Liberal Forum

ConsRule » 29 Dec 2023, 11:30 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 11:30 am

Believe what you wish...apparently we are done if you cannot bring yourself to discuss the issues offered.

I did
...I remain shocked at how uninformed those people are..

I appreciate why you are too ashamed to name them.
 

ROG62 » 29 Dec 2023, 11:47 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 11:47 am

Oh, like libtards want abortion federalized?

states are availing their rights I guess...

SCOTUS will knock this **** down faster than the air expelling from your meager lips in protest...

you be stupid as ****...

Nothing like it...

You see, a woman is a woman regardless of where in the US she resides.

DA KONSTATOOOOOSHUN gives individual states jurisdiction over their elections.
 

Huey » 29 Dec 2023, 11:55 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 11:55 am

It would be a different story if there had been an actual trial convicting him of participating in an "insurrection".

I would suggest that a majority of both houses of Congress making that call is a reasonable substitute.

maineman » 29 Dec 2023, 12:03 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 12:03 pm

I would suggest that a majority of both houses of Congress making that call is a reasonable substitute.

Do you ever listen to WVOM-it.  Talk radio. It was a fun morning... mainers are mad.
 

nefarious101 » 29 Dec 2023, 11:35 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 11:35 am

no....you're a dickhead....why try to carry on an honest conversation with a dickhead....you aren't equipped to do that

Ca-ching...

maineman » 29 Dec 2023, 11:52 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 11:52 am

It seems like you want it both ways.  You want states to be able to ban abortions but you want SCOTUS to take away their right to hold elections.

You're confused, Maine and Colorado are taking away election rights......can't you ever get anything right, lefty?

maineman » 29 Dec 2023, 11:52 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 11:52 am

It seems like you want it both ways.  You want states to be able to ban abortions but you want SCOTUS to take away their right to hold elections.
 

Where did anyone say that (other than you)?  See my previous post about the Constitution issues involved.
 

RebelGator » 29 Dec 2023, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 12:08 pm

You're confused, Maine and Colorado are taking away election rights......can't you ever get anything right, lefty?

states get to run their own elections.  

maineman » 29 Dec 2023, 12:13 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 12:13 pm

states get to run their own elections.

Yep, like I said.

RebelGator » 29 Dec 2023, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 12:08 pm

You're confused, Maine and Colorado are taking away election rights......can't you ever get anything right, lefty?

No, they aren't..

There is no "right" to appear on the ballot. The amendment was added for the explicit purpose of eliminating slimy treasonweasels from popular elections.
 

ConsRule » 29 Dec 2023, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 12:10 pm

Where did anyone say that (other than you)?  See my previous post about the Constitution issues involved.

states are in charge of their elections.  Just like you claim that states are in charge of determining when a woman can or cannot have an abortion.  

R.Suave » 28 Dec 2023, 8:37 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2023, 8:37 pm

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics ... index.html

And the beatdown goes on.

No thoughts, etc...

CNN:   

RebelGator » 29 Dec 2023, 12:14 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 12:14 pm

Yep, like I said.

Maine can run its own elections without interference from SCOTUS, thank you very much.

maineman » 29 Dec 2023, 12:03 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 12:03 pm

I would suggest that a majority of both houses of Congress making that call is a reasonable substitute.

THe house can made a criminal referral to the Justice Department. 

U.S. House Jan. 6 panel refers Trump for criminal charges, including inciting insurrection
https://kansasreflector.com/2022/12/19/ ... urrection/
 
 

Huey » 29 Dec 2023, 12:17 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 12:17 pm

THe house can made a criminal referral to the Justice Department. 

U.S. House Jan. 6 panel refers Trump for criminal charges, including inciting insurrection
https://kansasreflector.com/2022/12/19/ ... urrection/

and states can cite the 14th and keep him off their ballots.

maineman » 29 Dec 2023, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 12:16 pm

Maine can run its own elections without interference from SCOTUS, thank you very much.

 

In this case I disagree on this particular issue but I want you to remember your words if states like Fl, LA, and TX find a legal way to keep biden off the ballot.

 

maineman » 29 Dec 2023, 12:18 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 12:18 pm

and states can cite the 14th and keep him off their ballots.

See my newest post.

Vegas » 29 Dec 2023, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 12:16 pm

No thoughts, etc...

CNN: 

Post what your sources told you....after you share your "thought"

maineman » 29 Dec 2023, 11:52 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 11:52 am

It seems like you want it both ways.  You want states to be able to ban abortions but you want SCOTUS to take away their right to hold elections.

No, I don't care either way, however abortion should have been dealt with by congress as then the playing field is leveled and the democrats would lose their election talking point...

SCOTUS will see it for what it is, an end run reach around for something Trump has never been charged with, mush less, convicted of...especially because it's a federal election...

maineman » 29 Dec 2023, 12:15 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 12:15 pm

states are in charge of their elections.  Just like you claim that states are in charge of determining when a woman can or cannot have an abortion.

It's not a clear a matter as you think.  Besides, the issue isn't if a state is in charge or their elections...the issue is if a state can decide who is eligible to run for President (a Constitutional issue).