Trump banned from Colorado ballot

[Bengalion]

(12-20-2023, 01:58 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: The Colorado Supreme Court used the language Justice Gorsich used to disqualify someone from the Colorado ballot when he was on the Colorado Supreme Court.  I doubt he'll contradict himself.  I see the SCOTUS punting this and finding a reason to stay out of it.

MAGA reasoning-  Elections only work if we win.  If not,  call everything rigged, tell a BIG LIE, and keep repeating it until ppl start to believe it.  Attempt a Coup, attack the laws of the Constitutional process of peaceful transfer, and claim democracies throughout history have always failed and it was time for ours to end.  Demonize immigrants convince ppl they are vermin and poisoning the blood of the true American Christian national race.  Appoint a dictator and convince ppl he's the only one who can save us.  Seig Heil Furher!

The Left does that everyday, just check Libs/Dems' twitters. Nazis were far-leftists, not conservative christians like your average southern farmers in Alabama and Mississipi. Hitler and Karl Marx were satanists themselves, not christians. Hitler was an atheist and drug addict, Karl Marx was a member of a satanic cult. This is what happens when you elevate the conversation to almost purely emotional terms and start painting the other side as evil, nazis, etc. While the ruling progressives do this intentionally, the rest of the democrat masses just align to it, defend it, celebrate this, etc.

[*Nately120*]

(12-20-2023, 02:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're acting like the Dems haven't been advocating for this for years now.  Also, the matter at hand is hardly a open and shut case.  You will recall that the initial trial judge did not remove Trump from the ballot.  The appeals court did that.  So if the SCOTUS overrules them is that ok, or is a decision only correct when you agree with it?


Like I said above, the Dems have been pushing for this for quite some time.

So both parties want to ignore the EC and one party wants to ignore both the EC and the popular vote. 

[*pally*]

(12-20-2023, 02:52 PM)Bengalion Wrote: The Left does that everyday, just check Libs/Dems' twitters. Nazis were far-leftists, not conservative christians like your average southern farmers in Alabama and Mississipi. Hitler and Karl Marx were satanists themselves, not christians. Hitler was an atheist and drug addict, Karl Marx was a member of a satanic cult. This is what happens when you elevate the conversation to almost purely emotional terms and start painting the other side as evil, nazis, etc. While the ruling progressives do this intentionally, the rest of the democrat masses just align to it, defend it, celebrate this, etc.

Nazism is an authoritarian far right-wing political philosophy.  What it has in common with those conservative Christian nationalists of Alabama and Mississippi is the desire for the ruling class to consist of only people who look and sound like them.  They want to push their beliefs on everyone and demonize anyone who believes differently

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(12-20-2023, 02:52 PM)Bengalion Wrote: The Left does that everyday, just check Libs/Dems' twitters. Nazis were far-leftists, not conservative christians like your average southern farmers in Alabama and Mississipi. Hitler and Karl Marx were satanists themselves, not christians. Hitler was an atheist and drug addict, Karl Marx was a member of a satanic cult. This is what happens when you elevate the conversation to almost purely emotional terms and start painting the other side as evil, nazis, etc. While the ruling progressives do this intentionally, the rest of the democrat masses just align to it, defend it, celebrate this, etc.

Oh boy, Sounds like someone has been drinking the Q-Anon Kookaie and needs to do some real research.  LMAO!!!

Where do we see so many ppl dressed in Nazi Uniforms attending political events?  They're sure not cheering on Obama, Harris, or President Biden.   Today's Neo-Nazi movement is also known as the ALT-RIGHT.  The folks at the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville were dressed in Nazi garb shouting, "Jews will not replace us!"  NEWS FLASH they weren't upset Obama wasn't still in office.

Nazis were not far left by any means they were far-right fascists.  The Nazis are right-wing extremists whom Trump idolizes.   Karl Marx and Adolph Hitler were at the extreme ends of the political spectrum one for communism and the other a fascist.  Hitler's religious views are open for debate.  He was born a Jew later converted to Catholicism and then eventually disavowed all organized religion.  Marx was an atheist not a member of a satanic cult.  

The Big Lie Trump keeps promoting is directly out of the Nazi playbook of Joseph Goebbels propaganda. Label the media fake, and keep repeating the big lie.  Calling immigrants vermin and saying they're poisoning our blood is straight out of Hitler's speeches.  

 Are you talking about the southern farmer who was a member of the KKK?  The one who promoted white nationalism and murdered minorities just like the Nazis did?

