Colorado Supreme Court rules insurrectionist Trump ineligible

[Deluge]

32 minutes ago, robosmith said:

1. Conservapedia isn't evidence; it's just a story written on a partisan hack website.

2. Real evidence is is REPORTING by PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS that have a REPUTATION of adhering to PROFESSIONAL ETHICAL STANDARDS.

Or sworn testimony by witnesses UNDER OATH.

3. Thanks for proving you can't read. When I told you why he got off, you didn't even understand that it wasn't because he was not guilty. Duh.

1. Yes it is. You have to actually go through the material and refute it, if you disagree. Now I suggest you get off your fat ass and go to work. There's a lot of info in there. 

2. Sorry, dipsh*t, your idea of professional journalists and legal officials are nothing more than political activists - all of them. I'm afraid you're just going to have to go f*ck yourself. 

3. Oh, I read all the time; I take the information in, process it, and then weed out the bullshit. YOU, on the other hand, are a receptacle/dispenser - you take left-wing bullshit in, and then spew it all over the masses. It's annoying as hell, but at least you're easy to identify and refute. 

In the eyes of the court he was not guilty. What part of that do you not understand? 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by Deluge

[Aristides]

On 12/24/2023 at 11:44 AM, -TSS- said:

Trump returning as President is out of the question. It just won't be allowed to happen. If he can't be banned through courts then he will fall down the stairs or some other similar mishap but he will see the White House only from distance.

One can only hope. Looks like Haley is on a bit of a role, if she gets close enough, Trump might actually have to debate.

[Deluge]

On 12/24/2023 at 12:44 PM, -TSS- said:

Trump returning as President is out of the question. It just won't be allowed to happen. If he can't be banned through courts then he will fall down the stairs or some other similar mishap but he will see the White House only from distance.

Only if woke cultists are successful, and it's difficult to imagine how ugly things will get if those perverts pull off a second rigging. 

[robosmith]

56 minutes ago, Deluge said:

1. Yes it is. You have to actually go through the material and refute it, if you disagree. Now I suggest you get off your fat ass and go to work. There's a lot of info in there. 

Prove that conservastupidity has a reputation for CREDIBILITY. Otherwise it's just a blog.

56 minutes ago, Deluge said:

2. Sorry, dipsh*t, your idea of professional journalists and legal officials are nothing more than political activists - all of them. I'm afraid you're just going to have to go f*ck yourself. 

So you claim. But you claim the same for EVERY cite you don't like with NO EVIDENCE to prove them wrong.

In the NEWS business REPUTATION is EVERYTHING. FOS LIES lost their COMPLETELY when they had to pay $800M for LYING.

56 minutes ago, Deluge said:

3. Oh, I read all the time; I take the information in, process it, and then weed out the bullshit. YOU, on the other hand, are a receptacle/dispenser - you take left-wing bullshit in, and then spew it all over the masses. It's annoying as hell, but at least you're easy to identify and refute. 

In the eyes of the court he was not guilty. What part of that do you not understand? 

And I told you WHY they found it him not guilty and it WASN'T HIS INNOCENCE. 

I KNOW that's what YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. Nobody who can read is buying your BULLSHIT.

[Deluge]

16 minutes ago, robosmith said:

1. Prove that conserva...

No; we're done derailing this thread. 

The OP states that the Colorado SC made a decision based on FACT; that is complete bullshit, and the 14th Amendment gives ZERO support to that decision. 

Disagree? PROVE IT. 

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by Deluge

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Conservapedia isn't evidence; it's just a story written on a partisan hack website.

Real evidence is is REPORTING by PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS that have a REPUTATION of adhering to PROFESSIONAL ETHICAL STANDARDS.

Or sworn testimony by witnesses UNDER OATH.

Thanks for proving you can't read. When I told you why he got off, you didn't even understand that it wasn't because he was not guilty. Duh.

Denial -  not just a river in Egypt apparently

[robosmith]

44 minutes ago, Deluge said:

No; we're done derailing this thread. 

The OP states that the Colorado SC made a decision based on FACT; that is complete bullshit, and the 14th Amendment gives ZERO support to that decision. 

Disagree? PROVE IT. 

Because you cannot: Prove that conservastupidity has a reputation for CREDIBILITY.

Since no proof of credibility, it's just a blog.

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

 

Quote

 

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be untrustworthy and should be fact-checked per article. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate Conservapedia Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies, and outright false information. This is not a credible source on any level or known criteria.

---

Detailed Report

Reasoning: Propaganda, Conspiracy, Fake News
Bias Rating: EXTREME RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED

 

 

[Deluge]

20 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Because you cannot: Prove that conserva

 

Well, at least you agree that the Colorado SC is wrong. 

I told you to read through that source. What's the hold up? 

 

[robosmith]

15 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Well, at least you agree that the Colorado SC is wrong. 

^DELUGINAL FANTASY again

15 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I told you to read through that source. What's the hold up? 

I proved your source completely lacks credibility, so why should I read it?

[Deluge]

16 minutes ago, robosmith said:

1. ^DELUGINAL FANTASY again

2. I proved your source completely lacks credibility, so why should I read it?

1. robodeceptiveness thinks that with the help of global marxists, he can overcome anything.

2. Because you didn't prove my source lacks credibility.

Now stop being an empty headed shill and use your brain for once.

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Deluge said:

1. robodeceptiveness thinks that with the help of global marxists, he can overcome anything.

DELUGINAL is under that DELUGIN that his OPINION means something wrt FACT.

6 hours ago, Deluge said:

2. Because you didn't prove my source lacks credibility.

Now stop being an empty headed shill and use your brain for once.

