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

[PaxNurgle]

Umm... You REALLY missed the sarcasm in my post, didn't you? Read some of my other posts if you're confused about which side I'm on...

Ah yeah; sorry about that. I apologize; I guess I've spent too much time on this board with people who will spout off the same kind of thing...and be completely serious. So I have trouble determining when people are being ironic or not. My bad.

 

[SmokingFap]

Ah yeah; sorry about that. I apologize; I guess I've spent too much time on this board with people who will spout off the same kind of thing...and be completely serious. So I have trouble determining when people are being ironic or not. My bad.

No worries. Dealing with the MAGA zombies drives us all crazy sometimes.

 

[dkovic77]

No worries. Dealing with the MAGA zombies drives us all crazy sometimes.

No Brains….

https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/dawn-of-the-dead-romero-director-dead-06fb0129-5072-40d5-a62e-449045797cd2.jpg

 

[Bn2f]

The situation, as it currently stands, is a bit disappointing, but it is far from settled. IMO it does not much matters, for since J6, good and concerned Americans have always prepared themselves to do AGAIN what they’ve consistently done in each and every election since fecal matter rolled down escalator and that's to soundly defeat him, his supporters, and their seditious intentions once more, by the millions, at the ballot box.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You as always are incorrect. This is from the leftwing Brookings Institution, 28 court decisions went in Trump's favor:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/...e-2020-election-a-failure-but-not-a-wipe-out/

lol,

This article doesn't say what you think it means. They based it upon 194 cases including the 62 Federal ones (of which 1 went in Trumps favour,and would have regardless of if he filed suit, since it was already under review prior to Trump lawsuit).

Now a big point "you"missed was this: "This post examines all Judicial decisions in the cases, not just the cases ultimate outcome".
So if a Judge voted to allow the case to move forward, for example, that is a decision in Trumps favour.

So what the article really says is; in 194 cases Trump got a favourable decision from a Judge 28% of the time. Sometimes only from 1 of 3, and ultimately he lost the case...

 

[jomar]

While it is true that Trump was not charged with insurrection, an open-minded person, one slow to judgment, has to acknowledge that the absence of charges does not necessarily absolve him of any culpability in the face of the connected chains of evidence implicating him. Trump's feckless and constant dissemination of unfounded claims regarding election fraud instigated a call for supporters to "fight like hell" on January 6, 2021. He directly inflamed the atmosphere that led to the Capitol riot. Direct cause and effect is evident to anyone who watched it unfold on television that day.

He ranted for them to march to the Capitol, and they marched. He called for them to fight like hell, knowing some of them were armed, and he urged them anyway, and they fought like hell – even though some congressmen said it was like a tourist day. He said they were not there to harm him and even gloated when they chanted ‘Kill Mike Pence.’

These are not the actions of an innocent. Though not charged, the impact of his rhetoric is a matter of considerable debate and analysis and a matter still for the pending court cases to adjudicate. His role in the fraudulent fake elector attempts was clear and presented dangerous attacks on our democracy. A blind man can see that his hands are not clean in the mess he created.

The assertion that the Department of Justice's decision not to charge Trump with insurrection equates to a lack of evidence is an oversimplification. Various factors, including legal considerations, political dynamics, and prosecutorial discretion, can influence DOJ decisions. The absence of charges does not inherently negate the existence of evidence; it raises questions about the interpretation and application of the law in a complex political context. That is why the judicial system is a carefully constructed balancing act: a judge, a prosecutor, a defense system, and a jury of one’s peers. Those twelve peers will deliberate, weigh the legal nuances, and draw their conclusions, colored as they may be, and we shall accept their outcome. That is the premise of our system – anything else leading us to chaos.

Drawing parallels between the events surrounding the Capitol riot and the 2000 presidential election dispute oversimplifies the distinctions in context and is a blatant deflection attempt. The actions leading up to and following the Capitol attack represented a direct assault on the democratic process.

Comparing this to legal challenges in the 2000 election, which were within the bounds of established legal procedures, undermines the gravity and uniqueness of the Capitol riot as an unprecedented attack on the U.S. Capitol and democratic institutions.

During the legal challenge to the 2000 election, no one incited a riot and furiously assailed the principles of democracy or shamefully assaulted an opponent as odiously as Donald Trump. It was a dignified challenge in court, not in the streets. When the legal case was adjudicated, the challengers accepted it with dignity, and like true Americans, they accepted the outcome, quietly retiring so that the Nation moved forward without anarchy in the wings.

The assertion that any attempt to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to remove Trump from a state ballot would inevitably fail at the appellate level oversimplifies a complex legal issue. Interpretations of constitutional provisions can vary, and legal scholars may differ in their assessments. It is not a certainty that the application of Section 3 doesn’t include the President; it involves nuanced legal analysis, and predicting outcomes at the appellate level is subject to interpretation, legal arguments, and the specific facts of the case. Perhaps the Supreme Court can assist in interpreting a novel wording with few actual cases and none as unique as an ex-president attempting to overthrow the government.

