87d
@shavixmir saidShow us one correct answer. And, there is only one correct answer. Can you show us the correct answer, a post with the correct answer? There is only one correct answer, only one. One correct answer. No one has given it that I can see, unless it may have been a person who knows the correct answer.
Dumb arse.
This has been answered multiple times on the forum already.
87d
@suzianne saidBut I think that he and you believe that a Sec of State can decide if her citizens can vote for a presidential candidate or not**. Is that true? If I live in CO and want to vote for Trump, should he have the power to stop me from voting for Trump? Can you POSSIBLY answer this question like a grownup.
This is completely because the Supreme Court, instead of saying what Colorado did was wrong and leaving it at that, decided to leave us a road map of exactly how to do it that would pass their muster.
Enter Jamie Raskin, the aforementioned hero.
https://newrepublic.com/post/179529/jamie-raskin-supreme-court-trump-ballot
** Basing that decision on an alleged insurrection where he was not charged nor convicted of same.
@averagejoe1 saidNo, moron, Trump decided that himself when he decided to foment an insurrection.
But I think that he and you believe that a Sec of State can decide if her citizens can vote for a presidential candidate or not**. Is that true? If I live in CO and want to vote for Trump, should he have the power to stop me from voting for Trump? Can you POSSIBLY answer this question like a grownup.
** Basing that decision on an alleged insurrection where he was not charged nor convicted of same.
In a world where the 14th amendment isn't ignored, Trump has the power to stop you from voting for Trump. All he has to do is engage in insurrection. Oh, wait, he already did that. The Supreme Court just said, "There's nothing to see here." Just like everyone with a brain thought they would. Payback for their lifetime appointments, don't you know.
@averagejoe1 saidThe truly sad thing is that you actually believe that.
Trump is a hero. So we got those comments in cement.
87d
@suzianne saidYou are getting like Shouse. Was he charged with or convicted of insurrection? There are brains much bigger than, say, Kev, who think there was no insurrection and thus no conviction.
The truly sad thing is that you actually believe that.
All of you little fellers are swimming around in circles in quicksand.. Every time you post, our winning positions are more solidified.
@averagejoe1 saidThere doesn't have to be a charge or a conviction to satisfy the 14th amendment. He only has to have engaged in it, which we all know he did, we saw it on TV. Did you ever see his speech at the Ellipse that day?
You are getting like Shouse. Was he charged with or convicted of insurrection? There are brains much bigger than, say, Kev, who think there was no insurrection and thus no conviction.
All of you little fellers are swimming around in circles in quicksand.. Every time you post, our winning positions are more solidified.
Could you just read the thing before writing crap about it?
87d
@Suzianne
He will just keep on insisting there was no insurrection, believing insurrection has to have armed soldiers attacking shooting up the place. Of course there were weapons, dudes arrested wearing pistols and Molotov cocktails loaded in a nearby car and a hotel room full of ammo and assault rifles and all it would have taken would have been a tweet like the one that called for Pence to be hanged, if he had said pull all the stops, start firing, they would have done just that. People died anyway.
@averagejoe1 saidUhuh.
Show us one correct answer. And, there is only one correct answer. Can you show us the correct answer, a post with the correct answer? There is only one correct answer, only one. One correct answer. No one has given it that I can see, unless it may have been a person who knows the correct answer.
Just because you think there is one correct answer, doesn’t mean there is.
The answer depends on definitions, law and interpretations.
Rudolf Hess wasn’t convicted of being a nazi scumbag, nor was he convicted over co-writing Mein Kampf or writing anti-Jewish legislation into law.
The court convicted him of crimes against peace and of conspiracy with other German leaders to commit crimes.
The direct interpretation of the ruling was, though, you’re a nazi scumbag who is guilty of creating a situation in which Jews were massacred.
Now, extrapolate this example to the court cases and rulings pending trump.
You will notice that the courts do not need to find him guilty of insurrection, only of actions which lead to a situation of insurrection, to make him an insurrectionist.
No need to thank me.
@suzianne saidOne of us writing crap, you are right! Sue is right! Sheher must surely wonder why Jack Smith and the other Trump-Haters would not find that Trump committed the HUGEST of all crimes. If they'd found that to be the case, they would have put it in para One of their briefs. They would have gotten rid of Trump in short order.
There doesn't have to be a charge or a conviction to satisfy the 14th amendment. He only has to have engaged in it, which we all know he did, we saw it on TV. Did you ever see his speech at the Ellipse that day?
Could you just read the thing before writing crap about it?
Why did they not, Suzianne? Can you tell us why he was not actually charged with insurrection, when you know full well, without question, that he committed insurrection??
You will not answer this question. Maybe confer with Shav? He has it figured that the def of insurrection is no def at all,, or something like that, that it is or it isnt,, that it is not convenient, that if Biden did it, it would not be insurrection? I dont follow.
87d
@sonhouse saidOne Trump supporter (not people) died from the fracas. She should not have been there,she prob wanted to get shot. There were no 'guns', the weapons were flag poles and maybe some rocks. You say there were 'weapons nearby'. Well, my cousin Vinny lives 4 blocks away, a Trump supporter and he has a 22 pistol under his bed, which is nearby.
@Suzianne
He will just keep on insisting there was no insurrection, believing insurrection has to have armed soldiers attacking shooting up the place. Of course there were weapons, dudes arrested wearing pistols and Molotov cocktails loaded in a nearby car and a hotel room full of ammo and assault rifles and all it would have taken would have been a tweet like the one that ...[text shortened]... if he had said pull all the stops, start firing, they would have done just that. People died anyway.
I dont know what a molotov is, but I think if I had a jar of gasoline in my car, that I would not be committing a crime per se.
That pretty much wraps up your post. Hey, have you seen where sue still thinks that there was an insurrection?
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142686
87d
@shavixmir saidLOL… you are trying to convict Trump with german laws😂
Uhuh.
Just because you think there is one correct answer, doesn’t mean there is.
The answer depends on definitions, law and interpretations.
Rudolf Hess wasn’t convicted of being a nazi scumbag, nor was he convicted over co-writing Mein Kampf or writing anti-Jewish legislation into law.
The court convicted him of crimes against peace and of conspiracy with other ...[text shortened]... s which lead to a situation of insurrection, to make him an insurrectionist.
No need to thank me.
@mott-the-hoople saidThe Nuremberg trials were based on *internationally* agreed laws, held by an international military tribunal. Dumbass.
LOL… you are trying to convict Trump with german laws😂