• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

F1fan

Veteran Member
I will wager any RF member $50 or 50 Euros in Amazon vouchers that Trump has permanently relocated to Russia, which has no extradition treaty with the USA, before the end of next year. :expressionless:
I would say it’s much more convenient to just win (or cheat) the 2024 election so has the authority to avoid any criminal prosecution. There’s a chance that he could avoid the Georgia case as well, because being president affords him the highest responsibility in government.

Let’s note that he might have to sell his plane if his fraud case penalizes him to that extent.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Don't forget this too:

It's funny....the King Of Whining About Stolen Elections
is the one who systematically tried to steal it with
operatives in multiple venues in multiple states.
The problem is that highly tribal MAGAs simply
cannot abandon their beloved Trump, no matter
what evidence against him arises.
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Your reasoning is as disjointed as your syntax my friend.

Vladimir Putin awaits his most successful operative.
Yes Dragon typo-Nazi name calling followed by "Putin's Most successful operative" - now there is a title of which one would be most proud .. but Ad Hom Fallacy is not an argument for much friend .. and does not excuse your totalitarian police state wishes .. and caviar dreams.. which for some reason you are trying to project onto me. Paranoid much friend ? ... duck and cover ? bad Vlad coming .. gonna lead the next insurrection .. a real one this time .. gonna take over .. Trump gonna be the Vlads man in the USA .. cause we don't vet our candidates here.. they can just sail in without backing from our own Oligarchs .. or did you think those only existed in Russia.

Wild Blue imagination - not grounded in reality friend .. just demonize those who deviate from party position as "Agents of Putin" --- like Tulsi .

But Trump -- who you seem desperate to want to talk about 24 /7 -- but don't know squat about his backers - who in the "Donor Class" are Trumps backers .. cause you can't get the ring without them. This is a Pay to Play system friend ... Don't you understand nutten about "Putin's MOst successful operative" -- Poor Trumper .. old Kankles did a number on Trumper .. but that is another story.

Sup D ? who are Trumps Backers ... --- Quid Pro Quo and Ho-dee Ho. You don't know first thing about Ol Carrot Top .. yet perminently obsessed .. a strange blend of the mind bending sort .. kind of like you are parroting the standard propaganda demonization tropes .. but continue to believe long after refuted .. while the others have moved on

Who is Trump's team friend .. whispering sweet nothings in his ear when was in power .. the ones Trump really answered to.. do you really not know ? .. and if not .. why ?
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
That's not required to convict. It's also not my job.

Also, there is no burden of proof for me here.

As for "TDS (Trump derangement syndrome)," in addition to being low information (bleach for Covid, Revolutionary War airports, windmills kill whales) and suffering from an incurable psychiatric aberration - malignant narcissism - the man is now both deranged and demented. He's up all night rage tweeting, defying and insulting the judges presiding over his trials, and can't seem to remember where he is, who he ran against, how many world wars have been fought, and more.

It might be time for you to reconsider using that abbreviation, just like it's time for Trump to stop calling Biden cognitively impaired, but when did Trump ever show good judgement? The smart money is on Trump having his bail revoked and being sent to jail before Christmas for defying gag orders. How's that for deranged?

1) Men's Rea is required to convict in Criminal .. not Civil .. .. you don't get barred from running in election for civil.

So ---very wrong on the first account .. 2) Burden of Proof ... is all on you .. claiming Trump did some dirty deed.. sure as heck not on me. The Burden of proof is on the one wanting to make law .. have law enforced .. Simple Stuff mate.

You then go on some TDS rant .. unable to contain your hatred for the rule of law .. ends justifies the means .. no thought to consequences of bad precedent .. just "Get Trump" .. "Terrorism" .. thats it .. declare Martial Law .. get us some GITMO Kangaroo Justice .. no need for regular constraints .. something you have yet to have understood about these collectivist demonization tropes made into Law. Totalitarian Police state bound.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
1) Men's Rea is required to convict in Criminal .. not Civil .. .. you don't get barred from running in election for civil.

So ---very wrong on the first account .. 2) Burden of Proof ... is all on you .. claiming Trump did some dirty deed.. sure as heck not on me. The Burden of proof is on the one wanting to make law .. have law enforced .. Simple Stuff mate.

