Colorado Sec. 3 14th Amendment arguments made. Did Trump 'engage' in an insurrection?

Well let's see how well you know the limitations of polls

How many votes did Biden win by in 2020

 

You know the old song, 'that'll be the day'.

 

Off topic. Please focus on the topic under discussion, thanks.

 

Enemies of the constitution, i.e., the insurrectionists.

It's more than that, of course. There is considerably more stuff mentioned in the videos, but off the top of my head, i'd say the following:

Trump gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists, held off from putting out a video for 3 hours after the attack began, and in the video he told them he loved them that they were doing the right thing (paraphrased) that he was behind them, or words to that effect. In his campaigns he has promised to pardon them if he is elected president. That claim will give solace and comfort to those currently incarcerated. He ordered that the 'mags' (metal detectors) be taken down because he said (paraphrased) "I don't care if they are armed, they are not here to hurt me, so let them through (onto the ellipsis, as the folks with arms were not going to go through the detectors for fear their guns would be confiscated by the Secret Service, this was Hutchinson's testimony, nor has the SS denied her testimony).

 

That's not an argument.

Please offer an argument/counter argument, to move the discourse forward.

 

I believe it was deleted. Did you violate some rule?

 

Qualifying for the ballot is spelled out in the constitution. What is being done is within the purview of the constitution.,

Do you have a problem with the constitution being followed?

 

I wouldn't' count your chickens. It might happen in reverse, ya never know. :thing is, I'm not seeing any real incentive for the Supreme Court to rush to get Trump on the ballot, as I'm sure they are mindful of the fact that a wannabe dictator really has no use for a Supreme Court, should the demagogue Trump fulfill his objective of achieving dictatorial power, or something close to it vis a vis the 'unitary executive theory'.

 

You claimed that Haley was a stronger candidate than Trump, so I showed you the latest poll that shows that Haley would lose Texas to Biden.

Care to explain how a Republican can reasonably expect to win the election while losing Texas?

 

14A Section 3 lists very specifically what offices it covers and the President isn't one of them.

You are pretending that it does and demanding that we all follow your pretend constitution, and no, we won't.

 

No one knows until it's litigated, and in the mean time, we can hold opinions.

Nothing I wrote contradicts that point. you seem to making a point that isn't actually a point at all.

And don't take my quotes out of context, that's disingenuous.

I wrote:

I can't make the argument to any degree that the argument is robustly made in this video

A word was left out by mistake, the word as better. and 'that' should have been 'than', So, two small mistakes,

Here's what was intended:

I can't make the argument to any degree better than the argument is robustly made in this video.

A statement which clearly does not conflict with having an opinion until the matters is litigated nor does it have the same color you are implying,

 

I couldn't find #3. It appears to be deleted.

 

Bullshit this is impossible to believe after all of the fit throwing and lies about Trump

Falsely accounting someone of insurrection and having a drum head sham of a trial to interrupt campaigns isn't constitutional.

Don't bother denying it I know better.

 

You haven't offered any facts.

What facts? (and #3 has been deleted, or it wasn't their the last time I checked).

 

You have made a claim.

Now, let's see if you can demonstrate why you are correct?

A vacuous claim is not an argument,. you need to state your case.

Let's hear your argument. Got one? I didn't think so.

 

That is not an argument.

Please offer an argument, or counter argument to any premise offered.

 

Are you referring to Trump? I might agree with that, if there is evidence, it's not out of character, I'd say.

But, if you are suggesting it's Biden, then....

Please offer evidence for your claim.

It's a trick question. I happen to know there isn't any evidence.

If you believe otherwise, then show me.

 

I never claimed my opinion is fact. I might have failed to qualify an opinion as an opinion (for doing it all the time is a bit cumbersome), but, if you query, I will be happy to do so.

What you shouldn't do, which you seem to do a lot, is jump to a conclusion without querying first.

 

feel free to offer said 'facts'.

 

Mockery is not an argument.

Please find a merit worthy argument/counter argument,.

 

Vacuous claim. Nothing substantive offered to which I can offer a reply.

 

We all have our opinions, do we not? It appears that we have opinions which is self evident and thereby, your making a meaningless point.

Your claim of what Jena Griswold said is disingenuous:

She stated, in an interview:

It also is unclear who gets to determine whether someone is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Likewise, we would clarity under Colorado law as to how to consider that potential disqualification.

So, overall, I think it's a good thing that a court is weighing in, because this is truly an unprecedented situation.

So it appears she is looking for the courts to help her in this most important, and historically significant, decision.

That's a far cry from 'nonsense'.

 

Do you understand the concept of due process?

 

I think the arguments put forth in the video are an excellent argument to prove the case. It is highly detailed, documented, testified to, and robust.

Trump was being investigated long before his declared his candidacy, and it's rare for a first termer to declare a candidacy, no one can say his candidacy was a slam dunk. Moreover,. he declared his candidacy 15 months out, which is rare because most do that about 6 months out.
so, it can easily be argued that he declared his candidacy early for the sole purpose of making the claim that the investigations/indictments are for the purpose of interfering in an election. In other words, his candidacy is a ruse, a sham, and not to mention a vengeance tour, which he has admitted to. In fact, there is a good argument to be made the his sole reason for running is to avoid jail. That would be very consistent with who Trump is.

Trump is up to his ass in crime, and he is going to be held accountable, and none of it is 'false'.

 

yes, due process kicks in when the government wants to take something away from you, such as material goods or perhaps something abstract, like a copyright, or just a 'right'.

Do you understand that there is no inherent right to be placed on a ballot?

Before you qualify, what is it that you are in possession of that the government is trying to take way which would require due process?

there are no material goods, and there is nothing abstract, either, before qualification, there is no right to be on a ballot.

There is nothing that calls for due process. Zero, zilch.

You,see, you have to qualify, first. And that process is given in section 3 of the 14th amendment, an administration action.

If you apply for a membership, and are deemed not qualified, and you are not given a membership, were you ever in court over this?

No! If you feel you were wrongly disqualified you can appeal to a court of law. But, there is no 'due process' other than those who are assigned to the duty of qualifying or disqualifying looking at your qualifications, including anything that might disqualify you, such as a bunch of people call in and say you have been coming home drunk all the time, and acting belligerently, and they get paranoid and disqualify you.

You weren't indicted, you weren't convicted, you weren't deprived of a 'right', there is no inherent right to be a member of any club.

There is no inherent right to be on a ballot, either.

You have to qualify, and that is the process under review.

And you have to qualify FIRST, and after you are qualified, only THEN do you have a 'right' to be on any ballot., Once that right is acquired, THEN due process is required to take that right away. But that right has yet to be acquired.

All that is occurring now is the issue of whether or not Trump is qualified. He qualified, once, but that was before 1/6.

Circumstances anew are cause for review.