More states kick Trump off ballots. Will this kickback on Dems?

[OddBeMe]

I’m not liking how close to the primary this is. It’s sleazy. Even if I agree.

Yes, Dems will rue the day!

Nah, it’s politics, Jake.

[SeymourBill420]

You cannot kick the front running leading Republican off the Republican ballot. It is just not going to happen. If this occurs, you will see riots in the streets. Trust me on this issue. Trump will be on all 50 states ballots come 2024. And, this is a fear technique by Joe Biden because he is desperately going to lose in 2024 for his dismal experience in the white house. So, what Joe Biden is doing is he's trying to eliminate his number one competitor like he's trying to do it with these court cases that are not going to work out either. Because, after Trump is president in 2024, the cases are going to go away. The supreme Court has already alluded to that. And, Biden is not a strong enough candidate to go against trump. So this is why the talk of this is occurring, but it is not going to occur because you cannot kick off the front leading Republican off the Republican nomination. Trump will be written in if that's the case and there will be rights in the streets. And then he will still become president again. I'm not saying this because I like trump. I actually don't like the guy that much. But, I'm just truthful with what is going to happen. But truthfully I do hate Joe Biden more than Trump.

[exitseven]

Yes, denying the majority of voters the right to vote for their preferred candidate will result in civil war.

[goaded]

@exitseven The majority of voters do not want to vote for Trump.

[exitseven]

@goaded If the election was held today President Trump is leading in most national polls , in some cases by double digits he also carries the majority of swing states. The only place he does not have a majority is Manhattan and Harvard Square and Manhattan is losing patience by the day

[goaded]

@exitseven "The only place". Yeah, right. All those polls show is that people believe lies. Which is why he doesn't want trials to start before the election, when people will see the truth. It still doesn't mean the majority of voters want to vote for Trump, it means they'd vote that way given only that binary choice.

[exitseven]

@goaded we are talking a lot a binary choice. Most likely it will be a rematch of 2020 only Biden has lost even whatever remnants of his marbles he had in 2020 and he won't even be allowed to debate. Plus he has his dismal record to run on. Andche will be in the middle of an impeachment and not for some phony made up charge. It will be for bribery, influence peddling, money laundering and treason. Trump has been training for a rematch for the last 4 years. He has lost weight and has a clear vision to where he wants to lead the country. He can back it all up because it worked before.
If he was to have a debate with the big guy, even If Don Lemon was the moderator Trump would make The Big Guy look pathetic. Biden might get the pity vote after that

[goaded]

@exitseven You owe me a new keyboard. Trump totally looks like this, today:

[exitseven]

@goaded I said that heclost weight which is very apparent. I did not say he had a body transplant. The guy is 77. That Pic made me laugh though. Thanks.

[SeymourBill420]

Well, the reason why the court trials are happening after the election is pretty much for the correct just reasons. The courts, are going to let the people choose. And then once the people choose an electronic back into office, then the charges and the cases will be dropped into dismissed because, that's pure a constitutional republic right there. Letting the people choose the destiny of the future and if the people think that he did something wrong, then they're not going to elect him. But, he is definitely leading in double-digit polls, and one thing is rest for sure is that Biden is definitely losing a lot of movement in his own party since he became president through his delusionalness and old geezer tactics. So, when you got an old geezer that has dementia running against a smart businessman, who might think a lot like our founding fathers especially Thomas jefferson, I think Thomas Jefferson's going to win

[goaded]

They're not happening after the election; they're scheduled for March 25, 2024, May 20, 2024, March 4, 2024, and August 5, 2024.

So nobody's buying the lie that the people should choose before they know the facts that will come out at trial. Whoever told you different is lying.

It's not just the defendents who have a right to a speedy trial, so do the victims.

