|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 24, 2023 1:45:34 GMT
I painted all those damn bells orange and we may not be able to use them!!!
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Dec 24, 2023 1:52:39 GMT
The one and ONLY reason it isnt the other way around is because Trump is NOT trying to jail his political opponent and is NOT trying to remove his political opponent from the ballot. Your guy Biden is doing exactly that. I realize that you fully believe this to be true. But for the benefit of other, more rational people who may be reading but not commenting, I would like to clarify that President Biden has studiously avoided getting involved in the business of the Justice dept, allowing them to follow the evidence and prosecute cases as they see fit. If he were actually trying to jail a political opponent, he would have done it in 2021, not allowed it to run head first into the next election. Trump, on the other hand, has said out loud that he would go after his political opponents, should he become president again. Nothing about maybe finding evidence first, just prosecuting them. He did tell us in 2016 that he’d be sending Hillary to prison. Huh. Guess his nominally ethical Attorneys General couldn’t find any actual evidence. That won’t be an issue next time around, not with some of the names that have been floated for AG. The rest of your post is utter rambling nonsense, so I deleted it here. Jeez, what a sense of victimhood. To quote you: I realize that you fully believe this to be true. But for the benefit of other, more rational people who may be reading but not commenting, I would like to clarify: Per the New York Times: Biden has said "Trump should be prosecuted" and for Merrick Garland to "stop acting like a ponderous judge and to take decisive action." He also said: "We just have to demonstrate that he will not take power. If he does run, making sure, under legitimate efforts of the Constitution, (the law) that he does not become the next president." "Demonstrate that he will not take power." Let that sink in. Using the law. Lawfare. What he doesn't say... He doesn't say trump is guilty. He doesn't say anything even close to, we have to run a good election and win. It sounds more like - we have to weaponize the DOJ. He also said, "I'm honest." We all know without a shadow of a doubt, that he is not. What is it y'all like to say? If you have to tell us, then you aren't. As to the rest of your post, I'm no victim. I simply stated the sequence of events as opposed to mollycoddle 's version. If you think the sequence of events as they happened is victimization, that’s on you, not me.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Dec 24, 2023 2:12:18 GMT
I realize that you fully believe this to be true. But for the benefit of other, more rational people who may be reading but not commenting, I would like to clarify that President Biden has studiously avoided getting involved in the business of the Justice dept, allowing them to follow the evidence and prosecute cases as they see fit. If he were actually trying to jail a political opponent, he would have done it in 2021, not allowed it to run head first into the next election. Trump, on the other hand, has said out loud that he would go after his political opponents, should he become president again. Nothing about maybe finding evidence first, just prosecuting them. He did tell us in 2016 that he’d be sending Hillary to prison. Huh. Guess his nominally ethical Attorneys General couldn’t find any actual evidence. That won’t be an issue next time around, not with some of the names that have been floated for AG. The rest of your post is utter rambling nonsense, so I deleted it here. Jeez, what a sense of victimhood. To quote you: I realize that you fully believe this to be true. But for the benefit of other, more rational people who may be reading but not commenting, I would like to clarify: Per the New York Times: Biden has said "Trump should be prosecuted" and for Merrick Garland to "stop acting like a ponderous judge and to take decisive action." He also said: "We just have to demonstrate that he will not take power. If he does run, making sure, under legitimate efforts of the Constitution, (the law) that he does not become the next president." "Demonstrate that he will not take power." Let that sink in. Using the law. Lawfare. What he doesn't say... He doesn't say trump is guilty. He doesn't say anything even close to, we have to run a good election and win. It sounds more like - we have to weaponize the DOJ. He also said, "I'm honest." We all know without a shadow of a doubt, that he is not. What is it y'all like to say? If you have to tell us, then you aren't. As to the rest of your post, I'm no victim. I simply stated the sequence of events as opposed to mollycoddle 's version. If you think the sequence of events as they happened is victimization, that’s on you, not me. You do seem to be bothered today. ☺️
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Dec 24, 2023 2:23:42 GMT