The Nazi Party, officially the [b]National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei[c] or NSDAP), was a far-right[10][11][12] political party in Germany active between 1920 and 1945 that created and supported the ideology of Nazism. Its precursor, the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; DAP), existed from 1919 to 1920. [/b]

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(12-20-2023, 03:04 PM)pally Wrote: Nazism is an authoritarian far right-wing political philosophy.  What it has in common with those conservative Christian nationalists of Alabama and Mississippi is the desire for the ruling class to consist of only people who look and sound like them.  They want to push their beliefs on everyone and demonize anyone who believes differently

.....And justify the murder of minorities while wearing a hooded cape with the letters KKK and burning a cross.  One wears a hooded robe and the other says, "Seig Heil Mein Fuhrer" wearing a swastika, but both are completely just fine with murdering anyone who isn't white.

"Those who died are justified, for wearing the badge, they’re the chosen whites.  You justify those that died by wearing the badge, they’re the chosen whites, You justify those that died by wearing the badge, they’re the chosen whites."   Killing in the name of..... 


Zach de la Rocha 1992

[Belsnickel]

(12-20-2023, 01:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You saved me some typing.  I'd only add that, unless it is very cut dried the courts should be ruling on the side of letting the actual voters decide.  I would be very leery of the courts establishing a precedent of picking and choosing who can run for political office.

Well, they established a precedent of them picking a winner with Bush v. Gore. To be clear, though, I would not regard this recent decision, nor one if SCOTUS sided with them, as the court picking and choosing who could run. It is the 14th Amendment that is saying who can and cannot run for office. The Constitution lays out other requirements for who can run and this is no different, to be quite frank. If this were regarding a member of Congress this wouldn't be a question because of the explicitness of the language, but because there is some ambiguity as to the application to POTUS this is questionable.

But, the way you describe it is the way the messaging surrounding the decision is going to be and as much as people like to pretend SCOTUS is only about the law and doesn't care about public opinion, people are wrong.

(12-20-2023, 01:58 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: The Colorado Supreme Court used the language Justice Gorsich used to disqualify someone from the Colorado ballot when he was on the Colorado Supreme Court.  I doubt he'll contradict himself.  I see the SCOTUS punting this and finding a reason to stay out of it.

Not a chance. At least two of the justices will want it so they can lick Trump's boots. Others know that there will be more cases hitting state courts in the coming months with varying results and they will need to weigh in. They don't have a choice.

[Bengalion]

(12-20-2023, 03:40 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Oh boy, Sounds like someone has been drinking the Q-Anon Kookaie and needs to do some real research.  LMAO!!!

Where do we see so many ppl dressed in Nazi Uniforms attending political events?  They're sure not cheering on Obama, Harris, or President Biden.   Today's Neo-Nazi movement is also known as the ALT-RIGHT.  The folks at the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville were dressed in Nazi garb shouting, "Jews will not replace us!"  NEWS FLASH they weren't upset Obama wasn't still in office.

Nazis were not far left by any means they were far-right fascists.  The Nazis are right-wing extremists whom Trump idolizes.   Karl Marx and Adolph Hitler were at the extreme ends of the political spectrum one for communism and the other a fascist.  Hitler's religious views are open for debate.  He was born a Jew later converted to Catholicism and then eventually disavowed all organized religion.  Marx was an atheist not a member of a satanic cult.  

The Big Lie Trump keeps promoting is directly out of the Nazi playbook of Joseph Goebbels propaganda. Label the media fake, and keep repeating the big lie.  Calling immigrants vermin and saying they're poisoning our blood is straight out of Hitler's speeches.  

 Are you talking about the southern farmer who was a member of the KKK?  The one who promoted white nationalism and murdered minorities just like the Nazis did?

The Nazi Party, officially the [b]National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei[c] or NSDAP), was a far-right[10][11][12] political party in Germany active between 1920 and 1945 that created and supported the ideology of Nazism. Its precursor, the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; DAP), existed from 1919 to 1920. [/b]

Most Wikipedia's pages and academic papers are written by Libs and blue haired Progressists, don't waste your time reading this marxist garbage my friend. Yes, Marx and Hitler were satanists you like it or no (https://icej.ca/the-satanic-origins-and-nature-of-marxism/). Nazis used to hate the Church (Hitler being a crazy drug addict and atheist should be enough to prove that), they wanted to wipe out the christian roots and replace the cross with swastikas at schools. Most southern farmers aren't KKK memebers and you know that. Also it's is a very known fact that the media is mostly ran by Leftists. The Frankfurt School (marxist garbage) is the one to blame for the issues we're facing today.

