Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: LinksUp
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 39 next>>
Mar 4, 2024 14:36:17   #
Triple G wrote:
They v**ed 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 I**********nist - 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 i**********nist might hold office. Look for another SCOTUS case if trump wins.
They v**ed for the jurisdiction. They did not add... (show quote)


All you l*****t 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.
Go to
Mar 4, 2024 13:53:57   #
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
Go to
Mar 4, 2024 13:25:37   #
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.
Go to
Mar 4, 2024 12:23:51   #
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 i**********n 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 P**********l 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 b****ts? 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.
Go to
Mar 4, 2024 10:34:39   #
Kraken wrote:
The Sc had no choice, if it had gone the other way there

would have been r**ting and l**ting in the streets of every city.


Not a problem. I'm sure they would have been mostly "peaceful" r**ts.
Go to
Mar 4, 2024 10:30:25   #
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 b****t. 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.
Go to
Mar 4, 2024 10:26:06   #
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 b****t. 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.
Go to
Feb 11, 2024 14:29:28   #
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, wh**ever follows will be anything but clear'.
Go to
Feb 11, 2024 10:26:26   #
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).

K**l 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.
Go to
Jan 11, 2024 15:34:15   #
DennyT wrote:
What did I say that promoted such a vulgar juvenile response?
Grow up and act link an adult



wilpharm wrote:



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.
Go to
Jan 10, 2024 10:16:42   #
DennyT wrote:
Duh

“””Stocks close out 2023 with a 24% gain, buoyed by a resilient economy”””

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stock-market-up-24-percent-2023-rally/

Insider trader bull


I think you might be able to stick your head up your ass about another couple of inches.
Go to
Jan 10, 2024 10:14:52   #
https://nypost.com/2024/01/08/news/trump-co-defendant-alleges-improper-relationship-between-georgia-da-and-prosecutor-demands-indictment-be-thrown-out/

Wow. Wh**ever the Demoturds accuse the Trump of, they are doing themselves.
Go to
Jan 1, 2024 15:32:34   #
Triple G wrote:
I believe SCOTUS will be consistent on "states authority"! They will lose even more credibility if they are not consistent. It's a very good predictor.


I don’t believe they will throw it back to the states. This is a case of objective, in my opinion, facts. Unlike a******n. Throwing it back to the states would require 50 separate ruling before primaries. Not realistic. One ruling from the SC and done.
Go to
Jan 1, 2024 14:02:55   #
Triple G wrote:
They gave a******n rules back to states with less clear 14A constitutional textual content; what makes you think they wouldn't be consistent and do the same with v****g rules?


I have no idea how the SC will rule on this case. Using a******n or any other ruling for that matter as your predictor of future rulings is not a wise course.
Go to
Jan 1, 2024 13:44:56   #
Shutterbug1697 wrote:
OK, so the minority report is a futuristic Sci-fi film. It's FICTION!

You're living in a dream world if you think that the United States will continue to exist as a democratic republic under trump.


You are so obtuse. Can you not make the connection? You are advocating exactly what they are doing in this film. Arrest and convict on events that have not happened. So maybe it is not fiction in your world.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 39 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.