To quote you: I realize that you fully believe this to be true. But for the benefit of other, more rational people who may be reading but not commenting, I would like to clarify: Per the New York Times: Biden has said "Trump should be prosecuted" and for Merrick Garland to "stop acting like a ponderous judge and to take decisive action." He also said: "We just have to demonstrate that he will not take power. If he does run, making sure, under legitimate efforts of the Constitution, (the law) that he does not become the next president." "Demonstrate that he will not take power." Let that sink in. Using the law. Lawfare. What he doesn't say... He doesn't say trump is guilty. He doesn't say anything even close to, we have to run a good election and win. It sounds more like - we have to weaponize the DOJ. He also said, "I'm honest." We all know without a shadow of a doubt, that he is not. What is it y'all like to say? If you have to tell us, then you aren't. As to the rest of your post, I'm no victim. I simply stated the sequence of events as opposed to mollycoddle 's version. If you think the sequence of events as they happened is victimization, that’s on you, not me. You do seem to be bothered today. ☺️ No, but you do seem to be projecting. 😊
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 24, 2023 2:40:27 GMT
I realize that you fully believe this to be true. But for the benefit of other, more rational people who may be reading but not commenting, I would like to clarify that President Biden has studiously avoided getting involved in the business of the Justice dept, allowing them to follow the evidence and prosecute cases as they see fit. If he were actually trying to jail a political opponent, he would have done it in 2021, not allowed it to run head first into the next election. Trump, on the other hand, has said out loud that he would go after his political opponents, should he become president again. Nothing about maybe finding evidence first, just prosecuting them. He did tell us in 2016 that he’d be sending Hillary to prison. Huh. Guess his nominally ethical Attorneys General couldn’t find any actual evidence. That won’t be an issue next time around, not with some of the names that have been floated for AG. The rest of your post is utter rambling nonsense, so I deleted it here. Jeez, what a sense of victimhood. To quote you: I realize that you fully believe this to be true. But for the benefit of other, more rational people who may be reading but not commenting, I would like to clarify: Per the New York Times: Biden has said "Trump should be prosecuted" and for Merrick Garland to "stop acting like a ponderous judge and to take decisive action." He also said: "We just have to demonstrate that he will not take power. If he does run, making sure, under legitimate efforts of the Constitution, (the law) that he does not become the next president.” Do you actually read these news stories or just borrow clips from right-wing media? Since you provided no links, I had to go find them for myself. Per the New York Times: Biden has said "Trump should be prosecuted" Taken out of context. Natch. www.factcheck.org/2023/08/trumps-defense-lawyer-spins-the-facts/and for Merrick Garland to "stop acting like a ponderous judge and to take decisive action."This one was interesting. I googled Biden’s name along with your quotation and only three results came up. Two social media posts by Trump supporters and one “article” from a right wing rag that completely took Biden’s statement out of context (that the social media posts were quoting from). It did link to a NYT article that didn’t show up in the search results, and this statement was buried toward the bottom of the article. The article was about, ahem, how Joe Biden studiously avoids getting involved in or making statements about Trump’s legal problems. This was included as something he said in private among friends, to show that he does actually have opinion on the subject. Hardly evidence of pressuring the AG to prosecute Trump, or announcing to voters that that was what he intended to do. Nice try, though. He also said: "We just have to demonstrate that he will not take power. If he does run, making sure, under legitimate efforts of the Constitution, (the law) that he does not become the next president."Again, taken completely out of context. Why am I not surprised? He was talking about winning the damn election. www.newsweek.com/biden-trump-indictment-stop-power-1792426You must think we are complete idiots to fall for this stuff. And now I’m done. Go ahead and do some more frothing if you like.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 24, 2023 3:30:42 GMT
Just wanted to clarify a few things. Biden has nothing to do with the lawsuits to remove Trump from the ballot. In the case of Colorado, 4 Republicans, 2 Independents and this organization brought the lawsuit. No connection to Biden. www.citizensforethics.orgAlso wanted to point out that it was 2 Republicans who started the effort to have Trump removed from ballots. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/And finally, what goes around comes around. Trump made repeated statements about the eligibility of Obama, Clinton and Ted Cruz. Republicans were perfectly OK when Trump talked about removing Democrats from ballots, there were very few, if any, objections then.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 24, 2023 3:35:37 GMT
Great summary & a really good point.
This is a case brought by Republicans to bar Trump from the GOP ballot because of his participation in insurrection, a rule added to the 14th Amendment by Republicans.
