robosmith Posted September 8, 2023 Author Report Posted September 8, 2023 4 hours ago, CdnFox said: Sure there is. If they try without it goes to court and they lose. And then that opens the door to trump and the republicans doing that with many dems in teh future forcing them to jump through the hoops. Sigh. You're so mentally deficient, you're practically a walking billboard for putting an end to democracy. "THAT is a voter". You're no legal expert and certainly NOT about US law, so ^this OPINION MEANS less than NOTHING. Don't know who you're trying to fool besides YOURSELF. LMAO The FACT is, there are state election committees all over the country who decide whether a petitioner is qualified for the office and to be on the ballot. Here is one example for Wisconsin. Now go study up on reality in Canada, cause you're completely deficient. Quote
CdnFox Posted September 8, 2023 Report Posted September 8, 2023 12 hours ago, robosmith said: You're no legal expert No, i'm just 100 times smarter than you on the subject You don't need to be a legal expert to see this stuff, you just need to be smarter than a stick. Which is why i have to explain it to you . Quote Don't know who you're trying to fool besides YOURSELF. LMAO No one - like most people who talk to you i'm mostly in it for the hilarity of your responses Normally i'd have to pay to see someone be such a clown as you are, but you give it away for free Quote The FACT is, there are state election committees all over the country who decide whether a petitioner is qualified for the office and to be on the ballot. Not really. They can't just decide they don't like someone. There are rules to the game. If they break the rules then the courts get involved and that opens the door to the republicans loading the committees and denying whomever they don't like and forcing it to go to court every time. Don't worry your little head over it kiddo - the adults will take care of it Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Rebound Posted September 10, 2023 Report Posted September 10, 2023 On 9/8/2023 at 2:50 PM, CdnFox said: No, i'm just 100 times smarter than you on the subject You don't need to be a legal expert to see this stuff, you just need to be smarter than a stick. Which is why i have to explain it to you . No one - like most people who talk to you i'm mostly in it for the hilarity of your responses Normally i'd have to pay to see someone be such a clown as you are, but you give it away for free Not really. They can't just decide they don't like someone. There are rules to the game. If they break the rules then the courts get involved and that opens the door to the republicans loading the committees and denying whomever they don't like and forcing it to go to court every time. Don't worry your little head over it kiddo - the adults will take care of it Legally, the events of January 6 were an insurrection. Federal law says so. And Trump formerly took and oath to defend the constitution. I agree that the issue will eventually wind up in courts and probably the US Supreme Court. But the only issue they can rule on is whether or not Donald Trump was a participant, planner, or an aid/comforter of the insurrection. If he was, the Constitution says he is disqualified. I don’t think it relies upon a criminal conviction because hundreds of Confederate officers were barred from serving in the government after the Civil War, and they weren’t tried for it. I cannot predict how the US Supreme Court will rule on the subject. 1 Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
CdnFox Posted September 10, 2023 Report Posted September 10, 2023 1 hour ago, Rebound said: Legally, the events of January 6 were an insurrection. Federal law says so. Federal law doesn't "Say" if an event was insurrection or not - courts do that. If you're referring to that document that i've already explained this about - then you're knowingly lying. My quesiton would be why? If the truth doesn't help your point and you have to lie to make your point, then you probably don't have a very good point. Quote I agree that the issue will eventually wind up in courts and probably the US Supreme Court. But the only issue they can rule on is whether or not Donald Trump was a participant, planner, or an aid/comforter of the insurrection. Well no - they can rule on a number of things. Was this an 'insurrection' as envisioned by the law in question? Did he participate in a manner envisioned by the law. etc etc. But the fact remains that until a court says 'He did this, and therefore under this section he's disqaualified', then he's not. If an authority tried to sidestep that - they would open the door to SEVERE abuses of that for every democrat moving forward as well. Every single dem could find that "in the opinion of the authority" they're guilty of something that precludes them from running, until they go to court and get a judge to say otherwise at their own expense. 