General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

David Pakman Show
comments

Comments by "" (@1987BillyBob) on "Pro-Trump official asked SEVEN TIMES why Trump should be on ballot, CAN'T ANSWER" video.

@jasonfuller1001 that is not due process bud. No trial by jury which is in the 6th amendment.
5
nicholasgreenlee4911 so someone can say Biden engage in an insurrection and he can be removed from the ballots. That is your standard.
2
If you listen to Pakman and read what his fans are writing, they claim that in 14 section 3 it does not say there has to be a conviction, thus one is not needed. I disagree via 14 section 1, however, going off of their standard the word "proof" and "evidence" are not in 14 section 3 either. So you don't need proof or evidence. Thus, one can say Biden engaged in an insurrection. And going farther, 14 section 3 does not say anything about there needing to be a decision by a judge or high court, thus Biden can be removed by states claiming he engaged in an insurrection. I will disagree with that standard as well, but if you go off of the standard of Pakman and the left, that could be done.
2
What makes this different is equal treatment under the law. You are correct that elections are ran via the states, but whatever their standards are should be treated equally. Trump is the leading candidate right now for the republican party. I do not know the voting laws of Maine, but I assume it would be up to the RNC to remove him or due to lack of support and finances. Not someone making a baseless claim that he incited an insurrection when he has not even been charged in doing so.
1
@JoshBeards read the entire Constitution. You really don't have to go far, just look up at section 1 of amendment 14 "....No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." There has been no due process here thus Trump is being stripped of his right to liberty and equal protection under the law. If we go off of your standard republicans can simply say Biden engaged in an insurrection and remove him from the ballot. To you there is no process to really prove and confirm that, you just have to make the claim and so be it. As for Trump doing nothing, to start, he told them to go peacefully. Next, he sent out the following two tweets during the time "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” and "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!" When Trump's account was removed the next day no one could find them. When his account was re-activated they were there.
1
@JoshBeards if Trump really did what you claim he did, why not charge him and convict him? If the evidence is so clear, what are you waiting for?
1
@JoshBeards gee, such emotions. Due process is a formal charge, then a plea deal, then jury selection, a trial by jury, witnesses called and being asked questions by both parties while under oath. Then a formal verdict. None of that took place for Trump in both CO and ME. The CO chief justice even wrote that in his dissenting opinion. In fact, when you read the opinions of the CO supreme court justices it is ambiguous as they all know it going to get appeal to the US supreme court where either 1. They make they decision or 2. They just sit on it and when time expires Trump is left on the ballot "Trump said in the rally to "march peacefully." He didn't say to be peaceful at the Capitol." He also never said to get violent. If you want to be exact with words, that is something Trump did not say.
1
@JoshBeards " Amendment 14, Section 3 doesn't require you "charge" anyone. Again, where in 14:3 does it say "charge," "indict," "convict," "sentence?" It says, "engage" or "given aid and comfort."" It is implied via the due process clause. What is your standard on if someone engage or given aid and comfort? Just someone's words? That is what you are going by. .No need for placing someone under oath, or hearing testimonies, and allow both parties to ask questions and give their statements. No need for all of that. Just someone saying "well gee, I think Biden engaged in an insurrection, I am just going to kick him off the ballot". How would you feel if the Georgia secretary of state removed Biden from the ballot? That is a swing state. " Civil requires at least 51% proof of the connection and no intent. " What do you define as proof? What is your standard? You can make anything proof by your standard.
1
@JoshBeards again, section 1 "....No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." You can't deny someone equal protection of the law without due process. That means a formal conviction in which there is a process for that. The state of Colorado has a process as pointed out by their chief justice which is what he wrote in his dissenting opinion. Also, justice Samour wrote "President Trump was not offered the opportunity to request a jury of his peers; experts opined about some of the facts surrounding the January 6 incident and theorized about the law." All which is true. We have standards for a reason, to prevent people from becoming too powerful. If Trump engaged in an insurrection then charge him, do a trial and go from there. By your standard anyone can make up "proof" and kick anyone off of the ballot. That is how dictatorships are formed.