Insurrection, Lincoln said, attacks the people’s right to choose their leaders.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 24, 2023 3:41:25 GMT
Excellent points about the ridiculousness of the Republican investigation led by Comer
"After 11 months of this, no one can tell us what President Biden’s crime was, where it happened, when it happened, what the motive was, who the perpetrators or victims were." —RM @repraskin on the absurdity of Republicans' sham impeachment drive
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 24, 2023 3:53:13 GMT
Republicans seem to have lost track of their numerous attempts to smear Biden, especially the contradictory ones. Depending on the day, he's either a bumbling idiot or a criminal mastermind, head of a crime family or manipulating the government to go after Trump.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 24, 2023 4:10:07 GMT
In November 2020, just after the election, remember all of the Republicans who said what's the harm in letting Trump's court cases play out? There was in fact harm - eroding confidence in our electoral system. If Trump had the right to legally challenge the results of the election, why don't people and organizations have the right to challenge Trump's eligibility in federal and state courts? I realize the situations are not exactly the same, but typical for Republicans the underlying message is- It's OK if you're a Republican or more specifically, it's OK if you're a Trump supporter or doing something to support Trump www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/mcconnell-backs-trump-election-435506McConnell said Trump is entitled to challenge the validity of the election results and await statewide recounts that are already underway. His comments Monday were the first since Biden won the presidency.
“Our institutions are actually built for this,” McConnell said. “We have the system in place to consider concerns, and President Trump is 100 percent within his rights to look into allegations of irregularities and weigh his legal options.”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 24, 2023 5:56:12 GMT
Interesting youtu.be/9lS8eFA9UBY?si=43E67RibbcsBGnMn"Al Gore would love to hear Republicans' take, now, that justices should not be determining the outcomes of presidential elections," Bardella said. He added that "the people" already decided that Trump lost. *** "From all this talk of Republicans about the people's vote, the people did decide. They decided that Donald Trump lost and the Republicans did not accept that, and now they fomented an insurrection attempt to overthrow the government," Bardella said. "You cannot say no the people should decide when you try to overthrow the will of the people on the floor of the United States House of Representatives the evening of January six where 150 Republicans voted to throw out the results of a free and fair election. You can't keep having it both ways. Which one is it, folks?" He continued: "By the, way I love how also they're saying now, well, listen, we should have states' rights decide everything when it comes to things like abortion, but when a state like Colorado exercises state sovereignty, they want to overrule it."www.rawstory.com/gop-staffer-burns-gop-hypocrisy/
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Dec 24, 2023 10:09:29 GMT
Republicans seem to have lost track of their numerous attempts to smear Biden, especially the contradictory ones. Depending on the day, he's either a bumbling idiot or a criminal mastermind, head of a crime family or manipulating the government to go after Trump. So true. It wasn’t that long ago that I heard that he could barely walk, and now look how he has cleverly orchestrated a case (by Republicans-even sneakier!) designed to keep Trump off of the ballot. Biden is a sort of mental chameleon. ☺️
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 24, 2023 15:08:03 GMT
Not only that, but it is the same pea making both arguments, and I keep walking right into it, anyway.
Last month he clearly had dementia, with a long list of right-wing-media-approved examples to prove it.
This month he is a criminal mastermind and also leading governmental attempts to disqualify his opponent, with a long list of right-wing-media-approved examples to prove it.
I am so damn easy.
|
|
uksue
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,509
Location: London
Jun 25, 2014 22:33:20 GMT
|
Post by uksue on Dec 24, 2023 15:26:36 GMT
I'm not American (obviously) , I don't have a dog in this fight but I do watch/read/listen to left and right wing stuff.
I just can't understand how anyone could support/defend Trump or trust him back in the White house. Especially as he would have noone remotely sensible to moderate his impulsiveness.
Trump is ridiculed across the world. We've all watched in real time as he's made an utter fool of himself in important political meetings and how he's pushed other leaders aside to get to the front. He's like a spoilt toddler. Not only that but he is considered dangerous and untrustworthy.
I think America is in the same position as us in the UK with a dearth of ready to go, young, inspirational, capable leaders. I'm a life-long labour supporter but can't stand Keir Starmer. Sunak makes my blood boil. It's depressing. If our government calls an early election I just wouldn't know who to vote for- and ironically, my Tory-stronghold ward has an MP who has been MIA in paid leave for over a year due to a SA investigation. He is despised and it's Labour'a best chance since the Blair government to win back the seat - but I have no more faith in Labour than in the current Tory govt!
