Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

[Twilight Hue]

Why do you think that a conviction is needed?

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Innocent until proven guilty.

No, this is not a criminal matter. No criminal trial has to take place.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It works the way the law says it works. Each State spells out a process.

If someone is under 35 years old, they are not eligible to be President. It does not need a criminal conviction.

If someone is not born in the U.S. they are not eligible to be President. It does not need a criminal conviction.

If someone commits an insurrection they are not eligible to be President. It does not need a criminal conviction.





Why is that so hard to understand.

I don't recall Trump ever calling publicly for an insurrection.
If there was I'd like to see it.

Far as i know, its just an allegation as it stands.

It's not enough without solid hard proof to back it up.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here is something curious. Trump haters spout that he is so unpopular. Yet they are maniacally attempting to keep him off the ballot. If they truly think he isn't popular they should welcome having him on the ballot so he would lose.

You think that's the reason they want to get him off the ballot? Really? Not his two impeachments, 90+ indictments, four impending court trials and total disregard for the rule of law?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Unless he is convicted, he is eligible to run. You are evincing the point I made. Some are desperate for Trump not to be on the ticket yet claim Trump couldn't possibly win. Your dissonance displays your fear.

It's peculiar that the attempts with the 14th amendment, used primarily for freed slaves, is being used on Trump rather than allowing the election system to determine the next president.

Democrats are desperately doing everything under the sun to prevent Trump from becoming a nominee because they are not confident .

 

[Shaul]

The authors are. That is what counts. I see you try to deflect so you can try to ignore their expert opinion. And given you have no response to their expert opinion you must acknowledge THEY have better opinions than you.

So, I reject your irrelevant opinion, and accept their expert opinion.

This is the same Atlantic magazine that said Trump's presidency would end because of the Emoluments Clause. Indeed you agreed with them and wrote, "Are you going to deny he is in violation of the emoluments clause? That is not even hidden or subtle. It is an absolute fact that Trump has taken, and continues to take, money from foreign governments, and it is also a fact that this violates the U.S. constitution." But the courts ruled on the issue and Trump hadn't violated the Emoluments Clause. Now you and the Atlantic are saying Trump can't run based on the XIV Amendment. As Yogi Berra said "It's like déjà vu all over again." You were wrong then, you are wrong now.

 

[Shaul]

You think that's the reason they want to get him off the ballot? Really? Not his two impeachments, 90+ indictments, four impending court trials and total disregard for the rule of law?

It is one of the reasons, yes, if not the main reason.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

You think that's the reason they want to get him off the ballot? Really? Not his two impeachments, 90+ indictments, four impending court trials and total disregard for the rule of law?

In addition to the 60+ court cases (including the SCOTUS) that he lost in his ongoing efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in his favor.

 

[Shaul]

They feel this way for a very good reason. When he loses, and once again the idiot horde can't accept this result, how much more damage and destruction and human suffering will be caused because of him?

In fact, THIS is the reason that he should be disqualified from running again.

So throw away the Constitution because of the figments of your imagination. Nice try.

 

[F1fan]

This is the same Atlantic magazine that said Trump's presidency would end because of the Emoluments Clause. Indeed you agreed with them and wrote, "Are you going to deny he is in violation of the emoluments clause? That is not even hidden or subtle. It is an absolute fact that Trump has taken, and continues to take, money from foreign governments, and it is also a fact that this violates the U.S. constitution." But the courts ruled on the issue and Trump hadn't violated the Emoluments Clause. Now you and the Atlantic are saying Trump can't run based on the XIV Amendment. As Yogi Berra said "It's like déjà vu all over again." You were wrong then, you are wrong now.

So you can’t argue against the lawyer’s argument that Trump is disqualified. OK.

 

[F1fan]

This is the same Atlantic magazine that said Trump's presidency would end because of the Emoluments Clause. Indeed you agreed with them and wrote, "Are you going to deny he is in violation of the emoluments clause? That is not even hidden or subtle. It is an absolute fact that Trump has taken, and continues to take, money from foreign governments, and it is also a fact that this violates the U.S. constitution." But the courts ruled on the issue and Trump hadn't violated the Emoluments Clause. Now you and the Atlantic are saying Trump can't run based on the XIV Amendment. As Yogi Berra said "It's like déjà vu all over again." You were wrong then, you are wrong now.

So you can’t argue against the lawyer’s argument that Trump is disqualified. OK.

 

[F1fan]

It is one of the reasons, yes, if not the main reason.

The main reason: Trump can’t be trusted. He’s corrupt, a constant liar, facing decades in prison (he won’t live that long), and poses a domestic threat to national security.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is one of the reasons, yes, if not the main reason.

And you based that on ..... what, exactly?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So throw away the Constitution because of the figments of your imagination. Nice try.

Who's throwing away the Constitution?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The main reason: Trump can’t be trusted. He’s corrupt, a constant liar, facing decades in prison (he won’t live that long), and poses a domestic threat to national security.

I also think that he is corrupt and a habitual liar, as well as a domestic threat to national security. And these articles explain why I think he is a threat.

Trump a 'threat' to national security, House Judiciary Committee chairman says

'Trump' Was Named in 1,200 Homeland Security Threat Reports Before the Election

Retired four-star Army general: Trump, 'under the sway of Putin,' threatens national security

Trump made it hard for me to protect America. How could I vote for him again? How could anyone?

Donald Trump is 'Threat to National Security' And 'Integrity of our Elections,' Says Constitutional Law Professor

 

[We Never Know]

In other news.....

"A special counsel will indict Hunter Biden in gun case this month, DOJ says

"Federal prosecutors say they will seek an indictment against Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden's son, relating to gun charges by the end of the month, according to new court documents filed Wednesday."

Hunter Biden to be indicted in gun case this month, DOJ says

Political witch hunts are running wild. Who's next? A special counsel will indict Hunter Biden in gun case this month, DOJ says "Federal prosecutors say they will seek an indictment against Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden's son, relating to gun charges by the end of the month, according to...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[LuisDantas]

So much schadenfreude ever since you first ellected Trump.

Hopefully you will manage to curb him for good soon.

It is shameful that he has been so influential for so long.

 

[YmirGF]

The main reason: Trump can’t be trusted. He’s corrupt, a constant liar, facing decades in prison (he won’t live that long), and poses a domestic threat to national security.

Serious question: If available, would you seek the death penalty for Trump? Would that be enough for you (or just a bloody good start)?

 

[F1fan]

In other news.....

"A special counsel will indict Hunter Biden in gun case this month, DOJ says

"Federal prosecutors say they will seek an indictment against Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden's son, relating to gun charges by the end of the month, according to new court documents filed Wednesday."

Hunter Biden to be indicted in gun case this month, DOJ says

Political witch hunts are running wild. Who's next? A special counsel will indict Hunter Biden in gun case this month, DOJ says "Federal prosecutors say they will seek an indictment against Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden's son, relating to gun charges by the end of the month, according to...

www.religiousforums.com

Winner frubal for whataboutism. You are the champion.

 

[We Never Know]

Winner frubal for whataboutism. You are the champion.

Lol denial king in action. Winner frube back at ya