[SeymourBill420]

The majority of voters? Do not want Trump to be elected or the majority of socialist and Democratic idiot voters do not want Trump in? Because, the socialists and the idiotic democratic voters, only make up around 49 to 51% of the voter base depending on the election cycle. But, the problem here is is those people will not be boating for Trump in the primaries and then possibly depending on your state that can go 50/50 in the generals. But, the only class of people that would be voting for Donald Trump would be conservatives, republicans, and maybe some libertarians that are disenfranchised. And those people are also about 49 to 51% of the voter base depending on the election cycle.
So, if you say the majority of voters do not want Trump in office, then that means you are lumping the majority of both Republicans and Democrats into this. And that is simply not a true statement. Now you can truthfully say that in your opinion the majority of Republicans do not want him into office. Because, the Democrats don't matter because they're not going to be voting for him anyway they never had their support. So you cannot be classified or be part of the statistic if you don't support somebody. So the Democratic and socialist and liberal voters would not be part of this demographic. The only demographic that would be involved in this would be Republicans or independence of some kind. So your facts are a little bit off. But, you support the Ukraine anyway in that illegal war. So, that shows you're not very bright because you don't really know what's going on in my ancestral Homeland because your news is not giving you the proper perspective of what's going on in eastern Ukraine and then the Ukraine because of your president and his butt buddies and son who he's trying to protect and keep out of jail because of their greed.

[goaded]

No, the majority of voters. Biden won, remember?

Claiming people who don't like what you like don't count isn't very democratic, is it?

[jshm2]

Nope, the opposite.

Makes it more harder for the Republicans to justify putting Trump on the ballot. Republicans will play into Democrats hands.

Think about it, You need every single vote you can get, to win a state. But if you cannot even stand in that state, what you going to win?

But Republicans are fucking retarded enough to think they will just "win" without those states. Maybe Republicans will rig the vote this time...

[Киттйлинк]

I'm not bothered to go verify if that's true or not but in the case it were true that's even more election interference. they're trying everything desperately... sounds like they're so scared

[OddBeMe]

I don’t disagree. It’s not a good look for Dems, tho I support them. It’s not a good look for repubs that they’re candidate is a sex assaulting, 91 count indicted, former president.

[Anonymous]

It makes sense to me. Joe needs all the help he can get.

[Opinion Owner]

The Democrats actually wanted him last time.

[Opinion Owner]

So you agree with me. He needs all the help and get.

[Opinion Owner]

What the hell does Trump have to do with this?

[goaded]

It will help Republicans in the presidential election, but it's still the right thing to do. In one state that hasn't, it was only the question of the Republican primary, and they'd be allowed to put a two year old Chinese child on it; they just wouldn't be eligable to become president.

It's the election where it really matters.

[goaded]

*eligible (I will learn that spelling, it will turn up a lot in the next few months!)

[OddBeMe]

Freakin aryans…master race my ass. Lol

[goaded]

Some day I'll learn how to stop spelling Mississississississippi.

[OddBeMe]

The name gets longer more it’s welfare goes up.

[ProbablyClueless]

I can't imagine any way this will look good for the Democrats; especially not when they're also eliminating names from their primary ballots to protect Joe's nomination.

Assuming that these attacks on Trump weren't politically motivated at first, it becomes harder and harder (almost impossible, now) to argue that they aren't politically motivated every time something like this happens.

[SeymourBill420]

And no, it would not look good for the democrats. It would look like fake news. And the Democrats trying to weaken the competition. It's exactly what it'll look like it'll look like cheating

[goaded]

They're not "attacks on Trump", they're enforcing the law. In Colorado, at least, the plaintiffs are Republicans. If Trump is so sure of being exonerated, why is he delaying every trial as long as he can? He could be touting how he was vindicated and totally didn't steal those documents or conspire to steal the presidency and end the American experiment.

[SeymourBill420]

Enforcing the law? No they're not enforcing the law. They're using article 3 of the 14th amendment. Which has to do with sedation, and acts of treason and the eligibility of running for office. Well, these cases are being thrown out in court because Trump hasn't even been convicted yet. You need to be convicted of that in a court of law in order to be guilty of that. So, the trial is not set for until after the election. So, he won't be possibly proven guilty until after the election. So, there's not one judge that's going to rule in any state that he's not eligible for ballot access because he has not been convicted of any crime yet. This is United States do you remember what country you're in? You are innocent until you're proven guilty in this country. So, you need to remember what country you live in. And you need to remember the attributes of what makes this country great. Because people that are not been convicted of a crime should not be held accountable of a crime. And Trump has not been convicted of treason or sedition yet, so, and it's not going to stop anything. Do you know you can still write in a name on a ballot? Even if all 50 states reject Trump from being on a ballot, do you think any Republicans are going to vote for the idiot that the Republican Party puts up? Especially if you are a trump supporter? No. You are going to write Donald Trump's name in.
So, you need to pay attention to what country you are in. And, on the topic of classified documents. It is been very well proven that after Joe Biden got his house rated and several other Democrats got to their house rated also, it has been proven that is very common for politicians to take classified documents that should never be classified. So, if Trump is guilty of something, more than three quarters of the democratic party is guilty of the same thing. So, you can't use hypocritical points in your argument. So, you still have nothing. And, go Russia!

