Hodad

OMG, you're obviously trying to wear out the entire concept of irony. 🤣

You have zero room to call anyone a liar. It's like a morbidly obese person from one of those reality shows trying to call someone else chubby. I don't know at what point in your sad life you made the active decision to be a useless turd, but clearly you've made your peace with it.

Tripling down on your dishonesty. Enjoy, troll.

You are full of it. I didn't belittle anything except for you kooks. Voter impersonation fraud is comically easy to catch, like you've been told a thousand times. Anything at scale is little like trying to shoplift a surfboard by tucking or down your pants. It'll get caught exactly like this was. You posted a story about how fraud detection is effective, and you can't even understand how that further destroys your evidence-free claims of a stolen election. Lol

I didn't excuse anything, you lying jackass. You are just pathetic.

They are wrong. You are wrong. And you won't even try to support your argument because you know you are lying. You've been shown the numbers many times. You know full well that you are FOS. And you know that we know. You simply don't care because you have not shame and no honor. Your name is dirt.

By all means, if a howling mob of Democrats smash into the Capitol, assaulting police, calling for the death of the Vice President, Speaker of the House and other elected officials in an explicit attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, you are encouraged to call that an insurrection. Please do! I'd like to think everyone has the common sense to call such behavior an insurrection. I'd certainly call it that. Until then, I guess you'll keep defending, dismissing and minimizing such behavior while playing the victim when such behavior is prosecuted.🙄 Party of "personal responsibility" my ass.

Thanks once again for demonstrating how easily even small-scale fraud attempts are discovered, investigated and prosecuted---by Democrats, no less. Makes your already ridiculous, evidence-free claims of massive widespread fraud and a stolen election look sillier every day. And this was just a state and local primary, not the most scrutinized presidential election in history. You kooks are a bad joke. Unsurprisingly, you learned the wrong lesson.

Trump doesn't need to "prove" his innocence. But the evidence of his guilt is plain, incontrovertible and overwhelming. He lit that fire, sat and watched and threw more fuel on the "hang Mike Pence" fire, and didn't tell his mob to GTFO of the Capitol until after the elected officials he relished terrorizing were already secured. Then he told the patriotic special people that he loved to go home and remember this day forever. Every single thing he did building up to and during the insurrection is indefensible. You simply aren't going to get through to people who will so eagerly defend the indefensible. Good luck.

Don't you feel even a little bit dumb just repeating an opinion poll--and repeating yourself-- rather than looking at readily available facts? It's not clear whether you're telling us that you are incapable of understanding facts, or that you're incapable of distinguishing fact from opinion, or whether you simply believe that's facts aren't important, but whichever the case, it's not a good look.

Yeah, but it's not an exclusive club. Read some books, take some classes. Hell, even just look up the year-to-year data.

Right? The health of the economy isn't a guessing game. It's not a paint-your-feelings-by-number art project at the asylum. It's measured extensively and consistently on a huge number of metrics year after year. It's a fact that the Biden economy is night and day better than the dumpster fire he inherited from Trump, but it's also a fact that I'm just measures it's as good or better than pre-covid Trump. Most Americans are financially better off than they were four years ago. Math is math.

His fans have mistaken it for a protein packed chocolate super smoothie. They keep saying it's delicious. Can't get enough. 🤷‍♀️

You've got that backward. It was absolutely about slavery, and the defense of slavery was sometimes couched in the context of "states rights." Again, the secessionist states told the world exactly what it was about. Believe them.

Most people are economically illiterate. You are among them. Just like every time this conversation comes up, job creation has been very strong, unemployment is very low, personal purchasing power is up (outpacing inflation), stocks are at record levels, the housing market remains very strong. There's very little to complain about. Inflation (and interest - same issue) aren't great, but as long as our purchasing power is outpacing it we're net positive. Still, you carry on with the ignorant charade, parroting whatever your favorite talking heads have programmed you to complain about. And all you've got are your feelings.

You're a loon. There is absolutely no question that the US civil war was about slavery--both explicitly and implicitly. All but one of the states that issued reasons for secession identified slavery as a primary justification. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't issued until 2 years after the war began. Imagine, states take the time to write up articles explicitly explaining why they are seceding, and then 150 years later some uneducated internet jackasses decide to 'splain that "Nah, what they really meant was..."🤪 Sorry apologists for white supremacy, nobody is buying your revisionism.

The Biden economy is already better than the Trump economy in most measurables. Sorry your "feelings" don't agree with reality.

Also now ineligible and off the ballot in Maine.

No room for nuance or complexity? Yet, you're the one painting with a roller ("Of course politicians of opposing parties stick together.), while I'm the one presenting historical context and examples of politicians doing the right thing in spite of party. Rough case of projection you got there, buddy.

The U.S. Attorney for Colorado can bring federal criminal charges against someone, but it's not like a wedding D.J. situation. They don't take requests. And they don't have authority over Colorado ballots. More to the point, that's simply not how constitutional matters are handled. And this is the point you just refuse to accept and understand. If you think the state is violating your right to free speech, you file a civil suit. If you think someone has discriminated against you you file a civil suit. If you think Obama was born in Kenya and is ineligible, you file a civil suit. And yes, if you think Trump had been rendered intelligible due to his actions on and after Jan 6, you file a civil suit. Hell, even if he had been found guilty of insurrection in a criminal case, you'd still need to file a civil suit to remove him from the ballot. There is no component in criminal law to take such action. It's a civil matter. That's why this process IS due process. It's THE process.

