Biden versus trump

[All_Pro_Bills]

35 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

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

If conviction of insurrection or rebellion is not a requirement to be banned from office you're arguing all citizens are eligible to be banned from running for or holding office at the whim of government.

 

The is America, a Constitutional Republic.  Not Pakistan or Ecuador.  Or is that a hoax too?

 

[SectionC3]

43 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

If conviction of insurrection or rebellion is not a requirement to be banned from office you're arguing all citizens are eligible to be banned from running for or holding office at the whim of government.

 

The is America, a Constitutional Republic.  Not Pakistan or Ecuador.  Or is that a hoax too?

 

Hoax.  As usual, you haven’t thought things through.  

[All_Pro_Bills]

7 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  As usual, you haven’t thought things through.  

Horseshit.  Answer the question.  If there is no conviction what is the justification for banning a person from office under the amendment?  Let's see what you've thought through.

 

[SectionC3]

35 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Horseshit.  Answer the question.  If there is no conviction what is the justification for banning a person from office under the amendment?  Let's see what you've thought through.

 

Hoax.  You first, constitutional scholar.  Where in the plain language of the 14A is a conviction required as a predicate to the subject ban?  We’ve waited all day for you insight with respect to this venerable text. 

[SectionC3]

18 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Horseshit.  Answer the question.  If there is no conviction what is the justification for banning a person from office under the amendment?  Let's see what you've thought through.

 

Still got nothing.  Just like yesterday.  Just like tomorrow.  

[John from Riverside]

On 8/12/2023 at 6:03 AM, Unforgiven said:

More than 2 genders, lol. 

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

We were the laughingstock, whenever that certain person was president, and that was obvious

18 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Horseshit.  Answer the question.  If there is no conviction what is the justification for banning a person from office under the amendment?  Let's see what you've thought through.

 

Personally, I think there are there are no convictions then Trump should be allowed to run
 

The thing is, there’s going to be convictions he only Hass to be convicted on one of those counts

[All_Pro_Bills]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Still got nothing.  Just like yesterday.  Just like tomorrow.  

I'm waiting for that moment of honesty from you.  I'll ask for the last time.  What are the grounds for banning somebody from office using 14A if they haven't committed the crime of either insurrection or rebellion?  Neither of which anyone running for any office currently is charged with or tried on those charges.  This is a simple question and a simple answer.  Otherwise, you might consider you've got nothing rather than me.  

[SectionC3]

7 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I'm waiting for that moment of honesty from you.  I'll ask for the last time.  What are the grounds for banning somebody from office using 14A if they haven't committed the crime of either insurrection or rebellion?  Neither of which anyone running for any office currently is charged with or tried on those charges.  This is a simple question and a simple answer.  Otherwise, you might consider you've got nothing rather than me.  

Hoax.  You keep on ducking the point.  A simple question and a simple answer, in your words.  Where in the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment is this conviction predicate of which you speak?  Once you acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about and that you haven't actually, you know, read that amendment, then we can get into specifics about why you're wrong and and about the depth of your cluelessness. 

Edited August 13, 2023 by SectionC3