DennyT wrote:
Who cares who who occupied most America in the 1500-
Way to deflect. Not talking about America. Answer the question.
Just curious, who occupied this "disputed" land in 1900, 1800, 1700, 1600, 1500. . . . 1AD, 1BC, 100BC, 1000BC, 2000BC. . . .
Triple G wrote:
They voted for the jurisdiction. They did not address all of the reasons the legal beagles of UHH floated:
Due Process: If it was a due process issue, case would have gone back to CO
President as Officer - not the determining factor; kicked to Congress to decide
Trump is an Insurrectionist - not the determining factor; left for criminal case determination or Congress to decide
Running for versus holding office - seems to be the prevailing underlying wording as the legal leg to stand on. Kicked can to when an insurrectionist might hold office. Look for another SCOTUS case if trump wins.
They voted for the jurisdiction. They did not add... (
show quote)
All you leftist libtards along with the hags on The View are doing everything to try and somehow twist this into a win. It just isn't there.
So Democraps continually cry that Republicans are a "threat" to democracy. But, as soon as a ruling goes against what they want, they cry destroy the democracy!!
From our favorite unhinged libtard Keith Olbermann, we get:
Quote:
The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the "court" has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate.
It must be dissolved.
Emphasis added
DennyT wrote:
Primaries are purely state issue , in fact some states don’t even have them.
So because "some" states don't have primaries, the logistics don't exist.
Got it.
DennyT wrote:
They have three choices.
1. Say trump is eligible
2. Say trump is not eligible
Or
3. Say it is a state decision since primaries have nothing to with federal government or federal law .
In my opinion the correct answer is number 3. For the court to decide. Numbers 2 or 3 would be taking a position on trumps guilt in the insurrection and that decision. And that is still in court .
Either 1 or 2 would be purely political .
Just an opinion
Please re-read the posts above this. What you are suggesting is unrealistic and impossible. You are really suggesting that every Presidential candidate has to be "authorized or allowed" to run by each and every state? That's not political? Wow. What rock are living under? Can you imagine the red tape you would have to navigate to get on all 50 + DC primary ballots? Again wow.
What if one state does not allow it? Does that invalidate that person from running? How about two? Who gets to draw that line?
You should be working in DC. You'd make a great bureaucrat.
Kraken wrote:
The Sc had no choice, if it had gone the other way there
would have been rioting and looting in the streets of every city.
Not a problem. I'm sure they would have been mostly "peaceful" riots.
Here it is. Just like I predicated. The SC unanimously sided with President Trump in his challenge to the state of Colorado's attempt to kick him off the 2024 primary ballot. Any ruling by any State SC is in violation of a SC ruling.
The SC concluded that "States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency."
You can now take your hand wringing and pearl clutching fervor and apply it to the next "made up" problem you have with Trump.
There it is. Just like I predicated. The SC unanimously sided with President Trump in his challenge to the state of Colorado's attempt to kick him off the 2024 primary ballot. Any ruling by any State SC is in violation of a SC ruling.
The SC concluded that "States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency."
You can now take your hand wringing and pearl clutching fervor and apply it to the next "made up" problem you have with Trump.
jcboy3 wrote:
Just to help clear up the misconception:
Clear. Notice how that has become an overused word with the Dimcrats. KJP anyone? As soon as that word is invoked, whatever follows will be anything but clear'.
Lets play What If.
What if on December 8, 1941, Harry S. Truman gave the following orders:
(Yes, I know that the actual bombing was not until 1945).
Kill only 2400 Japanese people. Make 68 of them civilians, the rest soldiers.
Destroy 19 Japanese ships.
And then bomb one naval base. And lets call that a day.
What would 2024 look like if the response from Harry S Truman was "proportional".
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/To rephrase General Patton's famous line another way,
Dying for your country may be noble, but wars are won by staying alive for your country.
May Israel's response to the massacre of Oct 6 continue to be non-proportional.
DennyT wrote:
What did I say that promoted such a vulgar juvenile response?
Grow up and act link an adult
wilpharm was able to read the OP, read your post and my response and drew the same conclusion I did. Yet you need it explained to you. Clearly, I'm responding to someone, that is you DennyT in case you can't tell, who has the mental capacity of a 6 year old and needs everything explained to them. Therefore, according to your post, a juvenile response is perfect for you.
I think you might be able to stick your head up your ass about another couple of inches.