Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I take only you would know something like that from experience eh? ;0)
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump kicked off Colorado ballot
- Thread starter Viker
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You used a strawman argument whether you like that fact or not. You keep trying to claim silly things like "kangaroo court". No criminal conviction. Did you not look a the examples of real people that were denied office and tried to take that to court?
Here is a quote from one of the cases of a man that was denied office in the link that I provided for probably the fourth time:
"Court confirmed state courts can enforce Section 3 and that Section 3 is not a criminal punishment but a qualification for office."
The fellow claiming "kangaroo court or no criminal conviction" is not a strawman fallacy. claiming that you said such a thing would be strawman fallacy.
A court confirming that section 3 is not a criminal punishment does not change the fact that a criminal conviction for the act of insurrection is required to claim that the qualification is not met. That qualification being not having participated in insurrection.. at least according to William Barr - the one who sets the Bar
if ya know what I mean.Keeping Trump off the ballot for "Insurrection" when there has been no criminal conviction for insurrection - is what defines Kangarooland .. and violates the Rule of Law.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The fact that no criminal conviction means no insurrectionist exists thst can be tried in the first place.
You're completely ridiculous argument doesn't even fly, given the fact that Trump is not convicted of anything yet and so far as Insurrection goes. He just is being accused with some evidence that he's an insurrectionist given the indictment that needs to be still proven that Trump is guilty, which will happen in March in a criminal trial. Not a civil trial.
Whoever heard of any civil trial proceeding a criminal trial over a criminal charge?
I crazily blew up the words and bolded them just so you can notice it.
The Judge Judy analogy firmly stands here.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Please be so kind as to present the documentations from law, not opinion, that requires a court conviction of insurrection before one is not allowed on a ballot for insurrection.The fellow claiming "kangaroo court or no criminal conviction" is not a strawman fallacy. claiming that you said such a thing would be strawman fallacy.
A court confirming that section 3 is not a criminal punishment does not change the fact that a criminal conviction for the act of insurrection is required to claim that the qualification is not met. That qualification being not having participated in insurrection.. at least according to William Barr - the one who sets the Bar
Keeping Trump off the ballot for "Insurrection" when there has been no criminal conviction for insurrection - is what defines Kangarooland .. and violates the Rule of Law.
Perhaps you will be the very first one do so?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Except that your presented "fact" is in fact not a fact.
Nice try though.
Perhaps you should present the documentation that requires a conviction of insurrection before insurrection can present one from being on the ballot?
Prove me wrong.
Present the legal documentation.
I double dog dare you.
*yawn*
McBell
Admiral Obvious
That you know less than nothing about how the Judge Judy show works is most entertaining.
Why would I do that ? this is not a general rule for being allowed on the ballot .. but a specific one related to the claim of Insurrection. It is because Insurrection is claimed as the rational for being kicked off the ballot .. that the requirement for conviction arises. The Rule of Law in this case is clear - "Innocent until Proven Guilty" .. and a basic understanding of Logic 100.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Well with your absolutely ridiculous reasoning, then it should be easy to remove Biden off State ballots as well , since no formal charge is required. Very very convenient.
May the Civil War of ballot removal commence.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That explains the now popular Judge Judy application of removing political opponents. You guys are absolutely experts on the topic!
It's so popular even the one party , one mind, one voice People's Republic of Maine has joined in!
Judge Judy trials are so good now, I wouldn't be surprised to see calls for it to replace all future pending criminal trials in the nation by the Glorious Peoples Left Wing Brigade praising their superb People's Party Judge Judy wannabes of implementing true party justice and party due process on those just only being accused without any formal conviction required!
It's a new dawn and the new era for the new and improved People's Republic Electoral process where no conviction is ever required , just accusations!
How wonderfully efficient comrade!
Last edited:
McBell
Admiral Obvious
And he has been found guilty of insurrection in courts.
Thus the reason he was removed from both Colorado and Maine ballots.
What, exactly, is your beef if not your stated lack of conviction?
He has not been found guilty of insurrection in criminal court .. as he has never been tried in criminal court. It is because there has never been such trial .. that the ruling in Colorado and Maine is arbitrary .. and as such is a procedural violation .
You can't say guilty of X .. when subject has not been tried for X .. we do not have trump as being proven guilty of insurrection by the standards of the day for criminality .. in fact we have not even tried the guy such that guilt of any kind can be established .. thus the ruling is arbitrary and a a violation of Rule of Law Presumption of innocence .. a major corruption of Justice .. such as one often found in Kangaroo Jurisdiction.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I did not claim it was criminal court.
He has in fact been found in court to be directly involved in the failed Jan 6 insurrection and because of said finding he was removed from ballots.
Please present where someone has to have been convicted of insurrection to be ineligible for the ballot.?
You keep making this claim, but flat out refuse to support it.
Seems you are far to impressed with your "kangaroo court" flag waving...
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
They think they can make a criminal charge stick using a civil court.
Then they'll tell you no charges are required after telling you that he was charged of the crime of instruction in their Judge Judy court.
That's how justice in the People's Left Wing is implemented. No due process or sense required.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Don't fight back! Fight like Hell!
wsbt.com
GOP state lawmakers work to remove Biden from ballot: 'We must fight back'
Republican state lawmakers are introducing legislation to remove President Joe Biden from their ballots.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope. That was shown not to be the case in previous trials. The quote I posted show that. The relatively few people that fought this amendment and lost show that. No matter how loudly you shout your false claims you will be wrong.
Yelling does not win debates. Supporting your case does that.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Aww. It's so cute when itsy bitsy Republicans try to copy the Democrats. Not even close, but someone should give them a lollypop for trying.Don't fight back! Fight like Hell!
GOP state lawmakers work to remove Biden from ballot: 'We must fight back'
Republican state lawmakers are introducing legislation to remove President Joe Biden from their ballots.
Which law do you think it violates? Please be specific.The fellow claiming "kangaroo court or no criminal conviction" is not a strawman fallacy. claiming that you said such a thing would be strawman fallacy.
A court confirming that section 3 is not a criminal punishment does not change the fact that a criminal conviction for the act of insurrection is required to claim that the qualification is not met. That qualification being not having participated in insurrection.. at least according to William Barr - the one who sets the Bar
Keeping Trump off the ballot for "Insurrection" when there has been no criminal conviction for insurrection - is what defines Kangarooland .. and violates the Rule of Law.
Has to be in a criminal court .. and found to be involved in a non existent insurrection is laughable nonsense .. NOT grounds for keeping Trump off the ballot. ..
one does not need to be convicted of insurrection to be ineligible for the ballot .. there are other reasons such as Age why one may not be elligible.. but .. If a Judge is claiming that the reason for someone's inelligibility is for illegal insurrection activity .. as per the Rebels .. then one must prove - in a US court of Law - that this person is guilty of accused criminal activity.
What part of "Innocent until Proven Guilty" - is not clear as a bell .. the violation of such is Kangarooland.
You can't punish someone for a crime that they have not been shown to commit that they have not been proven guilty of stated criminal offense.
You don't punish someone prior to conviction .. Trump must have his day in court and be proven guilty of this laughable crime that does not exist .. cept in kangarooland where they make things up arbitrarily. Told you .. Go Watch Bill Barr explain it if you can't understand the procedural violation.