Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

[Sargonski]

You clearly could not find or did not read my source. You need to use the "Reply" button that is at the bottom of the post of mine. Posting false claims in the hope that I will do my homework for you won't work.

It is not up to others to prove your ridiculous and false claims friend. You run around crying false false - but can't even tell us what you think is false. This is circular nonsense friend. You claimed the definition of mens rea being used was bogus based on a link but, have failed to show that the link makes this claim - failed to state what definition of mens rea you are claiming is false.

You then extend the lie pretending it is you who are being asked to do the homework for others .. when it is you asking others to do your homework .. Shame .. Shame .. Shame !

 

[Revoltingest]

Trump tried to get fake electors to vote for him
in MI, where he lost to Biden. Turns out that he
tried the same trick in GA, another state where
he lost to Biden.

Inside Trump’s ‘alternate electors’ plot to steal the vote in Georgia

We piece together the astonishing story of how 16 men and women tried to reshape the course of US history

www.theguardian.com

Trump & his minions should all be prosecuted
under RICO. This is the law, but alas, it's only used
against the little people...never against leaders.
But a guy can dream.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well it certainly garnered alot of hopelessly moronic and fallacious responses .. and Look Brother Sub .. we even have some typo Nazism.. what was it you told me about those that run around like a spelling bee in an internet chat room .. what were those arguments worth ? har har har




What's that Skeptic .. hiding round corner giggling like schoolgirl as if unsupported personal invective - aka "name calling from the tree tops" then running to hide" is an valid argument for something other than your own failure .. spurred on by the backslap pudd pull crew .. Did I wander into the wrong room fella's ? Sure someone told me this was the adult section... as opposed to the "detached from reality zone" har har har'
'
OH .. no wait .. TDS cancel culture .. is that the section I have accidently found myself ? Oh No .. which direction to the exit stage left friends .. found myself in one whoopla of a TDS rampage ... where valid arguments no longer matter .. just cancel reality through deflection and deception .. Now I get what you mean brothr Skeptic "This is completely detached from reality" The True Blue Progressive Cancel Crew - Its True

Sorry dude, you don't get to say anything about name calling, given the nature of your posts. Take a read through this one, for example. Mmmkay, fella? ^^

Also, I haven't called you any names. I said your arguments were detached from reality.

 

[Sargonski]

Sorry dude, you don't get to say anything about name calling, given the nature of your posts. Take a read through this one, for example. Mmmkay, fella? ^^

Also, I haven't called you any names. I said your arguments were detached from reality.

Look friend .. jumping into a conversation - not making any comment to the conversation other than "This is completely detatched from reality" .. is both name calling .. and projection "Completly detached from reality"

Takes a certain level of Skeptic Thinker to believe that crying out advective "completely detached from reality" over and over and nothing else .. constitutes an argument for something other than personal failure to live up to one's name don't you think ?!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Look friend .. jumping into a conversation - not making any comment to the conversation other than "This is completely detatched from reality" .. is both name calling .. and projection "Completly detached from reality"

Takes a certain level of Skeptic Thinker to believe that crying out advective "completely detached from reality" over and over and nothing else .. constitutes an argument for something other than personal failure to live up to one's name don't you think ?!

Nah, it isn't. Your posts on the other hand ....

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not up to others to prove your ridiculous and false claims friend. You run around crying false false - but can't even tell us what you think is false. This is circular nonsense friend. You claimed the definition of mens rea being used was bogus based on a link but, have failed to show that the link makes this claim - failed to state what definition of mens rea you are claiming is false.

You then extend the lie pretending it is you who are being asked to do the homework for others .. when it is you asking others to do your homework .. Shame .. Shame .. Shame !

I did prove my claims. You have claimed to have found the posts but the evidence tells us otherwise. Any rational person would have used the reply button so that it was clear that they read my posts and then they could show where I was wrong.

Do you really think that you are fooling anyone?

