Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

[McBell]

Good. Then it's time to put Trump back on the ballot until he is declared an insurrectionist.

That's the reason why they removed him right? They considered him a insurrectionist.

I love Judge Judy people, they're so funny with their reasoning.

I notice you did not answer either question in the post this nonsense is in reply to.

No longer able to take you seriously in this thread.

Have a nice day.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Wonder what they are going to charge Biden with?
Remember, you are the one claiming that someone has to be convicted before being removed from a ballot.

Oh wait a minute you said they didn't need a formal charge in order to remove a person from the ballot. Oh the hypocrisy of it all!

Put Trump back on the ballot until he's actually charged for something through a formal criminal court first. Then Insurrection will apply in a civil court.

Not very hard is it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I notice you did not answer either question in the post this nonsense is in reply to.

No longer able to take you seriously in this thread.

Have a nice day.

Lol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh good. Texas and Florida would love hearing that if and when they remove Biden from the ballot.

How could they do that and follow the Constitution? You do not seem to understand that the Constitution tells us that we need to remove Trump.

If they can follow the Constitution and do that then more power to them. And they would need to not only follow the US Constitution, but their state constitutions as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh wait a minute you said they didn't need a formal charge in order to remove a person from the ballot. Oh the hypocrisy of it all!

Put Trump back on the ballot until he's actually charged for something through a formal criminal court first. Then Insurrection will apply in a civil court.

Not very hard is it?

And you used a strawman argument. Naughty, naughty.

 

[Bthoth]

I love seeing the thread title pop to the top of the 'What's New' listing.

I giggle every time that I see it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Very creative. What did he do that was not free speech or within the law?

I just told you.

Yes, the guy who concocted a scheme to never leave office even when he clearly lost, complete with false electors and voting machine breaches seems to me to be the guy who obviously doesn't have any respect for the democratic process. But that's just me, I guess.

There's nothing "creative" going on in my post. Just the facts, as we know them so far.

We have yet to have a real conviction on any of these. (To quote what so many people said about Hillary even when she destroyed evidence)

That would be because the trials haven't started yet. The evidence is all there. Many of the fake electors have been prosecuted and/or have co-operated with authorities.

(Hilary was never indicted for anything.)

 

[fantome profane]

Quick update, cuz tings be hapnin.

Michigan Supreme court has ruled not to remove Trump from the Ballot. At this point this applies to the Primary, if Trump wins the nomination the issue might be reexamined concerning the general election.

and

In Maine the Secretary of State has removed Trump from the Ballot.


Please take note that these different States are having different outcomes and following different processes because each State is following their own State law, like de suposta du.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quick update, cuz tings be hapnin.

Michigan Supreme court has ruled not to remove Trump from the Ballot. At this point this applies to the Primary, if Trump wins the nomination the issue might be reexamined concerning the general election.

and

In Maine the Secretary of State has removed Trump from the Ballot.


Please take note that these different States are having different outcomes and following different processes because each State is following their own State law, like de suposta du.

I am so confused. That sounds like the "due process" that we were told did not exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Probably the same as yours. I cannot read the New York Times. The last article did not support you. And why do you think that a conviction is necessary? Do you have precedent that says so? I have precedent that says it is not needed.

And while it's not binding legal precedent, we have what happened after the Civil War: hundreds of former Confederates who petitioned Congress to restore their eligibility for federal office through the process given in the 14th Amendment.

The vast majority weren't convicted in any criminal court, but they understood that their participation in a rebellion excluded them from office.

...and none got a reply from Congress to the effect of "your petition is unnecessary because you remain eligible for office unless you are convicted criminally for what you did in the war."

 

[Watchmen]

LMAO! I never said that it was. You ignored the legal precedents. Why do you just be honest enough to admit that.

And yes, even the judges that dissented said that Trump engaged in insurrection. Wow.

You clearly dont understand the issues and legal terminology.

I’ll ask again: Did you read the dissents?

I’ll also ask: Why do you think your position is a slam dunk?

 

[Watchmen]

Oh please, Try again.

“Oh please. Try again.” That’s your response to being asked if you read the dissents? Clearly you have no interest in intelligently debating this topic. You’d rather troll. Why not just admit you’re not up to speed on the topic?

 

[Watchmen]

I’ve never said a conviction in criminal court is necessary. So no one should try attributing such a thing to me. I said no due process, etc. There’s a difference.

 

[Watchmen]

I am so confused. That sounds like the "due process" that we were told did not exist.

You’re confused because you clearly do not understand legal terms. You’ve demonstrated that time and again.

 

[fantome profane]

I’ve never said a conviction in criminal court is necessary. So no one should try attributing such a thing to me. I said no due process, etc. There’s a difference.

So which process do you think is due?

People think this situation is unprecedented, and it is true that there has never been a President or former President accused of insurrection like this. But what we are dealing with here are ballot challenges, and there have been plenty of those.

Each State has a process, that must be followed when there is a challenge to ballot eligibility. And that is what they are doing, that is the only thing they can do.


So what process do you think they should follow. (Don't tell me what you want them to do, tell me what you think the law says they should do)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I’ve never said a conviction in criminal court is necessary. So no one should try attributing such a thing to me. I said no due process, etc. There’s a difference.

Right: you've studiously avoided saying what you think "due process" would entail.

 

[Watchmen]

So which process do you think is due?

People think this situation is unprecedented, and it is true that there has never been a President or former President accused of insurrection like this. But what we are dealing with here are ballot challenges, and there have been plenty of those.

Each State has a process, that must be followed when there is a challenge to ballot eligibility. And that is what they are doing, that is the only thing they can do.


So what process do you think they should follow. (Don't tell me what you want them to do, tell me what you think the law says they should do)

To start, I think Congress should establish elements for what an “insurrection” is under the 14th.

 

[Watchmen]

Right: you've studiously avoided saying what you think "due process" would entail.

False. I e repeatedly asked for the elements of “insurrection.” Can you name them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You clearly dont understand the issues and legal terminology.

I’ll ask again: Did you read the dissents?

No, why haven't you quoted applicable passages from them. Did you read the legal precedents that I linked on this topic.

I’ll also ask: Why do you think your position is a slam dunk?

The position that it is a slam dunk is that Trump participated in an insurrection. I watched his speech. I watched what happened as a result of his lies during his speech. Yes, one time he said "protest peacefully". But multiple times he urged his followers to fight and even "fight like hell". It appears that all of the judges agreed with that too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. I e repeatedly asked for the elements of “insurrection.” Can you name them?

And you were told why that was a ridiculous demand.