1 Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Rebound Posted September 10, 2023 Report Posted September 10, 2023 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: Federal law doesn't "Say" if an event was insurrection or not - courts do that. If you're referring to that document that i've already explained this about - then you're knowingly lying. My quesiton would be why? If the truth doesn't help your point and you have to lie to make your point, then you probably don't have a very good point. Well no - they can rule on a number of things. Was this an 'insurrection' as envisioned by the law in question? Did he participate in a manner envisioned by the law. etc etc. But the fact remains that until a court says 'He did this, and therefore under this section he's disqaualified', then he's not. If an authority tried to sidestep that - they would open the door to SEVERE abuses of that for every democrat moving forward as well. Every single dem could find that "in the opinion of the authority" they're guilty of something that precludes them from running, until they go to court and get a judge to say otherwise at their own expense. No, you twit. The Federal Law states that insurrectionists entered the Capitol on January 6. It doesn’t call them insurrectionists because they were insurrectionists BEFORE January 6 or because of what they did AFTER January 6. They are called insurrectionists because of what they did ON January 6 at the US Capitol. You can deny deny deny it doesn’t matter, because their actions were caught on video for all the world to see. All your lies won’t erase it. Trump supporters hate America and they tried to overthrow the government. Making Trump President instead of Biden would have been the end of democratically elected government in America. Trump used to say over and over maybe he’d be President a third or fourth term. He thinks rules don’t apply to him which is why he’s going to wind up in prison, and so will you if you keep going through life denying the validity of laws. We are a society of law and if we don’t follow them we wind up in jail. Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
Rebound Posted September 10, 2023 Report Posted September 10, 2023 On 9/3/2023 at 5:03 PM, CdnFox said: Without a conviction who's to say that it was an insurrection? Can't have it both ways A court is the legal body that decides such things. An insurrection or the like is a criminal offense and to demonstrate someone participated in one would require a conviction. Sorry - but it would be patently insane to suggest that it was ok to bar people from running for public office without such a conviction for that clause By your logic, Barack Obama can run for President again, because he hasn’t been convicted of being President twice. 1 1 Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
robosmith Posted September 13, 2023 Author Report Posted September 13, 2023 Routine Disqualification: Every State Has Kept Ineligible Candidates Off the Ballot, and Trump Could Be Next Quote Quote Following the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, many continue to push state officials and courts to bar insurrectionists from office or the ballot pursuant to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies from office anyone who has sworn an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection against it. This provision of the Constitution — also known as the disqualification clause — has successfully barred elected officials who engaged in insurrection from serving in office as recently as last year, in New Mexico state court litigation. .... All three branches of government have called the attack on the Capitol an insurrection. Moreover, the bipartisan U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (“the Committee”) concluded that Trump was the “central cause” of the “insurrection” and recommended that action be taken to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to disqualify any officials who violated their oath to defend the Constitution by engaging in the insurrection on January 6. While a criminal conviction is not a necessary prerequisite to disqualification under Section 3, the conduct alleged in the recent indictments of Trump by the Justice Department and the Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney underscore the depth of Trump’s responsibility for fomenting the insurrection. While Trump’s illegal attempt to disrupt the constitutional election certification process by mobilizing a violent mob to assemble in Washington, DC, and “fight like hell” at the Capitol was an unprecedented event in American history, removing disqualified candidates from the ballot is not. It is a standard and essential tool used by secretaries of state and other state election officials to maintain the integrity of their electoral processes by barring individuals who are not constitutionally qualified to run for or hold office. Secretaries of state should exercise this authority, consistent with their states’ laws, to implement the Committee’s recommendation to enforce Section 3 by excluding from the ballot candidates who are ineligible to hold office. Criminal conviction is NOT necessary and SoS DECIDE. Subject to review by courts, of course. Quote
CdnFox Posted September 13, 2023 Report Posted September 13, 2023 17 minutes ago, robosmith said: Routine Disqualification: Every State Has Kept Ineligible Candidates Off the Ballot, and Trump Could Be Next Criminal conviction is NOT necessary and SoS DECIDE. Subject to review by courts, of course. Your OPINION is USELESS without FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