Let’s wait and see how Trump gets judged – by his peers – and accept the outcome like individuals who believe in a fair justice system.

Nicely done, but wasted effort on the guy. His blinders prevent him from seeing reason, logic or reality.

…

Funny how the left refuses to apply the same standards of evidence when it implicates the Biden crime family. There is compelling evidence for the DOJ to initiate a grand jury panel for all the Biden’s but they don’t. What Dmallord doesn’t pontificate about is the fact that this present day DOJ is an extension of his party and can pick and choose who wins and who loses. Opposite circumstances exist, with Trump there are no provable statutory violations but with the Bidens the evidence is compelling but the DOJ runs a protective umbrella.

The DOJ ( the justice system in general) wins back the confidence of the people when they apply the law equally and provide equal protections under the law.

Oh sure, that repub committee has been trying to twist its way to a some sort of impeachment finding but can’t get past facts that aren’t what they want them to be. And don’t forget that the DOJ was trumps best buddy until Barr got a spine and went on his failed redemption tour.

 

[icanhelp1]

Nicely done, but wasted effort on the guy. His blinders prevent him from seeing reason, logic or reality.


Oh sure, that repub committee has been trying to twist its way to a some sort of impeachment finding but can’t get past facts that aren’t what they want them to be. And don’t forget that the DOJ was trumps best buddy until Barr got a spine and went on his failed redemption tour.

DOJ was Trump’s best buddy? are you on fucking drugs. Jeffy boy recused himself allowing Rosenstein to authorize the Mueller investigation. Barr was the biggest disappointment as an AG in my lifetime. Barr let the Hunter Biden tax evasion case run out the statute of limitations. How can the Mueller investigation completely overlook Hillary Clinton and the Steele dossier. It doesn’t matter, it’s water over the damn.

 

[Rightguide]

The 2000 election was so chaotic. Gore did a load of mistakes himself. He chose Lieberman as his running mate, was either too smug or too conciliatory when debating with Bush, alienated West Virginia on coal. West Virginia had been Democratic all but 3 times in presidential elections from 1932-1996 (those exceptions being 1956, 1972 and 1984), a complete contrast to the Trump era where West Virginia is in the top two Republican states in the nation alongside Wyoming. Gore also lost New Hampshire

If Gore had won West Virginia, it would have been enough to win the election. If Gore had won New Hampshire, it would have been enough to win the election. If he had won his home state of Tennessee, it would have been enough to win the election. The last presidential candidate of the big two parties not to win his home state was the Democrat George McGovern of South Dakota in 1972. Gore also won New Mexico by the very narrow margin of 366 votes out of nearly 600,000 votes cast in the state. And then of course, Florida, which everyone knows about, which Bush won by 537 votes officially, but with apparently all sorts of errors and likely fraud with the Brooks Brothers riot forcing the recount to stop.

Others also like to blame Ralph Nader, as if Al Gore was entitled to the votes of Nader voters. In Florida, as Gore lost by 537 votes and Nader got 97,488 official votes in Florida, that angered a lot of Democrats. But again, why did Gore lose West Virginia, New Hampshire and Tennessee? Even New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes alone would have been enough to take Gore over the finish line, and for Florida not to matter.

This was my reply to lady Honey Bee in July of 2022 when people were defending Gores's actions in the 2000 presidential election:

No, your memory of the event is in fact a fable, certain parts of which have been repeated so often that they are viewed as established fact by many partisans on the left and students of pseudo-history like you LHBee, who have not done their homework. Recall this simple fact, Gore never led in the count, ever. Not before the count, not on election night, not during the count, not after votes were added to Gore's count, or after the final count. Another myth was that Gore wanted to count all of the votes when he actively worked to disqualify overseas military votes and the absentee votes in many Florida counties. Even in the post-election newspaper recounts Bush prevailed. Another favorite trope is a conservative SCOTUS tipped the scales of justice in order to make sure Bush won illegitimately. The vote in the SCOTUS was 7-2.

So my dear (just a figurative assumption there) all of that said, you might want to reflect upon your apparent susceptibility to leftwing propaganda and simply trust in your own ability to seek and find the truth.

You're welcome
RG

 

[Rightguide]

DOJ was Trump’s best buddy? are you on fucking drugs. Jeffy boy recused himself allowing Rosenstein to authorize the Mueller investigation. Barr was the biggest disappointment as an AG in my lifetime. Barr let the Hunter Biden tax evasion case run out the statute of limitations. How can the Mueller investigation completely overlook Hillary Clinton and the Steele dossier. It doesn’t matter, it’s water over the damn.

Uh, yes he is.

