Presidential Elections

irvinehomeowner said:
Such a dancer.

That's not the definition you posted... this is what your reference says in regards to Oxford definition from your Wiki page:

The action of rising in arms or open resistance against established authority or governmental restraint; with pl., an instance of this, an armed rising, a revolt; an incipient or limited rebellion.

So still does not have to have guns.

And now you are saying that because he was a sitting president he couldn't take part in an insurrection? Use your brain... he was inciting the insurrection to rebel against the authority of the vote.

Keep moving that goalpost.

Just like your predictions for Irvine... you keep failing.
Click to expand...
So this is more in line with what you define as an “insurrection” (with weapons, death and destruction of government property), right?🤦🏽‍♂️🙄🦄🌈💩


 
Trump lost 2020 election.
Trumps Attorney General Bill Barr said there was no election interference
Then Ivanka agreed with Bill Barr when asked if the 2020 election was rigged.
(She couldn't say her daddy lost...but had to say something under questioning)

Today, you can't get a republican congressman to admit trump lost 2020 because they are afraid of losing trumpy votes.
It made me vote against young kim
 
Last edited:
morekaos said:
So this is more in line with what you define as an “insurrection” (with weapons, death and destruction of government property), right?
Click to expand...
Let me better answer this so you can understand (or at least I hope you can).

If you're trying to imply that violent BLM protests and the sort are real insurrections... it could be. But for context of this conversation, anyone who participated in or such acts I would also deem as not worthy to run for office.

The real point is insurrection does not have to be armed... and armed does not necessarily mean guns. So basically you and Liar Loan are just digging bigger holes for yourselves. I think you both spend too much time on Truth Social rather than trying to get a balanced viewpoint of the reality of this world.

Standing on the extremes is what causes issues and I don't think either of you understand that. I may be pro Irvine... but I see the insanity of the prices... I may be pro EVs but I understand that it shouldn't be pushed by government mandates. Neither of you can concede anything which makes conversations with you so polarizing.

This is why I have stopped posting in some of your threads... it's pointless.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
If you're trying to imply that violent BLM protests and the sort are real insurrections... it could be. But for context of this conversation, anyone who participated in or such acts I would also deem as not worthy to run for office.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. And Kamala Harris raised funds to bail these insurrectionists out of jail, providing them with financial support. Should the Biden/Harris ticket be removed from state ballots based on these actions? Or does the 14th Amendment only apply to Orange Man Bad?
 
It really doesn’t matter as Trump is just kicking the can until March 12 of so when he likely will have enough delegates to lock up the nomination. Then the Supreme Court will have air cover to enter the fray and say something stupid about interfering with a Presidential Candidate.

Unless of course, they realize they could get rid of him by letting him face justice instead of being his pony until he tires of them.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Click to expand...
Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court unanimously rejects IHO's position on what the Constitution means. I'm sure he has lost all respect for them and is still right in his own mind.
 
Liar Loan said:
Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court unanimously rejects IHO's position on what the Constitution means. I'm sure he has lost all respect for them and is still right in his own mind.
Click to expand...
You're the only one who thinks he's always right... sort of like the presidential candidate you are supporting.

Just remember, I was only responding to your post of the 8th amendment. I wasn't making any type of legal ruling. I even went further saying that it was my opinion of how I determined who would be fit to be president.

And about respect... the Supreme court didn't claim what an armed rebellion was or that there were no guns present on Jan 6. That was you and when your definition was what insurrection meant, you couldn't even admit fault.

Stop trying to fight battles you can't win... makes your hole even bigger.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
You're the only one who thinks he's always right... sort of like the presidential candidate you are supporting.
Click to expand...
I never said I was supporting a particular candidate. My arguments were Constitutional in nature and grounded in common sense. Your argument was ruled to be unanimously wrong by the Supreme Court and just as I predicted, you still believe yourself to be right in your own mind.
 
Blah blah blah... look at your argument... anyone support your definition of "insurrection" other than your crony?

I already told you I'm done with conversing you on this because you have no credibility anymore... you don't know what the definition of insurrection is, you do not know that armed does not necessarily mean guns and you cling on to some notion that no guns were present at the Jan 6 stupidity.

Can't reason with delusional... just like your views on Irvine which have been proven wrong over and over and over and over and over again.
 
Liar Loan said:
Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court unanimously rejects IHO's position on what the Constitution means. I'm sure he has lost all respect for them and is still right in his own mind.
Click to expand...
BTW... do you even know what the Supreme Court ruled?

This even make you look more like someone who is right only in their own mind.

I don't even need to respond anymore... you argue my points for me. Thanks!
 
morekaos said:
Doomed…like saying Biden can’t run because he is senile without any test or proof or diagnosis but we all “know” he is!…that will not hold…nice try🤷🏽‍♂️😂😂😂🇺🇸
Click to expand...
yep, told you they’d strike this down the second It was filed, that’s not just winning that’s winning unanimously. It was obvious then it’s obvious now.🤷🏽‍♂️😂😂😂🇺🇸
 
Last edited:
irvinehomeowner said:
Go Colorado!

I doubt it will pass but at least someone else but me thinks Trump is not fit to be president.

I'm sure if a Democrat had done all that Trump has, morekaos and OCtoSV would say the same thing (as would I... no party lines for me).
Click to expand...
See how TDS you are? Even you knew it was doomed but still cheered on the undeserved political persecution. Me?…I just like winning!!😂😂😂🇺🇸
 
Dumbest waste of time and even after a unanimous slap down by their own side they are still stunned …only strengthened Trumps position that he is unfairly and desperately harassed…the more they fire the stronger he gets….😂😂😂😂👍🏽🇺🇸

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top