You then go on some TDS rant .. unable to contain your hatred for the rule of law .. ends justifies the means .. no thought to consequences of bad precedent .. just "Get Trump" .. "Terrorism" .. thats it .. declare Martial Law .. get us some GITMO Kangaroo Justice .. no need for regular constraints .. something you have yet to have understood about these collectivist demonization tropes made into Law. Totalitarian Police state bound.
And they have mens rea. I even provided a link on it for you. Why didn't you respond?

And you should not accuse others of having TDS since you seem to have it even worse.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Mens rea (no apostrophe) isn't required
in all criminal convictions, eg, negligence.
Mens rea does not even mean that they have to know that they are guilty of the crime that they are charged with. They only need to know that they were doing something wrong at the time. Tell me, does anyone think that they did not think that there might be something wrong with using force to break into Congress. All that they have to do is to know that it is wrong to attack police. Does he seriously think that the people accused of insurrection as a crime all had incompetent lawyers and here a YouTube expert can decree that they did not have mens rea because there was no chance of their plot working?

As I said earlier, it does not work that way. The defense lawyers would have known it since this is a first year law school subject.
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Sorry, but the mens rea was clear. You do not seem to understand that term.

Right .. guess that Philosophy of Law Class taught by my Jewish Chess Bro who got PH.D from Oxford didn't sink that one.

LOL .. what a joke response .. tell us friend .. of this Mens rea that is clear .. the intended insurrection plan .. and how that was gonna work ..

Consfused Subduction .. conflation of legal ideas - explain to us how .. not hypothetical but how this take over of a Gov't building was going to take over the entire Gov't of the USA .. explain then what ? .. in the plan so you take this building .. hold up in there with these important members of the Gov't .. .. and this was going to lead to taking over the Gov't how ? .. what was Trumps Plan .. the Men's Rea .. the actual plan at this point .. how it was going to lead to taking over Ship USA .. a Coup .. an Insurrection ..

Lets hear this clear Intent - Mens rea .. .. and how about for the protesters themselves .. some who got ridiculously and obscenely long sentences .. reeking of political Bias .. is worth electing Trump on that basis alone .. so he can pardon this rancid injustice .. violation of the Rule of Law .. hardcore .. by el Kangarito 3rd world Justice...
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
And they have mens rea. I even provided a link on it for you. Why didn't you respond?

And you should not accuse others of having TDS since you seem to have it even worse.

You provided a link ??? .. but did you quote from that link the required information -- the Men's Rea Explanation .. as put to you. No .. you did not ... because your link does not contain such and thus is a wild goose chase. In your Zeal to get the Bad man Trump .. to walk down totalitarian Police state Hiway is no problemo. .. . das the TDS mon .. your direction finders got fuzzy .. or how about the term "Blind Rage" .. Old Kankles Hillary .. that was her .. True TDS .. no message .. no plan .. just "Bad Trump .. Bad Trump" like a parrot on a broken record .. worst candidate ever .. should have easily won an in the bag election against a Reality TV Show Actor. .. the hurtebutt that caused throughout the land of the the new collective prog Blue..
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Yes, you can. There is nothing that says this has to be criminal. Nothing says a criminal charge or a criminal conviction is required to remove someone from the ballot.

Yes it does have to be criminal. .. you can't take away someone's right to run for political office over a parking ticket mate. .. and claim to have a functional democratic process.

Yeah .. NO.. Wrong Wrong .. Wrong :) a hell of alot of legal "mumbo jumbo" you would not have the faintest hope of understanding argues for criminal being the Bar. Slick Willi did not get impeached due to how many inches of cigar was inserted into monica's oval orifice.. had to find something "Criminal" The Evidentiary bar is far lower in Civil ..
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Yes it does have to be criminal
Give me a source.

I understand why you think that, but it is just wrong.

If they discover someone was born in another country, they can remove them from the ballot, But it is not a crime (although there are some who think it should be).
 

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
Yes, you can. There is nothing that says this has to be criminal. Nothing says a criminal charge or a criminal conviction is required to remove someone from the ballot.

Yes, that is correct, despite the fact that it appears to be falling on deaf ears among Trump supporters.

A criminal conviction isn't a prerequisite for disqualification from office, as I stated earlier today (see here) and also once before in this thread.

According to Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment (read it here), a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for disqualification from office.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Right .. guess that Philosophy of Law Class taught by my Jewish Chess Bro who got PH.D from Oxford didn't sink that one.

LOL .. what a joke response .. tell us friend .. of this Mens rea that is clear .. the intended insurrection plan .. and how that was gonna work ..

Consfused Subduction .. conflation of legal ideas - explain to us how .. not hypothetical but how this take over of a Gov't building was going to take over the entire Gov't of the USA .. explain then what ? .. in the plan so you take this building .. hold up in there with these important members of the Gov't .. .. and this was going to lead to taking over the Gov't how ? .. what was Trumps Plan .. the Men's Rea .. the actual plan at this point .. how it was going to lead to taking over Ship USA .. a Coup .. an Insurrection ..

Lets hear this clear Intent - Mens rea .. .. and how about for the protesters themselves .. some who got ridiculously and obscenely long sentences .. reeking of political Bias .. is worth electing Trump on that basis alone .. so he can pardon this rancid injustice .. violation of the Rule of Law .. hardcore .. by el Kangarito 3rd world Justice...
You took a philosophy of law class but do not seem to have understood it.

Here is the thing, anyone can make claims on the internet. I found a reliable source. And yes, I did quote from it. And it applied to this situation. You did not even comment upon it at the time which, since the thread was not moving at a high speed looked like either glum acceptance or foolish ignorance. I could claim to be a practicing lawyer. But any real lawyer could quickly find me out. We know that your interpretation of mens rea is incorrect because it was not used as a defense by any of the insurrectionists. Or if they tried it it did not work.

In other words, if you think that you are right then properly support your claims. Since this is the US the source that I used is far superior to your Oxford class. Perhaps they had a different interpretation of what mens rea is. Or perhaps you got it wrong. You spelled it wrong once and that is never a good sign.

And your last two posts to me reek of severe TDS. Conservative TDS, not liberal TDS. The disease cuts both ways.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I don't disagree with you. My post was about the perception by Trump voters if they are denied the ability to vote for their preferred candidate. Like it or not, they are substantial in number. I do believe it would be better for the country as a whole if he were to simply lose the election rather than being taken off the ballot by a court. That action imo would just add more division to an already dangerously divided country.
We already tried that. They just denied that he lost, and he/they threw the Constitution under the bus. They no longer deserve the consideration of a democratic constitutional republic. They have already shown that they have no respect for it, and therefor, for the rest of us. So I see no reason that we should afford them any special respect.
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Mens rea (no apostrophe) isn't required
in all criminal convictions, eg, negligence.
It is required in Trumps Trial .. and what a joke "Negligence" --- the negligence itself must be intended.. but ridiculous nonsense on your part in any case as regardless .. this silliness has no bearing on the FACT .. that you are wrong .. the charge must be criminal and not civil in order to bar him from Running .. and the fact that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about .. other than desperatedly googled after the fact.

What part of .. Has to be "Criminal" -- and thus prosecution must show Mens Rea have you yet to come to understand ? and 2) that typo Nazism is vestage of those who have yet to come to terms with the definition of a valid argument.. and so engage in fallacy after fallacy .. regardless of how moronic.

Do you understand how silly is the typo nazism in a political chat room friend >?! did you delve into the depths of the bone headedness on purpose or do you actually not realize the silliness of thinking running round calling out typo's is valid argument for something? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and guess the former but .. one never knows :)
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Burden of Proof ... is all on you
I already explained why that's untrue. There is never a burden of proof with anyone who can't or won't effectively evaluate an argument for soundness and be convinced by a compelling argument. There is zero hope of "proving" anything to you.
claiming Trump did some dirty deed.. sure as heck not on me.
No, not you. Nor me. Multiple prosecutors in multiple jurisdictions have assumed that burden. And they will succeed in convincing multiple juries that Trump is a criminal, at which time he graduates to felon.
You then go on some TDS rant .. unable to contain your hatred for the rule of law .. ends justifies the means .. no thought to consequences of bad precedent .. just "Get Trump" .. "Terrorism" .. thats it .. declare Martial Law .. get us some GITMO Kangaroo Justice .. no need for regular constraints .. something you have yet to have understood about these collectivist demonization tropes made into Law. Totalitarian Police state bound.
Amigo, what you wrote here is deranged - unhinged. It's YOU ranting, running with your hair on fire.

