McBell
Unbound
Still no documentation presented in support of your bold empty claim?
Just more bold empty claims?
You claim it is a matter of law.
If it is true that it is a matter of law, there will be documentation to support it.
-
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
Just more bold empty claims?
You claim it is a matter of law.
If it is true that it is a matter of law, there will be documentation to support it.
Trump and Colorado Republicans have filed a PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI with the U.S. Supreme Court in this case. Those that want to see the filing for themselves, instead of through the filter of others, may see it here,
http://media.aclj.org/pdf/Colorado-...e-v.-Anderson-Cert-Petition-PDFA_Redacted.pdf
http://media.aclj.org/pdf/Colorado-...e-v.-Anderson-Cert-Petition-PDFA_Redacted.pdf
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Where is the ad hom fallacy? I do not think that you know what that is.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Neither can I in kind.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Its obvious the people that are clearly incapable of understanding are the leftest people's brigade of removing political opponents for political superiority and denying due process for those unconvicted by willfuly and intentionally bastardizing the Constitution.
What myself and many others are doing is trying to get you and your team of ra ra supporters to see that, and and you just keep on repeating your position and ignoring the facts involving due process of an individual that has yet to be convicted of anything.
Want that kind of nutcase 'justice'? Move to a communist country. It's certainly not going to be here in the US as much as you would like it to be and I'm sure the Supreme Court will see to it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you seem to do a very good job of convincing yourself. That may be the problem.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Look in the mirror.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Even you know that you are full of it. You have yet to deal with the case law that refutes your claims.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Look in mirror.
Calling others "full of it" is not an argument for much .. and you have presented no case law refuting what our Friend William Bar has to say about lack of due process .. such which is supposed to create the case law .. as none is yet been established .. refuting your claim that such case law exists .. sorry Sub D
Name calling in place of addressing the topic friend .. as if demonization of the other is an argument for something.
Do you have anything but deflection ?
What is a matter of Law ? You cry out "you claim it is a matter of law" .. what is IT friend ? what is the claim you are referring to ?
Did you forget that we are not addressing my claim .. but that of William Barr .. documentation for which has been provided numerous times .. and thus your nonsense accusation of "Bold Empty Claim" is false .. so wrapped up in your own deflection you have forgotten your way.
Do you have other than name calling and fallacy to contribute friend ?
McBell
Unbound
Now you reveal that you are either to ignorant of the topic to have an honest discourse on the matter, or you are not interested in honest discourse of the matter.
Since I strongly suspect it to be the latter, I shall let you fly on home and declare victory.
Have a nice day.
I'm guessing that this is about my comment about how he must not be a member of a licensed profession.
I mentioned it because anyone who belongs to a profession that needs to be licensed knows that there's a list of things - typically spelled out in a code of ethics or the like - that, if you do them, will end up with you punished by fines or even losing the ability to make a living in your profession, and all these punishments are meted out by a disciplinary board. No criminal trial, no jury, not even a judge.
It's a clear example of how @Sargonski 's "you can't have a punishment without a criminal trial" nonsense is just... detached from reality.
But when I saw his "ad hom" comment, I realized that he must have taken my comment as insinuating that he's wrong because he doesn't have the right sort of job.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Barr is not here to defend his vague claims. If he was people would be questioning him. You keep trying to use Barr as support, when you do that you take on the burden of proof for the claims that he made but did not properly support.
Please note, this may not even be Barr's fault. Often details are edited out of stories by editors. He might have done more than what looks like a handwaving explanation for the reporter, but the explanation could have been ignored or edited out.
Either way his statement does not help you much at all since it is unsupported. And once again, that is not necessarily Barr's fault But it makes the article of not much use. It is only good for an appeal to authority rant.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Others have very patiently and repeatedly explained to you that disqualification from public office is not adjudicated as a crime. What little precedent there is for applying section 3 of the 14th amendment has disqualified candidates independently of any criminal charges. So "due process" here does not require a criminal trial. That's why Congress was sent thousands of petitions by former Confederate rebels and their supporters to be exempted from 14th amendment disqualification, even though they had been pardoned for their participation in the rebellion. Although you have been told this repeatedly, you don't address the point or even make a pretense of responding to it. If you want to have a rational discussion, you could start by refuting that point.
Repeating an argument that you refuse to address or acknowledge does not seem to get through to you. I'll give you that. Apparently, as a Trump defender, you are used to not paying attention to rational argument. If you don't like the facts, you can just ignore them.
Why move to a Communist country when Trump has pretty much been telegraphing that he will run the country in a similar fashion if reelected to the presidency? If he doesn't get reelected...well, of course, that would be because the election was stolen from him, wouldn't it? His idea of the "rule of law" and due process is pardoning criminals who have been convicted of attempting to overturn it:
Trump says he would pardon Jan. 6 rioters if he runs and wins
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Sorry , I'm not buying that crazy tripe.
He even supports ideas of socialism, like workers own the means of production.
All Twilight is doing is putting on a show. He wants the attention.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
As others have pointed out--ostrich defense. You can't defend your position, so you simply ignore and reject any attempts to challenge it.
Now that is strawman fallacy -- I did not say you could not have punishment without criminal trial ... and thus it is you spouting nonsense and not I.