Go back
Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from Primary Ballot

Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from Primary Ballot

Debates

3 edits

"President Trump asks us to hold that Section Three disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land.
Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section Three." (Italics in original) https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf at P.87

1 edit

@no1marauder said
"President Trump asks us to hold that Section Three disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land.
Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section Three." (Italics in original) h ...[text shortened]... .courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf at P.87
😂

how many times you gonna make an ass of yourself?


"The district court concluded that President Trump exhibited the requisite
intent here. It found that, before the January 6 rally, “[President] Trump knew that
his supporters were angry and prepared to use violence to ‘stop the steal’
including physically preventing Vice President Pence from certifying the
election,” Anderson, ¶ 128, and that President Trump’s response to the events
following his speech “support . . . that [President] Trump endorsed and intended
the actions of the mob on January 6,” id. at ¶ 193 (second alteration in original).
Based on these findings of fact, the court “conclude[d] that [President] Trump
acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol
with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification.”
Id. at ¶ 293.

¶247 The district court found that President Trump knew, before he gave his
speech, that there was the potential for violence on January 6. It found that
“[President] Trump himself agrees that his supporters ‘listen to [him] like no one
else,’” id. at ¶ 63 (second alteration in original), and that federal agencies that
President Trump oversaw identified threats of violence ahead of January 6,
including “threats to storm the U.S. Capitol and kill elected officials,” id. at ¶¶ 123–24.

at P. 129


@no1marauder said
"The district court concluded that President Trump exhibited the requisite
intent here. It found that, before the January 6 rally, “[President] Trump knew that
his supporters were angry and prepared to use violence to ‘stop the steal’
including physically preventing Vice President Pence from certifying the
election,” Anderson, ¶ 128, and that President Trump’s res ...[text shortened]... uding “threats to storm the U.S. Capitol and kill elected officials,” id. at ¶¶ 123–24.

at P. 129
😂 any day now. 😂. you pitiful fool


@mott-the-hoople said
😂 any day now. 😂. you pitiful fool
Well on this day the Colorado Supreme Court kicked Trump off the ballot effective January 4, 2024 unless the SCOTUS intervenes by then.


@mott-the-hoople said
😂

how many times you gonna make an ass of yourself?
Read the news once in a while.

No, the real news.

Vote Up
Vote Down

If Trump wins the primary would he still be off the state ballot next November? Or will that require a different hearing?


@vivify said
If Trump wins the primary would he still be off the state ballot next November? Or will that require a different hearing?
The case is limited to his appearing on the ballot for the Republican primary in Colorado; plaintiffs are asking the Secretary of State in Colorado to not place him on that ballot.

Assuming the decision stands but Trump wins the Republican nomination anyway, I would assume it would be binding precedent for the general election in Colorado.


@mott-the-hoople said
😂 any day now. 😂. you pitiful fool
What the fukk is wrong with you, you bloody retard?

Are you suggesting trump wasn’t just booted from the primary ballot in Colarado?

Or do you just not comprehend? In that case, I appologise for not taking your inbreeding into account.


@vivify said
If Trump wins the primary would he still be off the state ballot next November? Or will that require a different hearing?
If he's off the ballot, he'd have to win a write-in campaign, and historically, that's unlikely.


1 edit

@no1marauder said
"The district court concluded that President Trump exhibited the requisite
intent here. It found that, before the January 6 rally, “[President] Trump knew that
his supporters were angry and prepared to use violence to ‘stop the steal’
including physically preventing Vice President Pence from certifying the
election,” Anderson, ¶ 128, and that President Trump’s res ...[text shortened]... uding “threats to storm the U.S. Capitol and kill elected officials,” id. at ¶¶ 123–24.

at P. 129
A bunch of meanderers strolling about taking selfies and a lectern were not going to physically prevent Pence from doing anything. Who, if he felt the least tinniest bit threatened could go to some bunker or other building and carry on about his buraeuRat state worshipping religious mumbo jumbo rituals.


@wajoma said
A bunch of meanderers strolling about taking selfies and a lectern were not going to physically prevent Pence from doing anything.
A lie doesn't become true because of repetition.

If I am invited to your home and break the window to gain access, beat up your family, you would say the same?


@mott-the-hoople said
😂

how many times you gonna make an ass of yourself?
The person mkaing an ass from themselves seems to be you.

Even if the Supreme Court of the United States does intervene, which is by no means sure, for the time being the ruling is what te ruling is. So Marauder is certainly not the one of you two making an ass of himself.

6 edits

@ponderable said
A lie doesn't become true because of repetition.

If I am invited to your home and break the window to gain access, beat up your family, you would say the same?
.1 percent of the Jan 6er's, and those were likely double agent provocateur's .

Do you want to play with your ridiculous analogy? Which amounts to blaming innocent people for the actions of a few. You're the one repeating the lie, and it will not become truth no matter how many times you repeat it. Do you really think they knew where Pence was, what he was going to do, what they'd need to do to prevent him doing it, and all this is based on none of the Capitol officials seeing what was happening and allowing Pence to carry on as if it weren't rather than going to another location and playing out the silly ritual.

All you've got to do to see the BS is try to play out the scenario, and it becomes more and more ridiculous the deeper you go, which is something that happens with lies, tell one you need another five to cover it, then another five... etc etc something like your analogies.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.