- 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: Maine SoS: I Found Trump Guilty of Thing He Wasn’t Charged with Using a Lower Standard
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:19 pm to roadGator
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:19 pm to roadGator
quote:
Do you feel good about your side doing this kind of thing? I am curious if you people see this as a good strategy.
I would not expect him to respond.
My guess is that he gives tacit approval.
The left doesn’t care about the constitution, they are only concerned with remaining in power.
2
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:28 pm to Dday63
quote:
It renders certain oath-breaking insurrectionists ineligible to hold state and federal offices.
To somehow think that the 14th Amendment allows Maine's SOS (who herself isn't even elected) to remove the frontrunner of one of the two major parties from the ballot, simply because she held a civil hearing with 3 witnesses, is to feign logic. And it doesn't even take into account her blatant political biases. If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be screaming bloody murder.
As I said before, there is no living alongside these people. Secession is our only option, but I don't see how that's a political reality given how heavy-handed our government was with J6 protesters.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:52 pm to Placekicker
Trump should sue her for slander.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:59 pm to Placekicker
Yea, she’s nuts.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 1:32 pm to Placekicker
Ok Maine thats fine if thats how you want to run your elections but you cant expect Alabama to consent being in system with your state when its run in such a partisan manner
Posted on 1/1/24 at 1:39 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
As I said before, there is no living alongside these people. Secession is our only option, but I don't see how that's a political reality given how heavy-handed our government was with J6 protesters.
Red states are run by country club cowards who go along to get along. If the system was functioning how the founders intended. Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, etc would be raising hell. We have a social contract to be jointly governed by fairly elected politicians. Why should some states consent to being in a system with obvious bad faith, partisan corruption in other states?
Posted on 1/1/24 at 2:03 pm to SCLibertarian
Can a Secretary of State of any State rule that a Presidential candidate is ineligible for being under 35 years of age or for being a citizen, etc?
Does anyone know if it's happened before?
Does anyone know if it's happened before?
Posted on 1/1/24 at 2:10 pm to Placekicker
Jesus that is horrible fricking sentence structure.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 2:12 pm to JimEverett
Not for federal office that I know of. It should be noted that over one century ago, Eugene Debs, who had been convicted of sedition (during wartime I might add) was not left off the ballot and got almost 3.5% of the popular vote as a Socialist. This is closer to insurrection than anything Trump has done, yet Debs was not disqualified.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 2:14 pm to GeronimoBernstein
quote:
I barely know which part of this absurdity is most profound. To answer your question, there are three "standards of proof" in our legal system, preponderance of evidence being the lowest and used only to find civil liability. Next is "clear and convincing" which requires more than "preponderous", and lastly, the highest standard, used in finding criminal guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Ok if the standard is "preponderance of evidence" when was the trial?
What defense witnesses were heard?
Does this not require a judge and an open court?
Posted on 1/1/24 at 2:38 pm to roadGator
quote:
Do you feel good about your side doing this kind of thing?
I am curious if you people see this as a good strategy.
I don't have a side.
I think this strategy will ultimately fail, so one could argue it is a waste of time and money. OTOH, I do think some clarity on this issue is needed.
I don't think it is a good idea to try to use "cheat code" to keep Trump out of office. Beat him at the ballot box.
But if the issue is not raised now, it isnt going away. If Trump gets elected, you will still have a bunch of anti Trumpers trying to get him out of office based on the 14th Amenment.
But I worry about the consequences once SCOTUS rules. If SCOTUS rules Trump can hold office, the left will claim bias and lose faith in the judiciary. If SCOTUS disqualifies Trump, there may be violence, or at leasr further claims the 2024 winner is illegitimate.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 2:48 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Can a Secretary of State of any State rule that a Presidential candidate is ineligible for being under 35 years of age or for being a citizen, etc?
*not being a citizen
Of course they can.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 2:51 pm to Placekicker
Evidently, the White House has her back and she's forging onward
Posted on 1/1/24 at 2:57 pm to Dday63
You worry about violence from the right but not the left and you don’t have a side.
L
O
L
It’s like you leftists just ignore your burning, looting and rioting across the country.
L
O
L
It’s like you leftists just ignore your burning, looting and rioting across the country.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 3:03 pm to Dday63
quote:
the left will claim bias and lose faith in the judiciary
Lol. They've been talking about packing the court for years when judicial rulings go against them. They have no problem with this lunatic partisan unilaterally removing Trump from the ballot but want Clarence Thomas disqualified from ruling on matters pertaining to Trump.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 3:30 pm to Gray Tiger
Preponderance of Evidence means more likely than not. 51%. It’s the level of proof used in most civil cases.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 3:41 pm to jimmy the leg
Posted on 1/1/24 at 3:49 pm to Placekicker
She’s not even a lawyer, is she?
Posted on 1/1/24 at 6:26 pm to Vacherie Saint
She’s not. She has a BA in some random field.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 9:44 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
To somehow think that the 14th Amendment allows Maine's SOS (who herself isn't even elected) to remove the frontrunner of one of the two major parties from the ballot, simply because she held a civil hearing with 3 witnesses, is to feign logic
Read the Penn Law Review article that is available at this link. LINK
Two conservative Con Law professors who are active members of the Federslist Society make that very argument. I'm not saying they are right - in fact they draw a couple of conclusions I disagree with - but it's hard to say their argument "feign logic".
quote:
. If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be screaming bloody murder.
I can assure you, I would not. I don't support any political party, but if a candidate in my party even arguably engaged in insurrection I would expect my party to drop them.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News