Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Presidential Election 2024: 11/5/24- Democracy Dies or Survives


88Comrade2000

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Well yeah. Which is the " engaged in " part.

 

But that's how law works lol...each court, each jury, each judge--whichever applies--determines if the person in question engaged in or committed an illegal act based on the facts presented in each individual case. I'm not sure why that would be seen as a bad thing in your eyes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

But that's how law works lol...each court, each jury, each judge--whichever applies--determines if the person in question engaged in or committed an illegal act based on the facts presented in each individual case. I'm not sure why that would be seen as a bad thing in your eyes.

 

If the Supreme Court doesn't rule on this, every state would be free to determine what " engaged in insurrection " means. Blue states could set the bar very low for Republican Presidents, and very high for Democrats. Red states could set the bar high for Republicans.  Very low for Democrats. ( Remember,  a charge and conviction is not required, as you said )

I think that's what this judge was referring to when he said this:

 

Quote

More broadly, I am disturbed about the potential chaos wrought by an imprudent, unconstitutional, and standardless system in which each state gets to adjudicate Section Three disqualification cases on an ad hoc basis,” 

 

Does that sound like a good idea to you  ?

 

 

Edited by Spearfeather
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

 

It's so disingenuous how they refer to the media misleading people while they ARE the media and they are misleading people.  The way they excused Trump for doing it after going on like they did.  It's just so over the top.

 

The few times I've listened to that jack wagon I am amazed he has the following he does.  An empty head

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, The 12th Commandment said:

It's so disingenuous how they refer to the media misleading people while they ARE the media and they are misleading people.  The way they excused Trump for doing it after going on like they did.  It's just so over the top.

 

The few times I've listened to that jack wagon I am amazed he has the following he does.  An empty head

This was a set up to attack Trump.

 

#RoganistheDeepState

  • Haha 4
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

If the Supreme Court doesn't rule on this, every state would be free to determine what " engaged in insurrection " means. Blue states could set the bar very low for Republican Presidents, and very high for Democrats. Red states could set the bar high for Republicans.  Very low for Democrats. ( Remember,  a charge and conviction is not required, as you said )

I think that's what this judge was referring to when he said this:

 

 

Does that sound like a good idea to you  ?

 

 

 

Amendment 14 Section 3 describes exactly what insurrection is. Republicans who continue to redefine what words mean. And frankly, I'm sick of this. Get a ****ing dictionary including a legal one. I used to have one. 

  • Like 2
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Amendment 14 Section 3 describes exactly what insurrection is. Republicans who continue to redefine what words mean. And frankly, I'm sick of this. Get a ****ing dictionary including a legal one. I used to have one. 

 

Should the Supreme Court rule on this ?

 

Quote

Republicans who continue to redefine what words mean. And frankly I'm sick of this. 

 

This is kind of funny. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Spearfeather
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Should the Supreme Court rule on this ?

 

Frankly, no. The Colorado Supreme Court decision is based on how Colorado Constitution includes our national Constitution and Colorado qualifications/disqualifications for elective offices and offices that require an oath to the US Constitution and I suppose the Colorado Constitution. The insurrection disqualifications are clearly spelled out, just like age, citizenship, and domicile in the US. So there's really nothing for the supremes to rule on. 

 

And yes that means that every state has the ability to qualify/disqualify candidates and officers who take an oath to the US Constitution. Whether the other states have the guts to make the correct decision about who can appear on their ballot, that's the question. New Mexico kicked out an officer in their government who participated in the Jan6 insurrection for this exact same disqualification.

 

Edited to add: I have a paralegal degree plus over 30 years reading government contract language. Definitely not a Constitutional scholar but I can read and understand government legalese.

 

 

Edited by LadySkinsFan
  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...seems Nimarata has some splainin to do

 

Questions raised about Nikki Haley's 'sudden wealth' as she hides her tax returns: report

 

According to a report from the Washington Post, Haley stepped down as Trump's U.N. ambassador in late 2018, not long after a process server attempted to serve her with papers at the United Nations building over the foreclosure of her parents’ lake house on which she was listed as a defendant.

What followed, the Post reported, was the former lawmaker trading on her high-profile to cash in through paid-for speeches, though details of what said are vague and there are questions about all of her sources of income.

That is because she has yet to release her income taxes — something she has demanded of others.

The report from the Post's Issac Stanley-Becker noted, "In an 11-month period, ending January 2023, she earned about $2.5 million from paid speeches alone, delivered to banks, other businesses and advocacy groups, according to her disclosure. That’s more than she earned in combined salary during the eight years she spent as governor and then a presidential Cabinet member."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/nikki-haley-tax-returns/

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will concede that a 14A disqualification could be warranted only via criminal conviction. 

 

That is, right now pending his federal trials he's in a "may be qualified and may not be qualified status".  Until those cases resolve, his status is up in the air.   Additionally, since we are re-defining what "insurrection" is - conviction for mishandling classified documents can also cover it. 

 

That being said, if Trump wants to be on the Presidential ballot, his Federal trials must be completed as soon as possible and the Courts need to accomodate this. Trump is a unique defendant. He could choose to not expedite his trials himself, than he won't be qualified and is not eligible for the ballot. 

 

Alternately (if we want a path where Trump can run and get re-elected), Trump is barred from stopping his DoJ case  if elected President, because the voters know he has pending cases.  So, his trials run their course and if convicted he's barred from holding office/removed due to 14A.  

 

I don't agree at all with "we can vote an insurrectionist in if we want to" - this is democracy!

  • Thumb down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2023 at 11:24 AM, Renegade7 said:

 

Like, cmon, he's a sports analyst and him trying to seem impartial is perfectly fine in sports...but someone who claims to call it how he sees it, "I'm not as down on some of Trumps policies as others" speaks to either not knowing what they are or his true character.

 

This was like finding out Lil Wayne and Ice Cube were still dick ridin Trump as well are you really getting yours or you don't know what you saying yes to?


SAS is legit buddies with Hannity. He’s gone 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The New York Times interviewed for this article more than a dozen current and past advisers to Mr. DeSantis and his allied groups, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a candidate they still support and a campaign that is still soldiering on. Those advisers paint a portrait of a disillusioned presidential candidacy, marked by finger-pointing, fatalism and grand plans designed in a Tallahassee hotel in early spring gone awry by winter. 

 

Cash is scarce as the caucuses near. Never Back Down, which spent heavily to knock on doors in far-flung states like North Carolina and California last summer, canceled its remaining television ads in Iowa and New Hampshire on Friday, though new pro-DeSantis super PACs are picking up the slack. 

 

Federal records show that, by the time of the Iowa caucuses, the DeSantis campaign is on pace to spend significantly more on private jets — the governor’s preferred mode of travel — than on airing television ads.

 

  • Haha 2
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...