Colorado Will Not Be Allowed To Deny Trump Access To Their Presidential Ballot

[Fuzzy1975]

did i miss vetteman making himself look dumb?

oh well, there's always tomorrow's follies!

one of his dumbest days, in multiple threads.

 

[PaxNurgle]

It does look like it will be ruled that Trump can't be taken off the Colorado ballet. That'll be a huge win for Democracy; voters get decide who they can and cannot vote for and won't have a popular choice taken away from them. About time some reason kicked in.

It will be a huge LOSS for Democracy.

It means that any candidate who loses the vote can, with TOTAL IMPUNITY, rally their supporters to stage a violent riot with the intent on overturning the election. And install the losing candidate, the one who the majority of people voted against. (And with Trump, most people had very good and valid reasons for voting against him.) Should they be successful, How, exactly is that a WIN for democracy?

And how is it a WIN when a failed candidate can stage such and insurrection and face no consequences, even if their aim- to overturn the will of the people- is not successful?

It is not a question of whether Trump can prevail in an upcoming election.
Rather it is a question of what he will do should he NOT prevail.

The sane, sensible thing to do would be for ALL states to remove him from the ballot. Full stop.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Ok I'll try again: If you can't figure out the answers to your questions from what I have already posted, then that is your mental failure and there is nothing I can do to help.

So you won't explain what you think will be found out or happen, if, as you put it, "dumb Americans elect him." Ok then.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

So you won't explain what you think will be found out or happen, if, as you put it, "dumb Americans elect him." Ok then.

I've already said what I think will happen, do I have to take you by the hand to show you?

Sorry but his is an adult site, and I have expectations that the adults who I engage in discussing subjects are intelligent enough to find simple answers to simple questions.

 

[Superfungurl]

It will be a huge LOSS for Democracy.

It means that any candidate who loses the vote can, with TOTAL IMPUNITY, rally their supporters to stage a violent riot with the intent on overturning the election. And install the losing candidate, the one who the majority of people voted against. (And with Trump, most people had very good and valid reasons for voting against him.) Should they be successful, How, exactly is that a WIN for democracy?

And how is it a WIN when a failed candidate can stage such and insurrection and face no consequences, even if their aim- to overturn the will of the people- is not successful?

It is not a question of whether Trump can prevail in an upcoming election.
Rather it is a question of what he will do should he NOT prevail.

The sane, sensible thing to do would be for ALL states to remove him from the ballot. Full stop.

How much more stupid could a post be? The answer is none...none more stupid. And, um...the U.S.A. is NOT a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. You would not want it to be a democracy and anyone knowledgeable of the differences between a democracy and Constitutional Republic understand that.

 

[Superfungurl]

That is a lie.

On so many levels. But you cannot have conversations with NPCs.

 

[ll74]

How much more stupid could a post be? The answer is none...none more stupid. And, um...the U.S.A. is NOT a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. You would not want it to be a democracy and anyone knowledgeable of the differences between a democracy and Constitutional Republic understand that.

A republic is a form of democracy.

 

[TastySuckToy]

I've already said what I think will happen, do I have to take you by the hand to show you?

I haven't seen that post. Link?

 

[Rightguide]

Griswold did not bring the case to court, dipshit.

The case was filed by several Republicans and Griswold was the defendant because of her role as Secretary of State.

Her brief was in defense of the State's right to decide their elections - as head of elections in the state. As the state had already ruled.

Her brief was the bullshit of the politically and historically ignorant and I'm being polite here. You're wrong, she's wrong, and the left is always wrong.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I haven't seen that post. Link?

Try reading the current thread. Seems we can add laziness to your list of attributes.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

How much more stupid could a post be? The answer is none...none more stupid. And, um...the U.S.A. is NOT a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic.

lol a Constitutional Republic is a Democracy. At the time of the birth of the USA, the founding fathers called the USA the greatest Democracy to ever be created and waved that paper in the face of the British Empire... Damn you people can be fucking stupid.

 

[ll74]

Her brief was the bullshit of the politically and historically ignorant and I'm being polite here. You're wrong, she's wrong, and the left is always wrong.

Her brief was as a representative of the state of Colorado as head of their elections.

The court decides. Whether you believe it to be wrong is irrelevant.

I have always believed that SCOTUS would keep Trump on the ballot and said so in many threads here. If you think I'm wrong on that, so be it.

 

[Rightguide]

Her brief was as a representative of the state of Colorado as head of their elections.

The court decides. Whether you believe it to be wrong is irrelevant.

I have always believed that SCOTUS would keep Trump on the ballot and said so in many threads here. If you think I'm wrong on that, so be it.

It's not about Trump. It's about the Constitution, the 14th Amendment Section 3, and state authority under it. Which in this case there is none.

 

[ll74]

It's not about Trump. It's about the Constitution, the 14th Amendment Section 3, and state authority under it. Which in this case there is none.

