Colorado Supreme Court rules that Trump is an insurrectionist! Not qualified to run

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 135
Topic's author
#1
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Citing evidence from the House select committee and the witnesses from Trump’s own White House as well as other Republican officials who testified against him, the court ruled that Trump is disqualified as a candidate for any federal office.


“Six Republican and independent voters from Colorado invoked the provision in a lawsuit this fall meant to keep Trump off the ballot. After a week-long trial, Denver District Judge Sarah B. Wallace in November ruled that Trump had engaged in insurrection but could remain on the ballot because she determined Section 3 does not apply to those running for president.
The voters appealed the part of the ruling that kept him on the ballot, while Trump appealed the part that concluded that he had engaged in insurrection.
The Colorado Supreme Court upheld much of Wallace’s findings but reversed her decision on key points by finding Section 3 applies to the presidency.“

Imagine being one of the millions of wack jobs that still supports this guy. They are truly un-American and don’t deserve the right to vote.
#2
Ultramaga
Ultramaga's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 31
0
0
5
Ultramaga's avatar
Ultramaga
0
0
5
Less Democracy is a good thing.
#3
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,251
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
I see a potential good in this.

Colorado hasn't voted Republican in about 20 years, and the national popular vote count isn't what decides the president, so it's hard to see the real loss from this one blue state doing so.
On the other hand, there's still 11 months or so for this case to reach the docket of the Supreme Court. If they order Colorado to admit Trump to the ballot, and Colorado refuses, it's possible they might throw out Colorado's electoral votes as punishment. Given that Colorado has 10 votes, it could swing a razor-thin race for Trump. And if the same thing happens in some other blue states, it could be enough to assure Trump a second term.

But I guess we'll have to see.
#4
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,251
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
Also, it's not exactly a damning indictment of Trump that one of the most stereotypically liberal states in the Union, with a Democrat governor (its last Republican one left office back in 2007) and a Democrat supermajority in both legislative houses, would decide to do this. In fact, the Colorado ruling was 4-3, which is much narrower than you would expect coming from a place like that.
If even our own resident commieland was somewhat reluctant to attempt such an outrageous move as this, then it tells you the effort to disqualify Trump from the ballot is nothing more than hyperpartisan politics as usual.
#5
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Imagine being one of the millions of wack jobs that still supports this guy. They are truly un-American and don’t deserve the right to vote.
Nice way to expand voting rights; by not letting people that disagree with you on Trump vote.

Personally, the voting age being 18 is the only thing I can think of that I support being defined by age with the electoral college staying here because before Trump polarized society, we all decided 18 was to be the voting age and we would keep the electoral college.

Democrats will argue that we should lower the voting age and repeal the electoral college, not because it's what they actually believe (there was not a single state that joined NPV before 2000; when the GOP won the presidency and lost the popular vote), but because it benefits their party (because while out of the last 6 elections, democrats won the electoral college 3x, they won the popular vote 5x).  For the GOP, the opposite is true; they want to keep the electoral college because it benefits their party.

Left wingers and right wingers can lie about their intentions all they want, "We just want every vote to be counted" (the left).  "We just want a balance between power between big states and small states" (the right).  I see through it all.

It's also why the left wants to lower the voting age while the right wants to expand it.  The left cites, "voter equality", the right cites, "voter maturity".  They are lying to the independents about their reasoning; both parties just want an electoral advantage over the other (and they expect the other party to not see through it; but they do; it's just that often politicians don't have the guts to say, "This harms my party" even though it's the truth because they are worried it would turn off the independent voters).

It's why the left wants statehood for areas predicted to vote blue (PR and DC) while the right doesn't.  It's why the right wants an independent Jefferson and the left doesn't; more power for them.

How about this:  Get rid of the electoral college and raise the voting age to 21?  I'm unsure who has the advantage in that situation.

If Jefferson became a state, it would get 2 Senators for the GOP, and then DC can become a state (and get 2 senators). 

Democrats: +2 senators
Republicans: +2 Senators

Puerto Rico can become a state (+2 Democrat senators and +5 Democrat representatives) and Southern New England (CT, MA, RI) can merge, taking 4 democrat senators away.

Democrats: -2 Senators, but +5 representatives

Total:

Democrats: +5 representatives
Republicans: +2 Senators

Given that there would be 440 representatives and about 102 senators, this means each senator is worth about 4.3 representatives. What you could then do is since now there are about 760,000 people per representetive,  bring this down to 1790 levels of 40,000 people per representetive (19x as many representatives, aka more decentralization of representetive power), and you get:

Democrats: +95 representatives
Republicans: +2 Senators

This is now a senator to representetive power ratio of about 82:1.  This means it would be equal to saying:

Democrats: +95 representatives
Republicans: +164 representatives
Net GOP advantage: 69 representatives

Keep in mind, this country would have 8000 representatives, so a less than 1% advantage for the GOP probably won't change much.

