The Race For 2024

[ZiprHead]

The Colorado case was premature.

Accusation is not the same as conviction.

The 14th amendment doesn't require conviction.

Fine, I accuse the entire 118th Congress of the United States of treason; I accuse them individually, collectively, and severally.

Excellent. Hire a lawyer and take them to court. Don't spare any expenses on legal fees. Maybe other libertarians will chip in to support your efforts.

Not necessary. According to Zipr all that matters is that an accusation exists.

Aaaww, so cute. The Libertarian defending the Republican ex-president.

 

[ZiprHead]

The LP of Florida actually met the qualifications to have a taxpayer supported primary. Then they submitted to have one. The state of Florida turned them down. Normally I would say that their applying in the first case was bad, but I think (hope) they did it only to make a point.

The LP looking for government subsidies??? How... Libertarian.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nice. Your reply doesn't say where Trump was convicted, which was my specific question.

Are you saying there was a court in Colorado that accused, tried, and convicted Trump of insurrection?

SCOTUS indeed needs to at least provide a modicum of direction on this. Trump clearly violated his oath of office and tried to overturn a legally binding election. This has been thoroughly proven by the 1/6 commission. The question becomes, is that publicly demonstrated fact enough?

Or is a higher authority required to find on such a charge?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The Colorado case was premature.

Accusation is not the same as conviction.

The 14th amendment doesn't require conviction.

Fine, I accuse the entire 118th Congress of the United States of treason; I accuse them individually, collectively, and severally.

Excellent. Hire a lawyer and take them to court. Don't spare any expenses on legal fees. Maybe other libertarians will chip in to support your efforts.

Not necessary. According to Zipr all that matters is that an accusation exists.

Aaaww, so cute. The Libertarian defending the Republican ex-president.

Awww, so cute. Zipr is pretending he made an argument.

The LP of Florida actually met the qualifications to have a taxpayer supported primary. Then they submitted to have one. The state of Florida turned them down. Normally I would say that their applying in the first case was bad, but I think (hope) they did it only to make a point.

The LP looking for government subsidies??? How... Libertarian.

Well, that is how you see it so there is no other possible interpretation.

Nice. Your reply doesn't say where Trump was convicted, which was my specific question.

Are you saying there was a court in Colorado that accused, tried, and convicted Trump of insurrection?

SCOTUS indeed needs to at least provide a modicum of direction on this. Trump clearly violated his oath of office and tried to overturn a legally binding election. This has been thoroughly proven by the 1/6 commission. The question becomes, is that publicly demonstrated fact enough?

Or is a higher authority required to find on such a charge?

So the 1/6 commission is a court that accused, tried, and convicted Trump? Just making sure.

 

[Swammerdami]

I just watched a YouTube which suggests a huge flaw in messaging by allegedly "mainstream" media.


The ABC interviewer recites the recent Nikki/Nancy gaffe that suggests Trump is in late-stage dementia, and asks a QOPAnon spokesman for comment. He brushes off the criticism and spends almost two minutes praising the sociopathic messiah.

Remember that the average American voter isn't very smart, and "Undecided" voters are much stupider even than that. They will watch this clip and come away with INCREASED admiration for the scumbag, simply because the pro-Trumper gets so much air-time, even though not addressing the topic.

I see this constantly on anti-Trump YouTubes. Long speeches praising Trump are shown, presumably because well-informed viewers will see these speeches as lying propaganda and be turned off. But those able to recognize the lies are voting against Trump anyway.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nice. Your reply doesn't say where Trump was convicted, which was my specific question.

Are you saying there was a court in Colorado that accused, tried, and convicted Trump of insurrection?

SCOTUS indeed needs to at least provide a modicum of direction on this. Trump clearly violated his oath of office and tried to overturn a legally binding election. This has been thoroughly proven by the 1/6 commission. The question becomes, is that publicly demonstrated fact enough?

Or is a higher authority required to find on such a charge?

So the 1/6 commission is a court that accused, tried, and convicted Trump? Just making sure.

I have been very clear with my position on the Colorado case. I repeated as much above, which you decided to take out of context, for whatever reason.

1/6 Commission was created by Congress, which is part of the Legislative Branch. The Legislative Branch would be part of the Federal Government. These are facts. They are not a court, that was not a trial, but it wasn't term paper, nor was it ruminations of a Congress person on ABC News.

