Colo Supremes: Insurrectionist Trump doesn’t belong in our primary

Funny how that all worked out.  Blaming the democrats for what the republicans did against their own fascist leader.

big up big up it’s a stick up stick up …….

this is how we actually get robbed sidehatch 

@Sidehatch    

Funny how all the jaw flapping blaming the democrats for the lawsuit brought by republicans against their own criminal leader.

Wasn’t me bro .

i’ll say it again ……

You can learn a lot from Rap Music 

@spockgato

 Nice job creating discussion, I think you have to  just come to terms with reality. This thread is exactly the microcosm of politics, nobody has discussion across differences it is either agreement replies or angry lash out and provoke defensive replies.

Its a good concept to try and cross aisles but these partisan players wont do it.

This is true  

What is also true is Bernie Sanders took more votes than Hillary by nearly 20% in the Presidential caucus (Colorado's primary) March 2016.  

"IF" Trump was removed from the State ballot, all signs point to Colorado being taken by RFK jr rather than the Biden Regime.  Removing the 10 Colorado electoral votes from the Biden regime's total count obviously is a big help to Trump's chances of winning 2024.  People need to rethink how this helps Biden....

The issue with said point here is that the "IF" Trump is removed from CO POTUS ballot is not really an "IF".  It has already been stated in this thread that the Supreme Court is very likely to hear this on appeal. (something the SCOTUS rarely / if ever gets involved in are issues revolving around local election laws).  So the idea that the SCOTUS is going to hear this on appeal is quite a big deal.  The lean or idea that they are likely to overturn the decision on appeal has nothing to do with "republican" or "democrat" like some have proposed in this thread....

But it does have everything to do with their interpretation of the Constitution and the correct use (or abuse) of the application of the 14th amendment.  

Judicial.  Executive.  Legislative.  

This is why we have checks and balances between the three branches of government.  (should be another check on the 4th branch aka the FEDERAL RESERVE but that is a topic for another time).  

2024 is gonna be SPICY hot damn I'm excited for the fireworks show

It is too bad that the public wants to divide like this and be defensive and angry towards each other. It is our nature of course but it is a very sad reality. I get sick of the attention seeking, attacking, abusive crap which comes from the Trump side. Like how he cannot shut his mouth and say really nasty things about immigration about pretty much anything. Watching a speech of his is like watching your wealthy racist uncle at Christmas dinner and having to put up with awful garbage because he is your uncle and others think he has privilege due to money. Trump is a scuz, he divides and destroys unity because that is how he elevates himself. I scratch my head when I read posts in this forum and even in this thread that are cultish about how awesome the scheme is and how great it will be when an awful cheating abusive jerk gets in office because then the other side gets shown up and who cares about the filth you let in to show the other side you are better.

The way I see this Colorado thing it is a total scheme by the GOP, it is intentional and planned it is meant to divide and anger and get you fat lazy voters to the polls because you are angry and you blame a stupid single politician for rising prices on goods, you blame a single politician for illegals for high taxes for any injustice in your life. Then these poison destructive political groups feed off your stupidity so they get their objective accomplished by taking advantage of the lazy, idiotic voter. This Colorado thing will go to the SCOTUS and since Trump stacked the deck and you already have crud on the bench like Thomas the chance of actually upholding the real constitution is zero...it will end up being a deflection or a partisan gate opening and then this has been stewing in the public for months and the GOP angry schleps will hate vote off the totally false flag rouse about how Trump is being railroaded by the deep state, what a joke. This is exactly the scheme that the GOP is going to pull, its a complete vote grab and too bad that you dopes will fall for it.

@wallstreetcappers

 The way I see this Colorado thing it is a total scheme by the GOP, it is intentional and planned it is meant to divide and anger and get you fat lazy voters to the polls because you are angry and you blame a stupid single politician for rising prices on goods, you blame a single politician for illegals for high taxes for any injustice in your life. Then these poison destructive political groups feed off your stupidity so they get their objective accomplished by taking advantage of the lazy, idiotic voter. This Colorado thing will go to the SCOTUS and since Trump stacked the deck and you already have crud on the bench like Thomas the chance of actually upholding the real constitution is zero...it will end up being a deflection or a partisan gate opening and then this has been stewing in the public for months and the GOP angry schleps will hate vote off the totally false flag rouse about how Trump is being railroaded by the deep state, what a joke. This is exactly the scheme that the GOP is going to pull, its a complete vote grab and too bad that you dopes will fall for it.

@wallstreetcappers

 This Colorado thing will go to the SCOTUS and since Trump stacked the deck and you already have crud on the bench like Thomas the chance of actually upholding the real constitution is zero..

Nothing wrong with LAW not being your forte here Wally....what is "actually upholding the real constitution is zero" supposed to mean??  IF the Supreme Court overrules the CO decision, on what legal grounds do you see them basing it on and why would it be in error of the "real constitution" ??  

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourteenth_amendment_0

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies an individual from serving as a state or federal official if that person has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States. Although the clause was written in the context of the Civil War, it would theoretically still apply for members of future rebellions or insurrections against the United States.

