Trump 2024 — The second term

[jamil]

What question, Mike? I can’t make heads or tails of the word salad you posted.

Every state provided a certificate of ascertainment for the 2020 election that listed the final vote count for their state and the names of the electors who would be representing them in the electoral college. Each certificate of ascertainment was individually validated with the official state seal and the signature of the Governor of the issuing state.

We can easily identify fraudulent electors because they did not have valid certificates of ascertainment.

Does that answer your question?

Mike has said that because the election rules were changed in PA, for example, to allow paper ballots to be collected past election day, that it went against what the state legislature set forth in law. Therefore, the certificates of ascertainment for the electors seated were not legal.

 

[LeftyGunner]

What you think "should" be included in the definition of "insurrection" is not in reality.

Definitions are redefined by courts every day.

The disqualifying act that they are trying to pin on Trump is one of "insurrection" as defined. An “insurrection,” by definition, is a “violent uprising against an authority or government.” which you yourself said that Trump should not be held accountable when it comes to the acts of individual rioters.

I understand the point you are making, but I doubt the cases against Trump would have gotten even this far if the courts agreed with you on that point.

I can't think of hearing your notion of a disqualify "insurrectionist" act which doesn't fit the actual definition anywhere else.

And yet the courts are doing exactly that. Maybe rigid definitions don’t matter as much to a court as they do to you in this specific situation…I don’t know.

Regardless what the law says, I don’t think someone who refuses to accept the outcome of elections should be allowed to participate in them.

 

[jamil]

Let me add this to support my point.. Does what you think should be the disqualifying act fit the definition of insurrection?

"An “insurrection,” by definition, is a “violent uprising against an authority or government.”

You could probably say an insurrection is probably a whole lot like a rebellion. I think if what happened at the Capitol was an insurrection, then what happened at the White House on May 29, 2020 was an insurrection. Who instigated that? Well. Basically people who vote for Democrats. Press. Talk shows. Democrat Politicians. Left wing social media personalities. Everyone who encouraged rioting. They're all guilty of insurrection or inciting an insurrection if 1/6 was an insurrection.

 

[cobber]

Graduated at the top of his law school class, doncha know?

 

[KG1]

Regardless what the law says, I don’t think someone who refuses to accept the outcome of elections should be allowed to participate in them.

And this is the crux of your argument based on your opinion of what you think should be regardless of what the law says. I'm dealing in the reality of what actually defines a disqualifying "insurrectionist act" at the present time for the purpose of this discussion. and that once again is an “insurrection,” by definition, is a “violent uprising against an authority or government.”

I have yet to see the court expand on that definition to include what your opinion is.

 

[printcraft]

Where were the cries of insurrection in 2016 when Hollywood and the media were trying to get the electors for Trump to change their votes to bidet?

 

[Ingomike]

What question, Mike? I can’t make heads or tails of the word salad you posted.

Every state provided a certificate of ascertainment for the 2020 election that listed the final vote count for their state and the names of the electors who would be representing them in the electoral college. Each certificate of ascertainment was individually validated with the official state seal and the signature of the Governor of the issuing state.

We can easily identify fraudulent electors because they did not have valid certificates of ascertainment.

Does that answer your question?

Yes it does.

Somehow I suspect that if a republican administration, SOS, and republican selected state supreme court overruled the manner the legislature directed to select electors to the disadvantage of the dems the response from you might be different.

Unconstitutional to me is unconstitutional, not situational…

 

[indyblue]

 

[jamil]

Definitions are redefined by courts every day.

You're going with that? Definitions that have been around and legal scholars have recognized forever, but when you need to get rid of a candidate who might **** up your gravy train, then it's time to redefine words?

I understand the point you are making, but I doubt the cases against Trump would have gotten even this far if the courts agreed with you on that point.

That's a bit of a fallacy you're running with. But anyway, a court in CO ruled not to remove Trump. It went to the CO Supreme court, who overruled that decision in an obvious partisan ruling. The CO SC ruling was 4-3.