 

[Rightguide]

I stand corrected. This guy took an unnecessarily deep dive into every single case. There were, indeed, a smattering of lower level court decisions that went Trump's way. After appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court, Trump lost all but one suit, in which, I believe, Republican poll watchers were allowed to move a few feet closer to the ballot-counting stations.

So go enjoy your "winning", tard.

In many cases courts refused to hear his case because they didn't want to get involved. When a court makes a political decision justice is not served and no one wins or loses. You stand in error, you made a dumb statement.

 

[SmokingFap]

In many cases courts refused to hear his case because they didn't want to get involved. When a court makes a political decision justice is not served and no one wins or loses.

That's your excuse for everything. It's pathetic. I'm sure the few judges that temporarily ruled in Trump's favor were doing that in the name of true justice, not politics, in your mind. And the other 60-odd judges who dismissed his cases were all acting out of purely political motivations? I don't know if you're just a troll or a retarded true believer. Either way, you're just a sad, pathetic person. Go back to your make-believe world. Peter Pan and Mr. Snuffleupagus are calling. Maybe you'll be happy there.

 

[Rightguide]

Either way, you're just a sad, pathetic person. Go back to your make-believe world. Peter Pan and Mr. Snuffleupagus are calling. Maybe you'll be happy there.

But more educated and correct than you'll ever be. I suggest you go back to burning off what's left of your foreskin and shut the fuck up.

 

[SmokingFap]

But more educated and correct than you'll ever be. I suggest you go back to burning off what's left of your foreskin and shut the fuck up.

Your delusions are complete and absolute. The only thing you're capable of is googling a few key words, finding an article that you think supports your beliefs, and not being able to comprehend, analyze, or expound upon the article. You couldn't carry my mental jockstrap, chump. And if you have to ask what that means, you prove my point.

 

[Rightguide]

Your delusions are complete and absolute. The only thing you're capable of is googling a few key words, finding an article that you think supports your beliefs, and not being able to comprehend, analyze, or expound upon the article. You couldn't carry my mental jockstrap, chump. And if you have to ask what that means, you prove my point.

Try and find a paragraph without quotes or an attached source that I googled, dipshit. I write my own material. The source of your knowledge skill and ability probably is tucked in your miniature jock strap, sweetheart.

 

[jomar]

DOJ was Trump’s best buddy? are you on fucking drugs. Jeffy boy recused himself allowing Rosenstein to authorize the Mueller investigation.

I overstated a bit regarding the early days. But I’ve said before the the investigation was important for America no matter the outcome.

Barr was the biggest disappointment as an AG in my lifetime. Barr let the Hunter Biden tax evasion case run out the statute of limitations.

Barr was hired specifically because he wrote and presented an unsolicited paper saying a sitting president can’t commit a crime or something to the likes. He certainly went to bat for trump upon the reports release.

How can the Mueller investigation completely overlook Hillary Clinton and the Steele dossier. It doesn’t matter, it’s water over the damn.

Maybe because the investigation was looking into collusion between Trump and Russia?

Uh, yes he is.

You sir, have zero room to talk that kind of shit.

 

[SmokingFap]

Try and find a paragraph without quotes or an attached source that I googled, dipshit. I write my own material. The source of your knowledge skill and ability probably is tucked in your miniature jock strap, sweetheart.

You bore me. Dismissed.

 

[Rightguide]

You sir, have zero room to talk that kind of shit.

I don't drink smoke or do drugs.

 

[Rightguide]

You bore me. Dismissed.

You just revealed the empty space your miniature intellect exists in. You're more than bored, you're defeated.

 

[jomar]

I don't drink smoke or do drugs.

That’s too bad. It would go far in explaining your posts here.

 

[Rightguide]

That’s too bad. It would go far in explaining your posts here.

I have to admit it would be hard for you to explain a higher level of enunciation and learning you have no hope of achieving.

 

[stxjimmy]

I have to admit it would be hard for you to explain a higher level of enunciation and learning you have no hope of achieving.

enunciation wouldn’t matter on a text messaging board surely?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

enunciation wouldn’t matter on a text messaging board surely?

Wrongway caught in the word trap again. He likes big words because he thinks it makes his posting look cerebral. Except in these cases where he uses the wrong words, then he looks like a half wit.

 

[stxjimmy]

I don't drink smoke or do drugs.

I just do the gateway pundit.

 

[Rightguide]

enunciation wouldn’t matter on a text messaging board surely?

Enunciation is a word that has both a narrow and a broad meaning. In its narrow sense, it refers to the act or manner of pronouncing words or parts of words clearly in speech. In its broad sense, it refers to the fact or manner of expressing and explaining a plan or principle clearly or formally in any form of communication. That said, the word enunciation can apply to both spoken and written language, as long as the focus is on the clarity and precision of the expression and explanation. I will add that it would have been perhaps better if I had used the word clarity or coherence.

 

[Rightguide]

I just do the gateway pundit.

Show me an article from the GP I have posted that is false