1
@JoshBeards "I have emotions and the guy in question all caps posts on a generic Twitter at 2am. The irony." He is a loud mouth New Yorker, everyone knows that. People just ignore those tweets. "Again, where in 14:3 does it say, "charged?" IT DOESN'T. " Ok, then what is going to stop states from removing Biden from the ballot? Dan Patrick says he wants to do it in TX. What is to stop him? According to you all one has to do is say he engaged in an insurrection, develop what he feels is "proof" and boom, it is done.
1
@JoshBeards "He received due process. There were multiple court cases with appeals in regard to the rulings. The first Colorado ruling kept him on the ballot. The final appeal to the Supreme Court ruled to bar him. How is that not due process?" No jury selection, no witnesses being questioned under oath. No time to gather and review all the evidence by both parties. Trump was not even there to defend himself as he was never given the opportunity. So, no due process. If you were being accused of something you would want all of that. You wouldn't want a handful of people whom you cannot even speak to decide your fate.
1
@JoshBeards so if GA, AZ and PA, three swing states that Biden won, removed Biden from the ballot for their reasons, how would you feel? There are legislatures pushing for that. If it is done one of two things happens 1. Those states go to Trump which is a 47 vote swing giving him the presidency 2. No one gets to 270 leaving it to the house which anything goes but could favor Trump I bet you will cry foul immediately
1
@JoshBeards "51% Proof is a jury or judge through bench trial ruling on the evidence. 14:3 doesn't require a jury as it is civil." How is it civil? I only see the word "civil" once in 14 section 3 and it is relation to a civil citizen, not a civil case. There is nothing in the 14th amendment saying there has to be proof. "Furthermore, 14:3 legally puts the burden of proof on the defendant not the prosecution." Where does it say that? And great, now Biden has to give proof himself. But again, proof is not written anywhere in 14 section three, so you do not even need that by your standard.
1
@JoshBeards " If Trump is barred from office under 14:3, does he go to jail? NO! That makes it a civil matter, not a criminal matter." Where does it say it is a civil matter in 14 section 3? Where does it say in 14 section 3 you even need a case? According to you all one needs to do is claim Biden engaged in an insurrection and boom, he is off the ballot. Nothing in 14 section 3 gives wording of any other standard such as proof, there needing to be a case, or that there even needs to be evidence as I do not see any of those words in 14 section 3. Going off of your standard.
1
@JoshBeards I am going off of your initial standard when you said "Amendment 14, Section 3 doesn't require you "charge" anyone. Again, where in 14:3 does it say "charge," "indict," "convict," "sentence?" It says, "engage" or "given aid and comfort." " Ok, well it also does not say proof or evidence. It does not say that a judge or the high courts have to make the ruling. I am going off of your standard. If someone says Biden engaged in an insurrection then he should be taken off the ballot. That is by your standard. Because by your standard since the words "proof" and "evidence" and "judge" are not in the 14th amendment section 3, they are not required.
1
@JoshBeards "You do need proof. That's the requirement." Why? The word "proof" is not in the 14th amendment. Just like how you said you don't need a conviction because the word "conviction" is not in the 14th amendment. That is your standard.
1
@JoshBeards "It does say you need evidence. "Engaged in insurrection or rebellion" or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." " Uh, I don't see the words evidence or proof. From what I am reading all you have to do is claim someone engaged in an insurrection. It does not say "proof must be given".
1
@JoshBeards again, according to you you do not need a conviction because the word "conviction" is not in the 14th amendment. My argument, based on your standards, is that you don't need proof as the word "proof" is not in there. For some reason you are saying the word "proof" is in there but you have yet to point it out or quote it. So we revert back to your original standard, no word of proof thus proof is not needed.