My comment was left off for some reason.... unfortunate.  Here is the jist... 

This describes the exact UNIPARTY system that we live under that everyday dopes on both sides of the aisle refuse to admit / realize.  

The elites in control are getting exactly what they want as the peasants fight for the scraps and further divide amongst themselves.  Wake up people.   

@kcblitzkrieg

 I'm saying that the Supreme Court is not objective it does not uphold the constitution evenly and the fact you have an unbalanced group means the chance of purely upholding the constitution is zero.

Can you do me a favor? Instead of taking shots at me as you do, just dont reply to my messages. Your jabs and slights are obvious, there is no reason to say my understanding of the law is lesser because it isnt. That comment you made adds zero value to any discussion and you do it all the time. If you want to reply to me or anyone please refrain from taking shots at people in the process. I would rather you skip by my messages than to have you throw in the angry underhanded crap you do most any reply you make.

If the constitution is upheld then he would not be on the ballot, the same way archaic gun mentions in the constitution are upheld. If you are going to follow the letter then you follow it. What I saw about the qualifications regarding being on a ballot, it falls squarely into that context IF you follow it the same way it is followed for other partisan purposes, the lone example isnt guns but that one for sure is a blaring example. I dont think there is a chance it will be followed, I think the GOP knows this and they are using it to lure the suckers to give the angry vote and to make as much media noise as possible and deflect from the low class character he is. Make it about the deep state and that farce because if you make someone out to be a martyr then the uneducated voter will flock to it.

@wallstreetcappers

 So sensitive, no reason to take everything SO personally.  I am not an expert in many a field, and that is OK.  I appreciate those who are more educated and can provide a different perspective than mine in certain situations and fields.  You are one of those few people so as a sign of respect, I will be better aware of how my words typed on a screen make you feel 

I harbor no anger towards you or anyone else in this cesspool sub and the entire Covers community.  I feel sorry for many a folk here in the cesspool sub but anger?  Come on, lots of angry people in here but me?  Nope, that is for the identity politics crowd.  Feel sorry for those peeps.  

The only reason I'm even on this forum is because Covers is a gambling forum.  So all those many many moons ago when I joined, the golden age of covers we'll call it, the purpose of this forum was to talk gambling degeneracy and learn from each other, that is obviously not true any longer but that is the day and age we live in.  Part of this forum talk experience is the locker room banter that used to be enjoyed amongst the Covers membership.  I recognize some of this banter can get lost in the translation of online conversing.  I am guilty of this a many time as is everyone here.  Busting balls and giving someone a hard time I guess is a lost art now amongst the interweb crowds.  I will do better with you Wally and be cognizant of your feelings 

There is no need to be condescending or call me Wally either, I know why you do it and the comments you make are to try and tick me off, it is quite obvious. If you want to interact then do so based on content do not make it personal and try to demean or minimize someone else in the process.

If you cant be respectful even at a difference then please just stop replying to my messages or really any message from any member where you feel inclined to make put downs or build up your position by belittling someone else.

In this example, you did not discuss why you felt differently with content alone you had to toss in the underhanded crap. My comment was that I do not feel the justices are balanced and will follow the letter of the law, there are too many partisan justices to take a large stand based on the letter of the law, similarly the way they deflected about abortion and they deflect quite often it seems and try to push the issue onto another group versus understanding that taking a stand and a position for the larger collective is kind of what they are forced to do. If something goes through the legal wringer to make it all the way to the supreme court then deflecting or avoiding defeats the purpose.

I dont think there is a chance they will take a firm stance, its too hot of a political topic.

@wallstreetcappers

 "If the constitution is upheld then he would not be on the ballot"

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies an individual from serving as a state or federal official if that person has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States. Although the clause was written in the context of the Civil War, it would theoretically still apply for members of future rebellions or insurrections against the United States.

Who is it to determine if "that person has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States" ??   The Colorado Supreme Courts can make this decision for their STATE and they did so based on their view he engaged in "insurrection".  

A different Supreme Court in a different State may look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.  Similar to SCOTUS.  Would that State be "wrong" ??  And if they are wrong is it because they interpreted the evidence and law incorrectly or for partisan reasons??  If so, then basically you are giving your own "supreme court judgement" by summarizing Trump DID engage in insurrection or rebellion and if anyone disagrees with you (SCOTUS) it is because they are doing so for partisan reasons.  I think that is a load of poo.  

@wallstreetcappers

 you ever heard that saying that goes something like "if they are ignoring you then you know there's a problem, if they are busting your chops and have a nickname for you then you know they like you"....ever heard that kinda phrase used in your life??  

darkness, el gato, BG, UNI, foops / fupa, 3rd, Wally, WSC, etc....  again, this is locker room / play ground banter.  I've already stated I will be a better cesspool sub forum member and be more sensitive to how the words I type on the screen impact your emotions (and others).  I don't get bent out of shape when I'm called "KC" or "blitz" so I would expect a better understanding of my affectionate nicknames.  peace homie.  

@kcblitzkrieg

 My point is that they wont look at this in the same way that they do/did for guns, I think the constitution and the discussion about arms is severely outdated and inapplicable to current technology and society but yet it is like the poster child for the constitution and is upheld literally when it should not be. I do not think that these justices will follow the same path that they did/do for arms it will not be concise and literal. 