Cultural Marxism praised by leftists like Biden envisions a reconfiguration of society in a way that opposes the capitalist infrastructure in support of a top down rearrangement that will advance outcomes that are believed to be more equitable. Critical Race Theory, the dichotomy of the oppressed and the oppressor and a general hostility to the Judeo-Christian core of Western Civilization are vital aspects of its praxis. The mode of thinking is a definite outgrowth of a metastasized leftism but unlike the radicalism of the Bolsheviks, and various State socialisms it has settled for a patience that was willing to bide its time with a slower walk through the institutions.

As it stands today I have very little doubt whatsoever that the West is in decline. The institutions are showing all the rot of ideological take over with identity politics dominating over merit based philosophies. The corporate, governmental, academic and educational worlds have all been infected by the mind virus of guilt ridden wokeism with the subsequent fall in standards making its presence felt ubiquitously.

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-20-2023, 02:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're acting like the Dems haven't been advocating for this for years now.  Also, the matter at hand is hardly a open and shut case.  You will recall that the initial trial judge did not remove Trump from the ballot.  The appeals court did that.  So if the SCOTUS overrules them is that ok, or is a decision only correct when you agree with it?


Like I said above, the Dems have been pushing for this for quite some time.

And yet the constitution has never been changed so we still follow the electoral college rules.

Why would we not follow the constitution here? If they want to run a guy who abandoned his oath of office and tried to illegally retain the control over the highest office in the land. Then change the constitution so it allows insurrectionists to run for office.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(12-20-2023, 05:46 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: And yet the constitution has never been changed so we still follow the electoral college rules.

Why would we not follow the constitution here? If they want to run a guy who abandoned his oath of office and tried to illegally retain the control over the highest office in the land. Then change the constitution so it allows insurrectionists to run for office.

Exactly, with the logic Trump is using, with many on here parroting,  then I guess it would have been OK for Jefferson Davis the President of the Confederate States have run for President after his side lost the Civil War.   This ruling is straight from the Constitution and it prohibits anyone who took part in an insurrection to hold office in protection of our Constitution and democracy, not the other way around.  Article 3 allows Congress to remove such disability only in both chambers of Congress by a 2/3 vote.

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-20-2023, 04:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, they established a precedent of them picking a winner with Bush v. Gore.

As much as I loathed that decision I do not see a direct parallel.  They didn't prevent anyone from running or from voting for them.  I can see your point that not counting someone's vote is analogous to choosing who they can vote for, but we're talking vastly different numbers.

Quote:To be clear, though, I would not regard this recent decision, nor one if SCOTUS sided with them, as the court picking and choosing who could run. It is the 14th Amendment that is saying who can and cannot run for office. The Constitution lays out other requirements for who can run and this is no different, to be quite frank. If this were regarding a member of Congress this wouldn't be a question because of the explicitness of the language, but because there is some ambiguity as to the application to POTUS this is questionable.

You rather contradict yourself here.  You acknowledge that the Constitution is not definitive on this subject, but also claim that the 14th Amendment is what made this decision.  I would add that it is not the 14th that made the decision, it is the judges who ruled on this matter's interpretation of the 14th.  We both took a lot of shit for pointing out that Roe was an overreach on shaky ground after the Dobbs decision.  We are both pro-choice but acknowledged the judicial overreach in Roe.  Yet to hear many overturning Roe was borderline sedition and a complete ignoring of the Constitution.  

Quote:But, the way you describe it is the way the messaging surrounding the decision is going to be and as much as people like to pretend SCOTUS is only about the law and doesn't care about public opinion, people are wrong.

I agree, which is why I stated it that way.  We disagree how much SCOTUS is influenced by politics, especially given GOP appointees "biting the hand that fed them" until very recently.  But I understand your position.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-20-2023, 05:46 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: And yet the constitution has never been changed so we still follow the electoral college rules.

It's been changed 27 times.  Never on this issue, though.

Quote:Why would we not follow the constitution here? If they want to run a guy who abandoned his oath of office and tried to illegally retain the control over the highest office in the land. Then change the constitution so it allows insurrectionists to run for office.

We are.  What is up for debate is the interpretation of said Constitution.  If SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump, as the initial trial judge did, then the Constitution was followed to the letter.  Just as it will be if they rule against him.  This is not a door slammer for either side, as much as some might wish it to be.  Personally, I'm inclined to err on the side of allowing the citizens of this country decide who they want to vote for as I believe the alternative is absolutely dreadful.

[NATI BENGALS]

If Biden invited a mob of his supporters to march on the capitol to illegally seize power, organized fake electors in multiple states to overthrow the will of the voters in those states, and lied non stop about a rigged election with no evidence to support his claim and filed over 60 bullshit lawsuits in an effort to overturn election results.

