To be fair to democrats. Most of them thought the attempt to ban trump from the ballot was partisan nonsense and many democrats in public office made statements as such.
Supreme Court (9-0) declares Trump eligible to run for president
Posts
Total:
45
Trump is an elite silver spoon oligarch of New York. You think just because he isn't DC elite he's some saviour? You are delusional! He is as corrupt as they come, why don't people get that?
If you have two corrupt options you might as well pick the one who isn't part of the evil DC elite.
I would at this point vote for Kanye west over Biden.
I however would not even sink as low as voting nikki haley over biden. If nikki haley won I would vote for biden out of spite and help him destroy the country by agreeing with all of his policy decision. .
If we are going to destroy America I would feel better doing it with Biden than Haley.
-->
@ILikePie5
As you can see, much like the border; they're pretending there isn't existing legislation because they want different legislation.
Existing immigration law doesn't allow them to do what they want to do: give everyone visas so they pretend like everyone is an asylee and release them on parole.
Existing inssurection law doesn't allow them to charge Trump (I mean you're right a DC swamp monster jury would convict Trump of secretly being Hitler, but there is probably some language in there that requires I don't know a weapon to be involved.)
So they pretend like they need an insurrection law that is vague enough that everyone including your granny can be put away forever if 'needed'
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Courts said "we don't care" about all the election fraud cases and that was reported as "courts say there was no fraud". Fair is fair.no court said "we don't care" about election fraud.Close enough.
lol what? a court needs evidence that something happened in order to rule that something happened. You can't just go to court and say "I think trump is a child molester so send him to prison". You need evidence. Trump went to court with absolutely no evidence of fraud. He knew he was going to lose those cases. He knew there was no fraud. He did it to convince people like you that the system is out to get him, when the reality is he got caught trying to overthrow democracy after he lost.
They said trump had 0 evidence of fraud.Very few even addressed evidence. The others created strawman evidentiary standards.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Of course few of them addressed evidence. because there wasn't any. The kinds of things they were trying to say were evidence was nonsense. For example, when they said a mother handing her daughter a piece of gum was proof of fraud.
In a court of law you need to bring proof of what you alleged happened.Like EJC did. "I said so" = proof
no idea what you are talking about.
It's been 4 years and there is still no evidence of fraud.There was and is plenty,
like what? Specifically. Feel free to show me evidence of fraud. I am 100% certain that you can't.
and even more that the election was illegitimate due to violating laws meant to prevent undetected fraud.
lol ah yes, the conspiracy theory nonsense. There is no evidence that anything happened, and that is proof that something happened. This is what lunatic Q anon people spew. It's stupid.
-->
@Amber
You clearly haven't watched any of the video segments of the trial against him for it where his attorney played video after video of Democrats using the exact same language he used encouraging American citizens to exercise their 1st Amendment right to protest and address their grievance to the government. In fact, some of the videos used showed some Democrats, like Maxine Waters and Kamala Harris, using far more incendiary language than what Trump used. The level of proven hypocrisy comparing those videos to the innocuous language Trump used.
I have no idea what other comments you mean. But I'm guessing they didn't organize their followers to attack the capitol. And then sat watching it on TV for hours while laughing about it and refusing to tell them to stop. Those rioters were trying to kill his VP, and he loved it. But the attack on the captiol was the 2nd act of his attempt to overthrow the government. The 1st act was him illegally trying to send fake electors to stop biden being declared the winner. It was only after this failed and his VP refused to illegally prevent the counting of the votes, that trump send a mob to attack the capitol.
There were clearly ill-intended idiots in the group attending the J6 rally/protest who created the problem egged on by people like Ray Epps and the Capital Police. We've all seen the released video the Democrats tried to keep under the proverbial rug showing protesters being welcomed into the Capital through other doors where there was no violence (there is more than one door to the building) and escorted throughout the building.
yes, we have all seen footage of capitol police trying to get the protesters to move to less sensitive areas so they could evacuate the members of congress.
No one has been criminally indicted, charged, and convicted of insurrection. No one. And there is an obvious reason why...there was no insurrection. Period. It was a small riot. Nothing more, nothing less.
the stated goal of the crowd was to get mike pence not to count the votes. That is why they were there. That is attempt to subvert democracy. Rioting to stop democracy is insurrection.
And a handful of people trying to get into one door by breaking in and another handful of people being let in and escorted by Capital Police simply does NOT equal an "overthrow of the government." CHAZ comes closer to an overthrow of a government than J6.
if by handful, you meant hundreds, sure. You must have really big hands. And this was a violent attack. Police were injured. Some later died. And the stated goal of the crowd was the overthrow of democracy. They wanted to stop the results of the election from being counted so they could keep the loser of the election in power. That is an attempted overthrow of the government. The "chaz" never came anywhere close to affecting the entire country or government.