I just left another thread with a poster just as agitated as you are, but about demons and God coming down on us "like a hammer." He called the world a cesspool. I commented on how unfortunate it was to be saddled with such a worldview, and I say the same to you. You should be enjoying watching this all play out. It's like a Saturday matinee with the white hats chasing the black hats and delivering their comeuppance. It's deeply satisfying. The crowd generally cheers. You're seeing the equivalent here, which you call TDS. You're missing out on the fun.

But who's actually deranged here? Who's unhinged? Trump, for one, and you seem pretty bothered yourself. In the other guy's case, he was manipulated from the pulpit. Being agitated helps to keep him faithful. Conservative agitprop has the same effect and for the same purpose - to keep you faithful to its causes. You're doing their work for them here on the Internet just as the other guy was promoting his people's causes. And both of you live in bleaker realities because of it. That's the danger in not bringing critical thinking to the process, which immunizes against indoctrination. You can't make such a person fear demons or believe what you believe. You can't agitate them with lies, and you can't make them carry water for people who do nothing for them except saddle them with ideas that torment them.

Why don't you think about that a bit to see if you can find any merit in those words. You might feel better for it.
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Give me a source.

I understand why you think that, but it is just wrong.

If they discover someone was born in another country, they can remove them from the ballot, But it is not a crime (although there are some who think it should be).
What is wrong ? -- and you want a source for what exactly. Do you not realize that you can't go to prison for civil ? that the evidence bar is lower on this basis. .. that Gov't can't just willi nilli bar someone from taking political office on the basis of a newly created political statute .. and there is no previous statute allowing for this .. and I can't produce a source which doesn't exist now can I.

Up to you to produce source which supports your claim .. On the basis of what Law/Satute is the Gov't allowed to bar people from running for office ?
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
I already explained why that's untrue. There is never a burden of proof with anyone who can't or won't effectively evaluate an argument for soundness and be convinced by a compelling argument. There is zero hope of "proving" anything to you.

No, not you. Nor me. Multiple prosecutors in multiple jurisdictions have assumed that burden. And they will succeed in convincing multiple juries that Trump is a criminal, at which time he graduates to felon.

Amigo, what you wrote here is deranged - unhinged. It's YOU ranting, running with your hair on fire.

I just left another thread with a poster just as agitated as you are, but about demons and God coming down on us "like a hammer." He called the world a cesspool. I commented on how unfortunate it was to be saddled with such a worldview, and I say the same to you. You should be enjoying watching this all play out. It's like a Saturday matinee with the white hats chasing the black hats and delivering their comeuppance. It's deeply satisfying. The crowd generally cheers. You're seeing the equivalent here, which you call TDS. You're missing out on the fun.

But who's actually deranged here? Who's unhinged? Trump, for one, and you seem pretty bothered yourself. In the other guy's case, he was manipulated from the pulpit. Being agitated helps to keep him faithful. Conservative agitprop has the same effect and for the same purpose - to keep you faithful to its causes. You're doing their work for them here on the Internet just as the other guy was promoting his people's causes. And both of you live in bleaker realities because of it. That's the danger in not bringing critical thinking to the process, which immunizes against indoctrination. You can't make such a person fear demons or believe what you believe. You can't agitate them with lies, and you can't make them carry water for people who do nothing for them except saddle them with ideas that torment them.

Why don't you think about that a bit to see if you can find any merit in those words. You might feel better for it.

You are simply wrong and have not the faintest idea what the basis is for barring someone from running for political office. Crying out "Thats the prosecutors job" does not change the fact that you .. yourself have no idea.. such that your claim have no basis in fact.

Then after this bout of fallacy -- you go on about some zealot calling God down to cleanse the cesspool .. and then relate this to TDS - "Trump Derangement Syndrome" .. which I agree with but then you claim that I am afflicted with the disease .. projecting your fallacious oblivion and blindness associated with TDS .. onto me.

"Merit" - what merit is there in any of this fallacy, falsehood and fallacious projection that you have put forth ?

The onus is on you friend .. if you think there is a statute- Law out there giving Gov't authority to bar a person from running for political office - then by all means .. lets see whata you got.. and lets see you come up with mens rea
 
Top