What would we call that? Did he violate his oath? Would it be fair to call that rebelling against the Country he took an oath to protect?

[GMDino]

(12-20-2023, 08:12 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: If Biden invited a mob of his supporters to march on the capitol to illegally seize power, organized fake electors in multiple states to overthrow the will of the voters in those states, and lied non stop about a rigged election with no evidence to support his claim and filed over 60 bullshit lawsuits in an effort to overturn election results.

What would we call that? Did he violate his oath? Would it be fair to call that rebelling against the Country he took an oath to protect?

If Biden was under the age prescribed to eligible to run for POTUS he wouldn't be allowed on the ballot either.

But this P01135809 and people have big feelings about him.  So in the interest of "fairness" they believe he should be above all of that "law" and "constitution" stuff so the "people" can decide.

Even though they decided last time and he still claims he won.

Whatcha gonna do? 

[Belsnickel]

(12-20-2023, 07:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You rather contradict yourself here.  You acknowledge that the Constitution is not definitive on this subject, but also claim that the 14th Amendment is what made this decision.  I would add that it is not the 14th that made the decision, it is the judges who ruled on this matter's interpretation of the 14th.  We both took a lot of shit for pointing out that Roe was an overreach on shaky ground after the Dobbs decision.  We are both pro-choice but acknowledged the judicial overreach in Roe.  Yet to hear many overturning Roe was borderline sedition and a complete ignoring of the Constitution.  

Ambiguity does not mean it doesn't say it. I use that word only because it wasn't explicitly stated in the amendment, but it would be illogical to not include the office of POTUS in that law.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-20-2023, 08:12 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: If Biden invited a mob of his supporters to march on the capitol to illegally seize power, organized fake electors in multiple states to overthrow the will of the voters in those states, and lied non stop about a rigged election with no evidence to support his claim and filed over 60 bullshit lawsuits in an effort to overturn election results.

What would we call that? Did he violate his oath? Would it be fair to call that rebelling against the Country he took an oath to protect?

Not really sure why you're ignoring the points actually being made.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-20-2023, 09:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not really sure why you're ignoring the points actually being made.  

What point?

The one about how there is text in the constitution to directly address this issue?

[NATI BENGALS]

What’s the closest to civil war we have ever been in your lifetime?


I know my answer.

[NATI BENGALS]

Officer definition

one who holds an office of trust, authority, or command

one who holds a position of authority or command in the armed forces

Let’s do some real critical thinking here.

Going by that textbook definition of officer. Could we say the person who holds the highest office in the country and has more authority than anyone in the country is an officer? Could we say the commander and chief of the armed forces of the USA could be considered an officer?

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(12-20-2023, 08:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: If Biden was under the age prescribed to eligible to run for POTUS he wouldn't be allowed on the ballot either.

But this P01135809 and people have big feelings about him.  So in the interest of "fairness" they believe he should be above all of that "law" and "constitution" stuff so the "people" can decide.

Even though they decided last time and he still claims he won.

Whatcha gonna do? 

Exactly, if a person under the age of 35 wanted to run for President they cannot.  If a person born as a natural citizen of another country wanted to run for President, they cannot.  Why?  It's b/c the Constitution prohibits it no matter what kind of support from the would-be voters they may have.  Our framers designed our Constitution to get as far away from the rule of kings and the church as possible.  No one is above the law.
Hell, Since the laws of the constitution don't really matter, I guess the DNC will announce they'll run Bill Clinton with Obama as his VP and then run Obama in 2028. I mean they're still very popular and they'd have many voters

Some of these MAGA folks think a President could murder his wife in cold blood in the Oval Office and there's not a damn thing law enforcement or the courts could do about it.   If someone comes on here and tries to justify Presidential immunity, they're not being honest.  If that's how it is then Biden could break and law he wants and all the GOP could do is just scream and *****.

Also, 100%!  The MAGA folks are saying, "Let the voters decide," when they tried to discount the will of millions of voters believing the baseless lies of a con artist named Donald Trump.  Oh the irony!!!!!

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(12-20-2023, 12:52 PM)Bengalion Wrote: And yet it's Democrats who scream Republicans are a threat to democracy. Trump is such a huge threat to democracy that we can't risk letting people democratically reelect him.

Dems logic, if you don't play by the Dems rules you can't win. That's how Stalinists play the game. "The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do" - Joseph Stalin.

I can tell that you're the type to blame everything on the left, but it was a group of Conservative lawyers and judges that brought this case to the Colorado DA.