The end of Democracy?

[PaxNurgle]

This is because there's no legitimate controversy about those things. You either are US born or you're not. You either are at least 35 years old, or you aren't. These things are provable by reference to documents.

Saying Trump is an insurrectionist requires PROOF. At present there's no proof, just opinion.

Why do you keep insisting there is no PROOF that Trump was guilty of insurrection?

What more PROOF do you need? For Crying out loud, dude!

If I was caught on a videotape raping your mother and killing your father, then went and bragged about it on the Internet and even uploaded the video of the killings on Youtube... then, according to your infantile logic, I should get off (urguy)scott free. Because there is no "Proof" and I "Haven't Been Convicted of Anything." I mean, this is your own "Logic" at work here.

Just saying...this is why nobody takes you seriously anymore. If they ever did.

 

[HisArpy]

Why do you keep insisting there is no PROOF that Trump was guilty of insurrection?

What more PROOF do you need? For Crying out loud, dude!

If I was caught on a videotape raping your mother and killing your father, then went and bragged about it on the Internet and even uploaded the video of the killings on Youtube... then, according to your infantile logic, I should get off (urguy)scott free. Because there is no "Proof" and I "Haven't Been Convicted of Anything." I mean, this is your own "Logic" at work here.

Just saying...this is why nobody takes you seriously anymore. If they ever did.

I demand proof because what exists is a difference of OPINION. You say he committed insurrection because of some words he spoke. Others say he didn't because he also said other words about being peaceful. This creates a conflict whereby all of the FACTS need to be laid out on the table and evaluated SOLELY on those facts and not on ideology or belief.

YOU are operating on belief and ideology. Thus your OPINION is worthless.

 

[Rotadom]

I demand proof because what exists is a difference of OPINION. You say he committed insurrection because of some words he spoke. Others say he didn't because he also said other words about being peaceful. This creates a conflict whereby all of the FACTS need to be laid out on the table and evaluated SOLELY on those facts and not on ideology or belief.

YOU are operating on belief and ideology. Thus your OPINION is worthless.

The most impressive thing about you is that no one has ended you yet.

 

[jaF0]

If the Nine rule a sitting President has such immunity and I were Joe, I would at the very least round up the entire Gang Of The Orange, revoke their US Citizenship and send them to Gitmo.

How to ensure that would last beyond the next election would be the key question.

 

[HisArpy]

If the Nine rule a sitting President has such immunity and I were Joe, I would at the very least round up the entire Gang Of The Orange, revoke their US Citizenship and send them to Gitmo.

How to ensure that would last beyond the next election would be the key question.

That isn't within the Constitutional powers of the President. Thus any order by Biden to do any of that wouldn't be obeyed. If it were obeyed the participants would be criminally and civilly liable. Just as you would be since you've basically proposed here that someone kidnap and imprison a former President of the US. And you've done so because of political and personal animas - eg evil intent. Any fallout because someone decided to follow through with the plan would include you.

Biden himself, however, would be immune since the order would come from the office of the President.

 

[Rightguide]

45 was the first President in history to refuse the true peaceful transition of power.

You lie. He questioned the election results like the Democrats always do. Take note that Hillary never conceded the 2016 election.

 

[ll74]

You lie. He questioned the election results like the Democrats always do. Take note that Hillary never conceded the 2016 election.

He did not attend the inauguration...he did not transfer power peacefully.

Hillary conceded the night of the election

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/5014...on-concedes-presidential-race-to-donald-trump

The liar here isn't me.

 

[Vetteman]

You lie. He questioned the election results like the Democrats always do. Take note that Hillary never conceded the 2016 election.

And the tapes he released proved he was right to question the election results. In fact Trump is the only person in history to give up power when it was shown to be stolen from him.

 

[Rightguide]

He did not attend the inauguration...he did not transfer power peacefully.

Hillary conceded the night of the election

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/5014...on-concedes-presidential-race-to-donald-trump

The liar here isn't me.

Who said he had to attend the inauguration? Hillary went kicking and screaming:

“I really tried to get out of going,” the former presidential candidate revealed during an appearance on The Graham Norton Show Friday.

