Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Even a unanimous Supreme Court is not enough for looney liberal dim-0-craps
Even a unanimous Supreme Court is not enough for looney liberal dim-0-craps
By Buffalo
5 Mar 2024 8:33 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
20 posts • Page 1 of 1
The Supreme Court didn’t dig into the weeds of the entire insurrection debate, but one obvious issue with the various efforts to remove Trump from the ballot in various states was that insurrection had been left entirely to Democrat state officials to define. That kind of nonsense however won’t fly in an actual legislative process.
Now that the Supreme Court blocked state officials from announcing that Trump can’t be on the ballot because he’s an “insurrectionist”, House members are now trying to play the same game.
The Raskin bill conveniently defines J6 as an insurrection and carefully defines the term so as to specifically apply it to Trump. It does not however define what an insurrection is making the whole exercise into a bill that specifically exists to block a particular candidate from being able to take office on grounds that would be unlikely to apply to his own party. Does that raise some major banana republic issues? Obviously.Still, has Raskin considered what kind of can of worms he’s opening here?
House Dems Prep an "Insurrection" Bill Barring Trump from Taking Office | Frontpage Mag
Now that the Supreme Court blocked state officials from announcing that Trump can’t be on the ballot because he’s an “insurrectionist”, House members are now trying to play the same game.
For now, in a GOP House, the bill is mostly virtue signaling, but tellingly Raskin is not so much trying to define insurrection as trying to define J6 as an insurrection. It’s the typical end run around the process of defining the thing because otherwise Democrat BLMers might fall afoul of it.Congress will have to try and act,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, told Axios.What he’s saying: Raskin, a former member of the Jan. 6 select committee, said he is already crafting the bill, telling Axios, “I’m working on it — today.”Raskin pointed to legislation he introduced with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) in 2022 creating a pathway for the Justice Department to sue to keep candidates off the ballot under the 14th Amendment.“We are going to revise it in light of the Supreme Court’s decision,” Raskin said.Raskin suggested the bill would be paired with a resolution declaring Jan. 6 an “insurrection” and that those involved “engaged in insurrection.”
The Raskin bill conveniently defines J6 as an insurrection and carefully defines the term so as to specifically apply it to Trump. It does not however define what an insurrection is making the whole exercise into a bill that specifically exists to block a particular candidate from being able to take office on grounds that would be unlikely to apply to his own party. Does that raise some major banana republic issues? Obviously.Still, has Raskin considered what kind of can of worms he’s opening here?
Forget BLM for a moment. Giving aid or comfort to America’s enemies would block nearly every Democrat from taking or holding office. Pass a resolution declaring that funding Iran or any other terror group was an example of providing aid or comfort to America’s enemies and the party can get started.“An individual described in this subsection is an individual who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or has given aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States.”
House Dems Prep an "Insurrection" Bill Barring Trump from Taking Office | Frontpage Mag
5 Mar 2024 12:59 pm
**** losers...Buffalo » 05 Mar 2024, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑ The Supreme Court didn’t dig into the weeds of the entire insurrection debate, but one obvious issue with the various efforts to remove Trump from the ballot in various states was that insurrection had been left entirely to Democrat state officials to define. That kind of nonsense however won’t fly in an actual legislative process.
Now that the Supreme Court blocked state officials from announcing that Trump can’t be on the ballot because he’s an “insurrectionist”, House members are now trying to play the same game.
For now, in a GOP House, the bill is mostly virtue signaling, but tellingly Raskin is not so much trying to define insurrection as trying to define J6 as an insurrection. It’s the typical end run around the process of defining the thing because otherwise Democrat BLMers might fall afoul of it.
The Raskin bill conveniently defines J6 as an insurrection and carefully defines the term so as to specifically apply it to Trump. It does not however define what an insurrection is making the whole exercise into a bill that specifically exists to block a particular candidate from being able to take office on grounds that would be unlikely to apply to his own party. Does that raise some major banana republic issues? Obviously.Still, has Raskin considered what kind of can of worms he’s opening here?
Forget BLM for a moment. Giving aid or comfort to America’s enemies would block nearly every Democrat from taking or holding office. Pass a resolution declaring that funding Iran or any other terror group was an example of providing aid or comfort to America’s enemies and the party can get started.
