Trump Disqualified in Colorado
-
wrote on 29 Dec 2023, 20:51 last edited by
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
What did Truman say?
Among other things …
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111642745146668045
https://archive.ph/U8Qh1 -
wrote on 29 Dec 2023, 21:39 last edited by
Works for me.
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 01:06 last edited by Renauda
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Works for me.
That’s just a polite way of saying “you can fuck me, Don, but don’t crush my smokes”.
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 01:39 last edited by
Voice of experience, eh?
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 01:40 last edited by
(too lazy to look it up)
Supposedly, the Secretary of State in Maine has unilateral power to remove a candidate from a ballot.
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 01:41 last edited by
And her being a former ACLU official.
Freedom for me, not for thee.
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 01:57 last edited by
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 02:03 last edited by
@Renauda said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Voice of experience, eh?
You would know, eh?
Just following your lead. I understand the nights are long and cold in Alberta.
-
(too lazy to look it up)
Supposedly, the Secretary of State in Maine has unilateral power to remove a candidate from a ballot.
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 02:04 last edited by Jolly@George-K said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
(too lazy to look it up)
Supposedly, the
unelectedSecretary of State in Maine has unilateral power to remove a candidate from a ballot. -
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 02:10 last edited by
And now...The appointed idiot stays her own decision...
https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/BellowsDecisionChallengeTrumpPrimaryPetitionsDec2023.html
-
And now...The appointed idiot stays her own decision...
https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/BellowsDecisionChallengeTrumpPrimaryPetitionsDec2023.html
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 02:14 last edited by@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
appointed
Colorado Supreme Court justices are appointed (and subject to electoral approval).
Maine's SoS is appointed.
Democracy dies in appointments.
-
@Renauda said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Voice of experience, eh?
You would know, eh?
Just following your lead. I understand the nights are long and cold in Alberta.
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 02:16 last edited by@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Renauda said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Voice of experience, eh?
You would know, eh?
Just following your lead. I understand the nights are long and cold in Alberta.
My lead? Ha! Trump’s been boning the US since Oral Roberts was a cowboy. Betcha y’all knowed that too.
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 02:41 last edited by
Nope. Haven't kept up with Trump's boning. Nice to know you have a hobby.
Everybody needs one.
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 03:33 last edited by
Take the red pill: The election was rigged.
Take the blue pill: The erection was rigid.
-
Nope. Haven't kept up with Trump's boning. Nice to know you have a hobby.
Everybody needs one.
-
Stupid question, but why is a criminal conviction required? It just says the person shall not have engaged in insurrection, right? I haven't paid attention to the details here since I presume SCOTUS will overturn this in about two months.
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 10:35 last edited by jon-nyc@89th said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Stupid question, but why is a criminal conviction required? It just says the person shall not have engaged in insurrection, right? I haven't paid attention to the details here since I presume SCOTUS will overturn this in about two months.
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
Keep in mind this was written with the confederacy in mind. With very few exceptions, the US neither convicted nor charged the 1,000,000 or so former confederate soldiers yet this amendment applied to all of them and everyone knew it at the time.
Having said that, I’m not a fan of these moves and consider the law to be unworkably vague without enabling legislation from congress. Especially the second part - if ‘insurrection’ is vague, surely ‘providing aid or comfort’ to an enemy is worse.
I’m pretty sure the court will shut this down. I hope they do.
-
@89th said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Stupid question, but why is a criminal conviction required? It just says the person shall not have engaged in insurrection, right? I haven't paid attention to the details here since I presume SCOTUS will overturn this in about two months.
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
Keep in mind this was written with the confederacy in mind. With very few exceptions, the US neither convicted nor charged the 1,000,000 or so former confederate soldiers yet this amendment applied to all of them and everyone knew it at the time.
Having said that, I’m not a fan of these moves and consider the law to be unworkably vague without enabling legislation from congress. Especially the second part - if ‘insurrection’ is vague, surely ‘providing aid or comfort’ to an enemy is worse.
I’m pretty sure the court will shut this down. I hope they do.
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 12:50 last edited by George K@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
"You participated in an insurrection! You can't hold office!"
"No I didn't!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
Is that how it works? You can enact this because you think someone did something?
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
"You participated in an insurrection! You can't hold office!"
"No I didn't!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
Is that how it works? You can enact this because you think someone did something?
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 13:33 last edited by@George-K said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
"You participated in an insurrection! You can't hold office!"
"No I didn't!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
Is that how it works? You can enact this because you think someone did something?
Yes.
This is the foundation of TDS.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
"You participated in an insurrection! You can't hold office!"
"No I didn't!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
Is that how it works? You can enact this because you think someone did something?
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 14:38 last edited by@George-K said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
"You participated in an insurrection! You can't hold office!"
"No I didn't!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
Is that how it works? You can enact this because you think someone did something?
Again I think it’s unworkable and shouldn’t be used. But it was never envisioned to require a conviction or a charge. It was US policy (generally) not to charge confederate veterans, yet everyone knew this was written to exclude them from office, including those veterans themselves.
-
wrote on 30 Dec 2023, 15:16 last edited by
From a strictly scholarly point of discussion, wouldn’t the 14th have disqualified the first 10 Presidents or so?
