Now is The Time to Tell Americans What Really Happened on 1.6.2021 at our U.S. Capitol.

a reply to: IgorMartinez

Trump is free to say the election was stolen from him.

But if he can’t provide any reasonable evidence to support his claim, it shows rebellion against the election system.

These two statements are completely contradictory as well as putting a citizen within the position of proving their innocence. That's some real commie BS.

Trump doesn’t need to be found guilty of insurrection in a criminal court to enforce the 14th Amendment.

Can you show me another instance, case history or precedent where liberties are removed without due process please......

Or are you advocating for the position of arbitrary allegations automatically equal removal of liberties?

a reply to: JinMI

Trump is who needs to show the election was stolen from him, since he made the claim. He didn’t and he hasn’t.

Free speech allows for any claim to be made. Then support for the claim can be presented and/or tested.

After the civil war, the 14th Amendment was written to prevent enemy combatants from becoming political officials.

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: JinMI

Trump is free to say the election was stolen from him.

But if he can’t provide any reasonable evidence to support his claim, it shows rebellion against the election system.

Trump doesn’t need to be found guilty of insurrection in a criminal court to enforce the 14th Amendment.

You better brace yourself Bucko.
Trump will be on all the ballots in all the states.

So many of you Liberals are banking on Trump being kicked off the ballots in multiple states.
You guys are scared, you know Biden can’t beat Trump in a fair and square election without massive fraud and cheating by the con artist Dems.

Buckle up.

a reply to: IgorMartinez

Trump is who needs to show the election was stolen from him, since he made the claim. He didn’t and he hasn’t.

Or what? Oh, you already answered that :

But if he can’t provide any reasonable evidence to support his claim, it shows rebellion against the election system.

So here you are saying that words equal rebellion/insurrection.

I think it's clear where you stand. On the side of an authoritarian state that denies its citizens rights and liberties.


Can you also answer this question; Can you show me another instance, case history or precedent where liberties are removed without due process please......

Haven't we learned the government will never investigate and convict itself?
There are no sides in DC but one.

a reply to: RazorV66

I don’t know. Maybe the Supreme Court will rule in Trump’s favor because following the 14th Amendment to the letter would cause too much political turmoil. But I thought the court was not supposed to consider politics like that.

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: RazorV66

I don’t know. Maybe the Supreme Court will rule in Trump’s favor because following the 14th Amendment to the letter would cause too much political turmoil. But I thought the court was not supposed to consider politics like that.

What part under the 14th amendment does a POTUS fall under?

What about section 1 and 5 of the 14th amendment?

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: visitedbythem

I don’t hate Donald Trump. I can’t tell if he’s a buffoon or a super troll.

I usually don’t get interested in politics, but this story caught my attention.

I don’t know, nor have an opinion, if Biden stole the 2020 election. But I know there hasn’t been any good evidence brought to light that he did.

Considering the lacking evidence, but never-the-less, Trump’s continuing campaign that the 2020 election victory was stolen from him, this shows rebellion against the American election system.

Coupled with the 14th Amendment, that is grounds to enforce a ban on Trump running for President.

Unless a smoking gun is brought to light about 2020 election fraud, I don’t see how the Supreme Court could side with Trump, unless they are partisan hacks. This decision will let me know if I can trust the Supreme Court or not. That is why I’m interested in this story.

You said: This decision will let me know if I can trust the Supreme Court or not.

What's that mean? They damn well better agree with whatever you have made your mind up as to what the truth is, is your truth and they damn well better see things your way or else its going to be curtains for them. Because Im always right....
Right? Or maybe I misunderstood you friend.

I just care about the truth. Donald is an ass. His dad caused this. I think his dad pushed too hard, and caused Trumps older brothers untimely demise. I think his dad caused Don to look to others for approval. He craved it. He looks to the polls. If th3e polls tell him abortion: child sacrafice is a good thing everyone wants, he will cheerlead for it! He just wants you to give him the love , affection, and attention he was denied as a child,. then as a young adult. Please approve of me dad. I love you dad. Dont you love me too? why do I feel so empty inside? I need love. I just need you guys to like me, and it hurts me when you dont, and if you dont, Im going to kick your ass.

Did I summerize it good? LOL

a reply to: JinMI

If you can find evidence the 2020 election was stolen, using words to express this could save the election system.

But if you can’t find evidence the 2020 election was stolen, and you keep saying it was, and you won’t acknowledge your position is an unfounded opinion, then you are the one being fraudulent.

The liberty of enemy combatants to hold political office was removed after the civil war.

I feel like I’m being quite repetitive now, but since you keep debating me, I’m happy to reply.

a reply to: JinMI

It would appear Trump is being considered an enemy combatant to be banned from holding office.

Denying Trump the privilege of holding office, because he is considered an enemy combatant, does not appear to be depriving Trump of life, liberty, and property.

a reply to: visitedbythem

LOL. Now you’re making me feel like as big an ass as Trump seems to be.