CdnFox Posted September 13, 2023 Report Posted September 13, 2023 On 9/10/2023 at 3:54 PM, Rebound said: By your logic, Barack Obama can run for President again, because he hasn’t been convicted of being President twice. He actually has been. The courts have recognized him as president twice. And the authority vested with the power to recognize the president has. That was easily one of the most stupid things youv'e said. And it was up against some pretty stiff competition. Please don't insult me with that level of !diocy. I'm sure even you can do better than something that wouldn't impress a kindergarten student. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
robosmith Posted September 13, 2023 Author Report Posted September 13, 2023 45 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Your OPINION is USELESS without FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!! Clearly you're not used to seeing evidence and don't even know what it is. Facts were given in the article cited. Are you so dense you don't understand that? LMAO Quote
robosmith Posted September 13, 2023 Author Report Posted September 13, 2023 (edited) 47 minutes ago, CdnFox said: He actually has been. The courts have recognized him as president twice. And the authority vested with the power to recognize the president has. That was easily one of the most stupid things youv'e said. And it was up against some pretty stiff competition. Please don't insult me with that level of !diocy. I'm sure even you can do better than something that wouldn't impress a kindergarten student. What courts have recognized him as president twice? Did some judge render an opinion? Cite them or you're just spouting BULLSHIT as USUAL. Edited September 13, 2023 by robosmith Quote
CdnFox Posted September 13, 2023 Report Posted September 13, 2023 6 hours ago, robosmith said: Clearly you're not used to seeing evidence and don't even know what it is. Facts were given in the article cited. Are you so dense you don't understand that? LMAO Nope. Sorry but you have a horrible habit of postnig something and PRETENDING it SUPPORTS your POSITION when IT DOES NOT. Am i going to have to explain facts to you as well? Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
CdnFox Posted September 13, 2023 Report Posted September 13, 2023 On 9/10/2023 at 2:53 PM, Rebound said: No, you twit. The Federal Law states that insurrectionists entered the Capitol on January 6. It doesn’t call them insurrectionists because they were insurrectionists BEFORE January 6 or because of what they did AFTER January 6. They are called insurrectionists because of what they did ON January 6 at the US Capitol. Nope. Again that's not how law works. And you're really couldn't look much dumber. A person is not an event. If someone commits a robbery and i throw them in jail - i might say ' a robber was placed in jail". That does not make the act of placing them in jail a robbery. A person is an insurrectionist the moment they start planning an insurrection. IF the police had raided their homes and found plans to raid the house and arrested them before anything happened, they still would have been insurrectionists. So no. There is no law which makes jan 6 an insurrection and it's stupid to say so. Quote You can deny deny deny it doesn’t matter, because their actions were caught on video for all the world to see. So was the keennedy assassination and we still don't know what happened there And once again - and let me go slowly for you here - whether or not the actions recorded were an 'insurrection' can only be determined in a legal sense by a judge in a court. WORSE - it may have to be determined on an individual basis, because the definition of 'insurrection' includes a component of intent. And it's liars and dishonest people like you that allow trump to continue to soar in the polls and succeed. Anyone takes one look at your rubbish and they KNOW that "your side" is lying. Which makes it seem like perhaps trump is telling the truth. If you're bound and determined to be as dishonest as trump - you can't really complain if trump is dishonest can you? You're no better. 1 Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Nationalist Posted September 13, 2023 Report Posted September 13, 2023 9 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Nope. Again that's not how law works. And you're really couldn't look much dumber. A person is not an event. If someone commits a robbery and i throw them in jail - i might say ' a robber was placed in jail". That does not make the act of placing them in jail a robbery. A person is an insurrectionist the moment they start planning an insurrection. IF the police had raided their homes and found plans to raid the house and arrested them before anything happened, they still would have been insurrectionists. So no. There is no law which makes jan 6 an insurrection and it's stupid to say so. So was the keennedy assassination and we still don't know what happened there And once again - and let me go slowly for you here - whether or not the actions recorded were an 'insurrection' can only be determined in a legal sense by a judge in a court. WORSE - it may have to be determined on an individual basis, because the definition of 'insurrection' includes a component of intent. And it's liars and dishonest people like you that allow trump to continue to soar in the polls and succeed. Anyone takes one look at your rubbish and they KNOW that "your side" is lying. Which makes it seem like perhaps trump is telling the truth. If you're bound and determined to be as dishonest as trump - you can't really complain if trump is dishonest can you? You're no better. They're obviously scared shitless and are panicking. What they don't understand is, as they mount more and more bullshit on this shitheap of destruction they've unleashed...there will be an equal and opposite reaction. Frankly though...I don't think they care. They have been taken so completely that all they know is "GET TRUMP". They don't realize that, while they're all focused on the "left" hand...the "right" hand is about to clobber them. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
