70d
@shavixmir saidNo. Your take away is wrong. Yo must be specific with such a question. "All matters"?!!!??! No, not all matters. Is that you, Suzianne?
So, my take away from this is that the US extreme-right want all matters to be decided on a federal level, rather than on a state level?
You fellers are understandably upset and discountenanced, but you need to turn it up a notch, y'all are getting a bit nutsy.
70d
@sh76 saidGreat analogy, SH. But libs are not able to disseminate analogies, or, they don't want to, because we nail them every time with analogies. Note that they never put forth any analogies. Like yours, they are at least entertaining.
Federal level means under federal law or the operation of the federal government. Of course actions within states can affect the rest of the country, but they can't dictate things for the country.
Example: If Wisconsin says that dairy farmers in Wisconsin may not work more than 30 hours a week, that will affect the price of milk and cheeses throughout the country, because Wis ...[text shortened]... of the country. That's too much of an interference with commerce and the courts would not allow it.
But, I got yours. They won't. It is not convenient. Geez.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142506
70d
@sh76 saidthe only law that applies to this…
Not only can they, they already do:
18 U.S. Code § 2383
[quote]Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under ...[text shortened]... If Trump were convicted under Section 2383 there would be no question he'd be ineligible for office.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/entrapment-defense
@Mott-The-Hoople
You seriously think a conviction as leader of an insurrection would be 'entrapment'?
Prosecutors tricking the judge and jury with fake or illegally found evidence or such?
70d
@sonhouse saidHey. Would a panel of clear-headed objective people believe that a few hundred people could take over our government, our country? We have the mightiest military in the world.
@Mott-The-Hoople
You seriously think a conviction as leader of an insurrection would be 'entrapment'?
Prosecutors tricking the judge and jury with fake or illegally found evidence or such?
Whew. Get over it, man. How bout, will Biden debate Trump. Last election, he said that he couldn't wait to debate Trump. Neither can I !!!!!
@averagejoe1 saidBut keeping Trump on the ballot of every state is?
You never got the basis of the SCOTUS Roe decision. They said that it is not the business of the Federal Government.
@mott-the-hoople saidThe 14th amendment doesn't mention charged with or convicted of, either.
LOL.
first…no one has been charged with insurrection
second…the 14th doesn’t mention the US president
And yes, it does, "an officer of the United States".
@averagejoe1 saidIt's the exact same reasoning you use for your states' rights nonsense.
? Well, yes. A federal election, Trump on ballot. What do you mean?
May I suggest that you stick just to race discussions, you seem to excel there.
Each state has their own ballot. Do they have the right to determine their own ballot or not?
States have the right to decide their own business, you say, but you prevent them from deciding their own business when it comes to Trump.
70d
@averagejoe1 saidA few hundred people at our nexus of Government could indeed take over our country. Trump kept the military out. Preventing the transfer of power to the duly elected president-elect by force of riot is an insurrection. Call it a coup d'etat. Same thing.
Hey. Would a panel of clear-headed objective people believe that a few hundred people could take over our government, our country? We have the mightiest military in the world.
Whew. Get over it, man. How bout, will Biden debate Trump. Last election, he said that he couldn't wait to debate Trump. Neither can I !!!!!
And we shouldn't have to "get over it". People have swung for far less.
@suzianne saidYes, because he is a federal officer candidate.
But keeping Trump on the ballot of every state is?
You want to live in an America where you can vote Tom Smith for President everywhere but Maine and Colorado?
If those election meddling dems in Colorado disavow the SJC's ruling and keep Trump off the ballot,
I will guarantee you the federal government won't accept any ballots from Colorado et al.
@suzianne saidI can help you here. You statement...determine their own ballot. It makes no sense. 'Determine their own ballot' does not make sense. How do you determine a ballot? And the law is clear that presidents are elected by the majority of total votes cast in 50 states. It cannot just be decided by a pititful useless Sec of State that CO will not be allowed to vote on a US President. Is she just another discontented liberal? Does she not know the law?
It's the exact same reasoning you use for your states' rights nonsense.
Each state has their own ballot. Do they have the right to determine their own ballot or not?
States have the right to decide their own business, you say, but you prevent them from deciding their own business when it comes to Trump.
Do YOU not know the law? State, Federal, State, Federal, State, Federal...separate entities.
In closing, you mention that they are ' prevented' from deciding their business. What is really happening, little feller (think broadly), is that the Sec of State is PREVENTING Colorado citizens from voting. Whew.
Libs are going to explode and implode from here on out. Just say anything!! A bunch of little Sonhouses.
69d
@suzianne saidIt was not an insurrection. Alsio, Zimmerman, rittenhouse and the dope-in-system Chauvin matter all render your comments above to be irrelevant...it is what it is. Four instances that you are a bit wrong about. Please limit your posts to facts so we can have discussions without extraneous baseless comments. Whether capital punishment is acceptable or not, Shav and I disagree on. There is no 'fact' in those discussions. But you just willy-nilly imply left and right that facts are not facts. Hopefully you see rhe difference.
A few hundred people at our nexus of Government could indeed take over our country. Trump kept the military out. Preventing the transfer of power to the duly elected president-elect by force of riot is an insurrection. Call it a coup d'etat. Same thing.
And we shouldn't have to "get over it". People have swung for far less.
69d
@suzianne saidIn a federal election, the crux seems to be the decisions of one state affect the voters in other states too. Not that trump was winning Colorado anyway, but theyre not going to allow states supreme court rulings to decide federal elections.
It's the exact same reasoning you use for your states' rights nonsense.
Each state has their own ballot. Do they have the right to determine their own ballot or not?
States have the right to decide their own business, you say, but you prevent them from deciding their own business when it comes to Trump.