Politics Colorado Supreme Court Rules Trump is Ineligible to Appear on Ballot Due to 14th Amendment

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

That quote was 187 minutes from the capital attack. Yes. Over 3 hours after, when it was clear congress was not going to be destroyed.

Quotes from earlier in the day, before the attack on the capital building.

In the 70 minute speech he made one statement about being peaceful. He said: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Which is his only defense in this whole thing, and flies completely in the face of what he'd been saying for months prior.

On Jan 6th, prior to the attack, Trump had urged his supporters to “get rid of the weak Congress people” — “get the weak ones get out. This is the time for strength.”

'We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen'

He went on: "You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore."

"You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can't let that happen."

'If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore'

'We are going to the Capitol'

He said: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them."

'We will stop the steal'

Then the mob went and attacked the capital building, while Congress was in session to confirm the transfer. They went, but Trump doe not. Even though he told them he was going with them.

'We are going to the Capitol'


Holy Schnikies. This same rhetoric is used all the time in politics by both sides. Stop for a minute, take a deep breath and think about what you are saying. Are making statements like this grounds to take someone off the ballot?
 
The simple fact that he continues to push a blatant lie (for which there is absolutely NO evidence to support WHATSOEVER) for over three years should be disqualifying in and of itself. All politicians lie out their asses, but this is different. He is telling ME to MY face that I am stupid and corrupt when he and I both know that that is a lie. That's ALL I need to hear out of the guy. He is handing me a bucket of cow shit (and I know shit. Trust me) and telling me it's cotton candy. To eat up. He deliberately saw the widening cracks in this country and gleefully ginned up a bald faced lie to make those cracks even deeper in order to benefit himself personally. Not illegal but morally indefensible beyond a doubt. Our democracy has been disintegrating ever since the Reagan era, but if our democracy ends up failing completely (not an unreasonable expectation), the bulk of the responsibility will be laid at the feet of Trump and the Republican Party. My opinion, and I'll likely (hopefully) be gone before it comes to fruition. But when and if I'm correct, I hope you'll at least raise a pint of Speed Goat in acknowledgement. Or flip off the sky if I'm wrong........But I just do not see how anyone whatsoever could defend and/or support someone who is such a self centered, blatant liar. At least Joe respects us enough to at least make a lie look plausible......

I literally have zero problem with anything you’ve said here, you are completely entitled to your opinions about the orange person and, believe it or not, I find most of them to be well-founded and perfectly acceptable criticisms of a person like Donald Trump.
My issue here is the loose interpretation of laws and statements being used to constitute very serious crimes and accusations, and the precedent it sets for our country moving forward. These precedents will surely be used against the other side when the opportunity arises, so on and so fourth. Our rule of law is decimated at the point where opinions of a group or individual are used to pass judgement. It’s just not how justice is supposed to work. Pointing out the weaponization of the justice system being an extremely dangerous practice and a slippery slope for us all is not meant to be a defense of Donald Trump as a person.
 
These people are living in a warped reality. It seems impossible to communicate with them.

It might surprise some to hear, that I don't even like Trump, but I could see plainly, that the rhetoric that started to get spun up about him after he won the nomination was propaganda. He went from being a popular TV host to being compared to Hitler yadda, yadda, yadda.

His fake elector scheme and asking Pence not to count the votes was not a good thing, but to say he launched an "insurrection" is ridiculous. The protest on Jan 6 was not an insurrection. How many shots did they fire? Look at the video of them casually being lead around the capital by officers, video the establishment didn't want the public to see, because it gives a counter to their narrative.
Thanks Mr. Obvious. That "his fake elector scheme and asking Pence was not a good thing" is like saying water is wet. It was also blatantly illegal. For which he has been charged and for which he will be tried. You calling anyone's reality "warped" is irony personified. Again, you need to broaden your informational horizons.......
 