-->
@ILikePie5
I love that Donald Trump hasn’t been charged with statutory insurrection even when a DC jury is likely to be 99.8% anti-Trump. Ironically, they have to resort to left wing activist officials to declare unilaterally that Trump committed insurrection
Right? Like a DC prosecutor can't even scrape up the most bare bones evidence for insurrection to present to a 99.8% anti-Trump jury? Something is extremely fishy here.
-->
@HistoryBuff
"I think trump is a child molester so send him to prison".
Well "I think Trump is a rapist" works, that might work too.
They said trump had 0 evidence of fraud.Very few even addressed evidence. The others created strawman evidentiary standards.I'm not sure what you are talking about.
You should be less sure what you're talking about because you haven't a clue.
It's been 4 years and there is still no evidence of fraud.There was and is plenty,like what? Specifically. Feel free to show me evidence of fraud. I am 100% certain that you can't.
When you move the goalpost, I will laugh at you.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"I think trump is a child molester so send him to prison".Well "I think Trump is a rapist" works, that might work too.
nope. the available evidence convinced a jury of his peers that he most likely raped a woman. Trump's testimony helped to convince them.
You should be less sure what you're talking about because you haven't a clue.
When I haven't a clue, it's usually because you aren't making any sense. Like in this case.
like what? Specifically. Feel free to show me evidence of fraud. I am 100% certain that you can't.When you move the goalpost, I will laugh at you.
where is a facepalm emoji when you need one? You managed to prove that they do check to see if fraudulent ballots are cast, and that it is so few that it is totally negligible. you also managed to prove that of these tiny number of cases, some of them were for trump. So even though the evidence you provided proves that you are wrong in asserting fraud affected the outcome of the election, you will choose to take this as a win.
So I accept that I worded my challenge poorly. I said "evidence of fraud" when I meant "evidence of fraud that actually matters". 4 fraudulent votes out of like 2 million. and at least 1 of them was for trump.
-->
@HistoryBuff
"I think trump is a child molester so send him to prison".Well "I think Trump is a rapist" works, that might work too.nope. the available evidence convinced a jury of his peers that he most likely raped a woman.
The available evidence was "I say so"
like what? Specifically. Feel free to show me evidence of fraud. I am 100% certain that you can't.When you move the goalpost, I will laugh at you.where is a facepalm emoji when you need one? You managed to prove that they do check to see if fraudulent ballots are cast, and that it is so few that it is totally negligible.
You asked for it: Ha ha ha
-->
@HistoryBuff
-->@<<<Amber>>>You clearly haven't watched any of the video segments of the trial against him for it where his attorney played video after video of Democrats using the exact same language he used encouraging American citizens to exercise their 1st Amendment right to protest and address their grievance to the government. In fact, some of the videos used showed some Democrats, like Maxine Waters and Kamala Harris, using far more incendiary language than what Trump used. The level of proven hypocrisy comparing those videos to the innocuous language Trump used.I have no idea what other comments you mean.
Kamala Harris (https://youtu.be/FZGzb1OrttQ?si=W5b_ZFDYqlROY1my), scan ahead to 2:22.
Those rioters were trying to kill his VP,
Lie.
and he loved it.
Lie.
...of his attempt to overthrow the government.
Lie.
that trump send a mob to attack the capitol.
Lie. He did not send any such thing.
There were clearly ill-intended idiots in the group attending the J6 rally/protest who created the problem egged on by people like Ray Epps and the Capital Police. We've all seen the released video the Democrats tried to keep under the proverbial rug showing protesters being welcomed into the Capital through other doors where there was no violence (there is more than one door to the building) and escorted throughout the building.yes, we have all seen footage of capitol police trying to get the protesters to move to less sensitive areas so they could evacuate the members of congress.
Pathetic rationalization of the video evidence exposing the Capital Police and their involvement.
No one has been criminally indicted, charged, and convicted of insurrection. No one. And there is an obvious reason why...there was no insurrection. Period. It was a small riot. Nothing more, nothing less.the stated goal of the crowd was to get mike pence not to count the votes.
*yawn* Nice leftist talking point.
Rioting to stop democracy is insurrection.
No, it is not Mr. Pseudo Law Expert.
And a handful of people trying to get into one door by breaking in and another handful of people being let in and escorted by Capital Police simply does NOT equal an "overthrow of the government." CHAZ comes closer to an overthrow of a government than J6.if by handful, you meant hundreds, sure. You must have really big hands. And this was a violent attack. Police were injured.
