Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

[Sargonski]

No, it doesn't. It means what it says. As I said.

I don't feel the need to point out "weak" people or whatever. That's not something I focus on in life.

Nope.

There is no ad hom fallacy.

I'm not a spelling nazi. I'm just telling you your posts are difficult to read. As others have also pointed out.

I've not corrected any of your spelling and I don't think anyone else has either.
No ad hom here either.

I didn't mention typos.

I've never claimed I'm more intelligent than you are. I've not bragged of anything.

I've only pointed out that YOUR POSTS ARE DIFFICULT TO READ THROUGH.

I haven't shouted out any rude names. That's your thing.

My opinion on Trump? Not fit for office.

Look friend -- "difficult to read" .. I get it ... nothing to contribute but derogatory comments .. Ad Hom Fallacy - which you clearly don't know what is so I will explain -

Finding a spelling error in a post is not a sign of intelligence .. and really silly in an internet chat as does not make an agument false - hence the Ad Hom Fallacy part - a moronic sideways attack on the person rather than addressing the truth or falsehood of the claim at hand.

So another example -- say you are painting a fence with a friend who has 30 year painting experience .. having learned the trade many years ago while in Jail for a short bid. You on the other hand - painting the first fence .. your friend comments saying No .. do it like this .. upon which you reply .. what does a convict know.

Ad Hom fallacy -- attacking the person rather than the claim .. his being in prison has no bearing on whether or not you suck as a painter

 

[Subduction Zone]

Holy Carp this is dissillusioned unintelligible nonsense.. "You use a Strawman version of Mens Rea" what the heck is that pray tell. Clearly you have not the faintest idea what strawman fallacy is --

but then .. you cry "it does not have to be an attempt to overtake Gov't" then give a definition for Insurrection .. which talks about rebellion and revolution against Gov't --

What exactly did you think a revolution against the Gov't attempting to do exactly .. if not overtake the Gov't ???

You don't understand your own definition friend -- Inssurection -- if we are talking a ship does not mean taking over the Gov't .. but insurrection against the Gov't .. is taking over the Gov't ..

This mistake is perhaps why you have been so out in left field all this time.

I cannot take you seriously. So I will just continue to correct your obvious political errors whether you understand them or not. If you ever wish to have a serious discussion then demonstrate that by properly supporting your claims for once. Until then you are on corrections only mode with me.

 

[Sargonski]

I cannot take you seriously. So I will just continue to correct your obvious political errors whether you understand them or not. If you ever wish to have a serious discussion then demonstrate that by properly supporting your claims for once. Until then you are on corrections only mode with me.

Who is the one not to be taken seriously friend ? You said .. and I quote "You use a Strawman version of Mens Rea" - Proving you have no idea Strawman fallacy is. What words were put in your mouth is my version of men's rea ?

You then stated that revolution against the Gov't - as per the definition you gave is not an attempt to take over the Gov't. There are at least two corrections you need to make

Until then you are on corrections only mode with me.

Correct away friend Har har har

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who is the one not to be taken seriously friend ? You said .. and I quote "You use a Strawman version of Mens Rea" - Proving you have no idea Strawman fallacy is. What words were put in your mouth is my version of men's rea ?

You then stated that revolution against the Gov't - as per the definition you gave is not an attempt to take over the Gov't. There are at least two corrections you need to make



Correct away friend Har har har

I know, I should not have used the concept of a logical fallacy because you have shown that you do not understand those. The corrections are more for others than they are for you since you probably will not allow yourself to understand them. All you can do is to quote phrase out of context that you did not understand. And that is rather sad.

Maybe when Trump is locked up you will have recovered from your TDS.

 

[Bthoth]

Maybe when Trump is locked up you will have recovered from your TDS.

Best idea that i have seen since the idea that if a messiah shows up in israel the violence would stop!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Best idea that i have seen since the idea that if a messiah shows up in israel the violence would stop!

It may or may not cure the disease. One thing that it would do is to remove his access to the microphone. He could not rile up his supporters as he does so often with his hate speech. I am hoping that. I would love for the party to regain its old conservative and rational roots, but it has been abandoning those more and more over my lifetime.