I literally have zero problem with anything you’ve said here, you are completely entitled to your opinions about the orange person and, believe it or not, I find most of them to be well-founded and perfectly acceptable criticisms of a person like Donald Trump.
My issue here is the loose interpretation of laws and statements being used to constitute very serious crimes and accusations, and the precedent it sets for our country moving forward. These precedents will surely be used against the other side when the opportunity arises, so on and so fourth. Our rule of law is decimated at the point where opinions of a group or individual are used to pass judgement. It’s just not how justice is supposed to work.
Agreed 100% Both sides suck. But I'm old enough to recall the early 90's when all this shit started to ramp up exponentially. It was Gingrich, Limbaugh, et al who hijacked and perfected the negativity and dishonesty to a fine art. Their attacks on the Clinton family were the blueprint for what's happening today. They were incensed that they lost, so took to the lowest road, rather than wait for 4 years. And it probably cost them the '96 election. Had they shown more respect for the American people and the institutions that exist to serve THE PEOPLE instead of their own little fiefdoms, we likely would not be where we are today. We can debate this for decades, but my experiences and observations tell me that the left is only responding in kind. This shit doesn't happen in a vacuum......
 
Thanks Mr. Obvious. That "his fake elector scheme and asking Pence was not a good thing" is like saying water is wet. It was also blatantly illegal. For which he has been charged and for which he will be tried. You calling anyone's reality "warped" is irony personified. Again, you need to broaden your informational horizons.......

That doesn't get us anywhere near "insurrection". Many presidents have done illegal things. Obama actually openly murdered an American Citizen. And all of the other stuff they are going after Trump over is absurd. I only isolate that one aspect to be intellectually honest.
 
That doesn't get us anywhere near "insurrection". Many presidents have done illegal things. Obama actually openly murdered an American Citizen. And all of the other stuff they are going after Trump over is absurd. I only isolate that one aspect to be intellectually honest.
According to your definition. I guess we'll see what the Georgia court decides. If he is convicted as charged, he is then, by any and every definition of the word, guilty of insurrection. So.........Georgia gets to decide which one of us is correct. And then, if he is indeed found to be guilty, he is then ineligible (or should be) for office. So yeah, my earlier comments DO get us somewhere near "insurrection". Very much somewhere.
 
You left out the incitement and insurrection part. Listing a bunch of benign quotes and trying to pass them off as ominous dog whistles is just silly and it isn’t convincing. Most of these quotes are bland political platitudes you’ll hear from any politician left, right or center. Once again, there is no proof here of inciting an insurrection.
Is this seriously all you’ve got? Truly? You think a person should get the death penalty based on contrived nonsense and purposely misinterpreted statements? That is actually frightening.
No, those are included as well. Do you know the meanings of those words?

in·sur·rec·tion:
a violent uprising against an authority or government.

In·cit·ing:
the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully.
 
Last edited:
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
  • Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
 
Holy Schnikies. This same rhetoric is used all the time in politics by both sides. Stop for a minute, take a deep breath and think about what you are saying. Are making statements like this grounds to take someone off the ballot?
If it results in an assault on the democratic process, absolutely.

That is literally almost exactly the legal definition of inciting an insurrection.

*Edit* Especially when he waited untill it had already failed to tell people to go home...
 
Last edited:
in·sur·rec·tion:
a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Not a complete definition. You can have an insurrection without violence.

: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection



Trump's calls to Georgia and Michigan aimed to get government officials to commit illegal acts against their government by either "finding votes" or not certifying votes.

Trump telling Pence not to certify the electoral college vote was also an act of insurrection.
 
Not a complete definition. You can have an insurrection without violence.

: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection



Trump's calls to Georgia and Michigan aimed to get government officials to commit illegal acts against their government by either "finding votes" or not certifying votes.

Trump telling Pence not to certify the electoral college vote was also an act of insurrection.
Wow. Even more damning.
 
Not a complete definition. You can have an insurrection without violence.

: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection



Trump's calls to Georgia and Michigan aimed to get government officials to commit illegal acts against their government by either "finding votes" or not certifying votes.

Trump telling Pence not to certify the electoral college vote was also an act of insurrection.

Ok, so by this defintion the BLM and Antifa riots, which many democratic leaders supported, is insurrection. So let's get to banning.....this will be a fun and productive game.
 
You're the one making a "false equivalency" by comparing a rally, in which a small minority got out of hand to an "insurrection". Insurrection in the context of the 14th amendment was referring to the Civil War. Give me a break...
You're firing blindly at this point. I have never once stated that there was an insurrection. What I said was that there was nothing in the examples you used that compare to what occurred on January 6th that has been termed by many as an insurrection. I'm simply trying--politely--to help you to avoid unsupportable arguments.
 
