Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Point taken. I used disenfranchised improperly. Better stated, if a legal candidate is denied access to the ballot, he and the millions of voters who nominated him and the millions of potential voters have been denied their constitutional rights. Trump is being illegally denied access to the ballot. The premise of insurrection is tantamount to the two scam impeachments.If we were to apply disenfranchised that way, then I and millions of others have been disenfranchised in every election.
Can't wait for the Supreme Court to bitchslap you, Simp.You can still vote. You aren’t being told you can’t. Hell every election Mickey Mouse gets votes. What they are saying is you can’t elect Trump. Even if he was elected, he can’t serve because he violates the terms of the 14th.
Now what would be worse? Letting Trump run and even win, and then saying he can’t swear in because he violated the 14th? So his VP would become President and Congress could choose the new VP? Or denying him early so Republicans can get a good candidate.
Oh. And the Congress said it was an insurrection.
U.S. House Jan. 6 panel report finds Trump incited insurrection, demands accountability • Kansas Reflector
The U.S. House Jan. 6 committee late Thursday published its findings in a report that harshly criticized former President Trump.kansasreflector.com
Point taken. I used disenfranchised improperly. Better stated, if a legal candidate is denied access to the ballot, he and the millions of voters who nominated him and the millions of potential voters have been denied their constitutional rights. Trump is being illegally denied access to the ballot. The premise of insurrection is tantamount to the two scam impeachments.
Can't wait for the Supreme Court to bitchslap you, Simp.
You're rambling as bad as Biden. On one hand you say I am using illegally improperly while telling another poster that the SCOTUS may decide this in Trump's favor (post #324). If that happens it will demonstrate that my statement regarding the illegal actions of the CO court are true. Don't you agree? Don't lecture me on honor. You don't know the meaning of the word.When I was a boy. My Father told me, if you have to lie to explain your actions, you know you did the wrong thing. The obvious answer is to never do a thing that you know you’ll have to lie about.
My Dad was saying that I needed to live my life honorably.
That came to mind when I read your posts again. You keep throwing out terms with specific meanings, improperly. Abusing and intentionally misusing the terms. Illegally.
You abuse the word honor, and privilege. When I was in the Army, I was taught that it was an honor to be entrusted with the responsibility of leading soldiers. An honor to serve. A privilege to lead. I was entrusted with the rank, and the position, and the soldiers.
When they read my promotion orders. I don’t remember exactly, but it said something like. The Secretary of the Army has reposed special trust in the honor, fidelity, and professionalism of.
If you violate that honor, that trust. The Field Grade commander in your chain can bust you down a notch.
Trump doesn’t understand that. And neither do you.
You're rambling as bad as Biden. On one hand you say I am using illegally improperly while telling another poster that the SCOTUS may decide this in Trump's favor (post #324). If that happens it will demonstrate that my statement regarding the illegal actions of the CO court are true. Don't you agree? Don't lecture me on honor. You don't know the meaning of the word.
So do I, that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee.I got an Honorable Discharge
As I do, I have told YOU multiple times that the courts will sort it out. You have a problem entertaining the thought that someone else's take on a given subject that differs from your own.I always allow the possibility that I may be mistaken.
We are here because of democrat malfeasance. You don't have a corner on the truth--truth be told, you wouldn't know it if it bit you in the butt.You ignore the truth, and the truth is we are here because of more Trump Blunders.
So do I, that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee.
As I do, I have told YOU multiple times that the courts will sort it out. You have a problem entertaining the thought that someone else's take on a given subject that differs from your own.
We are here because of democrat malfeasance. You don't have a corner on the truth--truth be told, you wouldn't know it if it bit you in the butt.
You've dug into the dregs and chosen to go with personal attacks rather than discuss. I had hoped you had raised your game. Silly me. Now run along junior, you're not worth my time.
Run your platitudes somewhere else. I have said in the past what my reasoning is and you have ignorantly chosen to ignore them. The point of the matter is, Trump appearance on the ballot is being challenged in CO and ME because he supposedly took part in an insurrection that has never been recognized by ANYONE officially. He could not have participated in an event that never happened. J6 was a spontaneous riot. Go howl at the moon to someone else that you don't agree with. The SCOTUS will make the proper decision and you can whine and cry about fairness then.No. The Electors who challenged Trump being on the ballot were registered Republicans. So those who started this were. Republicans
I’m willing to consider the alternative. But all you offer is lies. You scream disenfranchised. I point out the word doesn’t mean that. You agreed. Then you screamed illegal.
We wouldn’t even be discussing this if Trump had taken the win and walked away. But the blunder was his, not the Democrats.
