Rep. Cammack to Newsmax: Colo. Ruling Is 'Judicial Activism'

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, suds said:

Then who in Colorado has the power to bring federal criminal charges? Why couldn't public citizens approach them concerning Trump and federal statute 18 USC-2383? What they (the public citizens or electors) did here was a sleazy back door way of doing things. Then the Colorado District and Colorado Supreme Courts make up their own definitions of what 'insurrection' means. Perhaps Section 3 was made vague for certain reasons? Saying that insurrection is the "concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power" points its finger straight at Jan 6 and really no where else. Are they really allowed to do that then contend that Trump played a part in an insurrection "Ex Post Facto" style? As for the protesters there Jan 6... "the mob's unified purpose was to hinder or prevent congress from counting the electoral votes" Sorry boys, but you're insurrectionists also if it sticks.

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. 

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, suds said:

It's not false equivalency, just me being able to see past the end of my nose. For you (and many others) I settled on 'true believers'.

“The true believer has a tendency to see the world in black and white, with no room for nuance or complexity. This rigidity allows them to maintain unwavering faith in their cause.”

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.

[robosmith]

9 hours ago, Deluge said:

I've already explained how the 14th Amendment works. Now we wait for confirmation of my explanation through the SCOTUS  throwing your bullshit interpretation of the 14th Amendment back in your faces.  

We know how it works to disqualify Trump. You've not explained how it DOESN'T WORK. Duh

9 hours ago, Deluge said:

Prove it.

Prove that true Americans who watch "FOS" news NEVER "hear" your warped idea of facts. 

No need for me to prove that. You guys keep proving your ignorance here DAILY.

[suds]

4 hours ago, Hodad said:

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 agree with the part that even if Trump 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. And if that was to be the case it would have been a slam dunk for the district court and likely no trial would have been necessary. Except that wasn't the case, it never happened. What the 3 dissenting Justices basically agree on is that when the case fell into the lap of the district court it should have been dismissed due the lack of any criminal conviction for a number of reasons. Due process was one of them. You can cry and stamp your feet and say there's just no other way the petitioners could have removed Trump from running for office, well tough titties. So here we are now, the District and Colorado Supreme Courts did what they thought was the right thing and now it's left up to the U.S. Supreme Court to have the final say. Or maybe it was the last hail mary to get rid of Trump.

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

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.

You're doing a lot of cherry picking there bud, and it's boring as hell.

Edited December 29, 2023 by suds

[CdnFox]

On 12/21/2023 at 8:36 AM, bcsapper said:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/21/luttig-14th-amendment-trump-00132792

Quote

Sure, if you like.  I'm not interested in arguing the issue.

I just wanted to post a sane opinion.

Yeah - that's pretty much an admission you know you weren't posting something real.

"I don't care - i just care".   "I don't want to discuss it, i just felt the need to say you're crazy".

Well, we'll see i guess.  You've stated this person's opinion is "sane"  Obviously you agree with it, you woudln't disagree with a 'sane' opinon that you went out of your way to find and post.

I suspect you may be proven wrong but hey - who am i to judge your 'sanity', we'll leave that to the SC and see if you're "Sane" or not

[Deluge]

On 12/28/2023 at 8:58 PM, robosmith said:

1. We know how it works to disqualify Trump. You've not explained how it DOESN'T WORK. Duh

2. No need for me to prove that. You guys keep proving your ignorance here DAILY.

1. No, you understand that you really, REALLY want Trump disqualified. Your problem is, nobody gives a shit about your fantasies. 

2. Just admit that you get your information from communist propagandists. We both know that is how you roll here, so just admit it. 

Edited December 30, 2023 by Deluge

[Deluge]

The communist radicals in the Colorado SC pulled their heads out of their asses, so our Constitutional Republic prevails once more.  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

The communist radicals in the Colorado SC pulled their heads out of their asses, so our Constitutional Republic prevails once more.  

Who did what now?

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Who did what now?

Colorado SC has backed off their removal of Trump from the state's ballot. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Colorado SC has backed off their removal of Trump from the state's ballot. 

LOL - well it was pretty obviously politically motivated. Of course they'd back down as soon as the USSC agreed to it

They knew they were wrong to do so in the first place.

Looks like @robosmith ,  @Hodad and the others were all 100 percent wrong.  But we knew that.

So - that leaves us with 2 questions.