I think the GOP is banking on that fact, they are using it as a tool for the election...but we shall see.

@wallstreetcappers

 clearly understood now, thank you and I don't disagree with your assessment... 

@kcblitzkrieg

 On the other topic, the unfortunate reality is that people here using this forum over the years have used slang as a weapon we see it every day right here. People use derivations of a name or spin of a name in a negative, petty attacking way. Over the years that term wally has been thrown around and it is always in a digging negative way and usually accompanied with the jabs and insults because people who use that tactic lack the ability to maintain respect and control their tempers. Ive never seen that used in a way that isnt antagonizing so when you regularly use it and in the same discussion you throw down the I dont understand the law jab and other jabs you have over time it seems you use it like all others do as well.

You notice that I do not use slang nicknames often if at all and especially not to belittle or try and step on someone else to make my point. Id rather skip discussion with people who cannot have a base level of respect and just discuss the topic and content, state your position and be open for discussion and yet the number of people who are able to do that and keep respect as value number 1 are very very few.

I like what you guys are doing . You gentlemen  are just a smidge off from one another . You are basically on the same page with regards to how you view discussing things in this forum . There is just a minor crossed signal . Don’t give credit to that small formality that can easily be worked through , by destroying the basis of your interactions , when it is apparent that you both have a staggering amount of things in common , that far outweigh these smaller and less insignificant things that always seem to blow up and take center stage .

I like it . I really like it . 

Funny now Trump TELLS the supreme court not to entertain the issue...like Trump is the person in the universe who gives instructions to everyone else that lives and breathes.

Drama pull...he is such a controlling little ego baby. A true leader not looking for drama would say NOTHING, let the process go and shut up already.

@spockgato

 el gato  

[Quote: Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa]Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Quote Originally Posted by Zeus4par: Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: The left wants to campaign in the courts, through what amounts to political theatre, instead of the traditional "this is why you should vote for out candidate" method of campaigning. I believe it will backfire. We will see. Yep... It is a tactic that would make Putin proud.   Removing your opponent from the ballot,  making your opponent out to be a political prisoner..  Lefties are applying some serious Soviet Tactics.              Republicans filed the lawsuit!!!!!!! All seven justices on the state's high court were  appointed by Democrats !!!!!!! ?

There are plenty of "Never Trumpers" out there,  yes, even in Republican Party (they're losers, like Liz Cheney) ... I could care less what 'tool in the Colorado State political system brought the charges.   No one put a gun to the State Supreme Court to pursue, but of course they know the goal "is to prevent Trump from being President by any means possible."  Gee, could the Soviet State of the DEM party make this anymore obvious ?!  

It's quite a stretch to conclude Trump incited "an inssurrection ".  This ain't going anywhere in the SCOTUS, and CO only makes themselves look foolish w/ this episode.  Even you can figure this out.....

... Eh..  Maybe not.  

It’s not quite a stretch to find him guilty of insurrection. Just read the court opinion, they thoroughly cover it on p. 103-116 of the opinion. The trial judge also ruled he was guilty of insurrection, but gave him an out by saying that he was not an “officer of the US.” Arguing the president is not an officer of the US is quite the stretch indeed.

[Quote: Originally Posted by Sidehatch]Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Quote Originally Posted by Sidehatch: Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Quote Originally Posted by KellyM_1964: Quote "Trump hates Black people and Mexicans, " and muslims     and immigrants except two of his wives who were immigrants And yet they will still vote for Trump,  because they realize the current  "" shitshow of high inflation "" is not something they want for another 4 years    Inflation has been receding for two months. That’s why the fed didn’t raise rates last week. You do remember why Trump raised bloody hell every time the fed considered raising rates when he was president, right?  Funny how Biden, or any other president for the last 25 years, never did that. It’s almost like Trump wanted to push inflation as far down the road as possible.  Those of us who were raised by fiscally-responsible parents in the 80s remember that cheap tricks only worsen inflation. They don’t make it better. The stock market has been up all week due to optimism about the economy. Funny how the last guy bragged about that a lot, huh? Seriously,  where have you been the last few weeks ?  I've posted repeatedly that lower-income Americans are "" still "" getting crushed by high inflation.   You act as though falling inflation means " falling prices ". Lol. Understand the difference Where have you been the last year? Gas is lower. Groceries are lower. Quit reaching, you keep looking like a loser.[/Quote]

Your buddy FUBAH posted this in the other thread ; 

Consumer prices rose 3.1% in November from a year earlier, a touch lower than October’s 3.2% rise, the Labor Department said Tuesday. 

So, Nice try on cherry picking a couple of data points....  But , we look at inflation "in the aggregate"....   And even then,...... Gas is lower (from when  ?)... Groceries are lower (from when ?).     The reality is both are more expensive in 2023 compared with 2020,... LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE,... and in the case of groceries... MUCH HIGHER THAN 2020!! 

Say it with me... Biden is cooked, and his poll numbers reflect the population's frustration WITH STILL HIGH INFLATION.