Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

[SkepticThinker]

Only for you it is. Others see it as crazy tripe as well which of course it is.

No, not just for me. Others have commented along the same lines as well, including the person you were conversing with on that subject.

You should be able to explain how and why it's "crazy tripe."

I actually defend due process and freedom unlike other people here.

Then you should support this because that is exactly what is going on here, as previously discussed with you.

 

[McBell]

Then you should support this because that is exactly what is going on here, as previously discussed with you.

It is my opinion that crediting his behavior in this thread as "discussing" is giving him far to much credit.

 

[McBell]

Not that anyone is surprised:

Read Trump’s Appeal to the Supreme Court Over Colorado’s Ballot Ruling

Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump said rulings in Colorado and Maine deeming him ineligible for the ballot required the U.S. Supreme Court to act.

www.nytimes.com

Rather comical coming from Trump who attempted the thwart the will of the American People.
I mean, he lost the popular vote both times he ran...

 

[Riders]

The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Trump disqualified for ballot in Colorado. It will likely go on to the US Supreme Court next.

Hooraay!

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, not just for me. Others have commented along the same lines as well, including the person you were conversing with on that subject.

You should be able to explain how and why it's "crazy tripe."

Then you should support this because that is exactly what is going on here, as previously discussed with you.

Go back to post one and read the thread again where you will find plenty of answers for this crazy tripe as myself and others have pointed that out to you multiple times.

You want to play dumb? That's fine with me, but I'm not going to play that stupid game so go back through the thread and read it again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only for you it is. Others see it as crazy tripe as well which of course it is.

I actually defend due process and freedom unlike other people here.

No, you merely repeated unsupported claims.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, you merely repeated unsupported claims.

No. You ignored supported claims by myself and others here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only for you it is. Others see it as crazy tripe as well which of course it is.

I actually defend due process and freedom unlike other people here.

No, you do not understand due process. It is just a term that you like to abuse.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, you do not understand due process. It is just a term that you like to abuse.

No It's just a term you conveniently ignore.

It's actually hilarious because it's right there in the 14th Amendment called the due process clause.

Please continue ignoring that though, as ignoring the obvious is what you're doing best here.

Interpretation: The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Please do continue the denial as you see fit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No It's just a term you conveniently ignore.

It's actually hilarious because it's right there in the 14th Amendment called the due process clause.

Please continue ignoring that though, as ignoring the obvious is what you're doing best here.

Interpretation: The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Please do continue the denial as you see fit.

Once again, no one is denying that. Due process was followed. You kept trying to invent a false one. Do you remember the precedent that I provided? It showed that your version of "due process" was wrong.

Just because you are getting the argument wrong does not mean that others are ignoring it. Though there can be criminal punishments for insurrection or murder there can also be just civil consequences too. You cannot seem to understand that fact. And the reason I included murder was because you show that your idea of due process meaning that a conviction has to occur for civil consequences to occur was flat out wrong.

Disqualification is a civil punishment. It only has to go through the civil courts. A conviction is not required. No one has been advocating of no trials whatsoever. Now that would be a violation of due process. But at this point if all higher courts even refused to hear it the matter would be settled and due process would have been followed for both Maine and Colorado.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Once again, no one is denying that. Due process was followed. You kept trying to invent a false one. Do you remember the precedent that I provided? It showed that your version of "due process" was wrong.

Just because you are getting the argument wrong does not mean that others are ignoring it. Though there can be criminal punishments for insurrection or murder there can also be just civil consequences too. You cannot seem to understand that fact. And the reason I included murder was because you show that your idea of due process meaning that a conviction has to occur for civil consequences to occur was flat out wrong.

Disqualification is a civil punishment. It only has to go through the civil courts. A conviction is not required. No one has been advocating of no trials whatsoever. Now that would be a violation of due process. But at this point if all higher courts even refused to hear it the matter would be settled and due process would have been followed for both Maine and Colorado.

Insurrection which was cited as a civil case is a criminal offense.