#6
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Swagnarok
If even our own resident commieland was somewhat reluctant to attempt such an outrageous move as this, then it tells you the effort to disqualify Trump from the ballot is nothing more than hyperpartisan politics as usual.
The GOP tried to impeach Biden because they didn't like how he was running the country.

We are at the point now where if a republican is in power at the federal level, the dems will try to impeach him and vice versa.

When the right loses, they say it's rigged.  When the left loses, they claim it's voter suppression.

Just accept the fucking results whether you voted for the winner or not!
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,060
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Swagnarok
We haven't seen Democrats this angry about a president since Lincoln....and we know how it turned out after his election....
#8
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,725
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Ultramaga
Less Democracy is a good thing
Actually, if Trump is not allowed to be president, then we have more democracy. Trump lost popular vote twice. People dont want him.

#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,060
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Which would be a bad thing in a Republic. Mob rule tends to be immoral.
#10
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,287
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Nice way to expand voting rights; by not letting people that disagree with you on Trump vote.
I am against taking Trump off the ballot, but I also believe we need to follow the constitution, which clearly says Trump can't run.

So since you take issue with the ruling, what part do you disagree with? That Trump engaged in inserection, that the constitution bars him from running, or that we should follow the constitution?

The GOP tried to impeach Biden because they didn't like how he was running the country.
Actually, they're trying to impeach him because they believe it will make it seem like since both presidents were impeached they're the same. It's all about the election, just like Benghazi.

When the right loses, they say it's rigged.  When the left loses, they claim it's voter suppression.
Voter suppression isn't debatable. The impacts of the laws republicans have pushed are tangible, measurable, and objective. Claims of election rigging are entirely made up.

And even setting that aside, there is a big difference between Person A won because they played dirty vs Person A didn't win.

You love to do the "both sides" thing. Has it ever occurred to you that in your need to feel above the Frey that you are every bit as biased towards equivocating as those you criticize?

#11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,060
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
which clearly says Trump can't run.
Lol, nothing in the Constitution says if you feel a guy is an insurrectionist, then you can deny the public a chance to even write him in and vote for him. Trump has only seen gains in the polls the more legal action is taken against him. Swag is right. Colorado was never going to give electoral votes for Trump anyway, but the legal action will most certainly help Trump even more in the swing states, of which Biden leads in ZERO of them currently. Democrats seem to be a one trick pony these days, doomed as a proverbial lemming. It's almost as if secretly the Democrats want Trump to win at this point....doing things proven to get him elected...
#12
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,725
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Mob rule tends to be immoral.
Mob rule is the least immoral form of government, as it works for interests of the most people in a country.
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,060
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Which is immoral. Might makes right is the worst form of morality.
#14
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,725
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Also, its not called mob rule.

Its called direct democracy.
#15
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,725
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Which is immoral. Might makes right is the worst form of morality.
I am sorry to inform you, but "might makes right" is mostly in Russia and other dictatorships you support.

Direct democracy is where the greatest number of people agreeing on something get to decide.

So not just "Putin decides".
#16
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,060
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
So you agree. I think this is a cause for celebration.
Topic's author
#17
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
When the right loses, they say it's rigged.  When the left loses, they claim it's voter suppression.
Are you unable to discern truth from fiction?

Topic's author
#18
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Lol, nothing in the Constitution says if you feel a guy is an insurrectionist, then you can deny the public a chance to even write him in and vote for him. 
That’s exactly what the constitution says. 

Trump has only seen gains in the polls the more legal action is taken against him.
That’s because Trump supporters are morons

#19
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,725
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree that Russia is a bad country.

But you prefer to let Putin decide instead of letting people decide.

So yeah, your system is a worse version of might makes right.
#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,060
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Again, we are in total agreement. Mazoltov!
#21
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,725
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
OwO
#22
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
I am against taking Trump off the ballot, but I also believe we need to follow the constitution, which clearly says Trump can't run.
This is a contradictory statement; you basically said, "I am against taking Trump off the ballot, but I also believe that because of the constitution and something Trump did, Trump needs to be taken off the ballot".  You either want Trump taken off the ballot because of a law that he broke or you don't.  Don't be weaselly.

