"come on" is not an argument, nor is it evidence.
It's a bit arrogant to play dirty and expect the other side not to counterattack, isn't it?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"come on" is not an argument, nor is it evidence.
It's a bit arrogant to play dirty and expect the other side not to counterattack, isn't it?
Nothing proves Trump encouraged protesters to cross the line.Upholding the constitution is playing dirty?... The guy tried to glom onto his power at the expense of the American people via a coup that thankfully failed. That's playing dirty
Who's playing dirty?It's a bit arrogant to play dirty and expect the other side not to counterattack, isn't it?
Colorado.Who's playing dirty?
What's dirty about it?Colorado.
That day Trump was in NJ...if I recall correctly.What's dirty about it?
Trump was down the street from the Capitol on January 6th, and by his own admission, planned on marching to the Capitol with the mob. (The Secret Service stopped him from doing so and took him back to the White house where he sat and watched the insurrection unfold for like two hours while everyone around him begged him to tell the crowd to stop).That day Trump was in NJ...if I recall correctly.
He had nothing to do with what happened in Washington DC.
Valid reasons are not any excuse to subvert due process for the purpose of eliminating one's opponent on the basis of opinion.At least the Democrats have actual valid reasons, that they can demonstrate.
The Republicans don't seem to have any reason at all other than "We're mad!"
Who's subverting due process? They've cited the Constitution - which doesn't say anything about requiring criminal conviction. And everything was decided in a court of law based upon the available evidence. Is that not the definition of due process?Valid reasons are not any excuse to subvert due process for the purpose of eliminating one's opponent on the basis of opinion.
If they had waited for a formal criminal conviction, then this wouldn't even be an issue.
You can't just remove a person on the opinion one dosent like the guy and /or an opportunity taken to just get rid of one's opponent for political advantage.
That's what despots and dictatorships do.
Yea. Stooping to low key subterfuge of the nation's election system should stay with the neo-democrat people's party, and not become a thing with the Republicans who should maintain higher standards than going to the lows the Democrats are now identified and verified as being , since their true colors are now on display for everyone to see by what they did in Colorado.Nothing conservative about the idea of playing such a game.
Need to create an actual Conservative Party.
Then its fair to have the favor returned then. Bottom line.Who's subverting due process? They've cited the Constitution - which doesn't say anything about requiring criminal conviction. And everything was decided in a court of law based upon the available evidence. Is that not the definition of due process?
Nobody cited his removal from the ballot based on "We don't like him." (That would be a Republican in Texas in regards to Joe Biden though, apparently. Same goes for the impeachment inquiry, apparently.)
**climbs into boat**More candidates arbitrarily removed without any valid reason completely void of due process with respect towards double jeopardy legislation ment for a persons protection of being tried twice for the same crime?
Yea. Stooping to low key subterfuge of the nation's election system should stay with the neo-democrat people's party, and not become a thing with the Republicans who should maintain higher standards than going to the lows the Democrats are now identified and verified as being , since their true colors are now on display for everyone to see by what they did in Colorado.
I liked Obama and My Dad told me, Clinton was the smartest politician that he ever met. Pops knows a bunch of big wigs. The guys that went to the moon were pops friends let alone the big wigs of hughs aircraft were golf buddies from the club.They , meaning today's neo-democrats, never were a party of fair elections. They never intended to be, nor will be either , unless they make an extreme paradigm shift to the blue democrats of the past ,and show they could be a party that can be trusted to hold fair and equitable elections. For now, they can't be trusted anymore.
This was in response to, "Who's subverting due process? They've cited the Constitution - which doesn't say anything about requiring criminal conviction. And everything was decided in a court of law based upon the available evidence. Is that not the definition of due process?Then its fair to have the favor returned then. Bottom line.
Is that what you want? More candidates arbitrarily removed without any valid reason completely void of due process with respect towards double jeopardy legislation ment for a persons protection of being tried twice for the same crime?
I would absolutely love to see if this had been reversed, if it had been Biden who was removed from a state ballot. Just to see the kind of responses that would follow.This was in response to, "Who's subverting due process? They've cited the Constitution - which doesn't say anything about requiring criminal conviction. And everything was decided in a court of law based upon the available evidence. Is that not the definition of due process?
Nobody cited his removal from the ballot based on "We don't like him." (That would be a Republican in Texas in regards to Joe Biden though, apparently. Same goes for the impeachment inquiry, apparently."
I don't see where your response addresses what I said in response to your claim that due process has been subverted. You just seem to have repeated yourself.
I want due process to be followed. And it was.
So you're just not going to address anything I said.I would absolutely love to see if this had been reversed, if it had been Biden who was removed from a state ballot. Just to see the kind of responses that would follow.
Of course, if the Republicans do that in kind, without due process or any kind of a conviction, I may just get that wish yet and it seems Florida may just be that state.
This is the third time you're repeating this. We're not talking about the subversion of due process or "willy-nilly" anything. Due process has been followed, as noted in my first response to you.The way you're sounding , it seems like any state can remove any candidate from the ballot willy-nilly just at the behest of the judiciary and likely the governor as well.
No it hasn't been followed.So you're just not going to address anything I said.
If Biden were removed from the state ballot, based on the same evidence Trump was, I'd support it. I don't back criminals.
This is the third time you're repeating this. We're not talking about the subversion of due process or "willy-nilly" anything. Due process has been followed, as noted in my first response to you.
And now the Democrats are doing a bloodless coup attempt themselves by eliminating their opponents on the ballot.Upholding the constitution is playing dirty?... The guy tried to glom onto his power at the expense of the American people via a coup that thankfully failed. That's playing dirty