Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from ballot

[auburnatl1 5,060]

3 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

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. 

im definitely biased. The point is, like many, I wasn’t when he took office.  Again, I initially voted for him.  It was his actions and words that gave me my pov.  Evidence. Like any court. 1/6 crossed the line.

[AU9377 5,043]

14 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

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.

The standards for judging the two are completely different.  One set of documents is being submitted as being circumstantial evidence of a crime, while the other consists of statements made by reputable men and women that are made against their own self interests detailing the character of the man that wants to be President again.

If Joe Biden had half the resignations from his administration and if even half of those people gave similar dire warnings, you would have a valid point.  That hasn't happened.  You simply want to adopt wildly unproven allegations of conduct that, even if proven, took place before Joe Biden was President of the United States, in order to remove him from office.  REPUBLICAN members of Congress, like Senator Grassley himself, have gone on the record and stated that he has seen no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden himself.  Instead of acknowledging that fact, House Republicans prefer a circus in which they can allege the kitchen sink and never prove any of it.  If they allege it enough, many of you will accept it as fact.  Ask people on the far right about Hillary Clinton and Benghazi and they will tell you all sorts of conspiracy nonsense.  What they won't do is read the report compiled by House Republicans that found no wrongdoing on her part.

Edited December 21, 2023 by AU9377

[KansasTiger 3,256]

4 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

im definitely biased. The point is, like many, I wasn’t when he took office.  Again, I initially voted for him.  It was his actions and words that gave me my pov.  Evidence. Like any court. 1/6 crossed the line.

I'd have one of those beer discussions about what you believe vs what Trump did on 1/6 and the lead up to it. The fact that there were undercover officers in the crowd likely inciting the crowd, what Trump actually said to the crowd vs what the media tells you he said. But that's another conversation thats not possible on this forum.

[AU9377 5,043]

11 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

im definitely biased. The point is, like many, I wasn’t when he took office.  Again, I initially voted for him.  It was his actions and words that gave me my pov.  Evidence. Like any court. 1/6 crossed the line.

I told everyone around me, when he was elected, that Trump had the opportunity to be one of the greatest Presidents the country had ever had.  Why? Because he had a galvanized group of followers that he could lead anywhere.  He had the power to actually lead by taking people and the country where it needed to go instead of where some group wanted it to go.  That takes courage.  That takes a desire to do what is right over what is most beneficial in the here and now.  That is where he failed.  He was more concerned with transactional politics and self admiration than what would make the country stronger long after he was no longer President.

[KansasTiger 3,256]

1 minute ago, AU9377 said:

The standards for judging the two are completely different.  One set of documents is being submitted as being circumstantial evidence of a crime, while the other consists of statements made by reputable men and women that are made against their own self interests detailing the character of the man that wants to be President again.

If Joe Biden had half the resignations from his administration and if even half of those people gave similar dire warnings, you would have a valid point.  That hasn't happened.  You simply want to adopt wildly unproven allegations of conduct that, even if proven, took place before Joe Biden was President of the United States, in order to remove him from office.  REPUBLICAN members of Congress, like Senator Grassley himself, have gone on the record and stated that he has seen no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden himself.  Instead of acknowledging that fact, House Republicans prefer a circus in which they can allege the kitchen sink and never prove any of it.  If they allege it enough, many of you will accept it as fact.  As people on the far right about Hillary Clinton and Benghazzi and they will tell you all sorts of conspiracy nonsense.  What they won't do is read the report compiled by House Republicans that found no wrongdoing on her part.

Some nice quality, yet predictable, tapdancing there, sir. Congrats on being about as objective as I thought you'd be.

I'm not perfectly objective either, but you cant even admit it's likely Biden has done some dirty things with the amount of circumstantial evidence there is. Instead you immediately snapped back to arguing about standards for judging evidence. I dont care, I'm not talking about a hearing room or a courthouse, I'm talking about your personal opinion. But I'm not even sure why I'm asking. I know the answer, and the answer is predictable and bores me.

[Didba 5,256]

10 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

But I'm not even sure why I'm asking. I know the answer, and the answer is predictable and bores me.

I wasn’t going to hop in on this because I’m just here to talk about the actual court proceedings but the above made me laugh so I had to chime in while talking to a man about a horse.

however, don’t be dishonest about being bored. You love this shiz, you love arguing over this stuff with these guys. All of you do on both sides. You are entertained and loving every minute of this adversarial conversation.

You wouldn’t be in these threads all the time sparring if you were bored by all of this. 

I know because I used to be the same way, it doesn’t do anything for me anymore as such I’m rarely in here unless something substantive has happened regarding court proceedings/developments in the law. 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Didba

[AU9377 5,043]

1 minute ago, KansasTiger said:

Some nice quality, yet predictable, tapdancing there, sir. Congrats on being about as objective as I thought you'd be.

I'm not perfectly objective either, but you cant even admit it's likely Biden has done some dirty things with the amount of circumstantial evidence there is. Instead you immediately snapped back to arguing about standards for judging evidence. I dont care, I'm not talking about a hearing room or a courthouse, I'm talking about your personal opinion. But I'm not even sure why I'm asking. I know the answer, and the answer is predictable and bores me.

My personal opinion is that he likely knew full well that Hunter was taking advantage of being Joe Biden's son.  When Hunter would ask him to stop by a dinner meeting to say hello, he would do so.  Hunter's friends got to come to the White House and likely got meetings with his dad when he was VP because they were friends of Hunter Biden.  Hunter wasn't in business by himself.  Nobody talks about the other children of prominent politicians that were also part of the business.  They simply paid their taxes when they were due. 

When Joe left office, he may have also benefited from the willingness of foreign businesses to spread wealth similar to placing a bet and hoping that it pays off if a relationship is formed and their influence is requested in the future.  None of that is illegal.  None of that is even uncommon. 

What there is ZERO evidence of is some sort of decision being influenced due to financial incentives or of Joe Biden using his office for personal gain.

[KansasTiger 3,256]

Just now, Didba said:

I wasn’t going to hop in on this because I’m just here to make talk about the actual court proceedings the above may me laugh so I had to chime in while talking to a man about a horse.

however, don’t be dishonest about being bored. You love this shiz, you love arguing over this stuff with these guys. All of you do on both sides. You are entertained and loving every minute of this adversarial conversation.

You wouldn’t be in these threads all the time sparring if you were bored by all of this. 

I know because I used to be the same way, it doesn’t do anything for me anymore as such I’m rarely in here unless something substantive has happened regarding court proceedings/developments in the law. 

I will be honest with you. I enjoy discourse with many on here. On both sides. I've found I can only take so much of it at a time, and take breaks from it, sometimes extended. Especially when things get ugly or personal. 

But a specific response from a person can completely bore me, yes. That's not a commentary on the entire discourse or even the entire conversation with one person, but this path of argument I've seen before and don't wish to engage much further, is my intent.

[KansasTiger 3,256]

8 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

My personal opinion is that he likely knew full well that Hunter was taking advantage of being Joe Biden's son.  When Hunter would ask him to stop by a dinner meeting to say hello, he would do so.  Hunter's friends got to come to the White House and likely got meetings with his dad when he was VP because they were friends of Hunter Biden.  Hunter wasn't in business by himself.  Nobody talks about the other children of prominent politicians that were also part of the business.  They simply paid their taxes when they were due. 

When Joe left office, he may have also benefited from the willingness of foreign businesses to spread wealth similar to placing a bet and hoping that it pays off if a relationship is formed and their influence is requested in the future.  None of that is illegal.  None of that is even uncommon. 

What there is ZERO evidence of is some sort of decision being influenced due to financial incentives or of Joe Biden using his office for personal gain.

Ok. Sounds good. This isn't an attack on you or me giving up because im out of points, but I have no interest in continuing this specific topic. We've had this conversation before.

Edit: and maybe that my fault for bringing it up in a response. So I apologize.

Edited December 21, 2023 by KansasTiger

[Didba 5,256]

12 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

I will be honest with you. I enjoy discourse with many on here. On both sides. I've found I can only take so much of it at a time, and take breaks from it, sometimes extended. Especially when things get ugly or personal. 

But a specific response from a person can completely bore me, yes. That's not a commentary on the entire discourse or even the entire conversation with one person, but this path of argument I've seen before and don't wish to engage much further, is my intent.

That’s fair, I took your bored comment differently but I see what you meant now. Apologies. 

[Didba 5,256]

Hey, I found a great write-up that explains the whole process that occurred in Colorado from the district level to the Supreme Court:

https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/s/1Q0mPkdORa
 

I implore everyone to read it objectively because that forum is extremely tightly moderated and any use of unsubstantiated argument/rhetoric will be removed so it really does have people just objectively explaining what’s going on with these complex topics. I actually consider the forum to be moderate right comparatively to other legal forums on Reddit. 

[auburnatl1 5,060]

9 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

I'd have one of those beer discussions about what you believe vs what Trump did on 1/6 and the lead up to it. The fact that there were undercover officers in the crowd likely inciting the crowd, what Trump actually said to the crowd vs what the media tells you he said. But that's another conversation thats not possible on this forum.

Im sure there was a media narrative. But they didn’t build a gallows or cause deaths.  Respectfully, I’m tired of helicopter type parents saying every never ending screwup or  court case isn’t his fault. “They” caused it. Theres always a they.  He’s an adult - own it.

[KansasTiger 3,256]

16 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Im sure there was a media narrative. But they didn’t build a gallows or cause deaths.  Respectfully, I’m tired of helicopter type parents saying every never ending screwup or  court case isn’t his fault. “They” caused it. Theres always a they.  He’s an adult - own it.

Ok cool

[auburnatl1 5,060]

6 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Ok cool

My personal preference. If it is trump v Biden (assuming Trump isn’t locked up and Biden isn’t found wandering in the rose garden in his underwear), then I would prefer Biden and a Republican Congress. Gridlock for 4 years and try again with a new candidate generation in 2028. It stinks but without a viable 3rd party - imo it’s the least bad.

[KansasTiger 3,256]

4 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

My personal preference. If it is trump v Biden (assuming Trump isn’t locked up and Biden isn’t found wandering in the rose garden in his underwear), then I would prefer Biden and a Republican Congress. Gridlock for 4 years and try again with a new candidate generation in 2028. It stinks but without a viable 3rd party - imo it’s the least bad.

I highly doubt it's possible to have the down ballot be that separated from Trump's performance.

[auburnatl1 5,060]

Just now, KansasTiger said:

I highly doubt it's possible to have the down ballot be that separated from Trump's performance.

I agree.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, KansasTiger said:

But that's another conversation thats not possible on this forum.

in the echo chamber.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

2 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

The fact that there were undercover officers in the crowd likely inciting the crowd, what Trump actually said to the crowd vs what the media tells you he said.

I watched Trump in real time. Do you have any evidence of undercover officers inciting the crowd to attack fellow officers? With or without such evidence, what are you suggesting/asserting and what’s the rationale/basis for it?

[KansasTiger 3,256]

32 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I watched Trump in real time. Do you have any evidence of undercover officers inciting the crowd to attack fellow officers? With or without such evidence, what are you suggesting/asserting and what’s the rationale/basis for it?

Undercover officers were present in the crowd. There could be people like Ray Epps all over that crowd we would have no idea they were officers, telling people to go into the capitol. What I do know is the FBI is involved in entrapment all the time. Just take a look at the Michigan Gov kidnapping case.

[CoffeeTiger 5,180]

 

14 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Undercover officers were present in the crowd. There could be people like Ray Epps all over that crowd we would have no idea they were officers, telling people to go into the capitol. What I do know is the FBI is involved in entrapment all the time. Just take a look at the Michigan Gov kidnapping case.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ray-epps-capitol-riot-conspiracy-explainer-b2122611.html

You know Ray Epps wasn't actually an officer or FBI informant, right?  There is no evidence or proof supporting any of the conspiracy theories involving Epps or his wife. He had no involvement with the federal government, he wasn't any kind of informant, his wife didn't work for Dominion voting system. He was eventually charged for his role in jan 6. 