I can see that he is a danger to our democracy right now. It is amazing how many people believe the lies that he spouted and is still spouting.

 

[Bthoth]

It may or may not cure the disease. One thing that it would do is to remove his access to the microphone. He could not rile up his supporters as he does so often with his hate speech. I am hoping that.

I hope that too

I would love for the party to regain its old conservative and rational roots, but it has been abandoning those more and more over my lifetime.

Same, I grew up conservative based on fiscal responsibility

I can see that he is a danger to our democracy right now. It is amazing how many people believe the lies that he spouted and is still spouting.

Scary to say the least.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Look friend -- "difficult to read" .. I get it ... nothing to contribute but derogatory comments .. Ad Hom Fallacy - which you clearly don't know what is so I will explain -

Finding a spelling error in a post is not a sign of intelligence .. and really silly in an internet chat as does not make an agument false - hence the Ad Hom Fallacy part - a moronic sideways attack on the person rather than addressing the truth or falsehood of the claim at hand.

So another example -- say you are painting a fence with a friend who has 30 year painting experience .. having learned the trade many years ago while in Jail for a short bid. You on the other hand - painting the first fence .. your friend comments saying No .. do it like this .. upon which you reply .. what does a convict know.

Ad Hom fallacy -- attacking the person rather than the claim .. his being in prison has no bearing on whether or not you suck as a painter

I've read this post before, the first 97 times you typed it. It's irrelevant. I'm not talking about spelling mistakes and typos here. I'm not calling you names. I'm not saying your arguments don't work because you're stupid. None of that is happening.


I'm just trying to help you out dude. If you're content with being difficult to understand, have at it, Hoss.

 

[Sargonski]

I've read this post before, the first 97 times you typed it. It's irrelevant. I'm not talking about spelling mistakes and typos here. I'm not calling you names. I'm not saying your arguments don't work because you're stupid. None of that is happening.


I'm just trying to help you out dude. If you're content with being difficult to understand, have at it, Hoss.

Yes .. you were talking about spelling and typo's .. or what did you say specifically "Grammar and Sentence Structure" .. was that it .. the fact that you don't realize there is no difference to your fallacy is telling.

Skeptic "I'm just trying to help you out" running around after spelling mistakes - pretending this is a valid argument for something is big Phat fallacy.. and my vocab is far better than yours .. so perhaps your reading comprehension difficulties are not as much related to me as to the reader. .. that said .. feel free to post something I said that you did not understand .. and I will be happy to help.

but, at some point - do feel free to do something other than personal invective and fallacy - and address the topic in some way shape or form

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes .. you were talking about spelling and typo's .. or what did you say specifically "Grammar and Sentence Structure" .. was that it .. the fact that you don't realize there is no difference to your fallacy is telling.

No, I wasn't. As I've clarified about 7 times now.

Skeptic "I'm just trying to help you out" running around after spelling mistakes - pretending this is a valid argument for something is big Phat fallacy..

I didn't say anything about spelling mistakes.
I didn't say anything about spelling mistakes invalidating your arguments or being an argument for anything at all.

and my vocab is far better than yours .

And my dad is stronger than your dad! Nahh nahhh boo boo!

. so perhaps your reading comprehension difficulties are not as much related to me as to the reader.

As I've pointed out about 7 times, I'm not the only one having a difficult time trying to get through your posts. If you're fine with being difficult to understand, than have at it.

.. that said .. feel free to post something I said that you did not understand .. and I will be happy to help.

I have and will continue to do so.

but, at some point - do feel free to do something other than personal invective and fallacy - and address the topic in some way shape or form

There are no personal invectives here. There are no fallacies here. Those are part of your M.O., not mine.

 

[F1fan]

To take a breather from the disinformation by a certain member, the Colorado ruling that Trump committed insurrection, but can't be removed from the ballot, has been appealed. But get this, it is being appealed by both the plaintiff AND Trump, albeit for different reasons.

