THIS is why they hate him.

[BULLDOG]

How many times in History?? Hmmm

This is the only time in history that we have had an unethical crook who tried to steal the election.

 

[eagle1462010]

This is the only time in history that we have had an unethical crook who tried to steal the election.

Was a civil War Act moonbat. It has been used 12 times. 6 right after the Civil War.

This is the BS your side has pulled out of your ass to try and rig another election. Your party is Despicable and a Cancer on this country.

 

[OKTexas]

You could be right. That idiot is willing to shut down the country to further his partisan goals. That is worthy of hate.

During a "shut down" roughly 12-13% of federal employees are temporarily furloughed. Not exactly shutting down the country. Stop being a fucking drama queen.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Still spouting the same crazy crap, aren't you? There is a long list of reasons to hate trump. The fact that he and his cult brainwashed so many once normal people is near the top of that list.

If that's the way you feel, perhaps you should submit yourself for deprograming.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Perhaps you can point out the specfic clause or law that shows me to be wrong.

Sedition is a crime, but under US juris prudence, you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That's not going to happen with Trump because he hasn't been indicted for it. States don't have the authority to ban him from their ballots by unilaterally declaring him guilty of a crime for which he hasn't even been charged. see 18 U.S.C. § 2384.

I think SCOTUS will agree.

.

 

[BULLDOG]

Sedition is a crime, but under US juris prudence, you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That's not going to happen with Trump because he hasn't been indicted for it. States don't have the authority to ban him from their ballots by unilaterally declaring him guilty of a crime for which he hasn't even been charged. see 18 U.S.C. § 2384.

I think SCOTUS will agree.

.

The constitution doesn't require a conviction of sedition. Giving aid and comfort to seditionists. is enough. That can be determined with a simple finding of fact. Courts issue those every day.

 

[kaz]

Perhaps you can point out the specfic clause or law that shows me to be wrong.

Read my post again. Why would I bother asking someone politically motivated who would flip positions if we flipped parties to explain their partisan, uninformed opinion?

You are arguing disingenuously (again, flip parties you flip sides) that innocent until proven guilty isn't a Constitutional Right. Who gives a rip about anything you say when you prove you have no standards?

 

[j-mac]

This is why there are indictments. This is why they are afraid of him. This is why the will remove him from ballots.

God, I miss him....

 

[j-mac]

The constitution doesn't require a conviction of sedition. Giving aid and comfort to seditionists. is enough. That can be determined with a simple finding of fact. Courts issue those every day.

So, you cheer ideological judges?

 

[BULLDOG]

Read my post again. Why would I bother asking someone politically motivated who would flip positions if we flipped parties to explain their partisan, uninformed opinion?

You are arguing disingenuously (again, flip parties you flip sides) that innocent until proven guilty isn't a Constitutional Right. Who gives a rip about anything you say when you prove you have no standards?

So that means you cant show how I'm wrong. Right?

 

[kaz]

So that means you cant show how I'm wrong. Right?

Won't, not can't. You didn't understand my post, did you? Be honest, MAGA man.

Why would I bother refuting an argument you'd change sides if we changed parties? That's a complete waste of time since your argument is disingenuous

 

[BULLDOG]

So, you cheer ideological judges?

The Colorado district court ruled he participated in insurrection, and the Colorado Supreme court agreed. Both courts made their ruling according to the applicable rules. The only question now is whether the 14th amendment applies to the president. The US Supreme court will decide that.

 

[BULLDOG]

Won't, not can't. You didn't understand my post, did you? Be honest, MAGA man.

Why would I bother refuting an argument you'd change sides if we changed parties? That's a complete waste of time since your argument is disingenuous

Use what ever excuse you want. Bottom line, you can't prove me wrong, as usual.

 

[eagle1462010]

The constitution doesn't require a conviction of sedition. Giving aid and comfort to seditionists. is enough. That can be determined with a simple finding of fact. Courts issue those every day.

You have a right to face your accusers and a trial to prove your innocense.

Only 12 in history have Insurrection stick. 6 right after the civil War. You are using a Civil War law to attack a political opponent....PERIOD

 

[kaz]

Use what ever excuse you want. Bottom line, you can't prove me wrong, as usual.

You didn't answer my question. Why would I prove someone "wrong" to someone who would flip sides if we flipped parties? How is it even possible to convince you when your position is partisan driven? Those questions are rhetorical, I already know you're a lying racist hypocrite, MAGA man

 

[BULLDOG]

You have a right to face your accusers and a trial to prove your innocense.

Only 12 in history have Insurrection stick. 6 right after the civil War. You are using a Civil War law to attack a political opponent....PERIOD

Trump was informed, and had the option to appear in the Colorado district court, but he chose not to. He certainly had lawyers representing him there, as well as in the Colorado Supreme Court. If he didn't face his accusers, it was because he is a coward. Colorado is using the constitution to determine if trump is elegable to run for president.

 

[kaz]

Trump was informed, and had the option to appear in the Colorado district court, but he chose not to. He certainly had lawyers representing him there, as well as in the Colorado Supreme Court. If he didn't face his accusers, it was because he is a coward. Colorado is using the constitution to determine if trump is elegable to run for president.

So you're in favor of the Scotus finding the Constitution Unconstitutional. Makes as much sense as the rest of your moronic racist hypocritical crap, MAGA man

 

[eagle1462010]

Trump was informed, and had the option to appear in the Colorado district court, but he chose not to. He certainly had lawyers representing him there, as well as in the Colorado Supreme Court. If he didn't face his accusers, it was because he is a coward. Colorado is using the constitution to determine if trump is elegable to run for president.

Was He Charged with a Crime???

No he wasnt. Its a Mickey Mouse Court accusing someone of Insurrection without a trial.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you're in favor of the Scotus finding the Constitution Unconstitutional. Makes as much sense as the rest of your moronic racist hypocritical crap, MAGA man

As usual, your remarks make no sense.

 

[kaz]

Was He Charged with a Crime???

No he wasnt. Its a Mickey Mouse Court accusing someone of Insurrection without a trial.

The Constitution is Unconstitutional! Right BULLDOG ? Finally, someone said it! MAGA!