House Dems Prep an "Insurrection" Bill Barring Trump from Taking Office | Frontpage Mag
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime”
LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened."
brown's unheeded words of wisdom 
5 Mar 2024 1:13 pm
These dopes can't define a woman...
....And they want to define "insurrection"?
The party of pee tapes, Collusion, Hunters laptop.....etc etc etc
7 Mar 2024 5:17 am
classic examples of stupidity driving narratives...BooRadley » 05 Mar 2024, 2:13 pm » wrote: ↑ These dopes can't define a woman...
....And they want to define "insurrection"?
The party of pee tapes, Collusion, Hunters laptop.....etc etc etc
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime”
LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened."
brown's unheeded words of wisdom
7 Mar 2024 6:28 am
Buffalo » 05 Mar 2024, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑ The Supreme Court didn’t dig into the weeds of the entire insurrection debate, but one obvious issue with the various efforts to remove Trump from the ballot in various states was that insurrection had been left entirely to Democrat state officials to define. That kind of nonsense however won’t fly in an actual legislative process.
Now that the Supreme Court blocked state officials from announcing that Trump can’t be on the ballot because he’s an “insurrectionist”, House members are now trying to play the same game.
For now, in a GOP House, the bill is mostly virtue signaling, but tellingly Raskin is not so much trying to define insurrection as trying to define J6 as an insurrection. It’s the typical end run around the process of defining the thing because otherwise Democrat BLMers might fall afoul of it.
The Raskin bill conveniently defines J6 as an insurrection and carefully defines the term so as to specifically apply it to Trump. It does not however define what an insurrection is making the whole exercise into a bill that specifically exists to block a particular candidate from being able to take office on grounds that would be unlikely to apply to his own party. Does that raise some major banana republic issues? Obviously.Still, has Raskin considered what kind of can of worms he’s opening here?
Forget BLM for a moment. Giving aid or comfort to America’s enemies would block nearly every Democrat from taking or holding office. Pass a resolution declaring that funding Iran or any other terror group was an example of providing aid or comfort to America’s enemies and the party can get started.
House Dems Prep an "Insurrection" Bill Barring Trump from Taking Office | Frontpage Mag
****.one obvious issue with the various efforts to remove Trump from the ballot in various states was that insurrection had been left entirely to Democrat state officials to define
It was defined by 2 courts.
7 Mar 2024 6:30 am
What courts?
7 Mar 2024 6:32 am
Have you been in a **** coma?
Anderson v. Griswold.
7 Mar 2024 6:43 am
Yup.
You are so **** stupid.
7 Mar 2024 6:45 am
You must have had your head far up your ***!!! The US Supreme Court struck that unConstitutional **** down, ****.
7 Mar 2024 6:54 am
SCOTUS didn't address the matter.Buffalo » 07 Mar 2024, 7:45 am » wrote: ↑ You must have had your head far up your ***!!! The US Supreme Court struck that unConstitutional **** down, ****.
An appeal doesn't affect the factual findings.
7 Mar 2024 7:11 am
Yes it does, ****!!! The US Supreme Court ruled that states cannot kick a candidate off their ballot, period!!!R.Suave » 07 Mar 2024, 7:54 am » wrote: ↑ SCOTUS didn't address the matter.
An appeal doesn't affect the factual findings.
If you do not see the Colorado SC and other states unConstitutional attempt to keep Trump off ballots as a blatant dim-0-crap attempt to deprive American Citizens of their right to vote for the candidate of their choice and UNDEMOCRATIC then you are stupider that I thought.
Dim-0-craps know that in a fair and fraudulent free election that braindead biden cannot beat Trump. Therefore, their incessant political persecution of Trump.
Dim-0-craps are beginning to panic!!! LOL!!!
7 Mar 2024 7:15 am
It doesn't matter if you don't understand.Buffalo » 07 Mar 2024, 8:11 am » wrote: ↑ Yes it does, ****!!! The US Supreme Court ruled that states cannot kick a candidate off their ballot, period!!!
If you do not see the Colorado SC and other states unConstitutional attempt to keep Trump off ballots as a blatant dim-0-crap attempt to deprive American Citizens of their right to vote for the candidate of their choice and UNDEMOCRATIC then you are stupider that I thought.
Dim-0-craps know that in a fair and fraudulent free election that braindead biden cannot beat Trump. Therefore, their incessant political persecution of Trump.
