Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from ballot

[Mikey 16,644]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

How would you apply this amendment?

Only in the mind of the most TDD Democrat was that minor dustup of Jan. 6 an insurrection. Therefore the amendment does not apply. That's without even discussing the lack of evidence that Trump caused it. (Don't start talking about the kangaroo court that was that lopsided waste of money termed a committee)

[TexasTiger 12,964]

13 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Only in the mind of the most TDD Democrat was that minor dustup of Jan. 6 an insurrection. Therefore the amendment does not apply. That's without even discussing the lack of evidence that Trump caused it. (Don't start talking about the kangaroo court that was that lopsided waste of money termed a committee)

Do you think Trump took affirmative steps to stay in power?

[AU9377 4,979]

22 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Only in the mind of the most TDD Democrat was that minor dustup of Jan. 6 an insurrection. Therefore the amendment does not apply. That's without even discussing the lack of evidence that Trump caused it. (Don't start talking about the kangaroo court that was that lopsided waste of money termed a committee)

When you push a rally that you call "STOP THE STEAL" while you know and have been told by everyone from the FBI to your own Attorney General that nothing was in fact stolen, then you speak at said rally and call your VP a traitor for not helping you in your efforts to derail the transition of power so that you can attempt to have fake electors replace slates in select states that you lost, what do you call that?  The only way to act like it was nothing is to pretend that the facts are not what we know them to be. All the false equivalencies in the world cannot add up to excuse the man's behavior and inability to admit that he lost.  That kind of self serving pride isn't leadership.  That is cowardice and a list of other character flaws all rolled into one.

Why would all of the members of the Trump administration detailed in this cited piece below testify under oath to that committee and give damning testimony? 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/who-are-the-key-players-in-the-jan-6-committee-hearings-so-far

Edited December 21, 2023 by AU9377

[Mikey 16,644]

52 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Why would all of the members of the Trump administration detailed in this cited piece below testify under oath to that committee and give damning testimony? 

Again, falling back on the conclusions of the kangaroo court.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

3 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Again, falling back on the conclusions of the kangaroo court.

At this point, it's practically a forgone conclusion the Supreme Court is going to overturn this ruling. It's only the hard left schills who are still arguing for it.

And Texas, doing what he does poking and prodding.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

Is the left ever going to understand that the best way to get rid of Trump is to ignore him and leave him alone? Every time they attack him, throw another indictment at him, raid his house, his polling goes up. Youre just making him look like the legitimate warrior against the deep state he says he is. I wonder what attempting to throw him off ballots is going to do for his numbers?

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Why would all of the members of the Trump administration detailed in this cited piece below testify under oath to that committee and give damning testimony? 

Because they knew they would not be cross examined during the committee testimony.  It is easy to tell one side of the story when no one is going to keep you honest.

So which came first; the successful Stop the Steele movement at Auburn or the Stop the Steal movement from Trump?  Coincidence?  I think not.

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

7 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Is the left ever going to understand that the best way to get rid of Trump is to ignore him and leave him alone? Every time they attack him, throw another indictment at him, raid his house, his polling goes up. Youre just making him look like the legitimate warrior against the deep state he says he is. I wonder what attempting to throw him off ballots is going to do for his numbers?

It is part of the Dems plan and they are going all in at this point in time.  It is obvious, to even the causal observer, that some of these indictments and now this farce of a ruling with no proof of wrong doing is weaponizing government against one individual who happens to be the front runner for the opposition party.

It seems to me if they are not afraid of Trump; beat him fair and square during the campaign.  All the narrative about Trump they have spewed over the last 7 years is not producing the desired effect.  Couple that with the shady deals the Biden family is involved in has created a lot of doubt in the party.

Standby for even more non-sense in the near future.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

It is part of the Dems plan and they are going all in at this point in time.  It is obvious, to even the causal observer, that some of these indictments and now this farce of a ruling with no proof of wrong doing is weaponizing government against one individual who happens to be the front runner for the opposition party.

It seems to me if they are not afraid of Trump; beat him fair and square during the campaign.  All the narrative about Trump they have spewed over the last 7 years is not producing the desired effect.  Couple that with the shady deals the Biden family is involved in has created a lot of doubt in the party.