1
@JoshBeards no, I am just going by your standard. You said at the beginning "Amendment 14, Section 3 doesn't require you "charge" anyone. Again, where in 14:3 does it say "charge," "indict," "convict," "sentence?" It says, "engage" or "given aid and comfort." " Ok, so I say the word "proof" is not in there, nor evidence. So you don't need evidence or proof. "Under your still born logic, no law needs proof or evidence since no law literally states, "proof" or "evidence." " In the legal system evidence is used a lot. However, we are talking about an amendment here, not laws. If you want to start talking talking about laws then we go back to my standard of due process, and a conviction is needed. In which you will say "conviction is not in the 14th amendment". Where I will go back and say the same thing about proof and evidence.
1
@JoshBeards engage is not a synonym to evidence. So still not seeing the word "evidence" or "proof" in 14 section three. So yeah, way to keep punting on that on. So now let us go from there to see if you will stop punting and address the point. What is evidence to you? To me Biden engaged in an insurrection. So I call my secretary of state, let them know and boom, Biden is off the ballot. Evidence? My word. Done.
1
@JoshBeards ok, so I guess we agree. My word is all the evidence we need. Going to call my secretary of state Monday to get Biden removed from the ballot along with other democrats.
1
@ryandonaldson7369 to start, on the so called connection to the proud boys and oath keepers, there is no evidence of Trump having connection with them. Basically the game you are playing is "Trump's second cousin's college roommate played chess with a member of the proud boys so Trump is connected" You are stretching there. Trump did not plan or organized anything. As for the march to the capitol, he told them to go peacefully which they had a right to do. Capitol police let many in where most were peaceful. They took self tours and left. Yes, there were riots which were wrong, but releasing anger by breaking glass is not an insurrection. And for it supposedly being planned, those people were not well armed nor were that organized. As for fake electors and phone calls, none of that was illegal. It was Trump and his teams interpretation of the law. Many laws have different interpretations. Take this case with Bellows. If the court overrules Bellows does that mean she lied and was inciting an insurrection by pushing to remove candidates from the ballots? No. She had her interpretation of the law which was overruled via a process. Same with Trump an his team. Via the process he was denied. Calling a state to request not to certify votes or ask for more votes is not illegal. Al Gore did a similar thing in 2000. Biden has done a lot of awful things, I feel worse. Pushing the vaccine mandate, his withdraw of Afghanistan. How he constantly want to fund Ukraine. He poor leadership in general. I can point to a lot of that to remove him from the ballot.
1
@jasonfuller1001 that is not due process. Supreme courts make rulings based on their state constitution. The Chief Justice in CO wrote in his dissenting opinion there was no due process. In fact, if you read the opinion of the court it is ambiguous where their decision reads on the lines that the ruling was going to the US supreme court no matter what. But Trump was not given due process. That is why, once again, he was not charged and not found guilty of anything. What you literally support are rogue judges giving an opinion and taking away people's rights.
1
@nitroagent6494 what evidence? Biden tried to override congress and the constitution with his vaccine mandate.
1
@vforwombat9915 "ONCE AGAIN, 8 ppl have been barred using 14-3 already" Not true. Couy Griffin was convicted in 2022 and then was removed from office via 14 section 3. So right away you are wrong.
1
@vforwombat9915 "nope. gotta prove it in court first." Haven't for Trump. "i get you ppl are massively uninformed, i don't get why y'all are so insistent on telling the rest of us you are." You said 8 people were removed via 14-3 and none were convicted on an insurrection. Couy Griffin was convicted because of his comments on bringing guns go DC and came back Jan 17. That was his own action. It wasn't because of Jan 6th. And he was given a full trial.
1
@vforwombat9915 "trump had a trial in CO." No he did not. No jury, no call of witnesses to the stand to be questioned under oath. The chief justice of CO even said that in his dissenting opinion. When you read the opinion of the CO supreme court it is written knowing that the situation was going to go to the US supreme court which is why their statements are vague. These judges are not dumb. They know it is going to the highest court in the land and their decision was not going to mean anything. This is purely political theater.
