• 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

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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. 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
Perhaps you have me confused with another poster. What do you think I have claimed about the laws governing running for political office?
you claim that I am afflicted with the disease [TDS]
What I wrote was "Amigo, what you wrote here is deranged - unhinged. It's YOU ranting, running with your hair on fire."

There is no Trump derangement syndrome except perhaps Trump's own deranged, criminal, narcissistic and now add increasingly demented condition. That's a phrase invented to inhibit people from criticizing Trump, to imply that one has to be deranged to despise the man.

What does appear to be a real thing can be called Conservative Derangement Syndrome. Look at how conservative indoctrination affects many people. They're mostly angry and agitated, with endless litanies of grievances. A while back, you were angry about vaccine work mandates. Now it's this.

Don't you think you owe it to yourself to consider why that is? Why are you so angry about such issues? OK, vaccine mandates were deemed legal and enforceable, and yes, Trump might be barred from some ballots. Can you not see that you have been taught to be angry about such things in the service of an agenda that doesn't include you and in fact works against you?
 

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
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
Christian nationalists, Maga voters and anyone with a grudge really. Those are his backers.
I am not desperate to talk about Trump, I just enjoy insulting that bloated sack of steaming vomit. He's an easy target lets be fair. An incredulous traitorous corrupt narcissistic stupid loud mouthed sociopathic would be dictator with daddy issues, morbid obesity, orange skin and bad hair. :D

And the dumbest fan base imaginable...:smirk:
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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.

You keep claiming that, but you cannot provide any evidence for your claim. The amendment does not seem to indicate that and there were people removed from the ballot for actions that were not even crimes.
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.

The fact that "must be criminal" has not been supported. It is not in the amendment. Where are you getting that from?
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 :)
Oh please, that was not a typo. You could have called it a minor error but a typo is when your fingers hit the wrong keys. For example substituting "Their" for "There" is a conceptual error. It is not a typo. The apostrophe was nowhere near any of the keys in "mens". Thees aer tupos.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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

The last time that I checked the 14th Amendment was not a new statute. And you can't seem to understand that there are Constitutional limits on who can run for President and they are not all criminal reasons. You keep making an argument that is not based upon fact or even why he may not be allowed to run.
 

F1fan

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.
Are you a lawyer? Did you pass the bar exam, and which state?

If not, what qualifies your opinion over prosecutors who filed indictments against Trump and other conspirators?
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 ..
And these plans are what convicted the militia leaders, up to 22 years in federal prison. That many of the ignorant MAGA followers followed these guys into the Capitol means they didn't get indicted for the conspiracy, but for other crimes. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse.
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 ..
This set of words indicates confusion, not Sub Zone's comments. More projection.
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...
Intent is just one element of criminal activity. If you break the law unintentionally you might get off, or might not. If you are driving and accidently speed and get pulled over, the cop might let you off, or not. I got pulled over many years ago for driving 35 in a school zone. The thing was the 25 mph only applied during the school year and during school hours (otherwise 35), but not during summer. I didn't know it was a few days into the fall school session, but the cop didn't care, I got the ticket. I didn't intend to speed, but I did according to the law.

Can anyone prove Trump knew he lost the election? Yes, witnesses. There have been reports of witnesses who say Trump acknowledged he lost. Bill Barr told him he lost. Chris Wray, director of the FBI, told Trump he lost. Trump allies lost 60 lawsuits that intended to challeneg vote counts, and all failed. There has been no evidence of voting fraud that Trump and his allies have claimed. So if Trump is so confused as to honestly believe there was fraud, then he is that much more unfit for office.

If Trump had accepted the loss, not taken classified documents, and moved on, I suspect he would not be facing the criminal indictments. he would likely still have this fraud case, but he could have negotiated a settlement and saved his company. The guy is so stubborn and stupid that he can't make sound judgments to save his skin. He has ruined his chances by not paying attorneys, and the one's he's managed to get are quite ineffective, and even damaging, to his situation. Art of the deal? Art of the self sabotage and total collapse.

He is right about one thing, that if he can delay court cases long enough, and fool voters to elect him again, he will avoid the federal crimes. He might be able to get Georgia republicans to remove Fani Willis, and then appoint someone sympathetic to Trump. This is assuming the trial is delayed for a year. Trump wouldn't be able to do anything the the fraud case in New York. He's lost his business there.
 
Last edited:

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
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 ?

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.




Take notice that nowhere does it say anything about a criminal conviction being necessary.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
As to precedent. We have that too. There have been eight people that were denied the right to run for office under the 14th Amendment. At least five had not committed any crime. Though most had served in the Confederate Army. One had not even done that. Two had committed clear crimes. One was unclear.

And there were court challenges too. Those did not tend to work out too well for those people. The finding in one applies rather clearly:

"Court confirmed state courts can enforce Section 3 and that Section 3 is not a criminal punishment but a qualification for office."




