Judge rules Trump ineligible to appear on Illinois ballot under 14th Amendment

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: xuenchen

So everyone is now implanted controlled opposition..

Who said everyone? You did of course, as a weak rebuttal 😃

You need to study those logical fallacies harder, and how to apply them without getting trapped yourself. 😧

originally posted by: xuenchen

Not to mention that all the States had to have judges certify petition signatures to get a name on a ballot. 😀

What gets me is the liberal Congress invented this thing they are calling insurrection and liberal judges are then using what they created as a means to remove Trump. It's like the fake dossier all over again... invent something then accuse Trump of faked evidence.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: xuenchen

Not to mention that all the States had to have judges certify petition signatures to get a name on a ballot. 😀

What gets me is the liberal Congress invented this thing they are calling insurrection and liberal judges are then using what they created as a means to remove Trump. It's like the fake dossier all over again... invent something then accuse Trump of faked evidence.

The current Congress can officially rule that there was no insurrection, basing it on the fact that not one of the thousands arrested for Jan6th participation, have been charged with that crime.

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie

Ashli Babbitt was shot and killed, because she was part of a mob charging at cornered police officers.

Did you even watch the videos before you said this? I bet not... No one was charging anyone, and the cop on the other side of the locked door was not cornered. She was shot because she poked her head through a broken window. There were two extremely armed cops in the crowd too and they had been there for the last 10 minutes before the shooting. They were just talking to everyone with their guns not drawn. They were less than 10 feet behind Babbitt...

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: JadedGhost

FBI already said there was no insurrection that day. 😃

The Congress had already impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection.

FBI did not issue statement clearing Trump for Capitol insurrection

What the FBI did say was that the attack was not centrally coordinated, but they have filed conspiracy charges against several who were convicted.

The trespass of the Congress buildings were not the insurrection. The insurrection was the attempt to disrupt the transition of power contrary to the election result. The attempt to seize power in direct contradiction to processes defined in the US Constitution and legal statutes.

Where's the indictments for insurrection in Federal Cases? 😀

He was President for part of January 6. Congress went for impeachment, which precludes a Federal court trial.

Besides, give the guy a break. His court appearance calendar is fairly full.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie

Ashli Babbitt was shot and killed, because she was part of a mob charging at cornered police officers.

Did you even watch the videos before you said this? I bet not... No one was charging anyone, and the cop on the other side of the locked door was not cornered. She was shot because she poked her head through a broken window. There were two extremely armed cops in the crowd too and they had been there for the last 10 minutes before the shooting. They were just talking to everyone with their guns not drawn. They were less than 10 feet behind Babbitt...

The problem is that we expect these low IQ fools to understand facts…..but they don’t.

I will no longer give these clowns any courtesy whatsoever, they don’t deserve it.

a reply to: FlyersFan

The constitution is clear on the matter.
If it cannot be shown the election was stolen from Trump, and if SCOTUS follows the constitution, they must rule Trump is to be banned from the ballot.

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
The constitution is clear on the matter.

Yes it is.

If it cannot be shown the election was stolen from Trump, and if SCOTUS follows the constitution, they must rule Trump is to be banned from the ballot.

Nope. Not even close.

The Constitution has been posted on this thread many times.
I suggest you actually read it.

DUE PROCESS. Everyone gets it. Even those we don't like.

a reply to: JinMI

If you want to make the case that DJT committed no insurrection, which it seems you do, you will need to prove the election was stolen from him. He has already received due process.

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
If you want to make the case that DJT committed no insurrection, which it seems you do, you will need to prove the election was stolen from him. He has already received due process.

You keep saying that, and it's not true. No one has to prove that the election was stolen in order for Trump to be exonerated of people claiming he started an insurrection. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Man ... get rid of the bias and go read the Constitution. And no, he has not received due process. The supposed insurrection was in Washington DC, Federal land, in a Federal building, by a Federal employee ... this is a Federal level event and would have to be dealt with in a Federal court of law. He hasn't been charged; he hasn't been tried in a Federal court. Thus .. no due process.

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
a reply to: FlyersFan

The constitution is clear on the matter.
If it cannot be shown the election was stolen from Trump, and if SCOTUS follows the constitution, they must rule Trump is to be banned from the ballot.

See what I mean?

Facts mean nothing.

a reply to: xuenchen

This CO case is now with the Federal Supreme Court.

a reply to: RazorV66

Not to me. To you? It appears so.

originally posted by: Kireg123
I'm trying to understand you?

No you're not.

And everybody can see that.

a reply to: xuenchen

We’re waiting on the verdict now.

It is clear SCOTUS is stalling. Why?

My guess is because they cannot find any good reason to rule in Trump’s favor.

It will not be surprising if they rule in Trump’s favor. It will just show that politics trumps law. It will be very surprising if law trumps politics.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I guess the cop got scared. It happens. You can’t expect cops to behave like action heroes risking their lives. He was acquitted of any wrong doing.

Have you ever been jumped by a mob of people? I don’t care how tough you are, you will be lucky to get out of such a scenario alive.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Oh sweety, this isn't about me. This is about Republican voters from the states of Colorada, Maine and now Illinois petitioning their courts to have an insurrectionist removed from their states' ballot

You bet your sweet patootie it ain't about you, honey. Republican voters did NOT, and I reiterate, did NOT petition the Illinois courts to have Donald Trump removed from the ballot. The proof of that is in this link:

Illinois Judge Removes Trump From Ballot Because Of 'Insurrectionist Ban'

Here is the relevent line found in that article:

"The Illinois challenge was filed by a group of voters in coordination with Free Speech For People, a legal advocacy group that previously tried, but failed, to remove Trump from the ballot in Michigan, Minnesota and Oregon.

Looking up the organization "Free Speech For People," we find they are a "Left of center" group. A link for that little factoid can be found here:

Free Speech For People - Influence Watch

Now that I have proven you lied, because we all know perfectly well that Conservatives are not Left of center, will you now admit your error. I mean, everybody can already see what you did, I just wonder if you'll publicly own up to it. Woman up, sweetie.

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
a reply to: RazorV66

Not to me. To you? It appears so.

Thanks for confirming that facts mean nothing to you.

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
a reply to: JinMI

If you want to make the case that DJT committed no insurrection, which it seems you do, you will need to prove the election was stolen from him. He has already received due process.

No.

You will need to prove he committed insurrection.

Nice try though.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Since when did The U.S. become a Marxist Dictatorship with Fascist Kangaroo Court Wannabees?

Three years ago?