1
@Lisa-pl6gv I agree, it is a Constitutional issue. The US supreme court will look into this and there is a high chance they will rule in favor of Trump. A good chance it will be a 9-0 ruling. Most likely 7-2 due to Sotomayor and Jackson hating Trump. But even I feel they will see how dangerous this ruling is and stick to the correct standards.
1
For those who try to use the phrase "fight like hell" as evidence of Trump inciting an insurrection don't understand it is a metaphor. I bet these same people act like this when they hear the phrase "fight cancer" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXBT5O5uikY
1
@ADayintheLifeofMr23 no, he told them to stop being violent, to respect the capitol police. He said “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” He also said "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!" Cry more clown.
1
@ADayintheLifeofMr23 "Also, “fight cancer” absolutely implies you will physically fight it using chemical weapons. Not a very good analogy." No, to people like you it means get in a fist fight with it. You guys are that dumb and do not understand metaphors.
1
It was wrong. What will stop other states from doing this for any candidate? This guys is correct. You have an unelected bureaucrat deciding who is on the ballot with no legal basis. The fact that Pakman does not oppose this is bad.
1
@OldManYellsAtClouds what law? Also, due process is in the 14th amendment.
1
@ADayintheLifeofMr23 the SC is unelected because they are there to make very unpopular decisions at times that are correct. It was designed to not be political. That is also why they get lifetime appointments. A bureaucrat can be removed very easily if need be.
1
@jasonfuller1001 since when was Trump convicted of engaging in an insurrection?
1
@ADayintheLifeofMr23 yeah, but it is not on Trump's criminal record as there was no due process. So he hasn't been found guilty. We have due process to prevent rogue judges from dishing out guilty verdicts left and right.
1
@OldManYellsAtClouds no, due process is needed. It is to prevent rogue judges and members of the government from stripping away people's rights.
1
@deletethis6902 he was not give due process that is listed in the 14th amendment.
1
@MultiBlackmind this wasn't a judge Trump picked. As for the 2020 election, there was no investigation.
1
@MultiBlackmind the earth is round. The reason is because that is the state that places it in the lowest potential energy possible. Same in why other planets and moons are round.
1
@DissectGibberish that decision still has not legal standing as there was no due process. If you read the CO supreme court's opinion it is written with the knowledge knowing it was going to the US supreme court. They had to make a decision and did knowing what they decided was not going to mean anything. That is why they gave Trump until Jan 4th to appeal it to the US supreme court and his team did. This is going to the US supreme court and there is a high chance, despite two of the justices hating Trump, they will rule in Trump's favor 9-0. My feeling that their ruling will be based on the idea that Trump was no given due process via 14-1 making the district court's opinion invalid. That judges cannot just decide if someone engaged in an insurrection or not. And even if the state of CO were to file charges this was a federal election and a federal position meaning Congress and the US supreme court will have to intervene to prevent rogue states from kicking people off of ballots just because.
1
@ADayintheLifeofMr23 you can keep saying that but section 1 of the 14th amendment is clear, there need to be due process. There was no due process here. If you read the opinions of the CO supreme court it adds in the provision that if appealed to the US supreme court, which it has, and if the US supreme court lets the clock run out and does nothing, Trump will stay on the ballot. The CO supreme court did the game of making a decision as they had to while resolving themselves from the issue. Even they know this while thing is politically motivated.
1
@alesitercrimson24 he hasn't been charged with an insurrection. If he does get charged he will not be convicted (if he is) until after novemeber. The case will take time, especially one of that magnitude.
1
What part of section 1 of the 14th amendment do you not understand? There was no due process. Bellows' ruling was vague and cherry pick. She left out what most leave out about Trump,. he told them to go peacefully. He never once did a call to action for violence.
