Someone wants to use the 14th Amendment to fix the 2024 election for Dems.

[Marener]

You interpreted what I said to suit your desire to lie about me.

That's my opinion of why they sued after. It has nothing to do with if they can sue after or before.

To me, words have meaning. To you, nothing you say means anything. You can’t be held accountable for anything you’ve said.

Your opinion of why they sued after is a pathetic excuse based on a lie.

 

[martybegan]

To me, words have meaning. To you, nothing you say means anything. You can’t be held accountable for anything you’ve said.

Your opinion of why they sued after is a pathetic excuse based on a lie.

Bullshit. I know what I said, and I know your attempts to twist said words.

No, it isn't Some sued before, some sued after, many were denied standing regardless.

 

[gmeyers1944]

Convicted of what?

That is my point!

 

[Marener]

Bullshit. I know what I said, and I know your attempts to twist said words.

No, it isn't Some sued before, some sued after, many were denied standing regardless.

Youre such a hack you probably actually believe this.

How can you or anyone else be okay with Trump and his cronies attempt to change the rules after the election? How can you be okay with trying to disenfranchise millions of legitimate voters and give them no ability to participate in the election?

 

[gmeyers1944]

Youre such a hack you probably actually believe this.

How can you or anyone else be okay with Trump and his cronies attempt to change the rules after the election? How can you be okay with trying to disenfranchise millions of legitimate voters and give them no ability to participate in the election?

Too many places changed voting rights increasing the opportunity for fraud in 2020. Several localities had more votes cast than voters. That should have sent up the red flags to investigate. None happened!

 

[Marener]

Too many places changed voting rights increasing the opportunity for fraud in 2020

Then sue before the election to have those rules changed.

2020. Several localities had more votes cast than voters

They didn’t. This is a lie.

That should have sent up the red flags to investigate.

Only if it’s real. It’s not.

None happened!

Plenty happened. It didn’t matter to the lunatics on the right.

 

[Faun]

Nope.

LOL

You're deranged.

You said this yourself...

First it was they WEREN'T ruling for plaintiffs...

My claim was they weren't ruling that the elections were flawed because they weren't going to rule against the system.​

Then it was they WERE ruling for plaintiffs...

Then I provided evidence of one such claim that actually went through, ironically with a Dem on Dem Primary.​

That's a shift. I don't care how demented you are.

 

[Faun]

That is my point!

Not sure what your point is since the 3rd clause in the 14th Amendment doesn't require a conviction. It doesn't even require an indictment.

 

[Faun]

Too many places changed voting rights increasing the opportunity for fraud in 2020. Several localities had more votes cast than voters. That should have sent up the red flags to investigate. None happened!

Huh?? You think there were no investigations into fraud??

 

[Independent thinker]

This guy is basically calling for a Court mandated coup.

The Disqualification Clause is clear — let’s use it



Does he really think 1/2 the country would accept this lying down and let the Dems get super majorities in both houses?

This is a call for civil war, plain and simple.

Even Democrats understand that Trump will be the nominee and could easily win.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Not referring to him. There were about 20 people convicted of seditious conspiracy, which is the planning or incitement of insurrection.

No, seditious conspiracy doesn’t mention insurrection. Also, there is an insurrection and rebellion statute. 14A says “anyone found to have committed insurrection”, it’s listed by name.

However, it still remains, trump himself, has not been charged with insurrection, nor seditious conspiracy. Also, oddly, if they do charge trump with seditious conspiracy, it’s the one charge that doesn’t mandate disqualification from office.

I mean, my gosh, if their goal is to prevent him from holding office, WHY won’t they charge him with 18 US 2383? Other than treason, it’s the only other offense that carries DQ from office.

And then, they still have to debate the merits of the wording of the 14A, and if it includes a president..

 

[ThisIsMe]

And you’re law degree is from where ?

That’s the cool thing..I don’t need a law degree, the people who wrote the cotus wrote it all down in English for anyone to read.

 

[Dagosa]

That’s the cool thing..I don’t need a law degree, the people who wrote the cotus wrote it all down in English for anyone to read.

And you have a link ?

 

[ThisIsMe]

And you have a link ?

To the constitution? Sure

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

www.archives.gov

 

[Faun]

No, seditious conspiracy doesn’t mention insurrection. Also, there is an insurrection and rebellion statute. 14A says “anyone found to have committed insurrection”, it’s listed by name.

However, it still remains, trump himself, has not been charged with insurrection, nor seditious conspiracy. Also, oddly, if they do charge trump with seditious conspiracy, it’s the one charge that doesn’t mandate disqualification from office.

I mean, my gosh, if their goal is to prevent him from holding office, WHY won’t they charge him with 18 US 2383? Other than treason, it’s the only other offense that carries DQ from office.

And then, they still have to debate the merits of the wording of the 14A, and if it includes a president..

Seditious conspiracy doesn't mention insurrection because it's not insurrection. Insurrection is insurrection. As I so eloquently stated, Seditious conspiracy is the planning or incitement of insurrection...

Understanding Insurrection and Sedition

CSIS security experts define acts of sedition and insurrection and evaluate the seriousness of both charges.

www.csis.org

Generally, sedition is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government. Insurrection includes the actual acts of violence and rebellion.​

As far as charging Trump, that's not a required element of the 14th Amendment for states to act on it.

 

[Dagosa]

To the constitution? Sure

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

www.archives.gov

Nope.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Seditious conspiracy doesn't mention insurrection because it's not insurrection. Insurrection is insurrection. As I so eloquently stated, Seditious conspiracy is the planning or incitement of insurrection...

Understanding Insurrection and Sedition

CSIS security experts define acts of sedition and insurrection and evaluate the seriousness of both charges.

www.csis.org

​

Generally, sedition is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government. Insurrection includes the actual acts of violence and rebellion.​

As far as charging Trump, that's not a required element of the 14th Amendment for states to act on it.

As far as charging Trump, that's not a required element of the 14th Amendment for states to act on it.

Oh really? So, a state can just unilaterally decide someone is guilty of insurrection without charging them?

well apparently that’s not working because Colorado decided that the insurrection act didn’t apply to a president..

So, just for refresher, a state can disqualify a candidate without ever charging them with insurrection or treason…that sound about right?

 

[Faun]

Oh really? So, a state can just unilaterally decide someone is guilty of insurrection without charging them?

well apparently that’s not working because Colorado decided that the insurrection act didn’t apply to a president..

So, just for refresher, a state can disqualify a candidate without ever charging them with insurrection or treason…that sound about right?

Yes, that's right. It's happened before. There's precedent.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Yes, that's right. It's happened before. There's precedent.

So you would rather have just the Democrat party rule without opposition? Good to know piece of dogshit.

 

[Faun]

So you would rather have just the Democrat party rule without opposition? Good to know piece of dogshit.

Who the fuck said that??