After explaining that it’s “tradition” for former presidents and first ladies to attend a presidential inauguration to show “support” and “continuity of our government,” Clinton admitted that she and former president Bill Clinton hoped others wouldn’t go as an excuse to skip the ceremony.

“We thought, ‘Okay, maybe others aren’t going.’ So we called the Bushes and the elder Bushes were in the hospital, which I think was legitimate,” Clinton explained, unable to hold her laughter."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...s-she-tried-skip-trumps-inauguration-1050727/

Then there are these links as well:

https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-2016-election/index.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...n-should-not-concede-under-any-circumstances/

 

[ll74]

Who said he had to attend the inauguration? Hillary went kicking and screaming:

“I really tried to get out of going,” the former presidential candidate revealed during an appearance on The Graham Norton Show Friday.

After explaining that it’s “tradition” for former presidents and first ladies to attend a presidential inauguration to show “support” and “continuity of our government,” Clinton admitted that she and former president Bill Clinton hoped others wouldn’t go as an excuse to skip the ceremony.

“We thought, ‘Okay, maybe others aren’t going.’ So we called the Bushes and the elder Bushes were in the hospital, which I think was legitimate,” Clinton explained, unable to hold her laughter."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...s-she-tried-skip-trumps-inauguration-1050727/

Then there are these links as well:

https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-2016-election/index.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...n-should-not-concede-under-any-circumstances/

Hilary conceded the election on the night of the election.

Trump did not concede the election until Jan 7.

 

[Rotadom]

You lie. He questioned the election results like the Democrats always do. Take note that Hillary never conceded the 2016 election.

You're always wrong. Lol

 

[stxjimmy]

You lie. He questioned the election results like the Democrats always do. Take note that Hillary never conceded the 2016 election.

First the accusation that ‘74 lied followed by a blatant lie that HClinton never conceded.
Comedy gold.

 

[Vetteman]

Hilary conceded the election on the night of the election.

Trump did not concede the election until Jan 7.

Bullshit!! Trump never conceded to a stolen election.

 

[jaF0]

I'm not sure the Orangutan has ever conceded.

 

[ll74]

I'm not sure the Orangutan has ever conceded.

Jan 7. He did.

 

[schism666]

Very True.

i liked you better when you were hiding under that rock for a decade. did you really get dumber in your absence?

 

[YDB95]

Who said he had to attend the inauguration?

No one, but every other defeated incumbent in history has done the gracious thing and stepped up for the peaceful transfer of power. It's one of the things that make America great, if you ask me. (Mind you, I personally was just as happy to have him nowhere to be seen that day. But that's just me.)

Hillary went kicking and screaming:

“I really tried to get out of going,” the former presidential candidate revealed during an appearance on The Graham Norton Show Friday.

After explaining that it’s “tradition” for former presidents and first ladies to attend a presidential inauguration to show “support” and “continuity of our government,” Clinton admitted that she and former president Bill Clinton hoped others wouldn’t go as an excuse to skip the ceremony.

“We thought, ‘Okay, maybe others aren’t going.’ So we called the Bushes and the elder Bushes were in the hospital, which I think was legitimate,” Clinton explained, unable to hold her laughter."

Perhaps, but she did go - and she wasn't the departing incumbent! Obama was there too, after all.

 

[Bray123]

It looks like there will be no presidential debates in the run-up to the election.

Will this be an improvement on hearing Stinko repeat his endless lies to the home-schooled?

 

[bijedi]

I demand proof because what exists is a difference of OPINION. You say he committed insurrection because of some words he spoke. Others say he didn't because he also said other words about being peaceful. This creates a conflict whereby all of the FACTS need to be laid out on the table and evaluated SOLELY on those facts and not on ideology or belief.

YOU are operating on belief and ideology. Thus your OPINION is worthless.