The dissenting opinions were that

1. the section of Colorado's election code under which the case was brought was not enacted to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection.
2. The majority opinion "flies in the face of the due process doctrine." and falls "woefully short of what due process demands."
3. the state's election code does not "[authorize] Colorado courts to decide whether a presidential primary candidate is disqualified under Section 3" and that the "approach seems to have no discernible limits."

Point is, it's not the grand court win you think it is. It's a narrow partisan ruling that ignores due process and overstepped their authority.

And yet the courts are doing exactly that. Maybe rigid definitions don’t matter as much to a court as they do to you in this specific situation…I don’t know.

Regardless what the law says, I don’t think someone who refuses to accept the outcome of elections should be allowed to participate in them.

This sounds a lot like you agree with it because you like the outcome, more than you agree with it because it is rational to do so.

 

[jamil]

And this is the crux of your argument based on your opinion of what you think should be regardless of what the law says. I'm dealing in the reality of what actually defines a disqualifying "insurrectionist act" at the present time for the purpose of this discussion. and that once again is an “insurrection,” by definition, is a “violent uprising against an authority or government.”

I have yet to see the court expand on that definition to include what your opinion is.

Yeah, that is what it looks like to me. So if courts deny due process, why not? It's the outcome he wants. **** the law. **** due process. Get that MF'er off the ballot.

Honestly I think we'd be better off without Trump in the race. My opinion, not that it's worth anything. But he has a right to run. And all those ********ers whining about Trump ruining democracy don't seem to see that they're the ones ****ing up trust in elections.

I'm serious about red states doing the same thing. If you can make the case that what Trump did rises to the level of insurrection, then the same quality of ruling can be made about Joe Biden and his treasonous dealings. Only problem with that, they'd be doing Democrats a favor, which would mean they don't have to find their own excuse to get rid of him.

 

[KG1]

Yeah, that is what it looks like to me. So if courts deny due process, why not? It's the outcome he wants. **** the law. **** due process. Get that MF'er off the ballot.

Honestly I think we'd be better off without Trump in the race. My opinion, not that it's worth anything. But he has a right to run. And all those ********ers whining about Trump ruining democracy don't seem to see that they're the ones ****ing up trust in elections.

I'm serious about red states doing the same thing. If you can make the case that what Trump did rises to the level of insurrection, then the same quality of ruling can be made about Joe Biden and his treasonous dealings. Only problem with that, they'd be doing Democrats a favor, which would mean they don't have to find their own excuse to get rid of him.

Hey why not. According to LG we should all be able to come up with our own "disqualifying" definition of what "insurrection" should be based on opinion.

 

[LeftyGunner]

And this is the crux of your argument based on your opinion of what you think should be regardless of what the law says. I'm dealing in the reality of what actually defines a disqualifying "insurrectionist act" at the present time for the purpose of this discussion. and that once again is an “insurrection,” by definition, is a “violent uprising against an authority or government.”

C’mon man…you know I’m an auto mechanic, right? I’m not even an attorney, let alone a prosecuting attorney, and certainly not a prosecuting attorney currently pressing charges against Trump. I didn’t choose the charges, and I have no idea how the people that are pressing charges against Trump intend to address the seemingly glaring issue with the definition of “insurrection” in regards to the criminal proceedings.

Can we take a step back and take a breath? I feel like things might be getting a bit too personally-directed here.

Maybe the actual legal definitions have more wiggle room that it appears to us out here, maybe the prosecuting attorneys hope to get the court to redefine the term more broadly…maybe they are ignoring it outright and expect the court to do the same…I honestly don’t know.

I do think that what Trump did on Jan6 was both morally wrong, and legally dubious. I think it is reasonable to suspect he committed crimes in pursuit of his phony electors scheme, and it is appropriate to prosecute him for those crimes. I am curious to see both the prosecutor’s evidence and the courts reaction to that evidence as the trial unfolds.

 

[jamil]

Hey why not. According to LG we should all be able to come up with our own "disqualifying" definition of what "insurrection" should be based on opinion.

