Do All Republican Candidates Favor Insurrection?

[Subduction Zone]

and honesty is what you have been given. You honestly failed to provide us with the definition of insurection you think applies


Seems our friend is having trouble giving an honest answer to the simple question of insurrection .. so you can ignore her claim that Trump was guilty of insurrection.

No, you are the ones that seem to be having a problem with understanding the term. All you need to do is to own up to that fact. You want something for free and I will not give that info for free. It will cost you.

By the way, if you do know the meaning of the term then you have merely been disingenuous and deflecting in demanding of a definition. I still remember how much you complained when @Revoltingest gave you one.

And why do you purposefully misgender people? I have seen you misgender female members too and that was after being corrected.

 

[Laniakea]

Sorry, but that would not be possible. There are people that have the right to cross the border, that need to cross the border. You can't just shut down the border to refugees. That is US law. You could possibly try to funnel all of the refugees into the border crossing areas, but that is about it.

"Refugee" status is subjective and easily manipulated. When the migrants pay thousands of dollars to the drug cartels and human traffickers, don't you think they get their money's worth by also getting the exact words to use when encountering one of those border agents?

You know the rule on that. You have to admit to not understanding it yourself first.

You don't set the rules here. I understand that, and plenty more.

 

[Laniakea]

Seems our friend is having trouble giving an honest answer to the simple question of insurrection .. so you can ignore her claim that Trump was guilty of insurrection.

That terms seems to have been used from the beginning so they can use the 14th Amendment to say, "See, he can't run for office!"

 

[Laniakea]

No, you are the ones that seem to be having a problem with understanding the term. All you need to do is to own up to that fact. You want something for free and I will not give that info for free. It will cost you.

By the way, if you do know the meaning of the term then you have merely been disingenuous and deflecting in demanding of a definition. I still remember how much you complained when @Revoltingest gave you one.

And why do you purposefully misgender people? I have seen you misgender female members too and that was after being corrected.

The sex we are born with is the one we are until the day we die. Nothing we do can change that.

 

[Sargonski]

No, you are the ones that seem to be having a problem with understanding the term. All you need to do is to own up to that fact. You want something for free and I will not give that info for free. It will cost you.

By the way, if you do know the meaning of the term then you have merely been disingenuous and deflecting in demanding of a definition. I still remember how much you complained when @Revoltingest gave you one.

And why do you purposefully misgender people? I have seen you misgender female members too and that was after being corrected.

I have no problems understanding the term insurrection in relation to Section 3 .. and splained this to you before -- Taking over the Gov't via civil war .. mass armed insurrection involving at least part of the military. Do you not understand what the civil war was all about -- or is this the disingenuous oblivion and deflection you were harping about ?

Obviously Trump is not guilty of Section 3 insurrection.. .. yet you "disingenuously" claim he is guilty of such an insurrection .. yet refuse to provide support for your claim by giving what definition you are using .. such that Trump is guilty.. but you refuse to give a definition .. and so your claim is false .. just a random unsupported utterance .. and I have no idea what you gender is .. nor do I care .. this yet disingenuous deflection .. from the definition you are supposed to be providing.

 

[Revoltingest]

The sex we are born with is the one we are until the day we die. Nothing we do can change that.

Surgery & hormone therapy can.
The issue is that some people oppose it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no problems understanding the term insurrection in relation to Section 3 .. and splained this to you before -- Taking over the Gov't via civil war .. mass armed insurrection involving at least part of the military. Do you not understand what the civil war was all about -- or is this the disingenuous oblivion and deflection you were harping about ?

Obviously Trump is not guilty of Section 3 insurrection.. .. yet you "disingenuously" claim he is guilty of such an insurrection .. yet refuse to provide support for your claim by giving what definition you are using .. such that Trump is guilty.. but you refuse to give a definition .. and so your claim is false .. just a random unsupported utterance .. and I have no idea what you gender is .. nor do I care .. this yet disingenuous deflection .. from the definition you are supposed to be providing.

No, you only demonstrated you ignorance of Section 3. Section 3 clearly was not meant to apply only to the Civil War. As you know the Amendment went through several edits. One of the early versions clearly did apply only to the Civil War since it limited to events during that time period. They thought better of that and removed it. That tells you that they realized that it could come apply again.

And you also failed because you kept demanding that he needed to be convicted. I showed by precedent that one did not even need to be charged. But you hid your head from that evidence. Every single one of your weak claims was refuted in regards to Section 3. That is why you started the deflection with the definition of insurrection and that is why you have to own up to your ignorance to be able to demand a definition.

 

[Laniakea]

Surgery & hormone therapy can.
The issue is that some people oppose it.

Because they know sex isn't something we can change.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because they know sex isn't something we can change.

