Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

[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

Show me where it was addressed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Okay, I am pro gun control, but I have seen what looked a like valid arguments that the phrase "well-regulated" in those days when applied to a militia meant "well-armed".

'Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." '

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Of course one can look and see why civilian militias were necessary in those early days. Even after we won we did not have the large armies of other countries and it could be seen that we might need to go to public sources as we did in the Revolutionary War. That need does not exist today. I would argue against it more by context of the whole thing. We no longer need a well armed civilian population to guarantee that defense of the country.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have very strong doubts that a state can independently take someone off the ballot in the federal part of the ballot.

You probably mean candidates running for federal office (Pres/VP and US Senators and Representatives). My understanding is that when Ohioans (for example) vote, they are voting as Ohioans and not as Americans. This seems correct regarding congresspersons, since they represent Ohio and its interests in Congress, not America, and it's actually Ohio's electors that vote for the president. But this might be wrong.

it will not be the states that decide this. It will be going to the Supreme Court.

Isn't the Court deciding if the states have that right? If so and they rule in favor of states having that right, then wouldn't it then be the states deciding for themselves?

Time to answer your own question friend - the point saying that our 3rd world kangaroo court .. constitutes a criminal justice system .. is what.. are you trying to give Putin a run for his money or something ? 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"

And this is why she says you're detached from reality. She's not on Team Putin. MAGA is. America presently has a first world Department of Justice under Garland, and the courts in New York and Georgia are also progressing diligently, lawfully, and without "fear or favor." If you want to see Putinesque justice, look to the wannabe tin-horn dictator, who is openly planning to weaponize the DOJ and stack the courts with MAGA ideologues if he gets the chance.

Explain why you think you're right assuming you do. You needn't respond if it's going to look like that comment I just quoted, which is just bluster and grievance without argument or evidence.

Also, please explain how when she says you're detached from reality, it's name calling, but when you say she's projecting, that you're not then calling her the same. Also, why comparing her to Putin isn't gratuitously defamatory.

 

[Sargonski]

Show me where it was addressed.

You claimed my interpretation of mens rea was Bogus -- according to your source.

Nowhere in your source is it claimed that my interpretation is bogus = I have addressed your source .. and your failure to show where in your source this bogus claim is made.

What does not exist in your source can not be shown to you .. which is why you fail to show where in your source your claim is made .. because your claim is a big fat unsupported falsehood

 

[Subduction Zone]

You claimed my interpretation of mens rea was Bogus -- according to your source.

Nowhere in your source is it claimed that my interpretation is bogus = I have addressed your source .. and your failure to show where in your source this bogus claim is made.

What does not exist in your source can not be shown to you .. which is why you fail to show where in your source your claim is made .. because your claim is a big fat unsupported falsehood

You do not even know what my source was. You are not fooling anyone. You lost.

 

[Sargonski]

You do not even know what my source was. You are not fooling anyone. You lost.

Sub D .. You are the one trying to fool folks -- don't be trying to tar me with your deception - claiming your source proves my interpretation of mens rea "Bogus" .. but failing to produce this refutation from the source .. and seems you do not even know what you are trying to refute .. but running around shouting "You Lost" ??

Look friend .. Trump -- remember him .. you were telling us about the "mens rea" behind the Capital Protest .. and how these folks figured to take over the entire US Gov't by taking over a single Gov't building .. unarmed protesters .. with no outside help .

Looks like you are the one who is - in your words - "lost" friend .. up the creek without paddle .. but at least try to swim .. so we can have a giggle ..and tell us about how this plan had some realistic chance - as opposed to hypothetical fantasy - of taking over the Entire US Gov't .. A Coup de'tate as they say in France

The Floor is yours Sub D .. tell us your story ..

 

[McBell]

..and tell us about how this plan had some realistic chance - as opposed to hypothetical fantasy - of taking over the Entire US Gov't ..

And this is the very part his link completely and utterly destroyed.

Of course, with your self proclaimed superior knowledge of US Law, you should have spotted that part right off the bat, right?
But not only did you fail to spot that, you firmly stuck your fingers in your ears and started piling up the BS so fast you were shoveling it at any one who even dared reply to one of your posts.