1 - will the USSC hear the case anyway as planned to prevent others from trying this? Or is Colorado hoping that they will drop it because a win in the USSC will mean that trump really was being 'persecuted politically'  which increases his chances?

2- Will this incident once again push him up in the polls?

[Deluge]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOL - well it was pretty obviously politically motivated. Of course they'd back down as soon as the USSC agreed to it

They knew they were wrong to do so in the first place.

Looks like @robosmith ,  @Hodad and the others were all 100 percent wrong.  But we knew that.

So - that leaves us with 2 questions.

1 - will the USSC hear the case anyway as planned to prevent others from trying this? Or is Colorado hoping that they will drop it because a win in the USSC will mean that trump really was being 'persecuted politically'  which increases his chances?

2- Will this incident once again push him up in the polls?

I think Trump pushes up the polls regardless. Even regular democrats are seeing that the hardened communist radicals are going too far.

With Biden's dementia, and his woke policies, along with the rampant TDS, that should be enough to get Trump back into the WH. 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Deluge said:

I think Trump pushes up the polls regardless. Even regular democrats are seeing that the hardened communist radicals are going too far.

With Biden's dementia, and his woke policies, along with the rampant TDS, that should be enough to get Trump back into the WH. 

It'll depend on the campaign - campaigns matter - but he's got a real shot and the fact that the Democrats are deliberately attempting to subvert democracy with this kind of political use of the courts is probably going to help more than hinder i suspect.

[suds]

18 hours ago, Deluge said:

Colorado SC has backed off their removal of Trump from the state's ballot. 

Did they reverse their ruling or what actually happened? Can't find anything to back this up anywhere.

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, suds said:

Did they reverse their ruling or what actually happened? Can't find anything to back this up anywhere.

ok, so apparently it's been indefinitely suspended. So they're still desperate to have Trump off the ballot, but they will wait until the SC makes a decision.

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/video/trump-back-on-ballot-in-colorado-while-state-republicans-appeal-ban-to-supreme-court/

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It'll depend on the campaign - campaigns matter - but he's got a real shot and the fact that the Democrats are deliberately attempting to subvert democracy with this kind of political use of the courts is probably going to help more than hinder i suspect.

He'll campaign. He just needs to be sure to hit the battleground states hard. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

ok, so apparently it's been indefinitely suspended. So they're still desperate to have Trump off the ballot, but they will wait until the SC makes a decision.

Why, it's almost like they knew they were wrong and the USSC will tell them so   Imagine!

Quote

He'll campaign. He just needs to be sure to hit the battleground states hard. 

I'm sure he'll campaign but 'hard' is irrelevant - it has to be effective.  Everyone's going to campaign hard. But the difference between a good campaign and a bad campaign makes all the difference in who gets elected and he's got to run a good campaign this time AND he's got to force biden out in the open. Last time biden did nothing and trump talked himself into  a defeat.

[Rebound]

22 hours ago, Deluge said:

I think Trump pushes up the polls regardless. Even regular democrats are seeing that the hardened communist radicals are going too far.

With Biden's dementia, and his woke policies, along with the rampant TDS, that should be enough to get Trump back into the WH. 

The “hardened communist radicals” are doing a great job of growing the US economy, aren’t they? 

[Deluge]

22 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The “hardened communist radicals” are doing a great job of growing the US economy, aren’t they? 

Not really. We've had to make up a lot of ground since COVID, and simply getting out of the way is all the Biden administration really needed to do, but they've been pretty slow about that: food prices are still through the roof, and I don't see the cost for real estate coming down; gas is down, but that's only because it's election season. 

No, hardened communist radicals are to blame for pretty much everything that is wrong. 

[Deluge]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Why, it's almost like they knew they were wrong and the USSC will tell them so   Imagine!

I'm sure he'll campaign but 'hard' is irrelevant - it has to be effective.  Everyone's going to campaign hard. But the difference between a good campaign and a bad campaign makes all the difference in who gets elected and he's got to run a good campaign this time AND he's got to force biden out in the open. Last time biden did nothing and trump talked himself into  a defeat.

Almost. it's hard to imagine that actual human beings could get so insidious, yet there they are.  

No, I agree. "Effective" has to be the operative word. He'll get it done. There's too much at stake. 

