Rac says, "Those Oxford imbeciles don't know their left from right. They always project. They are liars. They are illiterate. lol lol lol "
papakatz45 wrote:
Ok, we agree no one has been charged with i**********n. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to show there was an i**********n. Therefore, there was no i**********n as defined by law, which is all that matters.
If a tree falls in the forest, but no one is there to see it fall, did it actually fall?
Effate wrote:
You did not read what I said. I said legally, you know due process, that whole 14th amendment thing. It must be adjudicated with a guilty finding.
And you did not read what I wrote. Declaring J6 an i**********n does not require anyone to charged as such. What happened on J6 is an i**********n by definition... in the view of some lawyers, but maybe not in the view of others.
But that does not matter. The CO court decided it was an i**********n and applied the 14A.
SCOTUS can debate whether the CO court followed proper procedure and had the authority to give and enforce their ruling. And SCOTUS could decide to define J6 as an i**********n or not.
But it has nothing to do with Trump or anyone else being charged. He incited, encourage, participated (at the rally), and gave support to others who actually did enter the Capitol.
Effate wrote:
Agreed, but not only charged the AG has to sustain their burden of proof and get a conviction. Until then, legally, no i**********n period!
An i**********n is an event in and of itself. It does not need someone to be charged in order to define the event. It is defined by the activities that took place on J6.
Participation in, or support of, the event are sufficient grounds to ban Trump from the b****t.
dennis2146 wrote:
No I did not mean to say that at all, that it is too vague etc. I meant exactly what I said. No person in America should be deprived of DUE PROCESS. That is exactly what the Colorado Court is doing, they are taking President Trump's name off the b****t ONLY because they think it is appropriate. It is another example of judges making law.
They have no right to take Trump's name off the b****t nor do they have the right to exclude millions of people who want to v**e Trump for President just those judges think Trump does not deserve to be on the b****t.
Every one of you on the Left should feel the same way, no matter what he has done, a person deserves the full protection of the Constitution, but you don't. Because you H**E Trump you come up with all sort of bulls**t excuses to stop him and his family from legal and moral privileges in America.
Dennis
No I did not mean to say that at all, that it is t... (
show quote)
I agree that it is up to We The People to elect their president in a democratic manner through v****g.
But it is NOT up to We The People to decide whether Trump was part of an i**********n. That decision is up to the courts. If Trump is removed from the b****t for legal reasons then he should not be in the running.
And nothing in the 14A requires conviction of i**********n.
Blurryeyed wrote:
Will you and the other liberals here admit you were wrong if SCOTUS over turns the CO decision? Or will you guys just act that page after page of your erroneous arguments never occurred?
If you agree to the corollary I would consider it.
But really, the feelings of everyone on either side will depend heavily on the wording of the SCOTUS ruling. People will nitpick to suit their preconceived notions of what to call J6.
Blurryeyed wrote:
Wrong court and no due process, they did not try Trump, they just decided that he committed i**********n without due process.
No, he did not "commit an i**********n." He "engaged in..." and "gave support to..." and those are the words in the 14A.
National Park wrote:
Just because no one was charged with a federal offense under the i**********n statute, that does not mean there was no i**********n as that term is commonly used. The dictionary defines "i**********n" as "a violent uprising against an authority or government." Clearly, 1*6 was "violent." And, it was an "uprising against an authority or government" in that it attempted to stop Congress from certifying an e******n, as required by the Constitution. Consequently, 1*6 was an i**********n.
Just because no one was charged with a federal off... (
show quote)
I agree with you completely. The legal system (read lawyers) tries to nitpick every single term despite a common understanding of the meaning.
Take the issue being debated as to whether the President in an "officer" when it comes to Section 3 of 14A "shall not hold office..."
Why is POTUS "Commander in Chief" of the military where "officers" are in charge?
Why is POTUS referred to as "the highest office in the land"?
Why is there "Office of the President"?