The CO case has multiple questions, of which SCOTUS needs to address. Who can even make an accusation of insurrection, what is the basis for allowing an accusation to cause a 14th Amendment disqualification, can one state disqualify force all the others to disqualify. There is no guidance here. The Civil War was an obvious insurrection that only the most dense could defend otherwise. The Trump Riot was much smaller in scope (but definitely violated his oath), and the GOP committed a Constitutional Crime in not punishing him via impeachment and DQ'ing him. So now we are here. Congress has let another thing have to go to the courts, because they didn't do their jobs.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Not sure who to feel sorry for here.

https://nitter.net/DmitryOpines/status/1749176741048827989

 

[Elixir]

Nice. Your reply doesn't say where Trump was convicted, which was my specific question.

Are you saying there was a court in Colorado that accused, tried, and convicted Trump of insurrection?

SCOTUS indeed needs to at least provide a modicum of direction on this. Trump clearly violated his oath of office and tried to overturn a legally binding election. This has been thoroughly proven by the 1/6 commission. The question becomes, is that publicly demonstrated fact enough?

Or is a higher authority required to find on such a charge?

So the 1/6 commission is a court that accused, tried, and convicted Trump? Just making sure.

I have been very clear with my position on the Colorado case. I repeated as much above, which you decided to take out of context, for whatever reason.

1/6 Commission was created by Congress, which is part of the Legislative Branch. The Legislative Branch would be part of the Federal Government. These are facts. They are not a court, that was not a trial, but it wasn't term paper, nor was it ruminations of a Congress person on ABC News.

The CO case has multiple questions, of which SCOTUS needs to address. Who can even make an accusation of insurrection, what is the basis for allowing an accusation to cause a 14th Amendment disqualification, can one state disqualify force all the others to disqualify. There is no guidance here. The Civil War was an obvious insurrection that only the most dense could defend otherwise. The Trump Riot was much smaller in scope (but definitely violated his oath), and the GOP committed a Constitutional Crime in not punishing him via impeachment and DQ'ing him. So now we are here. Congress has let another thing have to go to the courts, because they didn't do their jobs.

Was Jefferson Davis convicted of anything?
(NO)
Would he have been allowed to ascend to the Presidency after The War of Northern Aggression?
(NO)
Does Jason have any kind of valid point?
(NO)
Will he keep bloviating regardless?
(Probably)

 

[Worldtraveller]

Wow. You're more accurate than Nostradamus!

 

[Toni]

Having said that, sure Biden's age is fair game for mockery. However, using it as an argument in the context of the 2024 election is just plain retarded considering the options.

I agree, unless The Nikki makes it interesting by winning New Hampshire. Contrary to Don Lemon, she is in prime age to run for president.
Biden should have decided not to seek reelection when there was still time to hold a proper primary. Now we are stuck with him.

Also, The Doctor is being a dick.

You can thank Trump for Biden running a second term, although my husband disagrees that Biden would have been happy with a single term of Trump weren’t running again. He thinks Biden wanted the spot for too long to give it only one turn.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So the 1/6 commission is a court that accused, tried, and convicted Trump? Just making sure.

And there's never been an actual test of the efficacy of parachutes. It could be that jumping from airplanes without a chute is just as safe as landing with a parachute. Why are people afraid of the truth?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The LP of Florida actually met the qualifications to have a taxpayer supported primary. Then they submitted to have one. The state of Florida turned them down. Normally I would say that their applying in the first case was bad, but I think (hope) they did it only to make a point.

The LP looking for government subsidies??? How... Libertarian.

Or exposing the government's deception? Think After School Satan Club.

 

[ZiprHead]

BTC lays it all out.

 

[Elixir]

The Colorado case was premature.

Accusation is not the same as conviction.

The 14th amendment doesn't require conviction.

Fine, I accuse the entire 118th Congress of the United States of treason; I accuse them individually, collectively, and severally.

Excellent. Hire a lawyer and take them to court. Don't spare any expenses on legal fees. Maybe other libertarians will chip in to support your efforts.

Not necessary. According to Zipr all that matters is that an accusation exists.

Aaaww, so cute. The Libertarian defending the Republican ex-president.

Right?
The president who deems allegations to be sufficient cause to nullify an election that all evidence shows to have been free and fair.
"Libertarian" indeed!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Nice. Your reply doesn't say where Trump was convicted, which was my specific question.

