-supreme-court-arrest
Anonymous
12/28/2023 08:28
Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.
This isn't a criminal matter, so there doesn't need to be a criminal charge.
This is a finding of fact that the defendant "engaged" in an insurrection, and a court, after a 5 day hearing with witnesses, a defense and no dispute of facts, found that the defendant did, in fact, engage in an insurrection and as such, was not eligible to appear on a state ballot for office, pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Article 3.
What you have posted is not, in fact, a part of the Amendment, but rather a newly conjured requirement that is beyond the plain text and understanding of, and intention behind, the Amendment to the Constitution.
Of course it would be a criminal matter. It would be "insurrection" according to you. That's one step removed from treason.
You want it so bad, you'll twist your logic into a pretzel to get your way. It's not happening.
Trump 2024!
Nope, you want to deny it so bad you cannot see the plain facts as presented.
Anonymous
12/28/2023 08:16
Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.
This isn't a criminal matter, so there doesn't need to be a criminal charge.
This is a finding of fact that the defendant "engaged" in an insurrection, and a court, after a 5 day hearing with witnesses, a defense and no dispute of facts, found that the defendant did, in fact, engage in an insurrection and as such, was not eligible to appear on a state ballot for office, pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Article 3.
What you have posted is not, in fact, a part of the Amendment, but rather a newly conjured requirement that is beyond the plain text and understanding of, and intention behind, the Amendment to the Constitution.
Of course it would be a criminal matter. It would be "insurrection" according to you. That's one step removed from treason.
You want it so bad, you'll twist your logic into a pretzel to get your way. It's not happening.
Trump 2024!
Where does the constitution say it requires a criminal conviction? Can’t find that in my copy.
Anonymous
12/27/2023 19:17
Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.
This isn't a criminal matter, so there doesn't need to be a criminal charge.
This is a finding of fact that the defendant "engaged" in an insurrection, and a court, after a 5 day hearing with witnesses, a defense and no dispute of facts, found that the defendant did, in fact, engage in an insurrection and as such, was not eligible to appear on a state ballot for office, pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Article 3.
What you have posted is not, in fact, a part of the Amendment, but rather a newly conjured requirement that is beyond the plain text and understanding of, and intention behind, the Amendment to the Constitution.
Of course it would be a criminal matter. It would be "insurrection" according to you. That's one step removed from treason.
You want it so bad, you'll twist your logic into a pretzel to get your way. It's not happening.
Trump 2024!
Anonymous
12/27/2023 16:43
Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.
This isn't a criminal matter, so there doesn't need to be a criminal charge.
This is a finding of fact that the defendant "engaged" in an insurrection, and a court, after a 5 day hearing with witnesses, a defense and no dispute of facts, found that the defendant did, in fact, engage in an insurrection and as such, was not eligible to appear on a state ballot for office, pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Article 3.
What you have posted is not, in fact, a part of the Amendment, but rather a newly conjured requirement that is beyond the plain text and understanding of, and intention behind, the Amendment to the Constitution.
The "originalists" and the "textualists" will quickly embrace a newly conjured requirement when it suits their purposes.
And, yeah, once again - there was a *five day* trial which resulted in a determination that Trump engaged in insurrection - an act which disqualifies him from assuming the office of President (which is, as the name would indicate, a federal office.)
Anonymous
12/27/2023 16:15
Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:
I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.
Please read the Colorado court decision. The court of law DID have a finding of an insurrection and that the defendant indeed engaged in it.
Anonymous
12/27/2023 16:14
Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:
I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.
This isn't a criminal matter, so there doesn't need to be a criminal charge.
This is a finding of fact that the defendant "engaged" in an insurrection, and a court, after a 5 day hearing with witnesses, a defense and no dispute of facts, found that the defendant did, in fact, engage in an insurrection and as such, was not eligible to appear on a state ballot for office, pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Article 3.
What you have posted is not, in fact, a part of the Amendment, but rather a newly conjured requirement that is beyond the plain text and understanding of, and intention behind, the Amendment to the Constitution.
Anonymous
12/27/2023 15:40
Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.
Anonymous
Anonymous
12/25/2023 14:38
Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:This is progressive porn.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Everyone has to keep in mind, the Federalist Society - the primary funders of the "conservative court" that bought and paid for Kavanaugh, Barrrett and Gorsuch is also underpinning the Haley campaign.
In other words, the money right is done with Trump. IMO, that more than anything else drives a SCTOUS decision.
If trump goes down, desantis is the nominee, not Haley. If you look at the polling, desantis is far and away the second choice among trump voters.
Imagine the Republican National Convention if Trump is in 2nd with a lot of pledged delegates and is pressured to formally concede and withdraw to release his delegates to vote for the winner to show unity (as the losing candidates all did in 2016).
Nah. It’s republicans pretending they still have a normal party. Everyone else knows how this is gonna go.
Anonymous
12/25/2023 13:33
Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
This is progressive porn.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Everyone has to keep in mind, the Federalist Society - the primary funders of the "conservative court" that bought and paid for Kavanaugh, Barrrett and Gorsuch is also underpinning the Haley campaign.
In other words, the money right is done with Trump. IMO, that more than anything else drives a SCTOUS decision.
If trump goes down, desantis is the nominee, not Haley. If you look at the polling, desantis is far and away the second choice among trump voters.
Imagine the Republican National Convention if Trump is in 2nd with a lot of pledged delegates and is pressured to formally concede and withdraw to release his delegates to vote for the winner to show unity (as the losing candidates all did in 2016).
Anonymous
12/25/2023 13:27
Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Everyone has to keep in mind, the Federalist Society - the primary funders of the "conservative court" that bought and paid for Kavanaugh, Barrrett and Gorsuch is also underpinning the Haley campaign.
In other words, the money right is done with Trump. IMO, that more than anything else drives a SCTOUS decision.
If trump goes down, desantis is the nominee, not Haley. If you look at the polling, desantis is far and away the second choice among trump voters.
Imagine the Republican National Convention if Trump is in 2nd with a lot of pledged delegates and is pressured to formally concede and withdraw to release his delegates to vote for the winner to show unity (as the losing candidates all did in 2016).
Anonymous
12/25/2023 13:20
Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Everyone has to keep in mind, the Federalist Society - the primary funders of the "conservative court" that bought and paid for Kavanaugh, Barrrett and Gorsuch is also underpinning the Haley campaign.
In other words, the money right is done with Trump. IMO, that more than anything else drives a SCTOUS decision.
If trump goes down, desantis is the nominee, not Haley. If you look at the polling, desantis is far and away the second choice among trump voters.
Trump will not go away. If he should lose in primaries then he will rum as a write in candidate and his base will vote for him.
This is the best case scenario to counter "no labels" and Joe Manchin (because we all know Manchin is going to happen)
Not to derail this thread but Manchin won’t run. He’s too lazy.