I think Gavin Newsom committed treason. So once we get Biden off the ballot in all red states, if Newsom runs, he's next.

 

[KG1]

C’mon man…you know I’m an auto mechanic, right? I’m not even an attorney, let alone a prosecuting attorney, and certainly not a prosecuting attorney currently pressing charges against Trump. I didn’t choose the charges, and I have no idea how the people that are pressing charges against Trump intend to address the seemingly glaring issue with the definition of “insurrection” in regards to the criminal proceedings.

Can we take a step back and take a breath? I feel like things might be getting a bit too personally-directed here.

Maybe the actual legal definitions have more wiggle room that it appears to us out here, maybe the prosecuting attorneys hope to get the court to redefine the term more broadly…maybe they are ignoring it outright and expect the court to do the same…I honestly don’t know.

I do think that what Trump did on Jan6 was both morally wrong, and legally dubious. I think it is reasonable to suspect he committed crimes in pursuit of his phony electors scheme, and it is appropriate to prosecute him for those crimes. I am curious to see both the prosecutor’s evidence and the courts reaction to that evidence as the trial unfolds.

I'm taking a step back because you are getting bombarded from several different angles. I feel that I've more that adequately made my counterpoints that represent my position. HAGN.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Hey why not. According to LG we should all be able to come up with our own "disqualifying" definition of what "insurrection" should be based on opinion.

Is that what you got from my posts?

You guys keep arguing that the Government doesn’t have a case against Trump, or that they don’t the authority to prosecute Trump...but 91 active felony charges inform a potentially different perspective.

The definitions I come up with mean no more than the ones you come up with…it is the definition by which the court abides that matters here…and I don’t see a lot of evidence supporting the idea that the court is going to constrain itself to the interpretation of the definition you and Jamil prefer.

Edit…I just saw KG post that he is stepping away for the evening. I‘m going to follow his lead.

Have a good evening INGO.

 

[jamil]

Is that what you got from my posts?

You guys keep arguing that the Government doesn’t have a case against Trump, or that they don’t the authority to prosecute Trump...but 91 active felony charges inform a potentially different perspective.

The definitions I come up with mean no more than the ones you come up with…it is the definition by which the court abides that matters here…and I don’t see a lot of evidence supporting the idea that the court is going to constrain itself to the interpretation of the definition you and Jamil prefer.

I prefer the definition it is, not the one that achieves my political goals. If the law is that fickle this is not a nation of laws, it's a nation run by ideologues.

Edit…I just saw KG post that he is stepping away for the evening. I‘m going to follow his lead.

Have a good evening INGO.

 

[jamil]

I'm taking a step back because you are getting bombarded from several different angles. I feel that I've more that adequately made my counterpoints that represent my position. HAGN.

Well, you say something most of INGO disagrees with, everyone tells you so. It means you tend to have to answer a lot of posts.

 

[KG1]

Well, you say something most of INGO disagrees with, everyone tells you so. It means you tend to have to answer a lot of posts.

This is true. I'm just taking a step back now. Others are free to continue on.

 

[BugI02]

This convinces me that you don't understand. I have no interest in saving you. From what? We go around and around, even though we probably agree 90% on politics. That 10% is pretty much where I point out some legitimate criticisms of Trump, which you reject all, ever. I find that odd.

Well. Okay, we disagree on cyclists too. So maybe only 85%. But most of the cyclist stuff I post about is like pineapple on pizza. Just having some fun with it. The cyclist thread was supposed to be in fun, but then a couple of guys took it more serious than was intended.

That'a a paraphrase of a song lyric by Stabbing Westward

How did you get so old in so few years

 

[Ingomike]

I think Gavin Newsom committed treason. So once we get Biden off the ballot in all red states, if Newsom runs, he's next.

And when republicans take power again all the major dems should be under FISA warrants with NSA providing all the surveillance, the CIA and their world counterparts should be creating evidence out of thin air to use for a special counsel investigation and ultimately impeachment.

But LG probably doesn’t believe ANY of this actually happened to Trump…