1
What about section 1 of the 14th Amendment
1
Here are the facts 1. There was no due process 2. Trump has not been convicted of anything 3. This is purely political theater 4. The SC will take this up and will rule in favor for Trump, chances are it will be 9-0
1
@ChrisTopherBunnell "Colorado courts already set precedent when they said he was guilty" That is not true, he was not found guilty because 1. He was not charged with anything 2. There was no trial 3. Jan 6th is a federal issue, not a state or local one All the judge did was give their opinion in saying Trump engaged in an insurrection but did not remove him from the ballot because they knew that giving an opinion is not a legal conviction and thus there were no grounds to remove Trump. Doing so can lead to potential disbarment of the judge. Now that most likely would not have happened, but it would be a huge smear on the judge hindering them from doing certain cases in the future.
1
@steve08717 define proof? You need a trial to determine that. Also, section one requires due process.
1
@justsayin8734 it wasn't really upheld. Read the opinions, they are written with the knowledge the US supreme courts will have the final decision no matter what they rule. Also, the judge's decision is not a legal conviction. That is why Trump has not been found guilty of anything.
1
@dontletthedoorhityouinthe.4382 look at section 1, there was no due process here. This will be a quick decision by the US supreme court if they choose to take it.
1
So why do you ignore section 1 of the 14th amendment?
1
@psgame2kify no, it says "....No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." There was no due process here thus Trump is being deprived of his right to liberty without due process. The more you know......
1
You had many nations like Norway on that list. Trump was not involved in his businesses. Day one he signed off from them. They are businesses open for anyone to use. If someone from that nation did not take up a room someone else would have. Many Americans used his hotels as well.
1
@rickglorie what did Trump do to break his oath? He told people to go peacefully.
1
@jaycorbin just because some people rioted is not Trump's fault. He did not tell them to get violent.
1
@nitroagent6494 what evidence?
1
@jaycorbin a lot of those convictions are BS. When film came out showing Jacob Chansley being peaceful and being escorted by police he was left out from prison. And saying "take it back" means protest peacefully to try let congress know their anger. And also, in the future, vote Trump back in. I am a little disturbed here. Why do you feel those phrases immediately means to get violent? I can see why there were months of riots by BLM. I feel you were one of those BLM rioters.
1
@nitroagent6494 care to point to me who testified and what did they say? People saying things is not strong evidence. I need physical evidence, I also need to see what they say. A lot of the people who testified against Trump typically say things like "well Mike told me he heard from Sally that Trump said this". That is vague. "The fact that like most people charging the capital had lots of Maga hats, shirts, and more on the whole time." There have been people wearing Trump hats that have been assaulted. I guess that is on Biden. Better arrest Biden and the democrats. "Trump tried to stop his VP from calling for help." How? He was nowhere near Pence? "We have literal audio of him asking to "find more votes" from state officials." Which is not illegal. So when Gore and his team asked for a recount in FL was that an insurrection?
1
@DissectGibberish I know, right. Every time a school plays their fight song the student body starts punching each other....... Joking aside, the word "fight" is used as a metaphor. One of Trump's lawyers showed videos of democrats using the word "fight". Fight can mean a lot of things. One definition is "campaign determinedly for or against something, especially to put right what one considers unfair or unjust." Another is "a vigorous struggle or campaign for or against something." Such as in the phrase "fight against cancer". Do you think when someone says they are going to fight cancer they literally mean they will punch cancer?
1
@rickglorie "He organised the "Save America" rally there, lied about it's intentions " He did not lie about anything, and rallies are completely legal. As for adequate police, Trump is not responsible for providing police to the Capitol. You want to know why? Because if Trump were to send police....well really the military to the Capitol as he is commander and chief, without consent of the speaker, that would be....wait for it.......inciting an insurrection. That would be because he would be using his military to enforce laws which he can't. Just like how a president cannot send the military into a state to enforce state law without consent of the governor. As for the "fight like hell" part, look up the word metaphor. Politicians on both sides use the word "fight" as a metaphor. He said to go peacefully. It actually disturbs me when people like you feel that the word "fight" immediately means violence. It is a sign to me that you are the violent one.