Ok I just started reading into this story today, but seems to me like the 14th amendment is pretty clear, and Trump’s rebellion against the election system is still unfounded.

In light of those points, if the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor, it would show to me they are putting politics above the letter of the law. And that would probably cause me to lose some faith (trust) in them, if that winds up being the result. So let’s see. I’m excited to see how this story develops.

a reply to: IgorMartinez

If you can find evidence the 2020 election was stolen, using words to express this could save the election system.

There are multiple threads here on the subject. Since you're new, you get a pass, but they exist.

Along with like....the rest of the internet.

But if you can’t find evidence the 2020 election was stolen, and you keep saying it was, and you won’t acknowledge your position is an unfounded opinion, then you are the one being fraudulent.

So now I'm an insurrectionist according to your provided logic? Interesting.

I feel like I’m being quite repetitive now, but since you keep debating me, I’m happy to reply.

Yes, you are saying the same thing over and over again but providing zero evidence or explanation to the nonsense you are spewing. So this isn't really a debate, more like you being given a chance to defend yourself from your absurd comments.

It would appear Trump is being considered an enemy combatant to be banned from holding office.

3 years after the fact with zero insurrection charges. Your words ring hollow.

Denying Trump the privilege of holding office, because he is considered an enemy combatant, does not appear to be depriving Trump of life, liberty, and property.

Ever heard of the phrase "don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining?"

Rarely does that colloquialism apply so perfectly......

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I watched the documentary 2000 Mules and I couldn’t even tell which candidates those ballot stuffers were pushing for!

Yes there are videos showing suspicious looking people dropping too many ballots into mail boxes. But nobody investigated and found which were the stuffed ballots and figured out how much difference did this scheme make and for who. For all I know those ballot stuffers were Trump supporters and he still lost. Talk about a half baked investigation.

You do understand people/organisations without investigative powers and authority like the police/fbi for example can only get so far right?

So you acknowledge here that mass fraud looks to have taken place, just that youre not sure for what side. Besides the fact that the documentary makes a strong case about whos side those votes likely are for, since they are traced back by gps location to specific buildings, dont you think FBI/police shouldve at the very least get some of these drop box stuffers to talk?

a reply to: IgorMartinez

I'm just going to leave this here;

Georgia Chairman of the Republican Party David Shafer later revealed that Raffensperger and Fuchs lied to the Washington Post about Trump, demanding that they “find the fraud.” Then, after they leaked their version of the story to the Washington Post, they deleted the audio of the call. The audio file was later found in the laptop’s “trash” folder.

Now there's proof Brad Raffensperger lied.

How Inaccurate Voter Rolls Impact Election Outcomes.

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I watched the documentary 2000 Mules and I couldn’t even tell which candidates those ballot stuffers were pushing for!

Yes there are videos showing suspicious looking people dropping too many ballots into mail boxes. But nobody investigated and found which were the stuffed ballots and figured out how much difference did this scheme make and for who. For all I know those ballot stuffers were Trump supporters and he still lost. Talk about a half baked investigation.

You are right there at the precipice of the truth. That documentary isn't supposed to be proof, but rather evidence of a theory that needs investigation. What you saw and understood was exactly what it was supposed to convey. But who is going to investigate? The folks that did the fraud? They just told you it was debunked and acted smug. It still needs to be investigated.

a reply to: WeMustCare

What really happened, corrupt career parasite politicians, predominantly democrats and leftist socialist, attempted to insinuate that the political center, and right, were responsible for a "Reichstag" incident that never even happened.

Thousands of video hours proves it didn't happen the way dems are attempting to portray it.

If any group is responsible for the over throw of Constitution Republic form of government, it's the political left. Leftists like Pelosi, Schumer, Comey, Brennan and others.

Search and see for yourselves, the truth is out there, if you can handle the truth.

Veritas Contra Mundum

a reply to: WeMustCare

We have eyes. We have injured. We have arrests. Broken gov buildings, massive destruction, invaion of gov offices and the Capitol.

People w sprays, twist ties handcuffs, bats, flagpoles...people climbing 20-30 ft of the scaled Capitol building, windows broken, doors off hinges, crowds forcing doors, broken windows, even gov special agents...guns drawn protecting Congressional Members ..etc....and ZERO word from the Trump Black-House.

What...'truth" do you want to explain.? I just did......and over 900 arrests...

You see all that as an "un-truth"?

I did not know MAD magazine and their twisted stories was still published....

Even so? Look at how many of the 900... and those Trump atts and associates...that pled guilty.

If one was not....fake Trump electors, lawyers, assistants...in huge "'significant " #s....are pleading GUILTY....

Now why would Adolf Trump's "people" be running to plead guilty, when Fat-Boy Howdy says it didn't happen? Haaa!

Whose right? Waiting....( crickets, silence......chirp, chirp).

So, I'm having trouble understanding why you failed to present one of the stronger pieces of evidence - Tucker Carlson's interview of the Capital Police Chief (at the time) Steven Sund:

twitter.com...