[Rebound]

25 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Not really. We've had to make up a lot of ground since COVID, and simply getting out of the way is all the Biden administration really needed to do, but they've been pretty slow about that: food prices are still through the roof, and I don't see the cost for real estate coming down; gas is down, but that's only because it's election season. 

No, hardened communist radicals are to blame for pretty much everything that is wrong. 

Riiiight… yet we have the lowest period opinion sub-4% unemployment in history.  So low that the Fed raised interest rates over and over in an effort to INCREASE unemployment.  

[Deluge]

Just now, Rebound said:

Riiiight… yet we have the lowest period opinion sub-4% unemployment in history.  So low that the Fed raised interest rates over and over in an effort to INCREASE unemployment.  

Artificial bullshit. That's a natural increase from a decrease caused by COVID. Biden didn't DO anything except get out of the way enough to let the economy recover a little bit. In some ways he's still holding the economy back because we haven't fully recovered. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

The “hardened communist radicals” are doing a great job of growing the US economy, aren’t they? 

Nope - that's why people are giving biden such horrible marks and say trump would be better in polling.

Ya can play with the numbers, but ya can't fool the people when they go to the grocery store or gas pump.

[CdnFox]

43 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Riiiight… yet we have the lowest period opinion sub-4% unemployment in history.  So low that the Fed raised interest rates over and over in an effort to INCREASE unemployment.  

All low paying jobs.  The average wage went up during trump's time and has dived during biden's. Inflation also shot up like a rocket so right when people were earning less things cost more. If you want to work at a job where you ask if people want fries with that, sure - this is your time to shine

 I actually posted all this info a ways back and much of it since then but the economy in the states is not good, and its fragile as it is.   You can make an economy "LOOK" good on paper by dumping tonnes of money into it for a while, but that spikes inflation and other issues.

And americans are looking around and saying 'there's something wrong here' and that's why they're giving biden shitty marks despite the fact that some of the traditional indicators suggest the economy isnt' all that bad.

[Rebound]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

All low paying jobs.  The average wage went up during trump's time and has dived during biden's. Inflation also shot up like a rocket so right when people were earning less things cost more. If you want to work at a job where you ask if people want fries with that, sure - this is your time to shine

 I actually posted all this info a ways back and much of it since then but the economy in the states is not good, and its fragile as it is.   You can make an economy "LOOK" good on paper by dumping tonnes of money into it for a while, but that spikes inflation and other issues.

And americans are looking around and saying 'there's something wrong here' and that's why they're giving biden shitty marks despite the fact that some of the traditional indicators suggest the economy isnt' all that bad.

And again you post no published data to backup your claims.  Here, I’ll do it for you again, since you’re so FOS. From Social Security Administration:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

2015	48,098.63
2016	48,642.15
2017	50,321.89
2018	52,145.80
2019	54,099.99
2020	55,628.60
2021	60,575.07
2022	63,795.13

Edited January 2, 2024 by Rebound

[Deluge]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

And again you post no published data to backup your claims.  Here, I’ll do it for you again, since you’re so FOS. From Social Security Administration:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

2015	48,098.63
2016	48,642.15
2017	50,321.89
2018	52,145.80
2019	54,099.99
2020	55,628.60
2021	60,575.07
2022	63,795.13

It's best that democrats don't post anything about the economy because it's usually pro-government bullshit. 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

And again you post no published data to backup your claims.  Here, I’ll do it for you again, since you’re so FOS. From Social Security Administration:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

2015	48,098.63
2016	48,642.15
2017	50,321.89
2018	52,145.80
2019	54,099.99
2020	55,628.60
2021	60,575.07
2022	63,795.13

Oooo - sorry kid, looks like you forgot about inflation, which i mentioned specifcally.

So what's peoples wages after inflation?

 https://www.statista.com/statistics/1351276/wage-growth-vs-inflation-us/

OH NOOOOEEESSSS -     Looks like you were WRONG AGAIN   LOLOL

In fact since the beginning of the year real wages are considerably lower - and actual wage growth has shrunk to next to nothing.

So was entirely right - people are earning far less than they were.  The average actual income adjusted for inflation is way down and falling.

Did you want fries with those facts?

 

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

It's best that democrats don't post anything about the economy because it's usually pro-government bullshit. 

That's not the problem. The problem is it's always a half truth.

As i just posted, he was quite wrong about the wages issue. What he posted wasn't incorrect but it was only a part of the story and the actual truth was something quite different.