The appeals were filed by both Trump and the Colorado voters arguing he is ineligible to hold office. Trump took issue with the state judge's finding that he "engaged in insurrection," while the voters disagreed with the ruling that the constitutional clause about ineligibility does not apply to the presidency.​

Colorado Supreme Court to take up appeals in Trump ballot case

A state judge ruled last week that Trump "engaged in insurrection" but that the U.S. Constitution’s ban on insurrectionists' holding office didn't apply to presidents.

www.nbcnews.com

This will be interesting as it develops. I wonder if this will be an emergency hearing, and ruling, as Colorado's ballots need to be printed early in 2024. The primary dispute is whether the president of the USA is an officer of the government. The ruling is that the president isn't an officer. But it has been questioned why a lower tier member of government could be considered an officer but not the top tier. Could Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, be allowed to run for president in 1868?

Let's not forget that Trump is scheduled to go to trial in March in DC.

 

[Sargonski]

No, I wasn't. As I've clarified about 7 times now.

I didn't say anything about spelling mistakes.
I didn't say anything about spelling mistakes invalidating your arguments or being an argument for anything at all.



And my dad is stronger than your dad! Nahh nahhh boo boo!

As I've pointed out about 7 times, I'm not the only one having a difficult time trying to get through your posts. If you're fine with being difficult to understand, than have at it.

I have and will continue to do so.

There are no personal invectives here. There are no fallacies here. Those are part of your M.O., not mine.

I told you -- "grammar and sentence structure" is what you were complaining about -- many times .. which is akin to running around after typo's and spelling. Do you still not understand how ridiculous that activity in an internet chat forum friend - constituting Ad Hom fallacy .. as opposed to valid argument.

Do you not understand why "grammar" and "spelling" are the same in relative context .. neither having anything to do with a valid argument.

Which brings us to the same question .. ..do you have anything other than personal invective and strawman fallacy -- some comment on the topic would be nice .. telling us why you are so fixated on Trump that you were willing to throw civil liberty out the window .. in some ends justifies the means .. Trump obsessed authoritarianism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I told you -- "grammar and sentence structure" is what you were complaining about -- many times .. which is akin to running around after typo's and spelling. Do you still not understand how ridiculous that activity in an internet chat forum friend - constituting Ad Hom fallacy .. as opposed to valid argument.

Do you not understand why "grammar" and "spelling" are the same in relative context .. neither having anything to do with a valid argument.

Which brings us to the same question .. ..do you have anything other than personal invective and strawman fallacy -- some comment on the topic would be nice .. telling us why you are so fixated on Trump that you were willing to throw civil liberty out the window .. in some ends justifies the means .. Trump obsessed authoritarianism.

Broken record.

I'm gonna go converse with someone I can actually understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To take a breather from the disinformation by a certain member, the Colorado ruling that Trump committed insurrection, but can't be removed from the ballot, has been appealed. But get this, it is being appealed by both the plaintiff AND Trump, albeit for different reasons.

The appeals were filed by both Trump and the Colorado voters arguing he is ineligible to hold office. Trump took issue with the state judge's finding that he "engaged in insurrection," while the voters disagreed with the ruling that the constitutional clause about ineligibility does not apply to the presidency.​

Colorado Supreme Court to take up appeals in Trump ballot case

A state judge ruled last week that Trump "engaged in insurrection" but that the U.S. Constitution’s ban on insurrectionists' holding office didn't apply to presidents.

www.nbcnews.com

This will be interesting as it develops. I wonder if this will be an emergency hearing, and ruling, as Colorado's ballots need to be printed early in 2024. The primary dispute is whether the president of the USA is an officer of the government. The ruling is that the president isn't an officer. But it has been questioned why a lower tier member of government could be considered an officer but not the top tier. Could Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, be allowed to run for president in 1868?

Let's not forget that Trump is scheduled to go to trial in March in DC.

