daz28 Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 21 minutes ago, BillStime said: Damaging Should be fun fun fun watching the SC completely ignoring all of these facts, and only voting on the "officer of the US part", when clearly the initiative of the clause is to prevent insurrectionists from running. Surely the framers didn't mean to keep Jefferson Davis off the ballot, but just his "officers". LOL This will be another not even thinly veiled show of their partisanship. At least it will be out in the open for all of us to see and judge. 1
ChiGoose Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 4 minutes ago, daz28 said: Should be fun fun fun watching the SC completely ignoring all of these facts, and only voting on the "officer of the US part", when clearly the initiative of the clause is to prevent insurrectionists from running. Surely the framers didn't mean to keep Jefferson Davis off the ballot, but just his "officers". LOL This will be another not even thinly veiled show of their partisanship. At least it will be out in the open for all of us to see and judge. The fun part of Orginalism is that you get to pick the outcome you want, find one example from the past that supports it, and then override everything and anything that contradicts it. 1
BillsFanNC Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 Hey RFK...everyone knows this except useful idiots. We have a useful idiot problem. 15 minutes ago, daz28 said: Should be fun fun fun watching the SC completely ignoring all of these facts, and only voting on the "officer of the US part", when clearly the initiative of the clause is to prevent insurrectionists from running. Surely the framers didn't mean to keep Jefferson Davis off the ballot, but just his "officers". LOL This will be another not even thinly veiled show of their partisanship. At least it will be out in the open for all of us to see and judge. A full blown useful idiot. 1
daz28 Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: The fun part of Orginalism is that you get to pick the outcome you want, find one example from the past that supports it, and then override everything and anything that contradicts it. One example? Originalism? This was introduced after the Civil War, and it kept TONS of confederate sesh scum off the ballots. The argument that the president put forth, that he didn't take an oath to the Constitution, is completely laughable. The "biggest crowd in history" witnessed it. This isn't legal mumbo jumbo here, and the defense he's attempting is absolute proof. 1
daz28 Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 (edited) 17 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Hey RFK...everyone knows this except useful idiots. We have a useful idiot problem. A full blown useful idiot. The only idiot here(and useless at that), is RFK for saying he didn't get his day in court, then proceeds to say he hopes the court reverses it(then says it shouldn't be up to the courts-so damn the Constitution, right)). LOLOL How many former representatives and senators, who were part of the Confederacy, attempted to use this argument? As far as I know, none, and for good reason. Edited December 20, 2023 by daz28
BillsFanNC Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 Just now, daz28 said: The only idiot here(and useless at that), is RFK for saying he didn't get his day in court, then proceeds to say he hopes the court reverses it. LOLOL How many former representatives and senators, who were part of the Confederacy, attempted to use this argument? As far as I know, none, and for good reason. So on one hand we have organized armies of armed insurrectionists who waged war against the federal government for years. On the other we have unarmed protesters who staged a constitutionally protected protest, were allowed into the Capitol to wander as tourists, then turned around and went home. All wrapped up in a single afternoon. Ill take how to tell everyone that you're a useful idiot 101. Congrats you passed with an A+
daz28 Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 Just now, BillsFanNC said: So on one hand we have organized armies of armed insurrectionists who waged war against the federal government for years. On the other we have unarmed protesters who staged a constitutionally protected protest, were allowed into the Capitol to wander as tourists, then turned around and went home. All wrapped up in a single afternoon. Ill take how to tell everyone that you're a useful idiot 101. Congrats you passed with an A+ We're discussing the courts rationale, not your feewings on the matter. It's clearly stated that your imaginary "constitutionally protected protest, were allowed into the Capitol to wander as tourists, then turned around and went home" was actually what everyone, but Trump loyalist saw, an insurrection. They also say he participated, and gave examples how. Your widdle feewings get an: A+; You're reading, and comprehension of the law: F- 1
BillsFanNC Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 2 minutes ago, daz28 said: We're discussing the courts rationale, not your feewings on the matter. It's clearly stated that your imaginary "constitutionally protected protest, were allowed into the Capitol to wander as tourists, then turned around and went home" was actually what everyone, but Trump loyalist saw, an insurrection. They also say he participated, and gave examples how. Your widdle feewings get an: A+; You're reading, and comprehension of the law: F- The law! By lawfare. You're a commie useful idiot and therefore I must follow my own rule here at PPP. ***** off. And be gone! 1
daz28 Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 Just now, BillsFanNC said: The law! By lawfare. You're a commie useful idiot and therefore I must follow my own rule here at PPP. ***** off. And be gone! That was a great legal defense manifesto you put together there. Heck, if you're ok with not getting paid, Trump could use a great legal mind, such as yours. The only argument that even Trump himself has is that he never promised to uphold the Constitution, and that "or hold any office" doesn't apply to him as president. LOL Like I already told you, his legal team will have to argue before the SC that the framers felt Jefferson Davis should have been able to run for president. Good luck with that in a court that's not using partisan "lawfare".
BillsFanNC Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 ⬆️ Now let's get back to giving this thread all the legitimacy that it deserves 1
Tommy Callahan Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 Billionaire funded pac sues to remove a citizen from the Democratic process. With no due process or precedent. This seems very Democratic. And very much supported by the Dems
ChiGoose Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 5 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: Billionaire funded pac sues to remove a citizen from the Democratic process. With no due process or precedent. This seems very Democratic. And very much supported by the Dems If there was no due process, it wouldn’t be in the courts… How do you think it should work when a candidate is potentially ineligible? 1 1
JaCrispy Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 I have a really bad feeling about all this… If people are not allowed to vote for Trump, they could view the upcoming election as illegitimate, and either call for secession, or worse, civil war… 1
K D Posted December 20, 2023 Posted December 20, 2023 Whatever your politics, whether you love Trump or can't stand him, this is an attack on democracy. Consider if you were a Dem and Trump made it so Biden couldn't run. That's not how this works. If you don't want the person to win then you don't vote for him. You don't hit him with numerous lawsuits, threaten jail, and then kick him off the ballot when half the country supports them. Great way to start a real "insurrection" aka Civil War 1
Recommended Posts