Supreme Court agrees to hear Colorado case over Trump's 2024 ballot eligibility

I would adhere to the Constitution, the Constitution is no sham; it's responsible for creating THE greatest nation, ever on earth.

Whuuut?

NO! Not going to happen.[/QUOTE]

 

It sure as hell ain't

But! A-14, S-3, sure as hell is.

 

This may be your last couple weeks here. Enjoy them

 

But, we'll see ... won't we.

 

Because my question was aimed at assessing your ability to be fair-minded. If you are so sure that it will not happen, it should be easy to acknowledge that you would need to admit you were grossly wrong if it were 8-1 or 9-0, but even in that scenario, you openly admit that you would STILL equivocate and make excuses.

Your answer could not be a more perfect illustration of how I perceive that you approach political matters. It is clear that no matter what evidence you see to the contrary of your pre-conceived notions, you will always make excuses rather than re-evaluate your position.

 

"HE" (wisely) didn't take the bet.

 

I am being "fair minded"; in support of the Constitution. On that I am always "fair minded". Look at my position on the 2nd Amendment if you doubt it.

 

[/QUOTE]
And it shouldn't but that would be fair play. You can make an accusation never proven in a court of law! Depriving people in your own state of voting for their candidate of choice. This is not anything to do with the Constitution and the SCOTUS will spell that out for you. Just try to beat Trump at the ballot box.

 

Your position is that even the leftists on the court must agree with you, or they too dont understand the Constitution as well as you.

I find that to be nonsensical. It is one thing to accuse the rightists on the court of being biased, but when you know damned well that the leftists on the court would not possibly be biased in favor of Trump, you STIL would obfuscate rather than acknowledge that your understanding of the Constitution was unanimously wrong.

I always suspected this of you which is precisely why I asked.

 

No, trump participated in a rebellion and gave comfort to the participants.

 

You mean by the court; right? Because there are millions of Americans that see it the same way I do.

"I" ... DON'T ... CARE!

Precisely!



(you're sure putting a lot of work into hating me)

 

....and if all 3 Liberal justices side with the Conservatives, the fair-minded amongst those millions would re-evaluate their belief because, well, you cannot exactly accuse the liberal justices of being biased for Conservatives.

The non fair-minded of those millions would nonsensically insist that they know the Constitution better than the entire Supreme Court from both sides of the aisle. There would be a relative few that fall into this bunch, but sadly, they do exist. You, by your own admission, are a shining example of such.

Whether you "care" or not is of no consequence. Your intellectual honesty, or lack therein, is revealed regardless of your level of caring.

 

[/QUOTE]
No, trump participated in a rebellion and gave comfort to the participants.[/QUOTE]
That was never ever proven. It was a partisan accusation. You need to fix the quote here by the way. That stuff happens.

 

A Colorado Judge, said it was.

 

Anything can happen. But "I" just don't see "that" happening.

That wouldn't be me.

I never, ever said I know more about the Constitution than ... any judge; certainly not the Supreme's. I said IF that were to happen they "lost their minds".

I can live with "my" intellectual honesty any day, all day long. I'm very comfortable in my own skin, too bad your not.

 

It is time to move on from this conversation. It has been more than played out, at least until the ruling comes down.

 

Duh!

This means good bye; (if you hover over it, it says "bye"). For future reference.


Now, did you get the message?

 

No, I havent the foggiest idea what you are trying to convey here, but it does look like you are trying to be condescending or disrespectful. Saying "agreed", "fair enough", or simply opting not to reply would have probably been in order. It is not as if I had just said anything offensive or worthy of a hateful rebuttal. I just said it's time to move on, which it most certainly is.

 

I don’t believe it is. But we’ll see what the justices think about it.

 

I was trying to "convey" that I had ended the conversation in my previous reply.

You seemed to be obsessed, get over it.

 

Considering that I had just said it is time to move on, perhaps just saying OK would have been better than 20 emojis followed by a condescending " now did you get the message" would have been a more efficient means of ending a discussion.

20 emojis....arent you a grown man?

At any rate, you cant push forward your argument and expect that someone isnt going to respond. If you want to end a discussion, just say it is time to move on without furthering your position. Once you push forward your argument, you cant also insist that the other person doesnt respond to your latest argument meaning that you are insisting on getting the last word. FWIW, you also said not one thing in that post indicating you wanted to stop.

The way to end a conversation is to not push forward your position and simply convey in whatever words that it is time to stop, which is precisely what I did and it does in fact let the other's previous response serve as the last word. What you did was argue and then act like im not supposed to reply to your argument. Those are not the same thing.

A lot of people around here seem to have difficulty ending a conversation with dignity.

 

Trump has ever been charged or convicted of leading or participating in an insurrection.

 

Colorado courts decided that very thing.

The lower court determined that; why yes "he did participate in insurrection".

Then the Colorado Supreme Court not only agreed but also determined; "by golly the President IS subject to the 14th Amendment".

Which is there right under Section 1, Article 4, Clause 1 of OUR Constitution and the 14th Amendment, Section 3.

And, here we are.

 

Biden released billions of dollars to Iran providing aid and comfort to our enemies. By your logic unelected Republican state officials can remove him from the ballot. Your posts in this thread are really showing a complete breakdown of anything resembling logic or rational arguments.