Ok, so by this defintion the BLM and Antifa riots, which many democratic leaders supported, is insurrection. So let's get to banning.....this will be a fun and productive game.
Show me what evidence you have on somebody and if it's as bad as what Trump said and resulted in a mob's immediate attempt to subvert the democratic process I'll agree.
 
Last edited:
Not a complete definition. You can have an insurrection without violence.

: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection



Trump's calls to Georgia and Michigan aimed to get government officials to commit illegal acts against their government by either "finding votes" or not certifying votes.

Trump telling Pence not to certify the electoral college vote was also an act of insurrection.

Stretch any harder you’ll pull something.
 
Imagine supporting a person who says "immigrants poison the blood of this country" on ANYTHING.

Imagine supporting a guy who has 91 federal and state charges and instead of trying to prove their innocence, they just delay and have been thwarted at every turn.


The cognitive dissonance they have to possess is staggering.

Just know you're in the wrong. Accept it. And accept you support people who build on hate.

Won't be answering any replies to this. I just needed people to know that if you support Trump, you're in the wrong. Just hopefully someday you see it. God, I really hope they do.
 
@beast crnjo and @jonnyboy simple question for you,

Who won the 2020 Presidential Election?

giphy.gif
 
You want me to listen to hours of opinionated testimonies from people who long ago vowed to take Trump down loosely interpreting novel, outdated legal exceptions…but you can’t simply provide one quote or video?
I'm not a news outlet but I am an informed voter who knows the difference between a lie and the truth. That's really all you need to know about me. Trump took himself down by his own blustering bullshit...you can ignore it and think it's fabricated by people like me but it's on him ...Liz Cheney hardly long ago decided to take down the republican power base...she just is an honest republican...one of a dozen or so serving during his administration. Listen to his call to the Governor of Georgia and his speech about marching on the Capitol until he walked it back hours later when people had died already. He resisted that little written damage control speech you quoted according to everyone in the building with him, including his daughter. I don't have to catch you up on the details of Trump's attempted power grab but I don't think you'd pay any attention to them if I did. Also I asked you about your vote....crickets. If you don't vote, we have nothing to talk about anyway.
 
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
  • Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
"or given aid or comfort to the enemies therof."

Had no idea how many presidents were insurrectionist.
 
Imagine supporting a person who says "immigrants poison the blood of this country" on ANYTHING.

Imagine supporting a guy who has 91 federal and state charges and instead of trying to prove their innocence, they just delay and have been thwarted at every turn.


The cognitive dissonance they have to possess is staggering.

Just know you're in the wrong. Accept it. And accept you support people who build on hate.

Won't be answering any replies to this. I just needed people to know that if you support Trump, you're in the wrong. Just hopefully someday you see it. God, I really hope they do.

The problem is you are mentally and morally unable to parse between someone defending an idea and someone defending Trump. The lizard brain just completely takes over and doesn’t allow for any rational deduction of basic principles. You think because of who Trump is as a person, it is perfectly legitimate to charge him with anything as long as it serves the end goal of keeping him out of office. Unfortunately for those of us who possess basic principles and have a moral compass, it becomes a conundrum for us when we have to defend these principles even if they are applied to a jackass like Trump. Ever since he got into office I’ve seen story after story and scandal after scandal get blasted on here as irrefutable fact and they all end up being bullshit. Russiagate nonsense, pee tapes, all of it. Nobody admits they were wrong either they just cling to the next fake scandal that comes along and berate anyone who questions its legitimacy as being in love with Trump. It’s childish and stupid and the smug self satisfaction people ooze as they pat themselves on the back for accepting every mainstream nugget they are fed is kind of just gross. It’s embarrassing to watch people throw principles away in a hate fueled rage just to get what they want. You’re on the side of history that weaponizes the justice system, suppresses information, censors those who question the establishment and starts wars.
 