First you failed to prove the source is credible, and then I posted the REASONS IT'S NOT. Duh

'Extreme right wing bias, conspiracy theories, and LIES.'

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

DELUGINAL is under that DELUGIN that his OPINION means something wrt FACT.

First you failed to prove the source is credible, and then I posted the REASONS IT'S NOT. Duh

'Extreme right wing bias, conspiracy theories, and LIES.'

LOL - it is not up to the person to prove the source is credible - if a source has been provided and evidence given it would be up to you to prove the source and information is inaccurate.

 

[Caswell Thomas]

On 12/25/2023 at 4:46 PM, CdnFox said:

ROFLMAO - i'll call you a liar to your face if you claim to have legal training.    You've been QUITE clear you have NO clue and thought trump would go to jail for 'fraud' and that civil fraud was 'new' and not a real thing  

I've met labradoodles with more legal knowledge than you. 

4 year olds trying to explain how they broke a dish make more compelling legal arguments than you

You would need it explained to you what "go to jail, do not collect 200 dollars' means.

Any 'legal certificate' you have would have also come with a secret decoder ring

LOL - thanks for the chuckle kid  

Ah, for all your gobblygook, it is true. Except for the ring, I don't accept jewelry from terrorists, you never know whose hand it was on last, or who kissed it. 

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:

Ah, for all your gobblygook, it is true. Except for the ring, I don't accept jewelry from terrorists, you never know whose hand it was on last, or who kissed it. 

Uh huh.  Say hi to your preschool teacher for me when your classes resume in the new year.

[West]

Far lefties seek to install communism in the US by eliminating rival political candidates. That's the true headline

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, West said:

Far lefties seek to install communism in the US by eliminating rival political candidates. That's the true headline

Well this is what is kind of disturbing.  I mean there's always been lots of political gamesmenship but over the last 7 years it's gotten more and more out of control.

Fake dossiers?  Weaponizing the FBI?  Agent's breaking the law to go after political opponents? Talking how they'll do anything to keep a politician out of office?  the numerous harassment lawsuits we've seen? Trying to bar someone from running on the thinnest and cheeziest of pretexts?  And it seems to be getting worse.

When the republicans have had enough and strike back (and they will), democracy will be in real trouble. Is THAT the dem's actual end game?  Destroy people's belief and trust in democracy so ... what, they can take over or something or justify doing away with democracy altogether?  Or do they just not care if the country burns as long as they get what they want for the next 15 minutes?

[robosmith]

19 minutes ago, West said:

Far lefties seek to install communism in the US by eliminating rival political candidates. That's the true headline

Nope. It's in the Constitution and unlike corrupt right wingers, that still means a lot to ALL "lefties."

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

Nope. It's in the Constitution and unlike corrupt right wingers, that still means a lot to ALL "lefties."

The constitution is meaningless to the left.  We all know that. They've pretty much said as much.

However - turns out a number of courts disagree with your ...  ahhh... interpretations   How strange wouldn't you say? Seeing as it's so cut and dry with no room for error

[Deluge]

On 12/26/2023 at 8:04 PM, robosmith said:

1. DELUGINAL is under that DELUGIN that his OPINION means something wrt FACT.

2. First you failed to prove the source is credible,

1. roboradical is the poster child for make-believe left-wing fantasy. 

2. Wrong. You failed to disprove my sources. 

You see, stoopid, this is how it works. I lay down the argument with my sources, and then YOU try to disprove my argument. What you're trying to do is have ME prove my sources while you sit on your ass and watch Ru Paul's Drag Race. That's not how it works, my f*cked up little communist. 

Now, get off your Marxist worshipping ass, and go prove my sources wrong. We don't move forward until you do.

 

[robosmith]

19 minutes ago, Deluge said:

1. roboradical is the poster child for make-believe left-wing fantasy. 

2. Wrong. You failed to disprove my sources. 

In reality I posted strong evidence your cite is BULLSHIT and you've posted NOTHING which claims they're credible. 

AKA, you're DELUGINAL as always.

[Deluge]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

In reality I posted strong evidence your cite is BULLSHIT and you've posted NOTHING which claims they're credible. 

AKA, you're DELUGINAL as always.

I'm sorry, Tool, but your source is run by leftist and true pile of sh*t, Dave Van Zandt. 

Let's see what Palmer Report has to say about your fellow sociopath's rag.

https://www.palmerreport.com/politics/palmer-report-exclusive-media-bias-fact-check/2115/

Now quit stalling and go prove my source wrong. 

Edited December 28, 2023 by Deluge

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, Deluge said:

I'm sorry, Tool, but your source is run by leftist and true pile of sh*t, Dave Van Zandt. 

Let's see what Palmer Report has to say about your fellow sociopath's rag.

https://www.palmerreport.com/politics/palmer-report-exclusive-media-bias-fact-check/2115/

Now quit stalling and go prove my source wrong. 

Your cite is not credible until you PROVE it's credible. And ^this cite says NOTHING about the critique of CONSERVATSTUPIDITY that I posted. Any fool can see it has extreme right wing bias. Obviously that's WHY YOU USE IT.

[Hodad]

Also now ineligible and off the ballot in Maine.

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Also now ineligible and off the ballot in Maine.

Yep - another democrat takes the law into his own hands for political reasons to deny democracy.

[robosmith]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yep - another democrat takes the enforces the qualification requirements in the Constitution into his own hands for political reasons to deny SAVE democracy from those who would destroy it for their own vanity.

ftfy....

Your denial will not change the laws that Trump violated.