Are you saying there was a court in Colorado that accused, tried, and convicted Trump of insurrection?

SCOTUS indeed needs to at least provide a modicum of direction on this. Trump clearly violated his oath of office and tried to overturn a legally binding election. This has been thoroughly proven by the 1/6 commission. The question becomes, is that publicly demonstrated fact enough?

Or is a higher authority required to find on such a charge?

So the 1/6 commission is a court that accused, tried, and convicted Trump? Just making sure.

I have been very clear with my position on the Colorado case. I repeated as much above, which you decided to take out of context, for whatever reason.

1/6 Commission was created by Congress, which is part of the Legislative Branch. The Legislative Branch would be part of the Federal Government. These are facts. They are not a court, that was not a trial, but it wasn't term paper, nor was it ruminations of a Congress person on ABC News.

So the 1/6 Commission made an accusation, nothing more. Which brings us full circle back to my making an accusation against the 118th congress, because just like the 1/6 commission I didn't do anything more than make an accusation.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The Colorado case was premature.

Accusation is not the same as conviction.

The 14th amendment doesn't require conviction.

Fine, I accuse the entire 118th Congress of the United States of treason; I accuse them individually, collectively, and severally.

Excellent. Hire a lawyer and take them to court. Don't spare any expenses on legal fees. Maybe other libertarians will chip in to support your efforts.

Not necessary. According to Zipr all that matters is that an accusation exists.

Aaaww, so cute. The Libertarian defending the Republican ex-president.

Right?
The president who deems allegations to be sufficient cause to nullify an election that all evidence shows to have been free and fair.
"Libertarian" indeed!

Aaaww, so cute. Elixir thinks he's making a point.

 

[Swammerdami]

A recent poll by CBS News and Yougov found that 82% of Republican registered voters agree with the statement

"Immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country."​

I saw this poll result in a YouTube which makes interesting points. People voted for Trump in 2016 because they felt the culture "looked down on them." This has become self-fulfilling prophecy as rational observers now indeed DO look down on Trump supporters. "Every day is a day of grievance." This pathology preceded Trump: In 2008 Sarah Palin -- the proto-Trump -- drew larger crowds than John McCain. "Removing Donald Trump from the equation is not going to solve the problem."

Despite that the GOP had large political power in 2016, many had "an itching feeling of inferiority and sense of being outsiders", they needed to express their dissatisfaction with the culture. There's no reasoning with Trump supporters now; they "want the chaos, they want the anger ... they want the danger ... they want a TV show, Trump is fun... Biden is boring"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nice. Your reply doesn't say where Trump was convicted, which was my specific question.

Are you saying there was a court in Colorado that accused, tried, and convicted Trump of insurrection?

SCOTUS indeed needs to at least provide a modicum of direction on this. Trump clearly violated his oath of office and tried to overturn a legally binding election. This has been thoroughly proven by the 1/6 commission. The question becomes, is that publicly demonstrated fact enough?

Or is a higher authority required to find on such a charge?

So the 1/6 commission is a court that accused, tried, and convicted Trump? Just making sure.

I have been very clear with my position on the Colorado case. I repeated as much above, which you decided to take out of context, for whatever reason.

1/6 Commission was created by Congress, which is part of the Legislative Branch. The Legislative Branch would be part of the Federal Government. These are facts. They are not a court, that was not a trial, but it wasn't term paper, nor was it ruminations of a Congress person on ABC News.

So the 1/6 Commission made an accusation, nothing more. Which brings us full circle back to my making an accusation against the 118th congress, because just like the 1/6 commission I didn't do anything more than make an accusation.

The commission did much more than make an accusation. Nearly the entire course of events leading to and including 1/6 were investigated and made public. There is not much doubt that Trump conspired to overthrow the election. That'd be the conclusion from the testimony and evidence.

Just because it isn't a trial doesn't mean it is nothing but an "accusation".

 

[Politesse]

I don't believe that the CEO of Disney is Newsom.
Tom

RdS and Goodhair debated (i.e. the proverbial ring) not too long ago.

If nothing is said and no one cares, is it really a debate?

 

[Politesse]

I saw this poll result in a YouTube which makes interesting points. People voted for Trump in 2016 because they felt the culture "looked down on them."

Oh, it does. I mean, that kinda happens when you're a racist jerk whose idea of idea governance is ill-formed when it isn't overtly malevolent.