Colorado Supreme Court Disqualifies Trump on the 2024 ballot

[KG1]

As far as I'm concerned it falls under states rights to do what it pleases.

Look ahead to post #293 and tell me what your argument is for states rights to do as they please to counter that post. Show your work.

 

[chipbennett]

It's an overreach. The fed shouldn't have that kind of power to tell a state what it's local officials who were elected by the local people can and cannot do in regard to an election whether it be national or state

You have the overreach exactly backward. The Constitution enumerates authority over federal elections. A State official doesn't have enumerated authority to declare a candidate for President to be ineligible.

 

[march19]

You have the overreach exactly backward. The Constitution enumerates authority over federal elections. A State official doesn't have enumerated authority to declare a candidate for President to be ineligible.

Eh, federal elections should be in the power of those who vote in them. Issues with constitutional rights and states rights be damned lol. Either way it doesn't matter, the people getting elected aren't reps of the people, even ones who directly voted for them. So imo it's all to the wolves anyway

 

[chipbennett]

Eh, federal elections should be in the power of those who vote in them. Issues with constitutional rights and states rights be damned lol. Either way it doesn't matter, the people getting elected aren't reps of the people, even ones who directly voted for them. So imo it's all to the wolves anyway

Article V is the one you're looking for, if what you think should be is different from what actually is.

As to your underlying point: President is not directly elected. That is a feature, not a bug, of the Constitution. Further, the federal government is comprised of and represents the several (sovereign) States, not individual citizens.

 

[march19]

Article V is the one you're looking for, if what you think should be is different from what actually is.

As to your underlying point: President is not directly elected. That is a feature, not a bug, of the Constitution. Further, the federal government is comprised of and represents the several (sovereign) States, not individual citizens.

I don't worry about documents. Not my purview. Though I do love a convo

 

[chipbennett]

I don't worry about documents. Not my purview. Though I do love a convo

How do you have a meaningful convo without understanding the documents, though?

 

[march19]

How do you have a meaningful convo without understanding the documents, though?

Because I learn beliefs through convos, and beliefs are fascinating even without proper contexts. Whether there's an agreement or not doesn't really matter, it's the learning that I enjoy, friend.

 

[chipbennett]

Because I learn beliefs through convos, and beliefs are fascinating even without proper contexts. Whether there's an agreement or not doesn't really matter, it's the learning that I enjoy, friend.

Beliefs absent context are meaningless, especially when expressing beliefs about the applicability of the rule of law. If you really had a desire to learn, you would desire to understand the Constitution that provides most of the context for the beliefs in question.

 

[march19]

Beliefs absent context are meaningless, especially when expressing beliefs about the applicability of the rule of law. If you really had a desire to learn, you would desire to understand the Constitution that provides most of the context for the beliefs in question.

Not really, beliefs with context taint the inner viewpoints of the person stating said beliefs. And the rule of law is but a reflection of beliefs of others who make said laws. I'm not in the business of learning about abstract concepts such as law, but I do love learning about people.

 

[smokingman]

Not really, beliefs with context taint the inner viewpoints of the person stating said beliefs. And the rule of law is but a reflection of beliefs of others who make said laws. I'm not in the business of learning about abstract concepts such as law, but I do love learning about people.

In other words you just think what ever you want to believe is true, with zero regard for reality?

 

[Shadow01]

My truth is “the” truth…

 

[march19]

In other words you just think what ever you want to believe is true, with zero regard for reality?

No, I believe everything is an abstraction. Things made up for the sake of justifying a perception. Justifying something just off of someone else's perception is not verifiably sound. It leads to false messianic figures preaching radicalized rhetoric.
You can tell a lot about a person from what they believe. That's the fascinating part. It's not political, it's human observation.

 

[smokingman]

My truth is “the” truth…

It honestly cracks me up to even read that. It is so detached from reality.

 

[chipbennett]

Not really, beliefs with context taint the inner viewpoints of the person stating said beliefs. And the rule of law is but a reflection of beliefs of others who make said laws. I'm not in the business of learning about abstract concepts such as law, but I do love learning about people.

Sorry, but you're leaving no basis for any kind of rational conversation on the subject of this thread. There is a time and a place for existentialism. This isn't one of them.

 

[chipbennett]

It honestly cracks me up to even read that. It is so detached from reality.

I've conversed with potheads more grounded in reality.

 

[march19]

Sorry, but you're leaving no basis for any kind of rational conversation on the subject of this thread. There is a time and a place for existentialism. This isn't one of them.

Rationality is perception based. And rationality without philosophical reasoning cannot properly exist with reason

 

[march19]

Dude it's literally just politics, chill

I've conversed with potheads more grounded in reality.

 

[march19]

Plus, that's not very civil to attempt to insult me. Truth without kindness is only brutality

I've conversed with potheads more grounded in reality.

 

[march19]

I said "should" because this was the purpose of elections in the first place. Some disagreed with this and decided for everyone else and went with a system that takes power away from the people. I'm not saying things should be this way just because I think it's right, I say it because of the history. The assumption otherwise is uncivil and doesn't belong in this type of conversation because of how mean-spirited it is.

My truth is “the” truth…

 

[Sigblitz]

.