1
@rickglorie Harris just did a "Fight for our Freedom" college tour. Is that inciting violence?
1
@rickglorie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfCfWUaASLg
1
@rickglorie you bring up fake electors when that is not illegal. Al Gore delayed the 2000 election results for a long time getting recounts. The results were close so at that point legal pathways to win are looked at. Al Gore did it in 2000. You act as if what Trump did was new when it was not. It was his legal team looking for legal pathways, not violence for victory. Trump was the Commander and Chief of the army, why didn't he use that power to storm the Capitol? The military strongly supported Trump as opposed to Biden. As for Trump lying, again, that is not illegal. Also, many times politicians give different opinions when it comes to legal issues. Just look here, you have a Secretary of State claiming Trump inciting an insurrection. If the Maine supreme court rules against here, or the US does, how will you feel? Will you feel Bellows lied?
1
@rickglorie on Biden and impeachment, I am all for it for the political theater now. Democrats impeached Trump, twice, for no reason where the second time Trump was leaving office. Everyone knew there would not be 67 votes in the Senate. It was political theater and a waste of time. But democrats did it. I know with Biden there would not be 67 votes. But if democrats are going to do it then do it right back to them. Same on this issue. If the ruling stands and Trump is removed from the ballot then do it right back to Biden. Play partisan games, win partisan prizes. You don't want Biden impeached, you should not have impeached Trump for no reasons.
1
@rickglorie let us keep it simple 1. When Harris had her recent "Fight for Freedoms" tour, was that promoting violence? 2. If the courts overrule Bellows, does that mean she lied?
1
@rickglorie 1. Oh so now that "fight" is different? Now I know the real you. You bring up equality, so when BLM burns down a business or tries to burn down a federal court house, that is OK because Harris did not mean that when she and other democrats say "fight"? Or when Maxine Waters say to get "more confrontational". When when a trans person shoots up a Christian school, that is not what the left means when they say to "fight" for LGBTQ+ people? You are the one acting in bad faith. As for trial by combat, you can have combat without violence. One definition for combat is "take action to reduce or prevent". An action can be writing an opinion article, or doing a protest. To you when the right says it they mean violence, but if the left says it they do not. That shows your true colors. Let me ask you this, how did you feel about the months of BLM riots in 2020 that were supported by Harris, Ted Wheeler, Maxine Waters and other democrats? 2. She may think she is acting on her constituents, but the point of my question is this. She made a ruling based on her interpretation of the law. If the court overrules her then her interpretation was incorrect. That is normal. It is no different than Trump. His legal team interpreted a law in a certain way. He was overruled. Does not mean he lied, he had a different interpretation of the law. That is common. That is why we have a court system with many layers. If the US supreme court overrules the CO supreme court, does it mean they lied? You say Trump is toast, Jan 6 2024 is tomorrow. It has been 3 years. If he is so toast what is taking so long?
1
Almost all legal experts knows this is the wrong decision. If you look at the CO supreme court's opinions they are written with the knowledge knowing the US supreme court will make the final decision. And the common theme is that it will be, at least, a 7-2 ruling in favor of Trump but should be a quick 9-0 ruling. On the basis that there has been no due process to begin with is enough to overrule this.
1
@kaiza6467 "the 2020 election was not stolen." There was no investigation when there should have been. The results were close during a weird election time due to covid. Also, it was rigged on the lies by the media on covid and racism in this nation. Along with censorship such as the Hunter laptop story. "Covid wasn’t a hoax." The virus is real, the approach we took was a scam. It was never that deadly to justify what we did for months. Democrats kept pushing the covid restrictions while also violating them as they knew how non-dangerous the virus is. You guys freaked out over the sniffles and supporting ruining people's lives because of it. "America isn’t a Christian nation." No one is really saying it is. Do you really think many Trump supporters care that strongly about religion? No. "Gender and sex are different things." No they are not. You are either a man or a woman and that is how you are born. Heck, Mr. Rodgers said that years ago. It is basic science. "Violent crime is lower in countries with gun control laws. " Explain El Salvador "Say that to your average Trump voter and they’ll go red in the face and froth at their mouths lol" I am actually pretty calm and just debunked all that you said. It takes intelligence to go beyond simple talking points. Now I expect one of two things will happen here. One, I will get ignored or two, I will get called names.
