Liberal Forum

Zeets2 » 21 Dec 2023, 6:51 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 6:51 pm

Please explain such stupidity.
How do you figure that it has nothing to do with Trump when the purpose of the CO ruling was to keep HIM off the 2024 presidential ballot, and how a US Supreme Court will likely overturn that decision giving him BACK the ability to remain on the ballot?  Is the election of the US president so unimportant to the country and the world really that insignificant to you?

And how it the world did I get "humbled" by YOUR idiotic statement, especially when you think it's sufficient to REPEAT such an absurd and ridiculous statement as if it were evidence of your own demented point of view?

because your post said someone who committed no crime. that does not apply to trump.

jerrab » 21 Dec 2023, 7:02 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 7:02 pm

because your post said someone who committed no crime. that does not apply to trump.

Oh no?  Then please explain precisely what crime Trump has been convicted of?
 

Z09 » 21 Dec 2023, 7:23 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 7:23 pm

What crime did he commit?

She might be trying to cough up a fur ball,  give her a moment.

 

Z09 » 21 Dec 2023, 7:19 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 7:19 pm

It's  2023..

Like Russian Collusion and pee tapes .

No crime is needed
No conviction

Just he's guilty...and that's that

​​

Oh, so you want to disenfranchise millions of people because YOU ALONE believe the most idiotic story, that Trump paid one or more hookers to pee on a bed in Russia that he somehow knew would be given to Obama at some point in the future, huh?
And you believe that, even AFTER it's been proven that the entire Steel dossier (where the pee story originated) INCLUDING the Russian collusion hoax was nothing more than liberal propaganda that was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton, no doubt one of your heroes.
So because YOU happen to be a complete moron and believe such a ridiculous story, it's therefore OK to penalize Trump without charging him with that crime and without the due process of a judge and jury, because YOUR feeble mind happens to believe he's guilty, DENYING Trump's Constitutional rights on your say so?

Sorry, dipstick.  That IS NOT "THAT" simply because YOU believe that YOU ALONE should be the singular voice on a grand jury, and you've appointed yourself to be the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, and the executioner for the most inane and convoluted reasoning that it's necessary to take away Trump's rights because YOU hate him! 
Do yourself a favor and go read the Constitution before responding again with such moronic ****!
That may keep you from making such a complete horse's *** of yourself once again!
Sorry, but NO ONE could possibly be that stupid!

And THAT'S why I'll continue to believe and happily proclaim to the world that there is NOTHING dumber than a liberal!!!
 

Z09 » 21 Dec 2023, 7:40 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 7:40 pm

This is going to be overruled..
Slam dunk 
​

Hey, Hole...how many have you called correctly in the past 4 years?

Zeets2 » 21 Dec 2023, 7:51 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 7:51 pm

Oh, so you want to disenfranchise millions of people because YOU ALONE believe the most idiotic story, that Trump paid one or more hookers to pee on a bed in Russia that he somehow knew would be given to Obama at some point in the future, huh?
And you believe that, even AFTER it's been proven that the entire Steel dossier (where the pee story originated) INCLUDING the Russian collusion hoax was nothing more than liberal propaganda that was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton, no doubt one of your heroes.
So because YOU happen to be a complete moron and believe such a ridiculous story, it's therefore OK to penalize Trump without charging him with that crime and without the due process of a judge and jury, because YOUR feeble mind happens to believe he's guilty, DENYING Trump's Constitutional rights on your say so?

Sorry, dipstick.  That IS NOT "THAT" simply because YOU believe that YOU ALONE should be the singular voice on a grand jury, and you've appointed yourself to be the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, and the executioner for the most inane and convoluted reasoning that it's necessary to take away Trump's rights because YOU hate him! 
Do yourself a favor and go read the Constitution before responding again with such moronic ****!
That may keep you from making such a complete horse's *** of yourself once again!
Sorry, but NO ONE could possibly be that stupid!

And THAT'S why I'll continue to believe and happily proclaim to the world that there is NOTHING dumber than a liberal!!!

A whole bunch of bullzeet...
 

Z09 » 21 Dec 2023, 7:23 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 7:23 pm

What crime did he commit?