Like I already said, I know enough insecure people to recognize the symptoms.

You have yourself a nice day.

 

[Sargonski]

And this is the very part his link completely and utterly destroyed.

Of course, with your self proclaimed superior knowledge of US Law, you should have spotted that part right off the bat, right?
But not only did you fail to spot that, you firmly stuck your fingers in your ears and started piling up the BS so fast you were shoveling it at any one who even dared reply to one of your posts.

Like I already said, I know enough insecure people to recognize the symptoms.

You have yourself a nice day.

Well Wonderfull .. then post the part of the link you claim utterly destroyed trumps mens rea defense .. or give the argument yourself .. enlighten us all at the same time.

Do you know what an argument is friend ? that is when you support your claims with something other then fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sub D .. You are the one trying to fool folks -- don't be trying to tar me with your deception - claiming your source proves my interpretation of mens rea "Bogus" .. but failing to produce this refutation from the source .. and seems you do not even know what you are trying to refute .. but running around shouting "You Lost" ??

Look friend .. Trump -- remember him .. you were telling us about the "mens rea" behind the Capital Protest .. and how these folks figured to take over the entire US Gov't by taking over a single Gov't building .. unarmed protesters .. with no outside help .

Looks like you are the one who is - in your words - "lost" friend .. up the creek without paddle .. but at least try to swim .. so we can have a giggle ..and tell us about how this plan had some realistic chance - as opposed to hypothetical fantasy - of taking over the Entire US Gov't .. A Coup de'tate as they say in France

The Floor is yours Sub D .. tell us your story ..

Nope. I gave you a solution. You could have apologized and I would have posted my links for you. Or you could find them for yourself. You did neither.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well Wonderfull .. then post the part of the link you claim utterly destroyed trumps mens rea defense .. or give the argument yourself .. enlighten us all at the same time.

Do you know what an argument is friend ? that is when you support your claims with something other then fallacy.

I hope that he doesn't. Though he could if he wanted to. I do enjoy seeing you squirm.

 

[McBell]

Well Wonderfull .. then post the part of the link you claim utterly destroyed trumps mens rea defense .. or give the argument yourself .. enlighten us all at the same time.

Do you know what an argument is friend ? that is when you support your claims with something other then fallacy.

You are the last one in this thread who should be whining about fallacies.
Like your blatant strawman in the above quoted.

It has already been explained to you.
Multiple times.
I seriously doubt in your current state of insecure, you would be able to handle it being explained, yet again.

But you go and have yourself a wonderful day otherwise.

 

[McBell]

I hope that he doesn't. Though he could if he wanted to. I do enjoy seeing you squirm.

Nope.
I am not gonna point it out to them.
I mean, I am no where near as educated about the law as they claim they are.


Besides, I find it entertaining that they are merely making a bigger fool of them self with each post.
All the while being proud and braggy about it.

 

[Sargonski]

And this is the very part his link completely and utterly destroyed.

Of course, with your self proclaimed superior knowledge of US Law, you should have spotted that part right off the bat, right?
But not only did you fail to spot that, you firmly stuck your fingers in your ears and started piling up the BS so fast you were shoveling it at any one who even dared reply to one of your posts.

Like I already said, I know enough insecure people to recognize the symptoms.

You have yourself a nice day.

Well Wonderfull .. then post the part of the link you claim utterly destroyed trumps mens rea defense .. or give the argument yourself .. enlighten us all at the same time.

Do you know what an argument is friend ? that is when you support your claims with something other than fallacy.

 

[Sargonski]

Nope.
I am not gonna point it out to them.
I mean, I am no where near as educated about the law as they claim they are.


Besides, I find it entertaining that they are merely making a bigger fool of them self with each post.
All the while being proud and braggy about it.

Who is the "Bigger Fool" as you say ? -- the one who makes an unsupported claim .. or the one who thinks not supporting one's claim constitutes an argument for something .. while being proud and braggy about it ?

 

[Sargonski]

You are the last one in this thread who should be whining about fallacies.
Like your blatant strawman in the above quoted.

It has already been explained to you.
Multiple times.
I seriously doubt in your current state of insecure, you would be able to handle it being explained, yet again.