 

[metis]

The US has the largest availible militia in the world. Will it ever be needed? Who knows.
But like a spare tire its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

In most states it's called the "National Guard", and if it is needed on a larger scale, it becomes federalized.

 

[Revoltingest]

Takes a certain level of Skeptic Thinker to believe that crying out advective "completely detached from reality" over and over and nothing else.....

Perhaps you haven't read her posts.
She's said so much more of substance.

 

[Sargonski]

Nah, it isn't. Your posts on the other hand ....

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

What is this post .. if not other than to throw stones ? .. so stymied you can not manage to state what the issue causing you pain is .. nor address the topic .. just moribund fallacy.

What was the term you were throwing around without justification in your last stone throwing post - "completely detached from reality" - the above post being a prime example of "completely detached from reality" - just a series of unassigned advective .. no explanation of what you are talking about - what is giving you such pain ?

Do you have anything to say about the topic friend - an argument of some kind would be nice - do you know what an argument is ?

 

[We Never Know]

In most states it's called the "National Guard", and if it is needed on a larger scale, it becomes federalized.

The national guard is part of the military.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is this post .. if not other than to throw stones ? .. so stymied you can not manage to state what the issue causing you pain is .. nor address the topic .. just moribund fallacy.

What was the term you were throwing around without justification in your last stone throwing post - "completely detached from reality" - the above post being a prime example of "completely detached from reality" - just a series of unassigned advective .. no explanation of what you are talking about - what is giving you such pain ?

Do you have anything to say about the topic friend - an argument of some kind would be nice - do you know what an argument is ?

That was not "throwing stones". That appears to be a valid assessment. Do you want to convince others of anything? Then try something besides name calling and denial. You seem to think that you are an expert in the law, why can't you find any legal sources that support your claims.

Too bad that you did not read my posts. The one that showed that your interpretation of mens rea was wrong is a very well respected, apolitical source. Maybe that is why you had no answer.

 

[Sargonski]

That was not "throwing stones". That appears to be a valid assessment. Do you want to convince others of anything? Then try something besides name calling and denial. You seem to think that you are an expert in the law, why can't you find any legal sources that support your claims.

Too bad that you did not read my posts. The one that showed that your interpretation of mens rea was wrong is a very well respected, apolitical source. Maybe that is why you had no answer.

Dude -- enough of the constant personal invective .. falsehood and lies. Your source was addressed - nowhere did it show a definition of mens rea bogus .. not mine .. not anyones. This is a figment of your imagination .. demonstrated by the fact that you can not quote from your source .. where a definition of mens rea is shown to be "Bogus"

Made up fantasy -- and not the first time .. rather consistent unfortunately. Now go find an argument -- something coherent to say on the topic .. show us the mens rea .. by what ever definition you like.. you say mens rea was present for "insurgency" Do tell us how taking over a Gov't building with some Congresspeople in it for a few hours .. smashing some stuff and some minor violence of the pushing and shoving variety .. was going to result in taking over the entire US Gov't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dude -- enough of the constant personal invective .. falsehood and lies. Your source was addressed - nowhere did it show a definition of mens rea bogus .. not mine .. not anyones. This is a figment of your imagination .. demonstrated by the fact that you can not quote from your source .. where a definition of mens rea is shown to be "Bogus"

Made up fantasy -- and not the first time .. rather consistent unfortunately. Now go find an argument -- something coherent to say on the topic .. show us the mens rea .. by what ever definition you like.. you say mens rea was present for "insurgency" Do tell us how taking over a Gov't building with some Congresspeople in it for a few hours .. smashing some stuff and some minor violence of the pushing and shoving variety .. was going to result in taking over the entire US Gov't.

My source was never addressed. You probably do not even know what source it was. I might have mentioned it but you almost certainly forgot it if I did. You never addressed the actual article. And without an apology for your endless personal attacks and false claims about me I am not going to give it to you.