Yeah, that is what happens to police during a riot. And your point is????? Did you whine about this obvious fact regarding all the violent and highly destructive riots in the summer of 2020 where "police were injured"? No, I imagine not.
Some later died.
Yeah, by natural causes and suicide.
And the stated goal of the crowd was the overthrow of democracy.
Yeah, not it was not.
If you disagree with this 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court of the US , it may be time to consider and entertain the idea that your position on this ruling is wrong and fucked up. Just sayin.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
nope. the available evidence convinced a jury of his peers that he most likely raped a woman.The available evidence was "I say so"
you clearly don't care what the evidence was so I won't bother going into it. The relevant fact is that a jury of his peers confirmed he did it. So as a matter of law, trump is guilty (in civil, not criminal law) or a sexual assault that also met the definition of rape. So he is a rapist. That is a legal fact.
where is a facepalm emoji when you need one? You managed to prove that they do check to see if fraudulent ballots are cast, and that it is so few that it is totally negligible.You asked for it: Ha ha ha
Yes, i did not remember how dumb you are. I am very sorry. It's like saying "I have never committed a crime" but then you point to one of those ridiculously obscure laws like eating an orange in your bathtub or something. You are technically right, but your argument is still completely wrong. Fraud played no part in determining the outcome of the election. that was my point. Your rebuttal did not disprove my point, but you will pat yourself on the head for it anyway even though you know that is what i was saying and that all the evidence says I am right.
-->
@HistoryBuff
nope. the available evidence convinced a jury of his peers that he most likely raped a woman.The available evidence was "I say so"you clearly don't care what the evidence was so I won't bother going into it.
What a surprise.
The relevant fact is that a jury of his peers confirmed he did it.
Without any evidence beyond the word of one person.
So as a matter of law, trump is guilty
If the objective contents of precedent and law don't matter then:
So he is a rapist. That is a legal fact.
You're now liable for defamation. As a legal fact.
You are technically right, but your argument is still completely wrong.
I'm the dumb one huh
Fraud played no part in determining the outcome of the election.
Another legal fact? No, an assumption made by frightened bigoted fools.
that was my point.
No, your point was there was no evidence of fraud and you were 100% certain:
Feel free to show me evidence of fraud. I am 100% certain that you can't.
You were 100% wrong.
but you will pat yourself on the head for it anyway
Why would I pat myself on the head because of your ignorance?
even though you know that is what i was saying and that all the evidence says I am right.
The evidence that you won't bother going into.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Without any evidence beyond the word of one person.
nope, there was other evidence.
Evidence included testimony from two friends Carroll spoke to after the incident, a photograph of Carroll with Trump in 1987,[a][b] testimony from two women who had separately accused Trump of sexual assault, footage from the Trump Access Hollywood tape and his October 2022 deposition.
If the objective contents of precedent and law don't matter then:
you can choose to pretend the results of the trial don't matter. but he is a rapist. That is an established fact. He also has to pay almost 100 million for lying about it.
So he is a rapist. That is a legal fact.You're now liable for defamation. As a legal fact.
nope. A jury found that he sexually assaulted her and penetrated her. That is rape. Him being a rapist is a legal fact. Therefore it cannot be defamatory to say. In fact, him saying otherwise is defamatory.
Fraud played no part in determining the outcome of the election.Another legal fact? No, an assumption made by frightened bigoted fools.
no, that is just the obvious conclusion after years of investigation. There is no evidence that fraud played any part in the results of the election despite years and years of investigations looking for said evidence. Pretending that the evidence is just invisible is just the childish desires of trump's cultists.
Feel free to show me evidence of fraud. I am 100% certain that you can't.You were 100% wrong.
we were where having a discussion about trump's attempted overthrow of the government. Trump's argument was that fraud changed the result of the election. We were discussing whether there was evidence for this. My point was that there is no evidence for trump's ridiculous claims. I am correct that there is no evidence for trump's claims. you are choosing to split hairs to pretend I am somehow wrong, when my point is still correct. There is no evidence fraud affected the election in any meaningful way. I acknowledge I framed that sentence poorly.
Why would I pat myself on the head because of your ignorance?
you pat yourself on the head because you are wrong, but managed to point to a single poorly phrased sentence to try to claim some sort of moral victory.
even though you know that is what i was saying and that all the evidence says I am right.The evidence that you won't bother going into.
