- 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
1
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:12 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Does it really matter if he’s not on the ballot in states that he’d lose In anyway (assuming they’re winner take all delegates states)?
ding ding ding
“So because he wasn’t going to win anyway, we are justified to not putting him on the ballot” - remember this guy’s vote cancels yours out
Absolute clown and should never be taken seriously
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:13 am to Nosevens
quote:Because nothing in Section 3 requires a criminal conviction. AT MOST an adjudication with due process would be needed, which is why they filed suit.
As been mentioned, how can he be guilty of insurrection when there is not even charges of this against him let alone a conviction of insurrection?
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:14 am to HVAU
quote:
don’t need to be over the target. I think there’s a good case for him to be disregarded based on his activity in the last election. However, if he’s only on the ballot in states that are contested he still has a shot, unless states that are purple take the same steps. Again, is just a thought experiment for me. Trump can frick off for all I care.
Irrelevant what you think, the logical conclusion is that if Trump really lost by record numbers in 2020 and if Trump really had no shot of winning CO, it wouldn’t be necessary to exclude him from the ballot.
Step outside of your corporate media echo chamber and look at what is really happening.
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 9:16 am
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:15 am to HVAU
quote:
I think there’s a good case for him to be disregarded based on his activity in the last election.
Asking people to PEACFULLY PROTEST a fraudulent Election isn't enough to kick him off the Ballot.
This shite is Blatant Election Interference.
The Administrative State is scared shitless of "The Cult".
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 9:16 am
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:15 am to loogaroo
quote:
a registered Republican who represented a congressional district in Rhode Island from 1981 to 1991, and endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020
so basically, a democrat.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:16 am to WPBTiger
Democrats love democracy
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:16 am to AggieHank86
quote:Surely you can find precedence on enforcing the 14th Am. to back that up, seeing as how context means nothing to pathetic losers who will do anything to steal an election.
Because nothing in Section 3 requires a criminal conviction. AT MOST an adjudication with due process would be needed, which is why they filed suit.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:16 am to AggieHank86
quote:
AT MOST an adjudication with due process would be needed
So that is the new threshold to be treated as a guilty citizen? Are we really trying to lower the bar for guilty charges for certain activities, like running for president, or is it just lowering the bar for certain people?
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:17 am to pankReb
quote:Looks like they already have.quote:Try it assholes.
Colorado is trying to disqualify Trump from the ballot
"Today a lawsuit was filed ...."
quote:A lawsuit is not a post on a message board, my friend.
empty threats on an anonymous message board. I'm sure they're terrified.
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 9:42 am
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:18 am to GumboPot
quote:Maybe all red states should pass laws banning anyone who has ever supported a Communist from being on any ballot, from governor to dog catcher. Go 100% red in perpetuity.
So that is the new threshold to be treated as a guilty citizen? Are we really trying to lower the bar for guilty charges for certain activities, like running for president, or is it just lowering the bar for certain people?
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 9:20 am
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:19 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
Due process be damned. Simply being charged qualifies for DQ.
He hasn't been charged with any insurrection
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:19 am to HVAU
quote:
Does it really matter if he’s not on the ballot in states that he’d lose In anyway (assuming they’re winner take all delegates states)?
Yes, because then they will once again use "lost the popular vote" to justify a 4 year campaign of "resistance" in the form of impeachments, spying, fake stories, refusal to follow presidential orders, etc.
Also, the plan will be to float this in a bunch of states where Dem controlled courts will approve it, and then roll it out to the swing states. They will then say that it's a settled and well-established legal theory.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:20 am to VolcanicTiger
quote:
Maybe all red states should pass laws banning anyone who has ever supportd a Communist from being on any ballot, from governor to dog catcher. Go 100% red in perpetuity.
Sure. Makes perfect sense under the new guilty standard Colorado is trying to carve out.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:22 am to antibarner
quote:“Colorado” is the DEFENDANT.
You want a massive civil rights suit against Colorado for disenfrancising voters, This is how you get it.
If the plaintiffs prevail, they will be complying with a final court judgment.
If you think that Colorado will face liability in your hypothetical civil rights lawsuit for complying with a judge’s ruling, you are frankly insane.
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 9:42 am
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:24 am to GumboPot
quote:Criminal procedure, in a non-criminal proceeding?
SCOTUS would shoot this down quickly, IMOquote:5th and 6th amendments.
On what basis?
OK
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:25 am to East Coast Band
quote:
He hasn't been charged with any insurrection
This is the entire point and why this lawsuit is premature.
Now if Jack gets a conviction in the J6 case in DC, that is a different story. Now you see why Jack and this DC judge are trying to move the case forward so quickly. They want to get this trial completed before November 2024 so these states that want Trump off the ballot will have stronger standing.
With that said I believe the March 4, 2024 trial date in DC will slip. The question is will it slip far enough into 2024 to get past the election in November? We will just have to wait and see.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:26 am to VolcanicTiger
quote:Almost like you do not think a14.s3 exists.
election interference.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:28 am to WeeWee
quote:
I guess Colorado doesn’t believe in due process or equal justice for all.
Seriously dude
Ever try baking a cake in Colorado
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:29 am to AggieHank86
quote:
A federal lawsuit is not a post on a message board, my friend.
I'm very obviously talking about the "Try it assholes" post.
Unless you're saying "Try it assholes" is a federal Lawsuit.....
Page 3 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News