I don't know whether this false equivalency and both-sides-ism makes you feel better about conservative politics or something, but it's objectively false. Nixon was going to be convicted because what he did was very wrong and Republicans of that era prized integrity of oath and office over pure party loyalty. Al Franken, a popular and influential Democrat, was dropped like a hot stone over what was ultimately a childish prank, but it was a prank in the sphere of an issue Democrats about which Democrats are passionate, so they put their money where their mouths are. A majority of Democratic Senators are actively calling for Mendez to resign over strong allegations. Today's GOP has an integrity problem. They should have been lined to to do the right thing and kick Trump to the curb for his egregious before, as they were prepared to do with Nixon. Many even publicly acknowledged Trump's misdeeds. But when it came time to cast a vote, they chose politics instead. "Winning hasf become more important than anything else, and they've learned that their voters jg offyust don't demand integrity any longer. Oaths of office are less important than any chance to "stick it to" the opposition. Why build something greatt when you can burn it all down instead?

Why? Primarily because the public citizens of Colorado have no power to bring federal criminal charges. They can, however bring a civil suit

Yes, they absolutely can. Impeachment is a political process, particularly right now. It can acquit, but not exonerate, btw. In the case of both impeachments, there is no question that Trump was guilty. His political party simply chose, for political reasons, not to hold him accountable. Case in point, for the 2nd impeachment McConnell and allies roundly and publicly condemned Trump for doing all of the things of which he was accused, but still voted against conviction on the thin premise that the process was negated when Trump was removed from office. The plain truth is that McConnell thought that after the coup attempt Trump was all done--no longer a threat to party or country, so he sought a politically expedient end to save further embarrassment to the party. He didn't want the next election cycle to be about how "the last Republican was convicted." I guarantee you that if those establishment folks had any inkling that Trump wouldn't go away, they would have bitten the bullet and voted to convict. To be fair, to Mitch and crew, it does seem preposterous to thinking Republicans that people would support the man after a coup attempt. They underestimated their success over two decades of grooming their base to tolerate anything that would spite the "liberals." And now here we are. The first President in the history of the country to subvert the peaceful transfer of power is the leading the race for the Republican nomination. The old guard did their work too well. Today's GOP doesn't believe in America. They don't believe in the constitution. They don't believe in elections and democracy. They believe in power at any price. They believe in vengeance and spite.

1. Punt. There is no established process anywhere. Someone has to have the courage to do the work and address thorny constitutional questions. 2. He was originally appointed to the bench by a Republican and is a registered Republican. Whether or not that's a factor in his reluctance, I can't say. ?‍♀️ 3. You think it's worse to be "cancelled" (publicly criticized) than face threat of death? Okaaaay. 4. Disagree. It would be excellent if our legal system would hold Trump accountable for his actions in a way that Republican senators refused to do--a refusal they are certainly now regretting. He did unimaginable harm to this country and was Mike Pence's moment of courage away from a successful coup. It is pure lunacy to give him another try.

You did make it clear, and I was criticizing his opinion. I think he's trying really hard to find any excuse to punt. Obviously this is a hornets nest of a case because it touches politics--Trump politics, specifically. Maybe he doesn't want to move houses or deal with death threats? Maybe it's because he's Republican and it's difficult these days to be a Republican and cross Trump? Maybe he's worried about being re-elected a year from now.?‍♂️ Whatever the cause, even if sincere and earnest, that kind of foot-dragging avoidance is a massive cop out. And the majority opinion called it out: "In our view, declining to decide an issue simply because it requires us to address difficult and weighty questions of constitutional interpretation would create a slippery slope that could lead to a prohibited dereliction of our constitutional duty to adjudicate cases that are properly before us." ^^ In other words, we shouldn't start punting on issues just because they are difficult or important, otherwise what's the goddamn point of a Supreme Court? lol I don't have any real qualifications. One of my degrees is a pre-law degree, so I've read and studied many of the landmark SCOTUS cases, and that informs my thinking. My goodness, where would we be if the SCOTUS had simply punted whenever they had to define and rule on sometimes nebulous language from centuries past? One last thing to add. It is actually quite common here for there to be overlap- and occasionally friction -between civil and criminal verdicts. They can and often do exist independent of one another. O.J. was acquitted in his murder trial, but found liable in his civil trial. Trump has been found liable for fraud in a civil trial now and no criminal trial has occurred. The fact that he hasn't been criminally tried for insurrection is similarly does not prevent such an assessment in a civil trial like this case. The lower court provided extensive fact finding and rationale in making the assessment, and even the dissenters on the CO Supreme Court aren't disputing Trump's involvement in the insurrection. If there is broad agreement that Trump has indeed fomented insurrection then all that is left is to figure out who makes the call on eligibility? And again, if not Supreme Courts, then who? There is no other option. That's what they are there for.