You're expecting me to prove a negative? If fraud never happened (on a scale to affect the outcome) then how would I prove it didn't happen? You are pretending an event occurred and then putting the onus on me to prove your make believe isn't real. Everyone can see Biden won the election. Republicans have spent like 3 years trying to find evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome and have failed miserably. If trump wants people to believe fraud changed the election he needs to show evidence of that. but he can't, because it didn't happen. The evidence that there wasn't fraud affecting the outcome is that there is no evidence that any such thing occurred.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Without any evidence beyond the word of one person.nope, there was other evidence.
but you can't get into all that
Evidence included testimony from two friends Carroll spoke to after the incident
Eye witness testimony to the claims of one person. I too am a witness to Carroll's accusations. That is not evidence.
a photograph of Carroll with Trump in 1987
In a coat line
footage from the Trump Access Hollywood tape
Where he did not confess to sexually assaulting anyone.
and his October 2022 deposition.
Where he did not confess to sexually assaulting anyone.
If the objective contents of precedent and law don't matter then:you can choose to pretend the results of the trial don't matter.
It matters to anyone sane in New York, the implication is: Run, run for your lives
but he is a rapist.
You defame him again, you're not one to complain about the law it seems
That is an established fact.
To you and other traitors to the rule of law.
He also has to pay almost 100 million for lying about it.
We will see.
So he is a rapist. That is a legal fact.You're now liable for defamation. As a legal fact.nope.
Yep
A jury found that he sexually assaulted her and penetrated her.
A fake jury full of deranged people who are a danger to themselves and others couldn't bring themselves to assert that he raped her.
That is rape. Him being a rapist is a legal fact.
To you and other traitors to the rule of law.
Therefore it cannot be defamatory to say. In fact, him saying otherwise is defamatory.
"Him saying otherwise is defamatory" @Double_R you need to school your fellow fascist, he admitted the part you were trying to hide.
There is no evidence that fraud played any part in the results of the election
Excluding the evidence you ignore... which is all of it...
despite years and years of investigations looking for said evidence.
There were no effective investigations, no effective investigations were possible, and potentially useful investigations were prevented by access denial and evidence destruction.
Pretending that the evidence is just invisible is just the childish desires of trump's cultists.
Well you owe me 50 billion dollars. I have a contract you signed to that effect. Now if you can produce evidence that I don't have that contract or that you didn't sign it that would be one thing... but you just asserting the evidence of my fraud is invisible that's cult behavior.
I acknowledge I framed that sentence poorly.
Fine, then the next step after you admit there is evidence of fraud is your presumption that you can quantify the amount of fraud based on the quantity of evidenced fraud.
Submit your reasoning.
Why would I pat myself on the head because of your ignorance?you pat yourself on the head because you are wrong, but managed to point to a single poorly phrased sentence to try to claim some sort of moral victory.
I'm right, you made a statement that was easily disproved, then you shifted the goalposts. You'll keep shifting the goal posts the whole way if you keep engaging with the issue, but at some point you will read the writing on the wall and quit.
Fraud played no part in determining the outcome of the election. that was my point. Your rebuttal did not disprove my point, but you will pat yourself on the head for it anyway even though you know that is what i was saying and that all the evidence says I am right.The evidence that you won't bother going into.You're expecting me to prove a negative?
You claimed there was "evidence" saying "I am right" and the assertion was "Fraud played no part in determining the outcome of the election."
If "Fraud played no part in determining the outcome of the election." is a negative assertion and there can be no evidence for negative assertions (not true) then you falsely claimed the evidence says you are right.
If fraud never happened (on a scale to affect the outcome) then how would I prove it didn't happen?
I don't think you can, I don't think you could even if you had a team of 500 foresnic investigators and all the data/evidence the government hid or destroyed.
That's why I'm right.
You are pretending an event occurred and then putting the onus on me to prove your make believe isn't real.
The pretend event was a real election, and I am skeptical as I should be; as you would be if it didn't go your way and your media showed you all the circumstantial evidence I have seen.
Everyone can see Biden won the election.
In that case Jan 6 would have been a fantasy riot.
Republicans have spent like 3 years trying to find evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome and have failed miserably.
Those who tried have accumulated as much evidence as could be expected to be found when the people who control the evidence and the data fought in court till the cows came home to hide it (and succeeded in 95% of the cases).
If trump wants people to believe fraud changed the election he needs to show evidence of that.
There is circumstantial evidence that indicates fraud actually occurred and incontrovertible evidence that it could have occurred (through vulnerabilities opened by so called "lockdown" policy changes, many of which were and are still in place and illegal).
People already believe, and if the polls and surveys are any indicator more people believe than did in 2020.
The evidence that there wasn't fraud affecting the outcome is that there is no evidence that any such thing occurred.
I think Double_R thinks a lot like you, but he's just better at debating and he stops himself before he admits these things.
To you elections are legitimate until proven otherwise. So tell me, what is your evidence that Putin wasn't legitimately elected?