So since you take issue with the ruling, what part do you disagree with? That Trump engaged in inserection, that the constitution bars him from running, or that we should follow the constitution?
The quote I made was:

Nice way to expand voting rights; by not letting people that disagree with you on Trump vote.
If Trump hypothetically was made unable to run and DeSantis replaced Trump, it would be a Biden vs DeSantis race.  You can believe that Trump should be unable to run while also not wanting to deprive Trump supporters of the right to vote.  You also can believe that Trump should be able to run while also not wanting to deprive Trump supporters of the right to vote.

I think Trump supporters should be allowed to vote.  Disagreeing with that is against the first amendment.

Wrt the question, I understand Trump did Jan 6 and it was horrible and all of that, but I would rather give Trump a trial as to if he violated the constitution or not enough to be banned from running, and whatever the results of the trial are I will respect (results I don't know in advance).  The supreme court is a right wing court; they repealed Roe V Wade, they expanded gun rights, but they also didn't claim Trump won the 2020 election, so the Supreme Court as of now I think would be a fair judge to see if Trump should be allowed to run based on Jan 6.

Voter suppression isn't debatable. The impacts of the laws republicans have pushed are tangible, measurable, and objective. Claims of election rigging are entirely made up.
Define voter suppression.  I thought it was just not letting non-whites vote because they lean blue.  Plenty of non-white people have voted in every state's election in 2020.  If Texas flipped to be blue and had a blue majority in the house and senate (as well as the governor), the left would not be claiming there is voter suppression. But since Texas has red governors, the left claims they somehow did, "voter suppression".

Virginia flipped red in 2021; and there are articles about alleged "voter suppression":


If Youngkin lost, there wouldn't be claims of voter suppression.

The left only thinks there is voter suppression when a right winger gets power in a blue area or when right wingers in an area that seems to be turning from red to blue are worried they would lose power.

If Arizona had a democrat majority house, senate, and governor, the left wouldn't be worried about voter suppression.  Instead, the right would say the election was rigged.

Democracy can sometimes produce right wing results.

  Has it ever occurred to you that in your need to feel above the Frey that you are every bit as biased towards equivocating as those you criticize?
No; I see both sides and I'm not in an echo chamber.  But you follow whatever left wing media tells you to believe even if it doesn't make sense.
#23
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
When the right loses, they say it's rigged.  When the left loses, they claim it's voter suppression.
Are you unable to discern truth from fiction?
Yes.  Are you able to discern what you actually believe from what your party is telling you to believe?  Because if you agree with the left wing media between 25% and 75% of the time, you are able to do that.  Anything outside of that range, and you are a partisan hack.
#24
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,651
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

C'mon man, don't we want to show the World again that if you are a foreign sex worker you can become First Lady of the USA ?
#25
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,188
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
The supreme court of Colorado just committed insurrection. Thus they can no longer hold office and are no longer judges. Any further ruling from them is the impersonation of an officer of the court and a felony. Any attempt to enforce this ruling is similarly insurrection.

You can't win a war if the enemy is allowed to make effective moves you won't.
Topic's author
#26
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because if you agree with the left wing media
Left wing media? Reality has a well known liberal bias, right?

Topic's author
#27
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
The supreme court of Colorado just committed insurrection.
What a dummy. How is this country to survive with so many dummies?

#28
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,725
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I see you are back.

I was afraid you were gone forever.
#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,060
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Sure, I "feel" they are insurrectionists, so they must be removed. This is our current banana republic regarding law and order.
#30
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,188
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
I see you are back.
Probably not for long. The long predicted (by Tim Pool) beginning of the end of the republic has arrived so I thought I would remind the few people here of the inevitable consequences.

BTW Swagnarok above is being extremely optimistic. Yes removing Colorado's electors just before the election would ensure that nobody tries to pull this shit again. It would also cause a civil war within 8 months.

It would be absurd for the Colorado insurrectionists to remove Trump from the primary and not the general. Anyone who accepts the logic of "Well they tend to vote blue so who cares whether the people of the state actually vote" should think it through to the logical conclusion. What happens when opposing candidates appear only on so called "swing states"? That's right the supreme court of swing states decide the makeup of the federal government. Who controls the swing state courts? The governors, and they can be voted on? Only in round 1. After that the courts decide who gets to be governor.

You think either side is going to tolerate national (and overbearing) policy being decided by courts rigging their own appointments?

Everything that follows is what they called "forced moves" in Go and Chess. Defeat or civil war are the options and no one is going to back down. Saddest part is that the lunatics who pulled the trigger may just be stupid enough to not realize what they've done.