I was thinking that Trump should appeal the decision. I was a bit surprised that his lawyers were smart enough to convince him that it needed to be done. The decision that he engaged in insurrection, though correct, is very harmful to Trump's case in the appeal.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To take a breather from the disinformation by a certain member, the Colorado ruling that Trump committed insurrection, but can't be removed from the ballot, has been appealed. But get this, it is being appealed by both the plaintiff AND Trump, albeit for different reasons.

The appeals were filed by both Trump and the Colorado voters arguing he is ineligible to hold office. Trump took issue with the state judge's finding that he "engaged in insurrection," while the voters disagreed with the ruling that the constitutional clause about ineligibility does not apply to the presidency.​

Colorado Supreme Court to take up appeals in Trump ballot case

A state judge ruled last week that Trump "engaged in insurrection" but that the U.S. Constitution’s ban on insurrectionists' holding office didn't apply to presidents.

www.nbcnews.com

This will be interesting as it develops. I wonder if this will be an emergency hearing, and ruling, as Colorado's ballots need to be printed early in 2024. The primary dispute is whether the president of the USA is an officer of the government. The ruling is that the president isn't an officer. But it has been questioned why a lower tier member of government could be considered an officer but not the top tier. Could Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, be allowed to run for president in 1868?

Let's not forget that Trump is scheduled to go to trial in March in DC.

The Judge's ruling is kind of weird to me ....

"In her ruling Friday, Wallace found that Trump "engaged in insurrection" but said the Constitution’s ban on insurrectionists' holding office did not apply to Trump because the clause in question explicitly lists all federal elected positions except the presidency."

I mean, why wouldn't it also apply to the Presidency? I would think that would be obvious that you don't want a traitor as President of the United States.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I told you -- "grammar and sentence structure" is what you were complaining about -- many times .. which is akin to running around after typo's and spelling. Do you still not understand how ridiculous that activity in an internet chat forum friend - constituting Ad Hom fallacy .. as opposed to valid argument.

Do you not understand why "grammar" and "spelling" are the same in relative context .. neither having anything to do with a valid argument.

Which brings us to the same question .. ..do you have anything other than personal invective and strawman fallacy -- some comment on the topic would be nice .. telling us why you are so fixated on Trump that you were willing to throw civil liberty out the window .. in some ends justifies the means .. Trump obsessed authoritarianism.

I see that you still do not understand logical fallacies.

What was her strawman fallacy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Judge's ruling is kind of weird to me ....

"In her ruling Friday, Wallace found that Trump "engaged in insurrection" but said the Constitution’s ban on insurrectionists' holding office did not apply to Trump because the clause in question explicitly lists all federal elected positions except the presidency."

I mean, why wouldn't it also apply to the Presidency? I would think that would be obvious that you don't want a traitor as President of the United States.

From my understanding it was done based upon historical perspective. While hammering this out there was a version that mentioned the Presidency but it was dropped in the final version. The problem is that "electors" are also offices that cannot be held by insurrectionists and that implies the Presidency because the fear is that there would be attempts to get insurrectionists into political offices.

 

[F1fan]

The Judge's ruling is kind of weird to me ....

"In her ruling Friday, Wallace found that Trump "engaged in insurrection" but said the Constitution’s ban on insurrectionists' holding office did not apply to Trump because the clause in question explicitly lists all federal elected positions except the presidency."

I mean, why wouldn't it also apply to the Presidency? I would think that would be obvious that you don't want a traitor as President of the United States.

Right. It doesn’t say the presidency is exempt. Nor does it mention members of congress specifically. It says officers. We often hear “office of the president “.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Right. It doesn’t say the presidency is exempt. Nor does it mention members of congress specifically. It says officers. We often hear “office of the president “.

Yes!

 

[fantome profane]

Right. It doesn’t say the presidency is exempt. Nor does it mention members of congress specifically. It says officers. We often hear “office of the president “.

I agree with your basic point, but I have to correct you. The 14 amendment does in fact mention members of Congress. "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress ...".

It does not specifically mention President.

The fact that it doesn't specifically mention President does seem a little odd. But the idea that this would not apply to the most powerful position in the government is extremely odd.