I fear this whole thing will d**g out to the point that Trump is finally convicted of something posthumously.
I don't understand the argument being made by many people on both sides of the political ravine, including Trump's competitor candidates, that the court should not be deciding who is on the b****t. The 14A specifies what criteria can be used to disqualify someone, and it seems to me that is within the court's purview to decide.
Why should it be left to the people?
If you think "We The People" have a say in everything then why not just get rid of the government AND the judicial system and put everything up to a v**e (we have the technology).
Speeding ticket? Let the people decide on the fine.
Bank robbery? Let the people decide the punishment.
Murder? Let the people decide the guilt or innocence.
I**********n or not? Let the people decide (by giving the reward of POTUS to Trump if they feel he was innocent).
In a way this is simply letting every American be part of a jury. It doesn't matter I guess that the average v**er is not a legal scholar like the judges who ruled in Colorado. It doesn't matter what is legal or illegal, or right or wrong. It just comes down to what "We The People" want.
Heck, why not put a petulant child in as POTUS. Oh... wait...
Blurryeyed wrote:
So what is a f*****t John? I am interested in your interpretation, I think that I see a lot of f*****m coming from the left. I am not pointing a finger at you but rather at the progressive movement in this country.
I just take the dictionary meaning, or similar.
From Wikipedia:
F*****m (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.Sound like it fits Trump and his followers to a T.
And based on his recent rhetoric taken from "Mein Kampf" I believe comparisons between Trump and Hitler are well founded.
Good luck, America. Don't say you weren't warned. "Those who don't learn from history are... " You know.
Racmanaz wrote:
Why are you such a f*****t lefty?
As you have been told many times, you use "f*****t" with absolutely no understanding of its meaning.
You have a right to your opinions, but you certainly are fighting an upstream current without a paddle when you try to redefine dictionary definitions according to your personal whims and fantasies. You talk about people being illiterate and poor communicators, but whenever you use "f*****t" incorrectly you are showing your complete inability to converse coherently.
Blurryeyed wrote:
You suggest that there is something "wrong" with people who support Trump, as if they are defective. Shame on you and it just indicates that you yourself are lacking in the knowledge of just how poorly our government has preformed on domestic issues, and abroad as well for that matter.
There is no shame in telling the t***h. Trump is a despicable person who belongs in jail. He should NEVER have become POTUS, and he SHOULD NEVER GET THE CHANCE to become POTUS again.
I have no beef with Conservatives/Republicans. Go find a decent person to lead your charge.
DUMP TRUMP, for God's sake!!!
Racmanaz wrote:
What’s with all that personal opinion hogwash? That’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking you to prove that he was lying about Trump
Don't be silly. I have no proof that Stoltenberg and others were lying... just as you have no proof they were telling the t***h.
What I am telling you is that -- IMHO -- the "world at large" does not like Trump. Also, IMHO, the world at large is wondering what is wrong with you folks who support Trump.
And my opinions are as valid as your opinion that you think Trump is great and good for the country.
Of course, if you want "facts" to back up opinions regarding Trump all you have to do is look at who lost the last p**********l e******n and how the Republicans have been doing in the midterm e******ns.
Racmanaz wrote:
I see you like others have failed to prove that he was lying about Trump.
If I had the (mis)fortune of meeting Trump I would probably tell him I like him, I like his polices, and I would love to see him back in the White House.
Why would I do that (ie, lie)?
First, it's because it would be the polite thing to do (rather than telling him the t***h of how I feel about him). And second, it's because I know how he gets off on (false) praise, and I love to see him gobble up crap. I find him entertaining as the buffoon that he is, and the last thing I would want is for him to become a decent human being; much rather he would just disappear.
I can't believe that there are people out there -- Trump supporters -- who believe Trump is respected by other world leaders. Feared (as in you never know what an unhinged person with power will do) maybe; but certainly not respected or admired.