The problem is you are mentally and morally unable to parse between someone defending an idea and someone defending Trump. The lizard brain just completely takes over and doesn’t allow for any rational deduction of basic principles. You think because of who Trump is as a person, it is perfectly legitimate to charge him with anything as long as it serves the end goal of keeping him out of office. Unfortunately for those of us who possess basic principles and have a moral compass, it becomes a conundrum for us when we have to defend these principles even if they are applied to a jackass like Trump. Ever since he got into office I’ve seen story after story and scandal after scandal get blasted on here as irrefutable fact and they all end up being bullshit. Russiagate nonsense, pee tapes, all of it. Nobody admits they were wrong either they just cling to the next fake scandal that comes along and berate anyone who questions its legitimacy as being in love with Trump. It’s childish and stupid and the smug self satisfaction people ooze as they pat themselves on the back for accepting every mainstream nugget they are fed is kind of just gross. It’s embarrassing to watch people throw principles away in a hate fueled rage just to get what they want. You’re on the side of history that weaponizes the justice system, suppresses information, censors those who question the establishment and starts wars.

The fact that the "ideas" that you choose to defend are "trump isn't a criminal" and "russia isn't at fault, ukraine is" really do call into question your self-proclaimed moral compass.

barfo
 
You're firing blindly at this point. I have never once stated that there was an insurrection. What I said was that there was nothing in the examples you used that compare to what occurred on January 6th that has been termed by many as an insurrection. I'm simply trying--politely--to help you to avoid unsupportable arguments.
Great, so if neither Trump nor any of those others engaged in insurrection, the Colorado Supreme Courts decision is wrong.
 
"or given aid or comfort to the enemies therof."

Had no idea how many presidents were insurrectionist.
Honestly, I'm shocked that nobody has sued to exclude Biden from some state's ballot because he "gave money to Iran."
 
The problem is you are mentally and morally unable to parse between someone defending an idea and someone defending Trump. The lizard brain just completely takes over and doesn’t allow for any rational deduction of basic principles. You think because of who Trump is as a person, it is perfectly legitimate to charge him with anything as long as it serves the end goal of keeping him out of office. Unfortunately for those of us who possess basic principles and have a moral compass, it becomes a conundrum for us when we have to defend these principles even if they are applied to a jackass like Trump. Ever since he got into office I’ve seen story after story and scandal after scandal get blasted on here as irrefutable fact and they all end up being bullshit. Russiagate nonsense, pee tapes, all of it. Nobody admits they were wrong either they just cling to the next fake scandal that comes along and berate anyone who questions its legitimacy as being in love with Trump. It’s childish and stupid and the smug self satisfaction people ooze as they pat themselves on the back for accepting every mainstream nugget they are fed is kind of just gross. It’s embarrassing to watch people throw principles away in a hate fueled rage just to get what they want. You’re on the side of history that weaponizes the justice system, suppresses information, censors those who question the establishment and starts wars.

I think the actual problem is that it is your source of "facts" that is faulty. For just one example - Russiagate was no hoax. And I will quote an actual, established, real news source, The Atlantic:

"The report confirms that Russiagate is no hoax. Manafort and Kilimnik talked almost daily during the campaign. They communicated through encrypted technologies set to automatically erase their correspondence; they spoke using code words and shared access to an email account. It’s worth pausing on these facts: The chairman of the Trump campaign was in daily contact with a Russian agent, constantly sharing confidential information with him. That alone makes for one of the worst scandals in American political history."

You think we don't like Trump's personality. I find many on the right think that. That is incorrect. What we object to is that he is wanna-be dictator who loathes the rule of law, and our system of government, and cares not a whit about the Constitution. That is is also a stupid blowhard doesn't help.





"
 
I think the actual problem is that it is your source of "facts" that is faulty. For just one example - Russiagate was no hoax. And I will quote an actual, established, real news source, The Atlantic:

"The report confirms that Russiagate is no hoax. Manafort and Kilimnik talked almost daily during the campaign. They communicated through encrypted technologies set to automatically erase their correspondence; they spoke using code words and shared access to an email account. It’s worth pausing on these facts: The chairman of the Trump campaign was in daily contact with a Russian agent, constantly sharing confidential information with him. That alone makes for one of the worst scandals in American political history."

You think we don't like Trump's personality. I find many on the right think that. That is incorrect. What we object to is that he is wanna-be dictator who loathes the rule of law, and our system of government, and cares not a whit about the Constitution. That is is also a stupid blowhard doesn't help.





"
Well said.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top