nic Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 On 12/31/2023 at 9:34 AM, commando said: people have been removed from ballots before while not having been convicted https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/12/29/trump-disqualification-questions/ Based on past disqualifications under the 14th amendment, that fact has little bearing on the Disqualification Clause. Of the eight people who have been disqualified under this part of the Constitution, at least five were not convicted of any crime. Interesting. I didn't quite find what the other 8 situations were in the article. I may have skimmed over it to quickly. I still think this is political. Dems are worried he is going win. They are throwing darts at a wall and hoping one sticks. How many of the folks that stormed the capital were convicted of insurrection? Half dozen maybe. I haven't kept track. 2 2 Link to comment
nic Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 21 hours ago, commando said: didn't the courts decide the 2020 election? The 2000 election. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 30 minutes ago, nic said: Interesting. I didn't quite find what the other 8 situations were in the article. I may have skimmed over it to quickly. I still think this is political. Dems are worried he is going win. They are throwing darts at a wall and hoping one sticks. How many of the folks that stormed the capital were convicted of insurrection? Half dozen maybe. I haven't kept track. 1 1 Link to comment
Scarlet Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 36 minutes ago, nic said: Interesting. I didn't quite find what the other 8 situations were in the article. I may have skimmed over it to quickly. I still think this is political. Dems are worried he is going win. They are throwing darts at a wall and hoping one sticks. How many of the folks that stormed the capital were convicted of insurrection? Half dozen maybe. I haven't kept track. Something doesn't add up. You're already willing to toss the Constitution so you can vote against an insurrectionist? Make it make sense. Btw you do know the litigants in Colorado were four Republicans and two unaffiliated voters right? 2 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 2 hours ago, nic said: Interesting. I didn't quite find what the other 8 situations were in the article. I may have skimmed over it to quickly. I still think this is political. Dems are worried he is going win. They are throwing darts at a wall and hoping one sticks. How many of the folks that stormed the capital were convicted of insurrection? Half dozen maybe. I haven't kept track. Yikes. It wasn’t Democrats who started this in Colorado. I think you should try to keep better track of things before deciding to burn the constitution w/o realizing it. 4 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 2 hours ago, Moiraine said: Yikes. It wasn’t Democrats who started this in Colorado. I think you should try to keep better track of things before deciding to burn the constitution w/o realizing it. It was all Dems who wrongly decided it in CO though 2 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 1 hour ago, Archy1221 said: It was all Dems who wrongly decided it in CO though No, it’s Dems that are following the constitution. 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 28 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: No, it’s Dems that are following the constitution. That is certainly your opinion 1 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 26 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: That is certainly your opinion LOL….you might want to read the amendment. 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 59 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: LOL….you might want to read the amendment. As I said, it’s certainly your opinion and some scholars have agreed with you. Other constitutional scholars have a different opinion on the matter than you. 1 2 1 Link to comment
Dr. Strangelove Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 5 hours ago, Archy1221 said: As I said, it’s certainly your opinion and some scholars have agreed with you. Other constitutional scholars have a different opinion on the matter than you. The only opinions that matter are the Supreme Court Justices who are going to rule against Colorado. Ultimately Trump being off the ballot in Colorado doesn't change the calculus for the 2024 election in the unlikely event SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado. Trump has a ~50-55% chance to win no matter what. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 6 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said: The only opinions that matter are the Supreme Court Justices who are going to rule against Colorado. Ultimately Trump being off the ballot in Colorado doesn't change the calculus for the 2024 election in the unlikely event SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado. Trump has a ~50-55% chance to win no matter what. You are correct. Trump has hand picked enough justices to not give a s#!t about the constitution and rule in favor of him. 1 2 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Or there are other reason SCOTUS would rule in favor for Trump than “they don’t give a s#!t about the Constitution” https://www.mediaite.com/tv/george-stephanopoulos-no-way-the-supreme-court-allows-states-to-remove-trump-from-the-ballot/ 2 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: Or there are other reason SCOTUS would rule in favor for Trump than “they don’t give a s#!t about the Constitution” https://www.mediaite.com/tv/george-stephanopoulos-no-way-the-supreme-court-allows-states-to-remove-trump-from-the-ballot/ Quote “There are real legal arguments that Donald Trump has,” Abrams said. “And because there’s a menu of outs for the court, they’re going to find one. I would think that will say Donald Trump can remain on.” Yes, and his hand picked justices are going to work hard to find those outs....even though they aren't really upholding the constitution. 2 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts