- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LIVE (*now adjourned*): Supreme Court hearing case on Trump's Colorado ballot eligibility
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It always happens.
Except that isn't how it goes with you and this board.
You intentionally TROLL, lie, spout Legal-babble often irrelevant to the issue at hand, say stupid shite to cause endless arguments, then claim you didn't.
Your claiming of the high-ground as some sort of unbiased arbiter isn't based on fact or your actions, it's based on some sort of synaptic fk-up that occurs in your head that enables you to lie or ignore reality with ease..
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 12:02 pm
1
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There was no finding of "guilty" as this was a civil issue (eligibility for running for office) and not a criminal issue.
I meant more of a figurative guilty. Aren't they saying we (Colorado) want him off the ballot because in our opinion he is a bad dude? I'm being simplistic but that's what I'm trying to boil it down to
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:02 pm to Corso
quote:
Aren't they saying we (Colorado) want him off the ballot because in our opinion he is a bad dude?
Will they be barring Corn Pop from the ballot next?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:03 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
(D)-hadists....
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:03 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
Except that isn't how it goes with you and this board.
That's literally how it goes
quote:
You intentionally TROLL, lie, spout Legal-babble often irrelevant to the issue at hand, say stupid shite to cause endless arguments, then claim you didn't.
No. You interpret this based off the aforementioned emotional scheme.
Then when it's shown what you perceived (in rage) didn't occur, you double down on ad hom and more "interpretations" .
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
Melting at a feverish level.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:04 pm to Corso
quote:
Aren't they saying we (Colorado) want him off the ballot because in our opinion he is a bad dude?
No they said he isn't eligible b/c they adjudicated/ruled that he engaged in insurrection, based on the record from the trial court.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:04 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
Melting at a feverish level.
Melting?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:06 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Only then do the 'merits' of their decision come into play.
yeah - I can't wrap my head around not discussing the relevant facts of any argument.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:08 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
I can't wrap my head around not discussing the relevant facts of any argument.
It's moot.
Rulings at common law are supposed to be limited and written as efficiently as possible, in an attempt for courts in the future relying on the ruling as precedent.
If you allow all the rambling, it creates chaos, to the point where you can't even determine which argument was the actual ruling.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:09 pm to TheSadvocate
yes - this is the thing that chaps my arse about this - unbleieveable waste of time and effort - with doubtful outcome = could be total disaster - all avoidable by common sense.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:09 pm to Mickey Goldmill
I was trying to be conciliatory since you guys lost.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No they said he isn't eligible b/c they adjudicated/ruled that he engaged in insurrection, based on the record from the trial court.
Going dow with the ship I see.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If you allow all the rambling, it creates chaos, to the point where you can't even determine which argument was the actual ruling.
Is this some sort of confession about your constant shitposting?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:11 pm to roadGator
quote:
I was trying to be conciliatory since you guys lost.
I appreciate that, but I agree with SCOTUS and think they are making the correct ruling here. So no need
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:11 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
It speaks to the younger generation of lawyers who are so self-absorbed and insulated due to growing up with no social interaction that they never learned how to talk to others and respect those with authority.
And current day liberals who think they are morally superior and obligated to shout down any "nazi" who disagrees with them.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:12 pm to hogcard1964
One commentator stated "This was over with this statement ...Brown asked him: 'Why? It seems to me that you have a list and president is not on it.' The list stated in the text lists offices including senator, representative, and even presidential elector."
Time to count the votes .....
Time to count the votes .....
Posted on 2/8/24 at 12:13 pm to TDTOM
quote:
Going dow with the ship I see.
I'm just summarizing what the COSC did.
Page 13 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News