The only new thing about this case is that no one that engaged in such activities has ever tried to run for President before. As to the false claims of "kangaroo court" that have never been substantiated it has been clear to everyone except for the deniers of reality, that the lower court cases are only the openly salvo here This will be going to the Supreme Court. That is unless Trump does us all a favor and has a massive stroke or chokes on a McNugget before this.
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.




Take notice that nowhere does it say anything about a criminal conviction being necessary.

Holy Carp mate ... of course it says a criminal conviction is necessary .. on insurrection or rebellion .. comfort to the enemy.

Unfortunately -- you don't have the faintest idea what an insurrection is -- in context of the US Gov't .. as in "Taking over the US Govt"

Further help I can not afford..
 

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
That's a phrase invented to inhibit people from criticizing Trump, to imply that one has to be deranged to despise the man.
How anyone can't see that he is total scum is beyond me. I am certain that if after everything you're a Trump cultist still, then you're morally bankrupt and mentally deficient. Which is what human evil is imo, morally bankrupt psychological deficiency.
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Where? Where does it say that?
Case law disagrees with you.
Like I said, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment falls on deaf ears among Trump supporters. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

What a bunch of moronicity It says it in your post of Section 3

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

What deaf ears .. obviously engaging in insurrection is a criminal offense .. mens rea a requirement for conviction

and last What Case Law disagrees with what ? Is mens rea no longer a requirement for criminal conviction. This is made up nonsense.. show us this case law .... where insurrection is no longer a criminal offense .. not needing mens rea for conviction.
 

Tinkerpeach

Active Member
The ongoing lies of election fraud, which he surely knew wasn't true. That fed these people and their fervor, and poor judgment. Many who were convicted for the Jan 6 attack said they felt duped by Trump. They believed him and his lies. And did you forget the speech Trump gave that morning? Have you forgotten how Trump wanted the armed people to be let into his audience that morning, but secret service wouldn't let them in? Trump wanted to go to the Capitol after his speech but the secret service refused that too, due to the danger. Trump also did not call off the rioters until way late in the day, even though many, including his daughter, were begging him to Tweet something. Instead he Tweeted supporting messages. He's also promised to pardon all of them if he is re-elected.
He challenged the elections, something perfectly legal to do.

Trump offered to have the national guard there before his speech but the democrats refused.

Trump told them to protest peacefully and they ignored him so they certainly wouldn’t listen to him telling them to stop and anyways it was a law enforcement issue at that point.

As for the rest of your post none of that is verified.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What a bunch of moronicity It says it in your post of Section 3


What deaf ears .. obviously engaging in insurrection is a criminal offense .. mens rea a requirement for conviction

and last What Case Law disagrees with what ? Is mens rea no longer a requirement for criminal conviction. This is made up nonsense.. show us this case law .... where insurrection is no longer a criminal offense .. not needing mens rea for conviction.
The deaf ears are yours. But then you are like a creationist in this matter. You don't want to learn you only want to believe. I quoted and linked where case law says that you are wrong. You keep forgetting that you have not supported your version of mens rea either. Where I have.
 

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
How anyone can't see that he is total scum is beyond me. I am certain that if after everything you're a Trump cultist still, then you're morally bankrupt and mentally deficient. Which is what human evil is imo, morally bankrupt psychological deficiency.

That, in my opinion, also includes the evangelical Christians who continue to support him. It seems clear to me that they, along with Trump, have dragged the public's opinion of Christianity through the mud, severely damaging the reputation and Christian witness of every evangelical who supports him.

Losing Our Religion review: Trump and the crisis of US Christianity
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
That, in my opinion, also includes the evangelical Christians who continue to support him. It seems clear to me that they, along with Trump, have dragged the public's perception of Christianity through the mud, severely damaging the reputation and Christian witness of every evangelical who supports him.

Losing Our Religion review: Trump and the crisis of US Christianity

Oh God !? -- the RR been dragging Christianity through the mud since inception .. Porn - Prostitutes - Pot - Gambling ... did you forget the war on Drugs friend ? .. or perhaps too young to remember the "Choose Chastity" years .. one of the fave anti-sex-anti abortion slogans ..
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
The deaf ears are yours. But then you are like a creationist in this matter. You don't want to learn you only want to believe. I quoted and linked where case law says that you are wrong. You keep forgetting that you have not supported your version of mens rea either. Where I have.

What is this blathering nonsense - these unsupported accusations with no basis in reality... What version of mens rea have I not supported ? that you have. These are made up fictions in your mind friend -- no relation to reality .. and lest we not forget "Mr. Creationist" .. my arguments against creationism .. the Religious right in general .. and for certain Trump are far better than yours .. so you can lose that Ad Hom fallacy Trope while you are looking for material.

Where have I not supported my version of mens rea friend ? .. what is the reason for this made up fiction ... and do you think it is TDS that has caused this departure from reality ?
 
Top