Lawyers who read the Colorado ruling have said it was pretty good judicial reasoning. They hope the Supreme Court uses similarly good reasoning in their decision. All you do is scream the outcome is wrong and therefor no process can ever justify it. You scream it is illegal. You are acting like a toddler who is overdue for a nap.
The truth is this isn’t a question that has come up before. So it isn’t illegal. It is illegal if there is a case history and the judges ignored it. As an example. Before the Miranda decision confessions without that were accepted. But after the decision it was illegal to question a suspect without the warning. It was perfectly legal before because there was no law or legal decision prohibiting it.
The Judges in Colorado drew upon what appears to be applicable case law. Now the Supremes can create new case law. But that doesn’t make the actions illegal. Illegal is doing something that is prohibited. As an example, providing false documents to someone claiming they are accurate and true.
It has been illegal for a very long time to lie to Federal Agents. There are laws which clearly prohibit that. There are laws prohibiting the submission of false statements in response to a Subpoena. That is illegal.
The dissents in the Colorado Rulings are similar to your posts. It’s not fair. I don’t like it.
The Constitution isn’t about what you think is fair. As an example. A cop in Florida cited someone for having Fuck Trump on the back window of their truck. Claiming it violated the obscenity laws in the state. A Judge correctly ruled that the ticket violated the First Amendment. The ticket was illegal, because it violated established and long accepted precedent cases.
The First Amendment means you can say what you want. Unless you violate established exceptions, it’s legal. That doesn’t mean you can shout Charge to the mob and attack cops. It does mean you can write fuck Biden on your car and I’ll defend your right to do so.
You don’t want to discuss the details. You don’t want to argue the points raised by the Colorado Supreme Court. You don’t want to acknowledge Trump screwed up in the appeal. You don’t want to discuss the law or the precedents. You just want to scream that it isn’t fair.
And since you are a Veteran. You should know the old joke. It isn’t a War Crime the first time.
It was recognized officially as an insurrection by 8 judges in Colorado.Run your platitudes somewhere else. I have said in the past what my reasoning is and you have ignorantly chosen to ignore them. The point of the matter is, Trump appearance on the ballot is being challenged in CO and ME because he supposedly took part in an insurrection that has never been recognized by ANYONE officially. He could not have participated in an event that never happened. J6 was a spontaneous riot. Go howl at the moon to someone else that you don't agree with. The SCOTUS will make the proper decision and you can whine and cry about fairness then.
Who have no authority over the determination. Now you can run along with your sorry, insipid garbage as well. Are you SM's sock?It was recognized officially as an insurrection by 8 judges in Colorado.
They do. You can run back along to your fantasy world where only the courts that agree with your are "official".Who have no authority over the determination. Now you can run along with your sorry, insipid garbage as well. Are you SM's sock?
I'll tell you the same thing I told your puppet master, the SCOTUS will settle it and you and he can howl and whine and cry about how unfair it is until the cows come home--but let him know he can't move his lips when you do it.They do. You can run back along to your fantasy world where only the courts that agree with your are "official".
The SCOTUS might, it doesn't make these unofficial rulings, Snowflake.I'll tell you the same thing I told your puppet master, the SCOTUS will settle it and you and he can howl and whine and cry about how unfair it is until the cows come home--but let him know he can't move his lips when you do it.
Run your platitudes somewhere else. I have said in the past what my reasoning is and you have ignorantly chosen to ignore them. The point of the matter is, Trump appearance on the ballot is being challenged in CO and ME because he supposedly took part in an insurrection that has never been recognized by ANYONE officially. He could not have participated in an event that never happened. J6 was a spontaneous riot. Go howl at the moon to someone else that you don't agree with. The SCOTUS will make the proper decision and you can whine and cry about fairness then.
It was. That’s the point. The House Judiciary Committee determined it was. And they determined it was participated by Trump.
Moreover the trial judge determined it as a fact of law. That determination is what Trump appealed. Which got us in this mess. The Blunder I mentioned?
You sir are a liar. Public Law 117-32 awarded four congressional gold medals to the capitol police. Please link to where the word "insurrection" was used in the law. Try again.Public Law 117-32
You sir are a liar. Public Law 117-32 awarded four congressional gold medals to the capitol police. Please link to where the word "insurrection" was used in the law. Try again.
Try again liar. That is a misnomer as there was no insurrection declared, recognized, charged or convicted. Keep on howling.
View attachment 891873
View attachment 891874
Before you call someone a liar, you should really find out if what they said was true.
I said both chambers of Congress called January 6 an insurrection and they did. They specifically called it an insurrectionist mob.
WW