1
@kaiza6467 despite the left having nothing but emotional talking points, they always contradict themselves, here "the 2020 election was not stolen." What people wanted was an investigation. However Leftists: 2020 was a fair and secure election Leftists: 2016 was stolen from Russia "Covid wasn’t a hoax." Leftists: We support kids' education Leftists: Let us shut down schools or Leftists: Follow the science Leftists: Ignore the science of natural immunity or psychological illnesses from lockdowns "Gender and sex are different things." Leftists: We support a woman's right to choose Leftists: We can't define what a woman is Leftists: We support equality and opportunity for women Leftists: Screw Title IX, let men participate in women's sports The list goes on. You guys are pathetic
1
@philipstanco6011 "Mooron boy. Trump’s biggest crowd is the uneducated, like you. Easily manipulated and gullible." Gee, I remember the left falling for the covid scam. Defending the lockdown and school closers over the sniffles. And wearing masks all without question. And if someone did question it people like you said to "follow the science" or "listen to the experts".
1
He told people to go peacefully. Just because some released their anger and smashed windows does not mean he incited an insurrection. Also, none of them had guns.. I hear often from the left that our guns would never be able to take on the government. But unarmed people can?
1
@Ithot213 to start, Trump told them to go peacefully. Most were peaceful as shown in released videos. Just because some acted violently is not Trump's fault. He tweeted twice for people to stop. The riots were bad, but Trump did not tell people to riot. Compared that to months of BLM riots in 2020 that were supported by democrats like Maxine Waters and Ted Wheeler.
1
There is a good chance the supreme court will rule in favor of Trump 9-0.
1
@MultiBlackmind depends on what it is for and if there was due process. If it were to happen today I would not approve as there has been no due process. If there is due process and Biden is found guilty then yes. Same is for Trump. There is a reason why no one has charged Trump for engaging in an insurrection as there is no evidence to support it.
1
@ADayintheLifeofMr23 "" Actually it does in section 1 "..... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." There was no due process so these states are stripping away Trump's liberty. Why do you ignore parts of the Constitution?
1
The fact he can take on this political attacks on is why so many support him. The liberal elites have lost their minds and feel threatened by Trump. Also, the democrats are very dangerous and need to be stopped and he is the man to do it.
1
The reality is to explain things to leftists you have to be short and quick. They have a short timespan. Look down the comment section, they are pointing to amendment 14 section 3. Well, the Constitution is much deeper than that, such as section 1 and the equal protection clause and due process. Trump was not given due process thus this secretary of state, one person, is pushing to strip Trump's right to liberty and equal protection under the law. Giving someone that much power is wrong, plain and simple. The irony here is how so many on the left call Trump a fascist and dictator when he never done anything like this. You call Trump a dictator but then cheer when one state official kicks him off the ballot. I bet you will then cry when 9 US supreme court justices place him back on the ballot.
1
@DissectGibberish how do you determine if someone engaged in an insurrection? Along with that you have amendment 14 section 1 where due process is needed. Why do you leftists ignore tha?
1
How is Trump not eligible? He has not been found guilty of anything.
1
An age is an absolute. Whether someone committed a crime or insurrection is not.
1
What do you mean by strict interpretation of the 14th? We can start there.
1
@hsbritt you also have the part of due process. You also have the part if the presidency is even an office, in if this applies to the president as there has always been a way to remove a president.
1
What did you want him to do? He Tweeted for people to be peaceful.