The state already ruled. Now SCOTUS will rule.

And the matter will be settled.

Whether you believe one way or the other is irrelevant to the questions before the court along with their ruling.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

It's not about Trump. It's about the Constitution, the 14th Amendment Section 3, and state authority under it. Which in this case there is none.

It’s encouraging to see most if not all 9 of the justices seeming to be largely in agreement. A 9-0, 8-1, or even a 7-2 decision will be good for the court and good for the country.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Her brief was the bullshit of the politically and historically ignorant and I'm being polite here. You're wrong, she's wrong, and the left is always wrong.

You're getting destroyed with facts I'm your thread, Jack.

Fuck your feelings.

 

[Lazaran]

The MAGAts wouldn’t tolerate an individual being President who won a free and fair election (electoral college AND the popular vote) and hadn’t previously engaged in insurrection,, and the MAGAts proceeded to engage in insurrection to deny that individual the presidency.

But now, decent, intelligent, Americans are expected to tolerate a corrupt orange traitor who DID previously engage in insurrection as President, and who has already declared they won’t accept the results of the next election unless they win.

Fuck that ^.

If the corrupt orange traitor "wins" the 2024 presidential election, then Putin wins regardless: Either America turns into a puppet state to Russia (becomes a totalitarian hell), or America burns to the ground.

I, for one, won’t live civilly and obediently in a country that allows a corrupt insurrectionists traitor to be President (especially if that corrupt insurrectionists traitor once again wins via the electoral college and loses the popular vote.)

Expect resistance.

 

[TastySuckToy]

The MAGAts wouldn’t tolerate an individual being President who won a free and fair election

They're tolerating Biden, so I guess that proves he didn't win via a free and fair election.

 

[Lazaran]

They're tolerating Biden, so I guess that proves he didn't win via a free and fair election.

^
(Quotes for posterity and stupidity)

TaintyFuckBoi thinks the MAGAts attempting an insurrection on J6 was “tolerating” the election of President Biden.



TaintyFuckBoi

 

[Rotadom]

I enjoy Rightguide's threads for very unintended purposes.

 

[Rightguide]

It’s encouraging to see most if not all 9 of the justices seeming to be largely in agreement. A 9-0, 8-1, or even a 7-2 decision will be good for the court and good for the country.

I noted that Jackson the most left-leaning Justice on the court questioned right off the bat about the 14th Amendment even applying to the President or the Vice-President. We brought this up several pages back, that and the fact that the President isn't an "officer of the United States" as contemplated by Section 3. I posted the SCOTUS jurisprudence on that fact a while back as well, as well as the observation that Section 3 is only enforceable by Congress, not the states. The whole idea that the 14th and Section 3 grants any enforceable authority to the states is absurd on its face as it was designed to remove power from the states in the first place. The left lives in its own fanciful world which is quite different from reality.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I noted that Jackson the most left-leaning Justice on the court questioned right off the bat about the 14th Amendment even applying to the President or the Vice-President. We brought this up several pages back, that and the fact that the President isn't an "officer of the United States" as contemplated by Section 3. I posted the SCOTUS jurisprudence on that fact a while back as well, as well as the observation that Section 3 is only enforceable by Congress, not the states. The whole idea that the 14th and Section 3 grants any enforceable authority to the states is absurd on its face as it was designed to remove power from the states in the first place. The left lives in its own fanciful world which is quite different from reality.

Agree, her questions and comments were on point.

 

[ll74]

I noted that Jackson the most left-leaning Justice on the court questioned right off the bat about the 14th Amendment even applying to the President or the Vice-President. We brought this up several pages back, that and the fact that the President isn't an "officer of the United States" as contemplated by Section 3. I posted the SCOTUS jurisprudence on that fact a while back as well, as well as the observation that Section 3 is only enforceable by Congress, not the states. The whole idea that the 14th and Section 3 grants any enforceable authority to the states is absurd on its face as it was designed to remove power from the states in the first place. The left lives in its own fanciful world which is quite different from reality.

Do you understand when something is questioned and not resolved? That means that there are arguments for and against and the actual application of the law is not settled.

You continuing to think yours is the only right answer on matters that have yet to be settled is truly your issue.

Even in this case, whether the 14th amendment applies to the President, as you insist, may not be settled with this case, even though the justice did inquire on the subject. And if that is how it goes, you won't necessarily be correct in your position... No matter how confident you are.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

It’s encouraging to see most if not all 9 of the justices seeming to be largely in agreement. A 9-0, 8-1, or even a 7-2 decision will be good for the court and good for the country.

Yep, and it sure puts a scuttle shot across the bow of all those "but but but States rights" people.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Yep, and it sure puts a scuttle shot across the bow of all those "but but but States rights" people.

As the justices emphasized, the 14th is clear on this. This is a federal power. It’s not a state’s rights issue.