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 29, 2023 14:21:00 GMT
Maine found Trump ineligible, but it’s a different process there, decided by the secretary of the state. In Michigan, Minnesota, CA and NH efforts to remove him were unsuccessful. There are 14 other states with active cases. With different outcomes in different states, it seems likely the Supreme Court will have to hear the case. www.nytimes.com/article/trump-ballot-remove-2024.html
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 29, 2023 14:43:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Dec 31, 2023 2:12:47 GMT
To quote you: I realize that you fully believe this to be true. But for the benefit of other, more rational people who may be reading but not commenting, I would like to clarify: Per the New York Times: Biden has said "Trump should be prosecuted" and for Merrick Garland to "stop acting like a ponderous judge and to take decisive action." He also said: "We just have to demonstrate that he will not take power. If he does run, making sure, under legitimate efforts of the Constitution, (the law) that he does not become the next president.” Do you actually read these news stories or just borrow clips from right-wing media? Since you provided no links, I had to go find them for myself. Per the New York Times: Biden has said "Trump should be prosecuted" Taken out of context. Natch. www.factcheck.org/2023/08/trumps-defense-lawyer-spins-the-facts/and for Merrick Garland to "stop acting like a ponderous judge and to take decisive action."This one was interesting. I googled Biden’s name along with your quotation and only three results came up. Two social media posts by Trump supporters and one “article” from a right wing rag that completely took Biden’s statement out of context (that the social media posts were quoting from). It did link to a NYT article that didn’t show up in the search results, and this statement was buried toward the bottom of the article. The article was about, ahem, how Joe Biden studiously avoids getting involved in or making statements about Trump’s legal problems. This was included as something he said in private among friends, to show that he does actually have opinion on the subject. Hardly evidence of pressuring the AG to prosecute Trump, or announcing to voters that that was what he intended to do. Nice try, though. He also said: "We just have to demonstrate that he will not take power. If he does run, making sure, under legitimate efforts of the Constitution, (the law) that he does not become the next president."Again, taken completely out of context. Why am I not surprised? He was talking about winning the damn election. www.newsweek.com/biden-trump-indictment-stop-power-1792426You must think we are complete idiots to fall for this stuff. And now I’m done. Go ahead and do some more frothing if you like. The Newsweek article even admits: "Biden's reference to using the "legitimate efforts of our Constitution" to keep Trump from the White House is IMPRECISE AND OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.""WHILE WE CANNOT RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT BIDEN MAY HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR INDICTMENTS, there is no clear evidence the president had advance knowledge of the Bragg case or full knowledge of the progress of Trump's other legal challenges." They're also arguing semantics about the difference between some tweet saying: "stop Trump from taking power again." vs. Biden saying: "We just have to demonstrate that he will not take power by, if we, if he does run. I'm making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next President again." There's nothing in there that references the election. Nothing. I'm open to being corrected, what words did Biden say in reference to that statement that give it the context you think implies he was speaking about the election?
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Dec 31, 2023 2:16:46 GMT
Not only that, but it is the same pea making both arguments, and I keep walking right into it, anyway. Last month he clearly had dementia, with a long list of right-wing-media-approved examples to prove it. This month he is a criminal mastermind and also leading governmental attempts to disqualify his opponent, with a long list of right-wing-media-approved examples to prove it. I am so damn easy. Whether or not Joe is capable or not of these actions, if we've learned nothing else in the last several years, we now know there is a great circling of wagons going on with democrats willing to say and do anything to cover for the going narrative. Including illegally changing documents to push a Russian collusion hoax, censoring journalist s and Americans to push a Russian disinformation hoax, etc. Lots of covering for joe himself. Nobody says a word about his bizarre behavior while they're face to face with it...
|
|
|
Post by katiekaty on Dec 31, 2023 2:45:00 GMT
Question --- Trump has not been found guilty of insurrection. How can the CO Supreme Court basically punish him as if he has been convicted? I know he is guilty. What about due process? While I am completely OK with him not being on the CO ballot I am not sure this is going to be upheld in the Supreme Court. I have been really busy for he last three months but did not hear that he had been found guilty. If he isn’t and he has been excluded, do those states have to void their first primaries and redo or what happens? thanks mom for the thought/question. Seems it would be a little simpler to delay a bit pending the trial outcome? Can they even do that?
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Dec 31, 2023 2:59:49 GMT
Question --- Trump has not been found guilty of insurrection. How can the CO Supreme Court basically punish him as if he has been convicted? I know he is guilty. What about due process? While I am completely OK with him not being on the CO ballot I am not sure this is going to be upheld in the Supreme Court. I have been really busy for he last three months but did not hear that he had been found guilty. If he isn’t and he has been excluded, do those states have to void their first primaries and redo or what happens? thanks mom for the thought/question. Seems it would be a little simpler to delay a bit pending the trial outcome? Can they even do that? He hasn't been found guilty of insurrection because he hasn't even been charged with insurrection. If they had any standing to charge him with insurrection they would have done it already. It would have been top of the list of things to take him out with.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 31, 2023 3:14:56 GMT
A conviction is not required!