1
No one has been charged nor convicted of engaging in an insurrection. The reason is because an actual insurrection is much more violent and last much longer than a few hours. Any charge and attempts of convictions will get thrown out of almost any court and experts know that. Experts that hate Trump know that which is why they are all talk and no action.
1
The answer is simple, he was not given due process and thus has not been convicted of anything. What happened in CO, and especially Maine sets the bar where people can remove candidates left and right.
1
@OldManYellsAtClouds we will find out via the supreme court. Fact is that he was never found guilty of engaging in an insurrection, so the 14th does not apply. He was not granted due process via the 14th amendment.
1
@MikeHart72 that ruling by the court has no legal stance because Trump did not receive due process. So in the eyes of the law he is innocent when it comes down to if he engaged in an insurrection. Due process is a plea offer, jury selection, trial by jury, calling witnesses to be question by the prosecutor and defendant. Trump was not given any of that.
1
@MikeHart72 as for what Trump said, lying is not illegal. Also, he said to go peacefully. Saying the world "fight" is common and does not mean to be violent. One of Trump's lawyers showed videos of democrats using the phrase. Do you think when someone says "fight" they mean to get violent? Are you Russel Crowe that is going to try to get in a fist fight with cancer to "fight cancer"?
1
@jasonfuller1001 he was not given due process. The chief justice in the CO supreme court even said that. "BTW, Section 3 of the 14th does not require an indictment or a conviction." Section 1 requires due process. Why do you guys pick and choose parts of the Constitution and ignore the rest?
1
@ADayintheLifeofMr23 the SC is not elected and given lifetime appointments to prevent them from being political. They have to make unpopular decisions that are correct.
1
@ADayintheLifeofMr23 I have read the 14th amendment in its entirety. You have due process in section 1, and in section 5 it says "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." So should congress be making this decision or some bureaucrat?
1
@jasonfuller1001 "section 1 does not protect your right to try and get a job." Section 1 of the 14th amendment ".... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." You have a state denying him of his liberty (getting a job as you put it) without due process. " There was a Colorado Superior Court hearing where Trump was represented and presented evidence." That is not how due process works. Due means a trial by jury of your peers (6th amendment). He was not given that. There were no witnesses called. He has not even been charged with anything. Judge Henry Friendly gave a list in what should be considered due process An unbiased tribunal. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses. The right to know opposing evidence. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented. Opportunity to be represented by counsel. Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented. Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision. That was not offered to Trump. Without due process you will have rogue judges handing out guilty verdicts left and right which we don't want as a society.
1
@deletethis6902 how will you feel when the US supreme court overrules this?
1
@jasonfuller1001 I will disagree and then sit back and watch the chaos as candidates are being pulled off ballots left and right. Chances are the SC will rule in favor of Trump 9-0. Most likely 7-2 due to Sotomayor and Jackson hate of Trump.
1
@DissectGibberish "Perhaps if you kept up on the news you might see that the Colorado Supreme Court decided that Trump HAD incited the insurrection." They did not do that. The district court did. All the CO Supreme Court did was allow the decision to stand. If you read the opinion you will see it is written knowing the situation is going to the US supreme court and their ruling is pointless. When it hits the US supreme court they will rule in favor of Trump with a high chance it will be a 9-0 decision. The decision will not be based on if Trump engaged in an insurrection or not, that is not their job in this situation. It will be based on the usage of the 14th amendment. They will most likely point out how there was no due process to convict Trump of engaging in an insurrection. Thus a judge and state courts cannot just remove people off of ballots without due process via amendment 14 section 1. Also, since this is a federal situation this will be more regulated to congress and the US supreme court prevent rogue states from kicking people off of ballots.
1
@DissectGibberish if you also read the CO supreme court's decision they set it up on the idea that if the US supreme court just runs out the clock and makes no ruling Trump stays on the ballot. Jonathan Turley has a great explanation of it. The CO supreme court does not want to be the overall decider of this amendment and situation for the 49 other states to fight over.
1