BillStime Posted September 11, 2023 Author Posted September 11, 2023 4 minutes ago, Chris farley said: Tell you what would really help with the optics of the corporatist/fascist? More shady packs suing to keep trump off the ticket in 2024. I really don't give a 💩 about your feelings. 1
Tommy Callahan Posted September 11, 2023 Posted September 11, 2023 LOL. I made a comment about the corporate fascist and one self-identified. Good job, have an eyeroll.
BillStime Posted October 11, 2023 Author Posted October 11, 2023 Wow "The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution — not to 'support' the Constitution," said the filing by Trump's attorneys. "Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to 'support' the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President."
ChiGoose Posted December 19, 2023 Posted December 19, 2023 9 minutes ago, BillStime said: 🎯 Quick note that this ruling is stayed until Jan 4th, 2024 to allow time for appeals.
Roundybout Posted December 19, 2023 Posted December 19, 2023 Just now, ChiGoose said: Quick note that this ruling is stayed until Jan 4th, 2024 to allow time for appeals. Yeah doubt SCOTUS lets this stand but he’s gonna waste money and resources appealing.
ChiGoose Posted December 19, 2023 Posted December 19, 2023 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Yeah doubt SCOTUS lets this stand but he’s gonna waste money and resources appealing. At a cursory glance it seems pretty spot on, but I agree that the chances of SCOTUS upholding it are pretty remote. I’m a bit conflicted because I believe it’s: 1. Correct on the facts and law 2. Unlikely to be upheld by SCOTUS (though this is far from certain) 3. Great in the short term if it’s upheld 4. Bad in the long run if it’s upheld Edited December 19, 2023 by ChiGoose
SCBills Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 I don’t want to hear a peep from the “threat to democracy” crowd. Id love for him to be removed from the ballot, but I also recognize lawfare is not the way and is emblematic of the type of third world bs we claim to be against in developing nations. 1 1
BillsFanNC Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 Those poll numbers are sure to fall now!
All_Pro_Bills Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 9 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Wow!! When what we should assume will be the SCOTUS overruling the Colorado court will it be another "wow"? The great game goes on.
BillsFanNC Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 9 minutes ago, SCBills said: I don’t want to hear a peep from the “threat to democracy” crowd. Id love for him to be removed from the ballot, but I also recognize lawfare is not the way and is emblematic of the type of third world bs we claim to be against in developing nations. 1
Tiberius Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 5 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: When what we should assume will be the SCOTUS overruling the Colorado court will it be another "wow"? The great game goes on. The best judges money can buy will surely do that 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 11 minutes ago, SCBills said: I don’t want to hear a peep from the “threat to democracy” crowd. Id love for him to be removed from the ballot, but I also recognize lawfare is not the way and is emblematic of the type of third world bs we claim to be against in developing nations. Nobody cares who you want to hear from. A person that supported fake electors should absolutely not be eligible to run for office, even middle school class president. We'll see if the SC upholds it may be a moot point but shove your faux outrage over to your qanon buddies who will swallow it whole. 2
SCBills Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 11 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Nobody cares who you want to hear from. A person that supported fake electors should absolutely not be eligible to run for office, even middle school class president. We'll see if the SC upholds it may be a moot point but shove your faux outrage over to your qanon buddies who will swallow it whole. Ahh yes … must be Q MAGA to oppose a former President being removed from a ballot via lawfare. Good luck with this .. you just handed that clown a mountain of ammo to win back the normies. 2
BillStime Posted December 20, 2023 Author Posted December 20, 2023 16 minutes ago, SCBills said: Ahh yes … must be Q MAGA to oppose a former President being removed from a ballot via lawfare. Good luck with this .. you just handed that clown a mountain of ammo to win back the normies. What does the actual amendment say?
Recommended Posts