7 Mar 2024 7:25 am
I understand you have terminal TDS, ****!!! The USSC ruled that states cannot arbitrarily remove a candidate off their ballots because they fear him or even just dislike him. The insurrection ploy was just an excuse. Trump has not even been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted, ****!!!
7 Mar 2024 7:27 am
Read the stuff, Buffy....don't improvise..Buffalo » 07 Mar 2024, 8:25 am » wrote: ↑ I understand you have terminal TDS, ****!!! The USSC ruled that states cannot arbitrarily remove a candidate off their ballots because they fear him or even just dislike him. The insurrection ploy was just an excuse. Trump has not even been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted, ****!!!
7 Mar 2024 9:44 am
Why are you for depriving US citizens of the right to vote for the candidate of their choice? What are you afraid of?
7 Mar 2024 9:47 am
Morons like you are the only ones who could possibly be gullible enough to swallow it when Biden tells you he's standing up for democracy by attempting to limit your right to vote in a democracy!
Go ahead and nod your empty liberal head!
7 Mar 2024 9:50 am
Want to bet he never answers the questions?Zeets2 » 07 Mar 2024, 10:47 am » wrote: ↑ Morons like you are the only ones who could possibly be gullible enough to swallow it when Biden tells you he's standing up for democracy by attempting to limit your right to vote in a democracy!
Go ahead and nod your empty liberal head!
7 Mar 2024 10:02 am
I'm not.Buffalo » 07 Mar 2024, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑ Why are you for depriving US citizens of the right to vote for the candidate of their choice? What are you afraid of?
I think he's disqualified for numerous reasons.
It was republicans in Colorado who were ashamed to have an insurrectionist rapist on the ballot.
7 Mar 2024 10:15 am
Stupid Democrat will get his *** kicked AGAIN, for trying to pass an ex post facto law which in this case would also be a bill of attainder (actually bill of pains and penalties), not to mention the fact the Supreme Court has already addressed this. They are just masturbating and rolling around in their own bloody **** for everyone to see now.Buffalo » 05 Mar 2024, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑ The Supreme Court didn’t dig into the weeds of the entire insurrection debate, but one obvious issue with the various efforts to remove Trump from the ballot in various states was that insurrection had been left entirely to Democrat state officials to define. That kind of nonsense however won’t fly in an actual legislative process.
Now that the Supreme Court blocked state officials from announcing that Trump can’t be on the ballot because he’s an “insurrectionist”, House members are now trying to play the same game.
For now, in a GOP House, the bill is mostly virtue signaling, but tellingly Raskin is not so much trying to define insurrection as trying to define J6 as an insurrection. It’s the typical end run around the process of defining the thing because otherwise Democrat BLMers might fall afoul of it.
The Raskin bill conveniently defines J6 as an insurrection and carefully defines the term so as to specifically apply it to Trump. It does not however define what an insurrection is making the whole exercise into a bill that specifically exists to block a particular candidate from being able to take office on grounds that would be unlikely to apply to his own party. Does that raise some major banana republic issues? Obviously.Still, has Raskin considered what kind of can of worms he’s opening here?
Forget BLM for a moment. Giving aid or comfort to America’s enemies would block nearly every Democrat from taking or holding office. Pass a resolution declaring that funding Iran or any other terror group was an example of providing aid or comfort to America’s enemies and the party can get started.
House Dems Prep an "Insurrection" Bill Barring Trump from Taking Office | Frontpage Mag
7 Mar 2024 11:37 am
Hand picked and a dim-0-crap Colorado SC!!!R.Suave » 07 Mar 2024, 11:02 am » wrote: ↑ I'm not.
I think he's disqualified for numerous reasons.
It was republicans in Colorado who were ashamed to have an insurrectionist rapist on the ballot.
"Ashamed"...Trump got 63% of the repub primary vote in Colorado...yep, they are really "ashamed".
20 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
In total there are 5191 users online :: 12 registered, 15 bots, and 5164 guests
Registered users: Vegas, Johnny You, *Roshambo, Blackvegetable, Squatchman, ROG62, RebelGator, Beekeeper, nefarious101, sole, Fuelman, PoliticalPopUp
Bots: newspaper, Bolt, okhttp, ADmantX, MicroMessenger, proximic, facebookexternalhit, Applebot, YandexBot, Googlebot, curl/7, CriteoBot, Mediapartners-Google, Baiduspider, bingbot