CdnFox Posted September 13, 2023 Report Posted September 13, 2023 Just now, Nationalist said: They're obviously scared shitless and are panicking. What they don't understand is, as they mount more and more bullshit on this shitheap of destruction they've unleashed...there will be an equal and opposite reaction. Frankly though...I don't think they care. They have been taken so completely that all they know is "GET TRUMP". They don't realize that, while they're all focused on the "left" hand...the "right" hand is about to clobber them. To be honest - i really don't know what the hell is going on in their minds. If it was just now - i'd say that yes, their actions appear to be driven by fear and panic. But - this has been going on since the day trump got elected and before. It's borderline cult-ish and fanatic. Like you feel like if you looked at their planning calendar it would start with "8:30 - wake up. 8:31 - hate trump" And then just be 'hate trump hate trump' for all the other time slots. I mean, the republicans can be silly about stuff too - i thought 4 years of 'show us your birth certificiate' was pretty amusing. But - nobody took that seriously or refused to put obama on the ballot and nobody spent night and day trying to get him arrested on ANY crime at all. And it was funny But this? Imagine thinking that calling someone an insurrectionist in a document is the same as the court ruling it's an insurrection. It's insane. Like... "maybe that person shouldn't be free on the streets" level of insane. And yeah - they're completely driving Trump's success right now. 1 Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Rebound Posted September 13, 2023 Report Posted September 13, 2023 8 hours ago, CdnFox said: He actually has been. The courts have recognized him as president twice. And the authority vested with the power to recognize the president has. That was easily one of the most stupid things youv'e said. And it was up against some pretty stiff competition. Please don't insult me with that level of !diocy. I'm sure even you can do better than something that wouldn't impress a kindergarten student. You aren’t much of a legal expert if you don’t know that the US Constitution prohibits anyone for serving as President for a third term. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and George W Bush are all Constitutionally prohibited from being President again. They don’t need to be put on trial to determine that. Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
CdnFox Posted September 13, 2023 Report Posted September 13, 2023 1 minute ago, Rebound said: You aren’t much of a legal expert if you don’t know that the US Constitution prohibits anyone for serving as President for a third term. You aren't much of an english expert if you don't know that i never claimed otherwise. Quote Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and George W Bush are all Constitutionally prohibited from being President again. They don’t need to be put on trial to determine that. The courts have already recognized they were presidents. It's not about the trial. You see... in america once a trial has happened, then a judge or jury or other lawful body in some cases will render what's called a "verdict". That is the courts official recognition of the status of the claim. And it is THAT - rather than a trial - which people point to later and say 'this person is or is not guilty or not guilty' so on and so forth. Courts ALSO recognize things in other ways. The courts have already recognized the former presidents as former presidents. And again - it's that recognition that's important. But - no court has ever recognized that the jan 9 even itself was an insurrection. And they certainly have not ruled that Trump participated in it as envisioned by the constitution. And they are the only body legally empowered to do so. it is unbelievable that you need to have this explained to you . This is why the US is in such a mess. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
robosmith Posted September 14, 2023 Author Report Posted September 14, 2023 On 9/12/2023 at 11:19 PM, CdnFox said: He actually has been. The courts have recognized him as president twice. And the authority vested with the power to recognize the president has. That was easily one of the most stupid things youv'e said. And it was up against some pretty stiff competition. Please don't insult me with that level of !diocy. I'm sure even you can do better than something that wouldn't impress a kindergarten student. What courts have recognized him as president twice? Did some judge render an opinion? LMAO Cite them or you're just spouting BULLSHIT. Trump faces another 14th Amendment candidacy challenge, this time in Minnesota Quote A liberal group filed a lawsuit Tuesday to block former President Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot in Minnesota, the second major lawsuit in two weeks that hopes to invoke the 14th Amendment’s arcane ‘insurrectionist ban,’ Quote