The Federal Election Interference CaseU.S. District Court for the District of ColumbiaIn the two months between Election Day in 2020 and Jan. 6, 2021, Trump mounted a wide-ranging campaign to subvert Joe Biden’s victory in the presidential election. Trump and his advisers spread false information about voter fraud, urged Republican state officials to undermine the results in states that Biden won, assembled false slates of electors and pressured Mike Pence, the vice president, to unilaterally toss out the legitimate results. The effort culminated on Jan. 6, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol and disrupted the peaceful transfer of power. Federal prosecutors led by special counsel Jack Smith have charged Trump with four federal crimes stemming from his attempts to derail the transfer of power.

Finally, the Court addressed whether Trump had engaged in insurrection, making him ineligible for office. Using contemporaneous dictionary definitions, the district court had concluded that “an insurrection as used in Section Three is (1) a public use of force or threat of force (2) by a group of people (3) to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution of the United States.”

The Colorado Supreme Court acknowledged that there is no precise definition; an insurrection is something more than disturbing the peace, but less than an all‐​out rebellion. Nevertheless, “any definition of ‘insurrection’ for purposes of Section Three” would at least include “a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country.” Based on the district court’s extensive factual findings (which can only be overturned based on clear error), that standard was met....


He did not just incite the mob, he continued to “aid the unlawful purpose of stopping the peaceful transfer of power” by demanding that Vice President Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty, calling senators and demanding that they stop the count, and speaking to his followers. For many hours, he succeeded in his aim of delaying the count.

 Trump contended that all of that was mere free speech protected by the First Amendment. But using a straightforward incitement test, the court determined that his speech was not protected. Because “(1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; (2) the speaker intended that the speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action; and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action was the likely result of the speech,” Trump had done nothing less than issue a call to arms.

https://www.cato.org/blog/agree-it-or-n ... h-judicial
 

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 9:23 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 9:23 pm

. But using a straightforward incitement test, the court determined that his speech was not protected. Because “(1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; (2) the speaker intended that the speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action; and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action was the likely result of the speech,” Trump had done nothing less than issue a call to arms.


 

This statement  is an all out lie.
I posted Trump's speech word for word earlier.
This panel of Liberal Judges is using their own wishful thinking and supposition to put words into Trump's mouth.
He never issued any sort of a "Call To Arms" and these mother **** deserve to be disbarred for stating [under oath  of office no less]  that Trump did.
Black Vegetable is also a mother **** Compulsive Serial Liar and it comes as no surprise to many of us that he would side with the Pack Of Liars that make up Colorado's Supreme Court.

GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2023, 9:51 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 9:51 pm

This statement  is an all out lie.
I posted Trump's speech word for word earlier.
This panel of Liberal Judges is using their own wishful thinking and supposition to put words into Trump's mouth.
He never issued any sort of a "Call To Arms" and these mother **** deserve to be disbarred for stating [under oath  of office no less]  that Trump did.
Black Vegetable is also a mother **** Compulsive Serial Liar and it comes as no surprise to many of us that he would side with the Pack Of Liars that make up Colorado's Supreme Court.

 
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2023, 9:51 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 9:51 pm

This statement  is an all out lie.
I posted Trump's speech word for word earlier.
This panel of Liberal Judges is using their own wishful thinking and supposition to put words into Trump's mouth.
He never issued any sort of a "Call To Arms" and these mother **** deserve to be disbarred for stating [under oath  of office no less]  that Trump did.
Black Vegetable is also a mother **** Compulsive Serial Liar and it comes as no surprise to many of us that he would side with the Pack Of Liars that make up Colorado's Supreme Court.

Who were the plaintiffs in the original suit?
 

Z09 » 21 Dec 2023, 9:43 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 9:43 pm

I hope you don't think I support this ruling..
I don't
ITs dumb and dangerous 

Liberals are as dumb as they come..

And this ruling will be overturned..

Imagine ..
Four judges decides for the people of Colorado

They don't.....you have absolutely no idea what happened...or why.

Z09 » 21 Dec 2023, 10:02 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 10:02 pm

I called things correctly for a long time..
Besides ..How would you know?

You joined this site one month ago...

Unless of course you lied and changed your name..

Like so many liberals do .
After being proved wrong the come back under another name

How would you know?

Because you're a moron.

I called things correctly for a long time..

let's see

Michael Flynn's appeal?


 

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 9:59 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 9:59 pm

Who were the plaintiffs in the original suit?