So you're one of the opposition.
Bible?
Koran?

 

[Laniakea]

So you're one of the opposition.
Bible?
Koran?

The Science.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Science.

How familiar are you with science?

 

[Laniakea]

How familiar are you with science?

I started with Kindergarten Biology (Boys have a penis, and girls have a vagina), and went from there.

 

[Revoltingest]

I started with Kindergarten Biology (Boys have a penis, and girls have a vagina), and went from there.

That explains much.

 

[Laniakea]

That explains much.

Excellent!
Some people still think men can have babies. Although I still never hear about abortion being a man's right. Staying tuned for that....

 

[Sargonski]

No, you only demonstrated you ignorance of Section 3. Section 3 clearly was not meant to apply only to the Civil War. As you know the Amendment went through several edits. One of the early versions clearly did apply only to the Civil War since it limited to events during that time period. They thought better of that and removed it. That tells you that they realized that it could come apply again.

Don't blame me for your inability to put forward a definition of insurrection .. and now failed to put forth how Section 3 defines insurrection.. while at the same time crying out "you don't understand".

What is it we don't understand friend - about how Section 3 defines insurrection .. Please school us in how Section 3 defines insurrection .. since we all don't understand and are "Ignorant" according to the Great Sub D .. who is now going to tell us how Section 3 defines insurrection.

That terms seems to have been used from the beginning so they can use the 14th Amendment to say, "See, he can't run for office!"

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

a whole bunch of Amendment 14 Violations - starting with illegitimacy of Authority .. "No State" can take away the priviledge .. period .. obviously this leaves open the Feds .. but "NO STATE" .. which includes Colorado.

and .. while things should not get this far .. "Without due process" .. as per Barr ... and which includes things such as arbitrary definition creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't blame me for your inability to put forward a definition of insurrection .. and now failed to put forth how Section 3 defines insurrection.. while at the same time crying out "you don't understand".

What is it we don't understand friend - about how Section 3 defines insurrection .. Please school us in how Section 3 defines insurrection .. since we all don't understand and are "Ignorant" according to the Great Sub D .. who is now going to tell us how Section 3 defines insurrection.


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

a whole bunch of Amendment 14 Violations - starting with illegitimacy of Authority .. "No State" can take away the priviledge .. period .. obviously this leaves open the Feds .. but "NO STATE" .. which includes Colorado.

and .. while things should not get this far .. "Without due process" .. as per Barr ... and which includes things such as arbitrary definition creation.

Nope, you need to admit that you do not understand what an insurrection is first.

And sorry, but you are making two huge errors here. First you are misinterpreting the 4th Amendment. Trump was removed from the ballots in both Colorado and Maine by "due process of law". They followed the due process for removing Trump, as per the 14th Amendment. And in case you forgot, the newer Amendment supersedes the older ones.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, that rules out both Trump & Biden.
But too few people will vote Libertarian.

I did that before. Once for a former celebrity-ish guy (he was on Survivor) running against Pence and a Dem for governorship of Indiana.
But he didn't do political things, he did actual Jesus like things (such as helping the poor and disadvantaged) and not WWF like angles building up a rivalry to hype an upcoming PPV match so he lost.

 

[Revoltingest]

I did that before. Once for a former celebrity-ish guy (he was on Survivor) running against Pence and a Dem for governorship of Indiana.
But he didn't do political things, he did actual Jesus like things (such as helping the poor and disadvantaged) and not WWF like angles building up a rivalry to hype an upcoming PPV match so he lost.

He should'a tried the Jesse Ventura approach.
A feather boa can do wonders to motivate voters.

 

[Sargonski]

Nope, you need to admit that you do not understand what an insurrection is first.

And sorry, but you are making two huge errors here. First you are misinterpreting the 4th Amendment. Trump was removed from the ballots in both Colorado and Maine by "due process of law". They followed the due process for removing Trump, as per the 14th Amendment. And in case you forgot, the newer Amendment supersedes the older ones.

Of course we don't undertand what your definition of an insurrection is .. you refuse to state which definition you think applies to the case .. All these are ambiguous naked claims .. false from the get go simply based on ambiguity ... and your refusal to clarify your position .. knowing that as soon as you do tell us which definition you think applies .. your position is lost.

Sorry friend .. this has nothing to do with my understanding of insurrection and your Ad Hom fallacy and personal invective .. and everything to do with your failure to enlighten us as to your understanding of the definition of insurrection.

 

[Sargonski]

He should'a tried the Jesse Ventura approach.
A feather boa can do wonders to motivate voters.

Lest we forget ---- "Ohh .. ohhhhh .. ooooohh my Undertaker" says Paul Bearer