Standby for even more non-sense in the near future.

I think you're absolutely right in that a) it is their plan, and b) it's obvious to the casual observer. It's almost as if their plan is to get him elected. 

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

Just now, KansasTiger said:

I think you're absolutely right in that a) it is their plan, and b) it's obvious to the casual observer. It's almost as if their plan is to get him elected. 

There plan is to get him nominated and then the craziness will come.  Republicans will decide in July who will run as the Republican Presidential Candidate and the Dems decide in August.  When and if Trump is nominated, watch out.  Full assault and maybe even a difference Democratic candidate will emerge.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

There plan is to get him nominated and then the craziness will come.  Republicans will decide in July who will run as the Republican Presidential Candidate and the Dems decide in August.  When and if Trump is nominated, watch out.  Full assault and maybe even a difference Democratic candidate will emerge.

I'm curious who you think they can switch into at this point and it be effective? I thought Newsome at one point but I think his appeal faded after the Xi visit and the Desantis debate. Is it really down to Michelle or, please I hope to dear God, another Hillary run?

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

Colorado supreme court= threat to democracy.

Not really when you read the opinion and understand the difference between matters of law, matters of fact and the standards of review applied to each it’s pretty cut and dry.

I've already explained it but the Colorado Supreme Court was required to give deference to the district court’s finding of involvement in insurrection unless that finding was clear error/abuse of discretion which is a high bar. This is because it was a matter of fact. 

whereas, the issue of does section 3 apply to the president is a matter of law and the Colorado SC did not have to give any deference to the district court’s finding so it is a much lower bar that does not require a finding of clear error or abuse of discretion. 

SCOTUS will overturn on the fact issue of insurrection. 

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

6 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

I'm curious who you think they can switch into at this point and it be effective? I thought Newsome at one point but I think his appeal faded after the Xi visit and the Desantis debate. Is it really down to Michelle or, please I hope to dear God, another Hillary run?

Michelle as the time between August and November any opposition Trump could come up with will be in the honeymoon phase of the announcement.  

[auburnatl1 4,981]

6 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

I'm curious who you think they can switch into at this point and it be effective? I thought Newsome at one point but I think his appeal faded after the Xi visit and the Desantis debate. Is it really down to Michelle or, please I hope to dear God, another Hillary run?

With Trumps and Biden’s unfavorables, anyone with a pulse could easily beat either of them in a general. The only question is which party will act on it.

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

3 minutes ago, Didba said:

SCOTUS will overturn on the fact issue of insurrection. 

Not being a lawyer, this seems less than an honest approach to the ruling.  If hey know it will be overturned why rule the way they did?  Because they could?

[Didba 5,256]

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Not being a lawyer, this seems less than an honest approach to the ruling.  If hey know it will be overturned why rule the way they did?  Because they could?

Because appellate courts don’t review matters of fact, they review matters of law.

They only reverse on factual matters when there is evidence of clear error/abuse of discretion by the original court. The Colorado SC had to give deference to the district court’s findings of fact  

I explained it in my original post in this thread in more detail if you want to go back and read it. You replied to it briefly. 

also, just because a court knew it is likely to be overturned doesn’t mean they can deviate from what they are required to do under the applicable standard of review.

The court was bound by the lower court’s factual findings. 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Didba

[KansasTiger 3,248]

Just now, auburnatl1 said:

With Trumps and Biden’s unfavorables, anyone with a pulse could easily beat either of them in a general. The only question is which party will act on it.

Not so sure about that. I think you have an inability to see anything positive about Trump. I dont take your opinion in regards to him as serious as I might take someone who can be more objective. Just the truth.

If you look at favotability polls. Every politician is under water. Trump by 10.7, but he's far from the lowest. Desantis by 16.7, Biden by 15.3, Christie by 29.5 🤣. The only relevant politician in the net positive is RFK Jr.

Trump is gaining alot with minorities, too, and I dont know if all that goes away unless the dems have the right candidate.

[Didba 5,256]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Not being a lawyer, this seems less than an honest approach to the ruling.  If hey know it will be overturned why rule the way they did?  Because they could?

Also, the standards of review for matters of law vs fact are pretty much the same in every state so what I am talking about isn’t some unique blue state law/circumstance. 