R.Suave » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
55 minutes ago
. But using a straightforward incitement test, the court determined that his speech was not protected. Because “(1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; (2) the speaker intended that the speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action; and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action was the likely result of the speech,” Trump had done nothing less than issue a call to arms.

This statement  is an all out lie.
I posted Trump's speech word for word earlier.
This panel of Liberal Judges is using their own wishful thinking and supposition to put words into Trump's mouth.
He never issued any sort of a "Call To Arms" and these mother **** deserve to be disbarred for stating [under oath  of office no less]  that Trump did.
Black Vegetable is also a mother **** Compulsive Serial Liar and it comes as no surprise to many of us that he would side with the Pack Of Liars that make up Colorado's Supreme Court.
 
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2023, 10:18 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 10:18 pm

R.Suave » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
55 minutes ago
. But using a straightforward incitement test, the court determined that his speech was not protected. Because “(1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; (2) the speaker intended that the speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action; and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action was the likely result of the speech,” Trump had done nothing less than issue a call to arms.

This statement  is an all out lie.
I posted Trump's speech word for word earlier.
This panel of Liberal Judges is using their own wishful thinking and supposition to put words into Trump's mouth.
He never issued any sort of a "Call To Arms" and these mother **** deserve to be disbarred for stating [under oath  of office no less]  that Trump did.
Black Vegetable is also a mother **** Compulsive Serial Liar and it comes as no surprise to many of us that he would side with the Pack Of Liars that make up Colorado's Supreme Court.

How much of the Jan 6th hearings did you watch?

Z09 » 21 Dec 2023, 10:24 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 10:24 pm

Did you change your name on this site?

Answer the question and I'll confirm the obvious.

Z09 » 21 Dec 2023, 10:27 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 10:27 pm

Are you another poster that changed his name?

I'm guessing you've been outed .

You don't answer questions, Hole.

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 10:24 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 10:24 pm

How much of the Jan 6th hearings did you watch?

R.Suave » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
55 minutes ago
. But using a straightforward incitement test, the court determined that his speech was not protected. Because “(1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; (2) the speaker intended that the speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action; and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action was the likely result of the speech,” Trump had done nothing less than issue a call to arms.

This statement  is an all out lie.
I posted Trump's speech word for word earlier.
This panel of Liberal Judges is using their own wishful thinking and supposition to put words into Trump's mouth.
He never issued any sort of a "Call To Arms" and these mother **** deserve to be disbarred for stating [under oath  of office no less]  that Trump did.
Black Vegetable is also a mother **** Compulsive Serial Liar and it comes as no surprise to many of us that he would side with the Pack Of Liars that make up Colorado's Supreme Court.
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2023, 10:31 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 10:31 pm

R.Suave » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
55 minutes ago
. But using a straightforward incitement test, the court determined that his speech was not protected. Because “(1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; (2) the speaker intended that the speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action; and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action was the likely result of the speech,” Trump had done nothing less than issue a call to arms.

This statement  is an all out lie.
I posted Trump's speech word for word earlier.
This panel of Liberal Judges is using their own wishful thinking and supposition to put words into Trump's mouth.
He never issued any sort of a "Call To Arms" and these mother **** deserve to be disbarred for stating [under oath  of office no less]  that Trump did.
Black Vegetable is also a mother **** Compulsive Serial Liar and it comes as no surprise to many of us that he would side with the Pack Of Liars that make up Colorado's Supreme Court.

No one cares...you averted your eyes from the presentation of the evidence. Your opinions are obviously uninformed.

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 10:34 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 10:34 pm

No one cares...you averted your eyes from the presentation of the evidence. Your opinions are obviously uninformed.

R.Suave » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
55 minutes ago
. But using a straightforward incitement test, the court determined that his speech was not protected. Because “(1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; (2) the speaker intended that the speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action; and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action was the likely result of the speech,” Trump had done nothing less than issue a call to arms.

This statement  is an all out lie.
I posted Trump's speech word for word earlier.
This panel of Liberal Judges is using their own wishful thinking and supposition to put words into Trump's mouth.
He never issued any sort of a "Call To Arms" and these mother **** deserve to be disbarred for stating [under oath  of office no less]  that Trump did.
Black Vegetable is also a mother **** Compulsive Serial Liar and it comes as no surprise to many of us that he would side with the Pack Of Liars that make up Colorado's Supreme Court.