Let's make something clear.

[noonereal]

Please research your statements before posting. You are exhibiting your ignorance for all to see.

How Do Transfers and Progressive Taxes Affect the Distribution of Income?

The federal tax system redistributes income from high and low income taxpayers. Explore federal tax rates by income group and tax source.

taxfoundation.org

Who Pays Income Taxes?

(pdf) It is a common refrain from some politicians that the rich are not paying their fair share of income taxes. This sentiment is echoed by findings from a Pew Research poll conducted last April, which indicated that a significant portion of respondents feel that wealthy individuals do not...

www.ntu.org

Neither of your links speak to my post.
This is so typical.

Do you even know why your links are ridiculously misleading?

 

[Lastamender]

Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw out his espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groups and organizations have challenged the eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress, arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate. A New Mexico state court, however, has removed Otero County Commissioner County Griffin from office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for, the January 6 interruption of the election certification.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

Absent evidence in contradiction of CREW's assertion I suspect Trumpleton's will ineffectually attack CREW and or the CRS. It is the Trumpian way. When facts and evidence fail them they rely on what amounts to character assassination. Which is why Trump attacks the media, anyone who opposes him, and most especially those like Jack Smith who are working to hold Don accountable for his illegal actions.

Furthermore, quite a bit has been made about the removal of a candidate's name from the ballot being anti-democratic. Yet the Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic. From the moment Trump began the anti-democratic act of conspiring to steal the election he violated his oath of office and forfeited his right to once again run to be the prez.

Let's make something else clear. 74 million people voted for Trump and his popularity grows. Taking him off the ballot insults those people and the Constitution. If the people want Trump, they should have him, and our government has no right to interfere unless Trump is right about them, which still gives them no right. If you are capable, try thinking about that.

 

[Marener]

Oh I don't care who tried it first.... We could go all the way back to the civil war on that one I suppose. I just don't think it's going to go anywhere any more than the case against Obama went anywhere. This is the kind of thing that the supreme Court absolutely despises... Being dragged into politics.

You don’t care now that its biting you in the ass.

 

[Marener]

And you are GOD?? Your feeling or upset stomach doesnt mean shit.

Show me a conviction or STFU

I’m an American who cares about their country. I hoped more people would also care but it seems Trump supporters care more about Trump than the country.

 

[justoffal]

You don’t care now that its biting you in the ass.

First of all by saying "you" you have no idea who you're talking to. I have no interest in defending anyone on this count.
I'm really observing the long tradition of "nothing gets done" about these things in this country. That simple. It's not Democrats against Republicans dude It's DC against everyone else. The sooner you realize that the better off you'll be.

 

[justoffal]

And you are GOD?? Your feeling or upset stomach doesnt mean shit.

Show me a conviction or STFU

I suppose if God had a stomach ache it would at least translate into a decent thunderstorm no?

 

[Marener]

First of all by saying "you" you have no idea who you're talking to. I have no interest in defending anyone on this count.
I'm really observing the long tradition of "nothing gets done" about these things in this country. That simple. It's not Democrats against Republicans dude It's DC against everyone else. The sooner you realize that the better off you'll be.

I am not a cynic. I find that cynics are the most useless people in the world.

Who we elect matters a lot.

 

[justoffal]

I'm waiting for a Trumpleton to make an informed argument against the assertion "Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment," but I'm not expecting one. Theirs is the way of invectives, not reason.

Well if all it takes is an accusation then I suspect we're going to have a wild time of it from here on out throwing presidents out of office at will.

 

[Marener]

That was a civil War time law. Being abused by you for politics.

Now show me a conviction or STFU

You didn’t show me where the conviction is required, therefore I advise you to STFU

 

[Marener]

Well if all it takes is an accusation then I suspect we're going to have a wild time of it from here on out throwing presidents out of office at will.

It takes more than an accusation. The court would not have removed Trump if the accusation had no foundation.

 

[Marener]

Willfully violating US law, when he swore to uphold them, is not a policy disagreement. Having cabinet level officials intentionally lie to congress is not a policy disagreement.

.

What law is he willfully violating?

It still doesn’t rise to rebellion and insurrection.

 

[Marener]

Yet you are on record on this board as saying it did. It did not. There was no insurrection. The riot on J6 was absolutely no different than the multiple democrat-backed riots of 2020 except there were no government officials that endorsed J6. As for undermining the electoral system--it is incumbent upon all Americans to ensure that an election is carried out freely, fairly and devoid of fraud. Your opposition to that suggests YOU are undermining the electoral system.

DUE PROCESS. Research it. The CO supreme court FINALLY did.

January 6th was far different. It occurred at a specific time at a specific place aimed for a specific goal of stopping the certification of the election for Biden and helping Trump.

This wasn’t about a free election. Trump’s tactics show that it was about winning.

Trump had due process. Thanks.

 

[justoffal]

It takes more than an accusation. The court would not have removed Trump if the accusation had no foundation.

As far as I know accusations do not have the same standing as actual convictions because the standards are vastly different. Accusations are a dime a dozen... convictions unfortunately are getting cheaper by the moment too.

However If you're saying that the accusation has a foundation then apparently somebody adjudicated and secretly turned it into a conviction.

 

[konradv]

The willful violation of US law, when he swore to uphold them, is not a policy difference.

 

[Marener]

As far as I know accusations do not have the same standing as actual convictions because the standards are vastly different. Accusations are a dime a dozen... convictions unfortunately are getting cheaper by the moment too.

However If you're saying that the accusation has a foundation then apparently somebody adjudicated and secretly turned it into a conviction.

Trump had mere accusations of fraud which he tried to use to overturn the election in 2020. Didn’t seem to bother his supporters then.

The accusation of insurrection was adjudicated in the Colorado case.

 

[Concerned American]

Neither of your links speak to my post.

Maybe you should pay attention to what you post. YOU said in YOUR post #357 and I quote,
"The poor pay the most tax." My post and links speak directly to that statement. It is FALSE and you know it. You cannot accept that you have been shown, as most leftists do, that you are a bald faced liar. I'm sorry if this upsets you but that is not my problem.

 

[Concerned American]

The accusation of insurrection was adjudicated in the Colorado case.

This is a bald faced lie. If it had been adjudicated, the CO supreme court would not have rescinded their own ruling. Please educate yourself.

 

[Marener]

This is a bald faced lie. If it had been adjudicated, the CO supreme court would not have rescinded their own ruling. Please educate yourself.

Please prove that they “rescinded” their ruling.

 

[Nostra]

No, it doesn't. It merely says that Congress shall have the power to make laws to enforce the 14th.

It does not say that Congress is the actual front-line enforcing power... that would be the DoJ et al...

And the requisite laws ALREADY exist... so Congress has already (and long-since) played its part in enforcement...

It also does NOT say that only Congress can DECLARE a state of insurrection.

But I will happily concede that State courts do NOT have the jurisdiction to DECLARE a FEDERAL state of Insurrection.

Show me where a CO civil court judge, or Maine SOS, was given enforcement power, Simp.​

GO!

​

Section 5​

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[Concerned American]

Please prove that they “rescinded” their ruling.

Excuse me--Their ruling has be stayed on appeal. Not looking good for seven democrat morons on that court. See post #379 for further info. Next.