I would expect the same outcome from the same facts/decisions in any state. 

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

Just now, Didba said:

Also, the standards of review for matters of law vs fact are pretty much the same in every state so what I am talking about isn’t some unique blue state law/circumstance. 

I would expect the same outcome from the same facts/decisions in any state. 

So I guess a Red State do the same with Biden?  

[Didba 5,256]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So I guess a Red State do the same with Biden?  

It’s not a red/blue thing it’s just appellate courts following the standards of review required for appellate courts. 

but to answer your question; yes, if a lower court ruled the same exact stuff but against Biden the appellate court reviewing it would be bound by those findings of fact absent evidence of clear error/abuse of discretion by the lower court. 

my other posts explain it better so you may want to read them if you want a better understanding of standards of review for appellate courts. If you haven’t yet of course. 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Didba

[auburnatl1 4,981]

8 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Not so sure about that. I think you have an inability to see anything positive about Trump. I dont take your opinion in regards to him as serious as I might take someone who can be more objective. Just the truth.

If you look at favotability polls. Every politician is under water. Trump by 10.7, but he's far from the lowest. Desantis by 16.7, Biden by 15.3, Christie by 29.5 🤣. The only relevant politician in the net positive is RFK Jr.

Trump is gaining alot with minorities, too, and I dont know if all that goes away unless the dems have the right candidate.

I see a few policy things I agree with. With makes my trump advantages to disadvantages ratio 3:247. I voted for him in 2016 while holding my nose. Never again.

[AU9377 4,979]

36 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Because they knew they would not be cross examined during the committee testimony.  It is easy to tell one side of the story when no one is going to keep you honest.

So which came first; the successful Stop the Steele movement at Auburn or the Stop the Steal movement from Trump?  Coincidence?  I think not.

These people were testifying against their own interests under oath.  Why are there so many people from inside the administration that resign and warn others that there are real problems?  They are across the board, from decorated Generals to people that work communications.  They all warn of the same things and, instead of supporting them, Trump's minions immediately attack their character or relegate them into the pile up of bodies that magically become liberal Trump haters.  These are the same people that, only months or years earlier, were given positions based largely on their ties to the Republican party or Trump himself.

The man's cabinet came close to resigning en mass.  Instead, 3 cabinet members resigned, including the Transportation Sec., and Education Sec..  His NSA chief resigned.  The chairman of the White House Economic Council resigned stating "The events of yesterday made my position no longer tenable."  How are these people all of a sudden people that should not be trusted?  They simply did the unthinkable.  They told the truth and that truth was damning to the man that should be leading a country, instead of worrying about his personal ego.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

2 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I see a few policy things I agree with. With makes my trump advantages to disadvantages ratio 3:247. I voted for him in 2016 while holding my nose. Never again.

Yeah, you're not really helping yourself in the whole 'objective about Trump' discussion. Objectively, he has the third best favorability ratings of any politician still in this race. So your constant lambasting that anyone can beat Trump shows your bias. 

[AU9377 4,979]

16 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Not so sure about that. I think you have an inability to see anything positive about Trump. I dont take your opinion in regards to him as serious as I might take someone who can be more objective. Just the truth.

If you look at favotability polls. Every politician is under water. Trump by 10.7, but he's far from the lowest. Desantis by 16.7, Biden by 15.3, Christie by 29.5 🤣. The only relevant politician in the net positive is RFK Jr.

Trump is gaining alot with minorities, too, and I dont know if all that goes away unless the dems have the right candidate.

What does this list tell you objectively?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/24-former-trump-allies-and-aides-who-turned-against-him/ar-AA1hE8nm

[KansasTiger 3,248]

Just now, AU9377 said:

What does this list tell you objectively?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/24-former-trump-allies-and-aides-who-turned-against-him/ar-AA1hE8nm

It tells me he must be the worst person at hiring in the history of the world or he really is an insufferable bastard to work with. I've said this before.

But there are alot of factors that I don't know. This is like me showing you a list of Biden emails, text messages, shell corporations, and so on and asking you to objectively tell me what it says. Something tells me (cause I've seen you say it) that you'd be even less objective than I just was an tap dance around the concept of proof.