Biden versus trump

[Pokebball]

4 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

Unexpected results.  Blue wave never came.  Results of this are interesting given the Clarence Thomas polls.  Seems even trumpers find him "conflicted".  I will never understand the appeal of trump to anyone.  sad excuse for a human.  Oh well, guess Portugal is still on the table.

Unfortunately, it seems the lack of appeal has mattered more here recently

[ALF]

I did not vote for Biden or Trump in 2020 . In 2024 at least Biden will listen to the advice of advisors , Trump will not. I just hope someone else will run.

[John from Riverside]

I don’t accept the choices

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, John from Riverside said:

I don’t accept the choices

I don't like them either but right now  these are the realistic choices....

[Big Blitz]

This will be Trump’s VP choice btw.  
 

 

 

[Andy1]

This one will be interesting to follow. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

6 hours ago, Andy1 said:

This one will be interesting to follow. 

If this guy thinks no conviction is necessary in the administration of the law he ain't no constitutional scholar. 

[SectionC3]

24 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

If this guy thinks no conviction is necessary in the administration of the law he ain't no constitutional scholar. 

Hoax. But apparently you are.  Where in the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment is it said that a conviction, be it criminal or following an impeachment proceeding of Congress, is required to trigger that preclusive part of that amendment? 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax. But apparently you are.  Where in the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment is it said that a conviction, be it criminal or following an impeachment proceeding of Congress, is required to trigger that preclusive part of that amendment? 

Quite simply there was no insurrection or aid given to any enemy.

Edited August 12, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[SectionC3]

15 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Quite simply there was no insurrection or aid given to any enemy.

That's not what you said.  You focused on "conviction" and indicated that anyone believing a "conviction" is a predicate to application of the 14A bar isn't a constitutional scholar.  So, esteemed constitutional scholar, on what language do you rely for that proposition?  (Hint: your plain textual analysis fails, and your previous point about the plain language of the constitution is a hoax. Try actually, you know, reading that document before you opine as to who is and isn't an expert on that text.)

[All_Pro_Bills]

13 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

That's not what you said.  You focused on "conviction" and indicated that anyone believing a "conviction" is a predicate to application of the 14A bar isn't a constitutional scholar.  So, esteemed constitutional scholar, on what language do you rely for that proposition?  (Hint: your plain textual analysis fails, and your previous point about the plain language of the constitution is a hoax. Try actually, you know, reading that document before you opine as to who is and isn't an expert on that text.)

The section of the amendment requires a prerequisite or qualifyer that a person particpated in an insurrection or a rebellion to be utilized.

And given no insurrection or rebellion occured the entire argument is moot. The conditions to apply the article cannot be met. 

So the constitutional argument is invalid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[SectionC3]

32 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The section of the amendment requires a prerequisite or qualifyer that a person particpated in an insurrection or a rebellion to be utilized.

And given no insurrection or rebellion occured the entire argument is moot. The conditions to apply the article cannot be met. 

So the constitutional argument is invalid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hoax.  You’re dodging your textual hoax again.  Looks like you talked about the constitution out of your rear end (a typical MAGA approach), got called on it, and now won’t own the fact that there is a significant textual problem with respect to your “conviction” argument.   Maybe before you thump the constitution you should try to, like, read it. 

[Unforgiven]

More than 2 genders, lol. 

The US is the laughingstock of the world. EVERYONE is giddy to see the US implode.

[Andy1]

Insurrection: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

 

So they were all just tourists who wanted autographs from Pelosi and Pence? If Trump had not spoken to them, and had not pushed the big lie, would the same events of that day have happened? 

[All_Pro_Bills]

30 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  You’re dodging your textual hoax again.  Looks like you talked about the constitution out of your rear end (a typical MAGA approach), got called on it, and now won’t own the fact that there is a significant textual problem with respect to your “conviction” argument.   Maybe before you thump the constitution you should try to, like, read it. 

The central issue is this.  If there's no need to legally establish an actual insurrection or rebellion took place and there's no need to legally establish the person targeted participated in and is guilty of participating in the previously noted insurrection or a rebellion, then what's to keep from using the Amendment and section to disqualify anyone they simply don't "like" from running for or holding office?  No proof, no evidence, no trial, judge or jury needed.  Just an accusation logged with the Committee for Public Safety and off with your head! 

 

I know its a difficult concept for people that believe in "legal" arguments such as those presented by the likes of Jack Smith but you really do have to prove something at some point and accusations aren't the basis for punishment. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[SectionC3]

31 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The central issue is this.  If there's no need to legally establish an actual insurrection or rebellion took place and there's no need to legally establish the person targeted participated in and is guilty of participating in the previously noted insurrection or a rebellion, then what's to keep from using the Amendment and section to disqualify anyone they simply don't "like" from running for or holding office?  No proof, no evidence, no trial, judge or jury needed.  Just an accusation logged with the Committee for Public Safety and off with your head! 

 

I know its a difficult concept for people that believe in "legal" arguments such as those presented by the likes of Jack Smith but you really do have to prove something at some point and accusations aren't the basis for punishment. 

Not the issue.  You still haven’t addressed your conviction hoax.  

[John from Riverside]

10 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

This will be Trump’s VP choice btw.  
 

 

 

Kari Lake is a ***** quack, and I really hope that Donald Trump does choose her as his running mate. It will ensure his defeat.   By the way, milking a cow, isn’t that hard I grew up on a dairy and I used to do this all the time.

50 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

Insurrection: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

 

So they were all just tourists who wanted autographs from Pelosi and Pence? If Trump had not spoken to them, and had not pushed the big lie, would the same events of that day have happened? 

“ stand back and standby”

Edited August 12, 2023 by John from Riverside

[Big Blitz]

1 hour ago, Unforgiven said:

More than 2 genders, lol. 

The US is the laughingstock of the world. EVERYONE is giddy to see the US implode.

 

Think of where we were just 10 years ago…..culturally.   
 

 

 

Now think of where we’ll be 10 years from now.  It is frightening to even contemplate how bad it’s going to get.   

[Westside]

14 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

Kari Lake is a ***** quack, and I really hope that Donald Trump does choose her as his running mate. It will ensure his defeat.   By the way, milking a cow, isn’t that hard I grew up on a dairy and I used to do this all the time.

“ stand back and standby”

Have you ever milked a bull?

[John from Riverside]

7 minutes ago, Westside said:

Have you ever milked a bull?

Lol no, you don’t milk bulls

 

They can be kinda ornery

20 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

Think of where we were just 10 years ago…..culturally.   
 

 

 

Now think of where we’ll be 10 years from now.  It is frightening to even contemplate how bad it’s going to get.   

Better learn to adapt because we’re not going backwards