The current proof is two Colorado courts have found as a matter of fact and law that Trump encouraged and incited an insurrection. So it has a little more weight than opinion. One of the things SCOTUS will have to rule on is were those courts correct on this, and if so if that finding makes Mr. Trump ineligible to take the office of President. Or maybe the sidestep addressing the courts finding and decide that although the amendment doesn't express it, and it has never been required previously, and there is no evidence to support that it was the original intent of the authors of the amendment, that a conviction is required for disqualification. But I wouldn't expect that kind of legislating from the bench from such stalwart originalists. </sarcasm>

 

[HisArpy]

The current proof is two Colorado courts have found as a matter of fact and law that Trump encouraged and incited an insurrection. So it has a little more weight than opinion. One of the things SCOTUS will have to rule on is were those courts correct on this, and if so if that finding makes Mr. Trump ineligible to take the office of President. Or maybe the sidestep addressing the courts finding and decide that although the amendment doesn't express it, and it has never been required previously, and there is no evidence to support that it was the original intent of the authors of the amendment, that a conviction is required for disqualification. But I wouldn't expect that kind of legislating from the bench from such stalwart originalists. </sarcasm>

The decisions you refer to are a possible result of a denial of due process and Constitutional Rights. Which is why the SCOTUS has granted cert to hear them.

Thus, while they are pending before the SCOTUS they aren't a valid basis for what you say they are. Ergo, you still haven't provided any PROOF. All you've given is opinion backed by possibly incorrect (and unconstitutional) legal chicanery.

 

[jomar]

And the tapes he released proved he was right to question the election results. In fact Trump is the only person in history to give up power when it was shown to be stolen from him.

Bullshit!! Trump never conceded to a stolen election.

The election wasn’t stolen. It was trump failed to steal the presidency away from a fair and free election.

 

[bijedi]

The decisions you refer to are a possible result of a denial of due process and Constitutional Rights. Which is why the SCOTUS has granted cert to hear them.

Thus, while they are pending before the SCOTUS they aren't a valid basis for what you say they are. Ergo, you still haven't provided any PROOF. All you've given is opinion backed by possibly incorrect (and unconstitutional) legal chicanery.

I don't see any due process claims. Mr. Trump has not been deprived of any property, and he is not incarcerated. A trial was held and Mr. Trump was provided an opportunity to defend his position. The court found against him. Due process was met. Mr. Trump can, and is, appealing the decision but it would be wrong to suggest he hasn't been given due process in the matter.

While it is true that a finding of fact by a court is not in itself proof, most jurists are reluctant to overturn such findings. It is possible SCOTUS will overrule the Colorado courts, but generally when the courts do this, they generally provide some method or test by which must be used to determine such a finding. I don't think they want to do this, and I expect they will either accept this finding and uphold the decision, or find some other avenue by which the 14th amendment does not apply in this case. Until SCOTUS says otherwise, it is currently a fact of law, which as I said, is quite a bit more than a mere opinion.

 

[Rightguide]

First the accusation that ‘74 lied followed by a blatant lie that HClinton never conceded.
Comedy gold.

But then spent a lot of time spreading this shit:

https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html

 

[ll74]

But then spent a lot of time spreading this shit:

https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html

So you admit that Clinton did concede on election night and that your statement saying otherwise was false.

Thanks for confirming.

 

[HisArpy]

I don't see any due process claims. Mr. Trump has not been deprived of any property, and he is not incarcerated. A trial was held and Mr. Trump was provided an opportunity to defend his position. The court found against him. Due process was met. Mr. Trump can, and is, appealing the decision but it would be wrong to suggest he hasn't been given due process in the matter.

While it is true that a finding of fact by a court is not in itself proof, most jurists are reluctant to overturn such findings. It is possible SCOTUS will overrule the Colorado courts, but generally when the courts do this, they generally provide some method or test by which must be used to determine such a finding. I don't think they want to do this, and I expect they will either accept this finding and uphold the decision, or find some other avenue by which the 14th amendment does not apply in this case. Until SCOTUS says otherwise, it is currently a fact of law, which as I said, is quite a bit more than a mere opinion.

Actually, Trump was denied the opportunity to present evidence in his defense and wasn't provided with proper notice as is required by due process. In short the court made a fact finding without evidence and without giving the accused the opportunity to be heard.

This is why the SCOTUS is going to hear the issue and decide. Until it does all we hear is graveyard whistling on your part.