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Dec 31, 2023 3:18:32 GMT
A conviction is not required! He hasn't even been charged. And there's a reason he hasn't been charged. Because you know they would if they could.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 31, 2023 3:20:06 GMT
Question --- Trump has not been found guilty of insurrection. How can the CO Supreme Court basically punish him as if he has been convicted? I know he is guilty. What about due process? While I am completely OK with him not being on the CO ballot I am not sure this is going to be upheld in the Supreme Court. I have been really busy for he last three months but did not hear that he had been found guilty. If he isn’t and he has been excluded, do those states have to void their first primaries and redo or what happens? thanks mom for the thought/question. Seems it would be a little simpler to delay a bit pending the trial outcome? Can they even do that? The Colorado case is separate from the federal case. In terms of the lawsuit, a lower court in Colorado found him guilty of insurrection. According to historical precedent, a conviction is not necessary to remove him from the ballot. Seems pretty straightforward, if you take an oath to uphold the constitution and then violate it through an insurrection, you shouldn't be able to hold office. Trump can remain on the ballot in Colorado until the Supreme Court hears the case. Ballots have to be certified on Jan 5, the Secretary of State will follow whatever order is in place on that day. www.nytimes.com/article/trump-ballot-remove-2024.htmlwww.citizensforethics.org/news/press-releases/colorado-supreme-court-bars-trump-from-ballot/Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the Disqualification Clause, bars any person from holding federal or state office who took an “oath…to support the Constitution of the United States” and then has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Dec 31, 2023 9:09:39 GMT
NO ONE has been charged with insurrection.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 31, 2023 16:04:14 GMT
A charge or conviction of insurrection is not required, that’s not how the law was written nor has that happened with prior cases.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Dec 31, 2023 21:06:04 GMT
I have been really busy for he last three months but did not hear that he had been found guilty. If he isn’t and he has been excluded, do those states have to void their first primaries and redo or what happens? thanks mom for the thought/question. Seems it would be a little simpler to delay a bit pending the trial outcome? Can they even do that? He hasn't been found guilty of insurrection because he hasn't even been charged with insurrection. If they had any standing to charge him with insurrection they would have done it already. It would have been top of the list of things to take him out with. Well MAGA gal how about dereliction of duty? I had to read up on the timeline and for over two hours during the attack he watched it on TV and did nothing. Think about it for a second. Here was the President of the United States just standing around watching the Capital being attacked by his followers and he did nothing. Kevin McCarthy called and asked him to call off his supporters, I believe Jim Jordan did as well. His own son sent him a tweet telling him he needed to stop it. Finally he tweeted the rioters telling they were great and should go home. He issued one possibly two tweets before releasing a video, via a tweet to go home. But here’s the thing. If I’m in a mob attacking something the last thing I’m going to do is stop and read my tweets. “Here let me stop hitting you with a flag poll so I can read my tweets.” How dumb is that notion? As President of the United States as soon as the attack started and it became clear of the size of the mob he should have called in the National Guard to support/back up the Capital Police. Doesn’t matter whose responsibility it was, he should have done it instead of watching it on tv for two hours plus. His actions were a dereliction of duty. Seriously what kind of human being stands around and watch a mob attack the Capital and the occupants inside and does nothing when he could have stopped it? I have to tell you I was shocked at the level of violence that mob displayed and yet trump just watched for 2 hours before his half ass efforts to stop it. His actions define who he is as a human being and one has to ask themselves do you really want this morally bankrupt individual to be president again? It will be interesting MAGA gal to see how you spin these disgusting actions by your master trump.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 31, 2023 21:23:20 GMT
Again, federal charges or convictions against Trump are not required by the 14th amendment in order for Trump to be ineligible for office. Trump has been charged in federal court on charges related to the insurrection. The current charges don't rule out the possibility of future charges for inciting the insurrection or anything else. www.npr.org/2023/08/01/1191493880/trump-january-6-charges-indictment-countsone count of conspiracy to defraud the United States applies to Trump's repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment.
one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote's certification in January 2021.
one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators' alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress.
one count of conspiracy against rights refers to Trump and his co-conspirators alleged attempts to "oppress, threaten and intimidate" people in their right to vote in an election.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 31, 2023 23:07:06 GMT
As I said, morecowbell, I am zero percent interested in going around in circles with you. By all means, continue to congratulate yourself on getting in the last word.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 1, 2024 1:27:25 GMT
And, BTW the orange bells look good with the engagement pictures in the frames!! Added some rustic brown ones which I had coated with a shiny finish. In fact I will paint more orange when it gets warmer outside!
Related to the first post on this page.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 2, 2024 23:03:10 GMT
A similar lawsuit was filed against Scott Perry to remove him from the ballot
|
|