Trump as of yet, is to be convicted of said criminal offense

Therefore there is no actual case because Trump hasn't been convicted with a criminal offense yet that can be followed with a civil court afterwards.

Just how hard is that to understand?

 

[F1fan]

Insurrection which was cited as a civil case is a criminal offense.

Trump as of yet, is to be convicted of said criminal offense

Therefore there is no actual case because Trump hasn't been convicted with a criminal offense yet that can be followed with a civil court afterwards.

Just how hard is that to understand?

Every time Trump lies about election fraud he is guilty. It's this lie that fueled the insurrection. If Trump had been honest, and accepted his loss in 2020, Jan 6th would never have happened. There would not have been fake electors in 7 states, and no criminal conspiracy in Georgia. All these crimes, and all the people that engaged in a conspiracy, was all due to Trump lying about election fraud. Look how many lives around Trump have been ruined.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Insurrection which was cited as a civil case is a criminal offense.

Sorry, you are already not making any sense. I will erase the rest. Try again.

 

[Sargonski]

Did someone else hack your account, then?

Nope .. did they hack yours ? or is it the reading comp issues ?

 

[Sargonski]

You are the one that keeps complaining about criminal charges after being shown more than once that they need not be filed.

The decision as to whether the bar is criminal has not been determined .via due process .. this is what you are missing ... this was an arbitrary selection of a bar .. since there is no precident on which to rely .. as the bar has not yet been created.

To allow such a thing .. as you clearly want to do .. is to allow what ? .. Do you have any idea of the consequences of such precedent - and the massive damage to free speech ... equal justice .. and that is off of top of head .. many more things I have yet to think of.

Help me to understand .. that you understand the consequences of allowing a judge to make up or use arbitrary definitions willy nilly .. then make up the bar that constitutes guilt.

 

[Sargonski]

Insurrection which was cited as a civil case is a criminal offense.

Trump as of yet, is to be convicted of said criminal offense

Therefore there is no actual case because Trump hasn't been convicted with a criminal offense yet that can be followed with a civil court afterwards.

Just how hard is that to understand?

Sorry, you are already not making any sense. I will erase the rest. Try again.

What part of "Criminal offense" -- are you having trouble making sense of ? in conjunction with "Not convicted" ?!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The decision as to whether the bar is criminal has not been determined .via due process .. this is what you are missing ... this was an arbitrary selection of a bar .. since there is no precident on which to rely .. as the bar has not yet been created.

To allow such a thing .. as you clearly want to do .. is to allow what ? .. Do you have any idea of the consequences of such precedent - and the massive damage to free speech ... equal justice .. and that is off of top of head .. many more things I have yet to think of.

Help me to understand .. that you understand the consequences of allowing a judge to make up or use arbitrary definitions willy nilly .. then make up the bar that constitutes guilt.

Due process was followed. No one is making things up, except for you. Once again I linked and quoted from legal precedent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What part of "Criminal offense" -- are you having trouble making sense of ? in conjunction with "Not convicted" ?!

Wow! You have some sort of mental block going on. There have been murderers that got off on the legal charges, but were still found liable under civil law. You seem to think that a criminal trial and conviction are needed. Past cases show that is not the case.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What part of "Criminal offense" -- are you having trouble making sense of ? in conjunction with "Not convicted" ?!

People here are openly denying that Insurrection is a civil matter when in reality it's a criminal matter, so they can't use Insurrection, a criminal offense, as a means of removing a political opponent in a civil court unless that opponent has been first convicted of the same criminal offense in a criminal court. Then and only then can they use the civil court address it and have that person removed.

Does that make any sense?

 

[Subduction Zone]

People here are openly denying that Insurrection is a civil matter when in reality it's a criminal matter, so they can't use Insurrection, a criminal offense, as a means of removing a political opponent in a civil court unless that opponent has been first convicted of the same criminal offense in a criminal court. Then and only then can they use the civil court address it and have that person removed.

Does that make any sense?

Strawman again. No one denied that it is a criminal matter. It is also a civil one. A person can be tried for each separately.