Ray Epps wasn't anything but a deluded Trump fan who who had bought into the 'stolen election' theory hook line and sinker like most of the others in the crowd that day and was wanting to show congress his displeasure with the election results personally. 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[KansasTiger 3,256]

8 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ray-epps-capitol-riot-conspiracy-explainer-b2122611.html

You know Ray Epps wasn't actually an officer or FBI informant, right?  There is no evidence or proof supporting any of the conspiracy theories involving Epps or his wife. He had no involvement with the federal government, he wasn't any kind of informant, his wife didn't work for Dominion voting system. He was eventually charged for his role in jan 6. 

Ray Epps wasn't anything but a deluded Trump fan who who had bought into the 'stolen election' theory hook line and sinker like most of the others in the crowd that day and was wanting to show congress his displeasure with the election results personally. 

 

 

Cause they'd tell us and explain it if he was? Doesn't change my overall point either way. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,180]

37 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Cause they'd tell us and explain it if he was?

Using that logic, we could just say that every single person that entered the capitol or caused trouble on jan 6 was an FBI informant/law enforcement officer/ANTIFA and we'd be at the same place we are now. 

The thing about believing in government coverups is that everything can be made up and nothing ever has to be proven....After all, the government can influence anything and everything, so you can choose to ignore all reported facts and evidence as faked or influenced and just believe whatever you want about any situation. 

 

 

37 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Doesn't change my overall point either way. 

I think it does in that nobody has ever provided any support or evidence for the accusation that the Jan6 riot was caused, encouraged, or spurred on by 'informants' or government agents. I know some lawyers for people charged for their actions on Jan 6 have accused the government of conspiracies and entrapment in trying to defend their clients and trying to create reasonable doubt in their cases through court filings...but they've never actually proven or shown any evidence of fact to back up those claims. 

 

 

[KansasTiger 3,256]

1 minute ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Using that logic, we could just say that every single person that entered the capitol or caused trouble on jan 6 was an FBI informant/law enforcement officer/ANTIFA and we'd be at the same place we are now. 

The thing about believing in government coverups is that everything can be made up and nothing ever has to be proven....After all, the government can influence anything and everything, so you can choose to ignore all reported facts and evidence as faked or influenced and just believe whatever you want about any situation. 

 

 

I think it does in that nobody has ever provided any support or evidence for the accusation that the Jan6 riot was caused, encouraged, or spurred on by 'informants' or government agents. I know some lawyers for people charged for their actions on Jan 6 have accused the government of conspiracies and entrapment in trying to defend their clients and trying to create reasonable doubt in their cases through court filings...but they've never actually proven or shown any evidence of fact to back up those claims. 

 

 

Because I can't prove individually who was and wasn't undercover doesn't mean the belief is without merit. I dont have to abandon the whole idea simply because I don't have the resources to investigate the govt. We have testimony proving officers were there. Probably not an insignificant amount. And we have established precedent the FBI wilfully acts to encourage and entrap who they consider extremists. But if I put the two ideas together, I'm a conspiracy theorist.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

3 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

Undercover officers were present in the crowd. There could be people like Ray Epps all over that crowd we would have no idea they were officers, telling people to go into the capitol. What I do know is the FBI is involved in entrapment all the time. Just take a look at the Michigan Gov kidnapping case.

No one was “entrapped.” That’s a legal term with specific elements to it. 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I 100% blame Trump for formenting the s*** that went down on Jan. 6th.  He's been constantly sending up dog whistles to these idiots from 2015 on and knew what he was doing.

That said, he hasn't been convicted of any of this, charged by Congress with any of it and thus I think the move by Colorado isn't legal and will and should get shot down by SCOTUS.