You stopped 35 miles short, Keystrokes Too Far.Huey » 04 Mar 2024, 10:16 am » wrote: ↑ Try again:
No, I traveled over 600 miles and you were to afraid to travel 30 miles. Because you are a keyboard komando that talks too much. If you are ever 30 miles from me I will be there.
Try again:R.Suave » 04 Mar 2024, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑ You stopped 35 miles short, Keystrokes Too Far.
And demand to be paid for answers.
Keep waiting and practicing managing reasonable doubt all the time.
R.Suave » 03 Mar 2024, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑ You know how the reflexive response of slack jawed, FOX nursing, MAGAt cretins to the matter of Grifty's Disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is
"B...b...b...b...but where's the conviction, for Insurrection? Due Process...Derp!"
?
Your patient explanation, to the effect that no conviction is required, is met with disbelief....or worse...
Let this put that particular matter to rest..
if the appeals court were to rule in Trump’s favor, it would have no effect on his disqualification, as the constitutional bar is not based on any conviction for any criminal offense. Although insurrection is indeed a federal crime under 18 US Code § 2383, it became one only in 1948, and it is in any case irrelevant to disqualification under the Constitution. None of the ex-Confederates excluded from office after the amendment went into effect were prosecuted for insurrection.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2024/0 ... n-wilentz/
Are we good with this, kids...
Cause there's more.
Just the facts..Huey » 04 Mar 2024, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑ Try again:
No, I traveled over 600 miles and you were to afraid to travel 30 miles. Because you are a keyboard komando that talks too much. If you are ever 30 miles from me I will be there.
No...that's the point.
@Huey
Those are the facts.
Is this "relevant," Pook?
But the unanimous decision by the SCOTUS - that is relevant, yeah?

Free Speech for People, a group that represented plaintiffs in several cases similar to the Colorado one, said the Supreme Court had “made a mockery” of the 14th Amendment: “As of today, states can exclude a presidential candidate from the ballot because he did not submit the proper paperwork with the proper number of verified signatures, but not because he fomented a bloody insurrection against the U.S. Constitution.”Cannonpointer » 04 Mar 2024, 11:45 am » wrote: ↑ Is this "relevant," Pook?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-supr ... t-opinion/![]()
![]()
![]()
Wait - losers cry? Thanks for that clarification.R.Suave » 04 Mar 2024, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑ Free Speech for People, a group that represented plaintiffs in several cases similar to the Colorado one, said the Supreme Court had “made a mockery” of the 14th Amendment:

I got it right, for the right reasons...Cannonpointer » 04 Mar 2024, 12:02 pm » wrote: ↑ Wait - losers cry? Thanks for that clarification.
Next time I school you, learn faster.
@R. Suave fell for the thayatah - because he is thayatah people...Cannonpointer » 03 Mar 2024, 12:45 pm » wrote: ↑ He genuinely believes he is posting "facts." He does not realize he is posting rather specious arguments that will NEVER actually stand up in a court of law.
What the fruitcake does not realize is that even if Trump COULD be removed from the ballot, this will only happen in deep blue states. So far, Maine, Colorado and Illinois have removed him. Of course, he is still on the ballot in all three states, pending appeal. The removal will almost certainly fail - but I would not dare bet the farm on it, these days. The attempt to remove him failed in liberal Washington State (and a dozen others), and was not appealed. NOT THAT IT MATTERS. Trump isn't going to win a single elector out of Washington, because it is winner take all and the more populous western half is going democ rat.
There being but two states whose electors are not winner take all (Nebraska and Maine),it matters not a whit if California successfully removes Trump from the ballot. This is just thayatah. And of COURSE, the gay boy is invested. Those types ADOAH thayatah.
Yes yes, gay boi - YOU got it right, and the SCOTUS en banc got it wrong.
When you figure out what SCOTUS said, get back to me.Cannonpointer » 04 Mar 2024, 12:04 pm » wrote: ↑ @R. Suave fell for the thayatah - because he is thayatah people...![]()
You sound upset... but keep telling us you're not.R.Suave » 04 Mar 2024, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑ Free Speech for People, a group that represented plaintiffs in several cases similar to the Colorado one, said the Supreme Court had “made a mockery” of the 14th Amendment: “As of today, states can exclude a presidential candidate from the ballot because he did not submit the proper paperwork with the proper number of verified signatures, but not because he fomented a bloody insurrection against the U.S. Constitution.”
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/04 ... ado-ballot
Per curiam, not en banc, **** idiot.Cannonpointer » 04 Mar 2024, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑ Yes yes, gay boi - YOU got it right, and the SCOTUS en banc got it wrong.![]()
![]()