CdnFox Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 1 hour ago, suds said: The amendment seems to imply that a conviction (of some kind) was required or else it would have been worded 'engaged in an alleged insurrection'. Which sounds a bit ridiculous. So far, not even one protester has been convicted of insurrection. Or even charged - all the charges are for something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 9 hours ago, robosmith said: Do you have ANY understanding of the role the brain plays in gender identification? ANY AT ALL? Here's what REAL EXPERTS have to say: IOW, your simplistic evaluation is typical of RIGHT WING BULLSHIT. Ya know...robo...I'm not sure your brain is even flesh and blood. And I certainly don't need some Libbie noodle trying to convince me men are women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 9 hours ago, Deluge said: If Trump engaged in insurrection then why isn't he in prison? Why is he still campagning for President of the United States? Can you answer that sh*t for brains, or has your TDS finally beaten your medication? Because you don't NEED to be in prison to have "engaged in INSURRECTION" and the Constitution does NOT say you DO to be disqualified. You are mistaking denial of a PRIVILEGE with a CRIME. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 9 hours ago, Deluge said: 1. Do you understand how stoopid you sound? I understand that ^YOUR OPINION means NOTHING. 9 hours ago, Deluge said: McConnell added qualified justices. And packed the SCOTUS with them. 9 hours ago, Deluge said: Do YOU understand that democrats want to pack the courts with radical left-wingers? Nope. Restore the balance, as I stated. Duh 9 hours ago, Deluge said: 2. Biden would've done no such thing. He wants to pack the courts with woke a$$holes, just like you. Wrong on ^two counts. 9 hours ago, Deluge said: 3. Point out where it says CONVICTION is NOT required. It doesn't, therefore you have to accept that conviction IS required or a$$holes just like you can simply throw anyone they want in jail. No, you point out where it says it's REQUIRED. Otherwise you're just TRYING to rewrite it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 9 hours ago, suds said: The amendment seems to imply that a conviction (of some kind) was required or else it would have been worded 'engaged in an alleged insurrection'. Which sounds a bit ridiculous. No, it means that the hearings need to determine "engaged in insurrection" like those held in CO and Maine. 9 hours ago, suds said: So far, not even one protester has been convicted of insurrection. The hearings were held and determination was made in COURT. Conviction is NOT specified in the Constitution and a CRIME is NOT REQUIRED to deny a PRIVILEGE of SERVING in office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 3 hours ago, Nationalist said: Ya know...robo...I'm not sure your brain is even flesh and blood. And I certainly don't need some Libbie noodle trying to convince me men are women. Sure. Because you believe being a college dropout makes you more qualified than actual EXPERTS with a PhD IOW, you are DELUSIONAL. See Dunning-Kruger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 6 hours ago, robosmith said: Sure. Because you believe being a college dropout makes you more qualified than actual EXPERTS with a PhD IOW, you are DELUSIONAL. See Dunning-Kruger. Oh no. Hey @CdnFox Dunning-Kruger is here again. Dweebles...no college can teach people to think. You're a perfect example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 16 hours ago, suds said: As for the Justices, why couldn't both parties come to an agreement that they take turns in the selection process? This could work in a predominantly 2 party system. Why couldn't a stone fall upwards? Because it's not natural, defies the logic of the laws of Nature. Just the same way, the logic of the binary political environment encourages and forces the agents (at the penalty of permanent losing) to seek the maximum advantage for itself and inflict the greatest political harm on the opponent. Note how this, again very natural within the constraints of the system posture can have very little to do with the interests and priorities of the society? What's best for the political agents have little to do with the benefit of the society. Politics becomes a thing in itself, existing and operating mostly for its own benefit. Three hundred years ago, when Western world was dominated by authoritarian rule, the capacity to check and interrupt the absolute rule seemed like a great idea; its longer term effects may not have been obvious. All functional democracies that emerged in the new age, after the main events of the 20th century use the multi-party model. The binary system is just too closely associated with partisanship and there seems to be no formal instruments to prevent it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 10 hours ago, robosmith said: Because you don't NEED to be in prison to have "engaged in INSURRECTION" and the Constitution does NOT say you DO to be disqualified. You are mistaking denial of a PRIVILEGE with a CRIME. No stoopid, Trump is not in prison for insurrection because he never engaged in insurrection. The fact that you banana republic ldiots INSIST that he engaged in insurrection just further illustrates how innocent he actually is. Trump never engaged in insurrection. I know it, YOU know it, and more importantly, the SCOTUS knows it. It's why they shut down those drug addled psychopaths in Colorado. I am right and you are wrong (again). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 10 hours ago, robosmith said: I understand that ^YOUR OPINION means NOTHING. And packed the SCOTUS with them. Nope. Restore the balance, as I stated. Duh Wrong on ^two counts. No, you point out where it says it's REQUIRED. Otherwise you're just TRYING to rewrite it. 1. You understand your orders from the woke hivemind. 2. Nope. The court packing begins with left-wing perverts, but only if a democrat wins the presidency. 3. Your idea of balance is four left-wing radicals on a 9 judge SCOTUS - it's why you're wrong about everything. 4. Right on ALL counts when it involves anything coming from you. 5. Sorry pervert, the 14th doesn't give you shit without due process. Trump is not an insurrectionist. I know it, YOU know it, and more importantly, the SCOTUS knows it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 4 hours ago, Nationalist said: Oh no. Hey @CdnFox Dunning-Kruger is here again. Dweebles...no college can teach people to think. You're a perfect example. LOL - love it!!!! That and shark-week are my faves. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.