But you go and have yourself a wonderful day otherwise.

Obviously you no idea what a strawman fallacy is ..

Well Wonderfull .. then post the part of the link you claim utterly destroyed trumps mens rea defense .. or give the argument yourself .. enlighten us all at the same time.

Do you know what an argument is friend ? that is when you support your claims with something other then fallacy.

Where is the claim attributed to you that you did not make in the above post? .. where are words put in your mouth ? -- Nowhere, and thus a made up fantasy on your part .. just as your claim that the mens rea for insurgency has been explained - is also made up fantasy.

Then you talk about "Whining about fallacies" - when it is obvious you dont' know what a fallacy is .. nor an argument.

So once again - do you know what an argument is friend ?

 

[metis]

Okay, I am pro gun control, but I have seen what looked a like valid arguments that the phrase "well-regulated" in those days when applied to a militia meant "well-armed".

'Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." '

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Of course one can look and see why civilian militias were necessary in those early days. Even after we won we did not have the large armies of other countries and it could be seen that we might need to go to public sources as we did in the Revolutionary War. That need does not exist today. I would argue against it more by context of the whole thing. We no longer need a well armed civilian population to guarantee that defense of the country.

However, "well organized" implies "well regulated", and it's the state that did and does do that unless they're federalized. A state would not be so self-threatening to its own existence by not "organizing" such a military force that otherwise could be a threat to the state's own existence.

 

[metis]

You probably mean candidates running for federal office (Pres/VP and US Senators and Representatives). My understanding is that when Ohioans (for example) vote, they are voting as Ohioans and not as Americans. This seems correct regarding congresspersons, since they represent Ohio and its interests in Congress, not America, and it's actually Ohio's electors that vote for the president. But this might be wrong.

Yes, I think a measure such as this would likely end up in federal court although it may start out in state court.

 

[F1fan]

But you go and have yourself a wonderful day otherwise.

Oh, now you've gone and done it. The first thing @Sargonski doesn't want is someone to tell him to have a wonderful day, and the second thing he doesn't want is to have a wonderful day.

Nope.
I am not gonna point it out to them.
I mean, I am no where near as educated about the law as they claim they are.


Besides, I find it entertaining that they are merely making a bigger fool of them self with each post.
All the while being proud and braggy about it.

The MAGAs don't value integrity and truth, nor feel embarrassment and shame. Nor do they acknowledge error of judgment. It's almost like they are deadly bacteria that have no idea of the harm they do, and they just keep doing their deadly thing because that is what they are. They will be vastly more entertaining after they lose the 2024 elections, as until then they pose a real threat to America and democracy.

 

[F1fan]

However, "well organized" implies "well regulated", and it's the state that did and does do that unless they're federalized.

Right, we can't have "organized" without rules, and the rules need to support the intent of what is being organized as a society. As far as militias go the intent was security of the state and the United States. In 1789 the federal government was very small and limited, and only later, once transportation expanded, did it becomes more broad to manage the states as a collective.

A state would not be so self-threatening to its own existence by not "organizing" such a military force that otherwise could be a threat to the state's own existence.

I would be curious to see how states organized their militias, and what the difference was. And at what point these state mlitias were abandonded for a federal army. We know that military units were organized by state during the Civil War, and even the First World War.

 

[Sargonski]

Nope. I gave you a solution. You could have apologized and I would have posted my links for you. Or you could find them for yourself. You did neither.

Gave a solution to what friend .. you are talking pure nonsense .. giving no indication of what you gave a solution to ?? What solution did you give, to what ? and what solutions am I supposed to find ? You falsely claim I did neither but, I have already given you the solution to your circular fallacy problem .. which is to Cite from your source where mens rea for Insurgency is given.

You claim your source gives mens rea for insurgency but no one can seem to find where your source states this .. thus another fantasy wild goose chase as what you claim your source says is false. .. Your source does not give mens rea for insurgency -- and this is just another made up falsehood on your part to deflect your lack of understanding of the issue .. and desperate desire to get Trump at all costs .. "ends justify the means" even if that takes us down the path of totalitarianism in some TDS Haze.