That is wrong."Negligence" --- the negligence itself must be intended..
I claim greater expertise because at least I know
how to spell "mens rea" (not "men's rea").
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!
That is wrong."Negligence" --- the negligence itself must be intended..
Perhaps you have me confused with another poster. What do you think I have claimed about the laws governing running for political office?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
What I wrote was "Amigo, what you wrote here is deranged - unhinged. It's YOU ranting, running with your hair on fire."you claim that I am afflicted with the disease [TDS]
The vetting process, is the democratic mandate, the vote.Trump gonna be the Vlads man in the USA .. cause we don't vet our candidates here
Christian nationalists, Maga voters and anyone with a grudge really. Those are his backers.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
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.
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.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
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
Are you a lawyer? Did you pass the bar exam, and which state?Right .. guess that Philosophy of Law Class taught by my Jewish Chess Bro who got PH.D from Oxford didn't sink that one.
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.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 ..
This set of words indicates confusion, not Sub Zone's comments. More projection.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 ..
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.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...
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.
Case law disagrees with you.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..
Where? Where does it say that?Holy Carp mate ... of course it says a criminal conviction is necessary .. on insurrection or rebellion .. comfort to the enemy.
Case law disagrees with you.
Where? Where does it say that?
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's a phrase invented to inhibit people from criticizing Trump, to imply that one has to be deranged to despise the man.
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.
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.
He challenged the elections, something perfectly legal to do.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.
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 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.
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 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
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.