CdnFox Posted September 14, 2023 Report Posted September 14, 2023 48 minutes ago, robosmith said: What courts have recognized him as president twice? Did some judge render an opinion? LMAO Yes - they accepted the laws he passed as valid and his directions too. That's all it takes. Sigh - here i am stuck tutoring you on the basics again. I'm going to have to start charging you know, Poor little guy. You always wind up looking so silly Now - could you point out which court has said that trump was involved with insurrection as envisioned by the constitution? No? Nothing? Gotcha Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
robosmith Posted September 28, 2023 Author Report Posted September 28, 2023 The Supreme Court Needs to Make a Call on Trump’s Eligibility Quote There’s an old saying that sometimes it is more important for the law to be certain than to be right. Certainty allows people to plan their actions knowing what the rules are going to be.Nowhere is this principle more urgent than when it comes to the question of whether Donald Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election results have disqualified him from becoming president again. As cases raising the question have begun working their way through the courts in Colorado, Minnesota, and elsewhere, the country needs the Supreme Court to fully resolve the issue as soon as possible. Quote
robosmith Posted October 27, 2023 Author Report Posted October 27, 2023 Lawsuit to block Trump from Colorado 2024 ballot survives more legal challenges Quote A judge has rejected three more attempts by former President Donald Trump and the Colorado GOP to shut down a lawsuit seeking to block him from the 2024 presidential ballot in the state based on the 14th Amendment’s ‘insurrectionist ban. The flurry of rulings late Friday from Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace are a blow to Trump, who faces candidacy challenges in multiple states stemming from his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection. He still has a pending motion to throw out the Colorado lawsuit, but the case now appears on track for an unprecedented trial this month. Quote
Rebound Posted October 27, 2023 Report Posted October 27, 2023 7 hours ago, robosmith said: Lawsuit to block Trump from Colorado 2024 ballot survives more legal challenges Trump’s arguments so far have been ridiculous, essentially they all claim that the 14th Amendment has no power or authority over anything. The judge has correctly ruled that the only issue here is whether Donald Trump participated in or aided an insurrection. Don’t you just love how the right wing talks about the Constitution as a biblically sacrosanct document which must be followed with absolute, rigorous adherence, except when it doesn’t suit them? Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
robosmith Posted October 27, 2023 Author Report Posted October 27, 2023 4 hours ago, Rebound said: Trump’s arguments so far have been ridiculous, essentially they all claim that the 14th Amendment has no power or authority over anything. The judge has correctly ruled that the only issue here is whether Donald Trump participated in or aided an insurrection. Don’t you just love how the right wing talks about the Constitution as a biblically sacrosanct document which must be followed with absolute, rigorous adherence, except when it doesn’t suit them? Actually I fear that extends to the SCOTUS and the right wing JoSCOTUS who've been bought by the maga-wealthy. Quote
Rebound Posted October 27, 2023 Report Posted October 27, 2023 1 hour ago, robosmith said: Actually I fear that extends to the SCOTUS and the right wing JoSCOTUS who've been bought by the maga-wealthy. Maybe. Then again, perhaps they don’t want to hand the Presidency to someone who would gleefully undercut their authority. Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
robosmith Posted November 2, 2023 Author Report Posted November 2, 2023 On 10/27/2023 at 11:50 AM, Rebound said: Maybe. Then again, perhaps they don’t want to hand the Presidency to someone who would gleefully undercut their authority. Colorado judge paves way for trial on whether 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot Quote A Colorado judge has rejected another attempt by former President Donald Trump to throw out a lawsuit seeking to block him from the 2024 presidential ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s ‘insurrectionist ban. The ruling Wednesday from Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace clears the way for an unprecedented trial to begin next week, to determine if Trump is disqualified from returning to the White House because of his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection. This is the fifth unsuccessful bid by Trump to throw out the Colorado case, which is one of several pending suits trying to derail his candidacy based on the 14th Amendment. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.