 

[Sargonski]

My source was never addressed. You probably do not even know what source it was. I might have mentioned it but you almost certainly forgot it if I did. You never addressed the actual article. And without an apology for your endless personal attacks and false claims about me I am not going to give it to you.

It is a falsehood that your source was not addressed. The Truth is your inability to show what you cliam your source says. - that my definition of mens rea is "Bogus" because your claim is also a falsehood .. followed by complaining about personal attacks.

Pointing out your intentional falsehoods is not a personal attack friend - you have it the wrong way, which has led you down the path of Blue totalitarianist thought - which wants to trample dissent 3rd world kangaroo court/ police state actions .. labeling unarmed protesters "Terrorists" to violate their liberty giving the police state extra powers.

As we move towards totalitarianism -- everything becomes a lie

 

[Twilight Hue]

In most states it's called the "National Guard", and if it is needed on a larger scale, it becomes federalized.

Minus the right to keep and bear arms. Orginal Militia members privately owned their firearms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a falsehood that your source was not addressed. The Truth is your inability to show what you cliam your source says. - that my definition of mens rea is "Bogus" because your claim is also a falsehood .. followed by complaining about personal attacks.

Pointing out your intentional falsehoods is not a personal attack friend - you have it the wrong way, which has led you down the path of Blue totalitarianist thought - which wants to trample dissent 3rd world kangaroo court/ police state actions .. labeling unarmed protesters "Terrorists" to violate their liberty giving the police state extra powers.

As we move towards totalitarianism -- everything becomes a lie

You never quoted from it you never linked it. That means you didn't address it. And you keep getting the argument wrong. It is your interpretation of mens rea that was refuted.

And you keep using terms improperly and you can't define them. You appear to have a very severe case of TDS.

 

[Sargonski]

You never quoted from it you never linked it. That means you didn't address it. And you keep getting the argument wrong. It is your interpretation of mens rea that was refuted.

And you keep using terms improperly and you can't define them. You appear to have a very severe case of TDS.

Don't be accusing me of your TDS issues please.

How can I quote something from your source that does not exist in that source ? What a wild good chase Joke friend .. there is no refutation of my interpretation of mens rea in your source .. which is why you keep failing to post this refutation from your source - deflecting from this duty to support your claim with new invented falsehoods with each post.

What terms that I can't define were used improperly ? What a joke friend .. made up false nonsense with every post.

 

[metis]

The national guard is part of the military.

Technically not as it must be federalized first for the fed to take control, and this has been done numerous times in our history.

 

[metis]

Minus the right to keep and bear arms. Orginal Militia members privately owned their firearms.

Yes, they did, but remember the opening of the 2nd Amendment: "A well-regulated militia...".

 

[F1fan]

I listened to a legal expert give his opinion this weekend on why he doesn't believe the SC will rule to remove Trump from ballots. His view is that the meaning of insurection is too vague to apply to Trump in this case, and to apply a cause to Trump for the riots on Jan 6 will be difficult. He went on further to say that he thinks it is better for Trump to face voters and be rejected by the people, as he predicts more violence if Trump is removed by the courts. I can't remember his name or what show he was on, but I have to say he made sense to me. He cited the increase in threats to courts and public servants as a reason to follow a more democratic plan. If Trump loses again he will certainly be cooked. His only life boat at this point is re-election.

With the high success for democrats in the elections this past week I can see how Trump might not have the votes the polling data indicates. Trump's own statements, his plan to fire members of the DOJ and FBI who won't follow his orders, and to attack his political opponents, Vlus the revelations from Trump's old lawyers that he intended to not leave the White house in January 2021, he seems to be a sinking ship.

Now this does raise the issue of election safety, like poll locations. But we could even see republicans dedicated to Trump to attempt fraud within the election process itself, like dropping names from voter rolls, changing voting locations, limited voting locations in democrat areas, etc. Sane republicans will have to speak out against violence and election interferance in November 2024. I think by then many of them will see their own elections on the bubble and will try to save democracy for their own sake.