[SeymourBill420]

And he's delaying the trial because he knows that it's a political peep show. You should actually be proud because he's trying to save the taxpayers money on a peep show. I don't want this case going to court. I don't want to pay for it. Because it's not going to prove a damn thing. It's going to prove that Trump is the same thing as every other politician. That's all it's going to prove. And, we allowed normal politicians to do that to us every single day. Why not trump? Because he's an outsider? See that's one thing that has grown for me to actually like the guy of how much he pisses off the democrats. And all the nice little names that he makes that actually I already had those names already, for the Democrats, but it's great that he actually said it in public. Crazy Nancy. LOL. She is a fucking whack nut

[SeymourBill420]

And no, he didn't inspire to steal no presidency. Hillary was not eligible for the job in the first place. Hillary should have been in jail. Especially for what she did in Libya. So, Hillary was not a legitimate candidate for president. So, Trump didn't steal shit.

[goaded]

@SeymourBill420 So much wrong. The cases to keep Trump off the primary ballot are not all being brought by Democrats, and they're not "being thrown out in court because Trump hasn't even been convicted yet", but because some states allow their Secretary of State to regulate party primaries, and some don't. There's already been a legal finding of fact (by a judge!) that Trump enganged in insurrection. It also stood up on appeal to the state supreme court.

Biden's house wasn't raided, it was searched with his permission, in case any more documents had been overlooked. Trump lied about the documents he knew he had and had hidden and showed them (still classified) to people with zero clearance. There are recordings, FFS!

Trump's delaying the trials (and running for president) because he's obviously guilty and wants to be able to pardon himself.

Hillary was totally eligible to be president, I don't know who made up the lie that she wasn't. Trump spent a decade setting the scene for his election lies and months planning to steal the presidency in 2020 with the help of Republican lawmakers and oath-breakers, right-wing militia, and millions of useful idiots like you.

[SeymourBill420]

@goaded I know that all of the lawsuits are not being brought on by democrats. I know that some of them are being brought on by faker republicans. Unfortunately I do know. And, Trump will be on the ballot in all 50 states in 2024. Trust me on that. Because, you do not want to be a state supreme court, where no other court has convicted Trump of a crime, and say he's not worthy of ballot access. You're going to have riots in your streets if you do that. Trust me on that. Obviously you do not want this for your country. So, I would not go down that road and I would not want to see a candidate go down that road. What happened on January 6th was not an insurrection. Thomas Jefferson wants best said that revolution in this country should happen every 20 years. Revolution is very well overdue at this point. Very well overdue. And Thomas Jefferson was one of our most brilliant founding fathers. If it wasn't for him, you wouldn't have a Bill of rights.
And, who told me that Hillary wasn't eligible for election? Me. I told me that. Common sense told me that. Because after she murdered gaddafi. And then when she found out about it she laughed, the cynical bitch laughed, and then said to everybody around her "he came he saw he died" and then busted out laughing again with this little evil laughter. Gaddafi was a Democrat democratically elected leader. He was in control of an out-of-control country as we see now. And she because Gaddafi wanted to stop trading oil in the US dollar, and instead trade it using the African gold dinar. Hillary in the US government did not like this because it prevented her oil buddies from getting rich. So this is why we went into Libya in 2011. Was all over money and oil. So, if you're that evil as our secretary of state, you have no business being our president. So this is one main reason why she was not eligible to be president.

[SeymourBill420]

Legal finding a fact by a judge. Bwahahahahahahahaha. That is so funny. Have you ever heard anything called political bias? Well, that's exactly what the judge is displaying is political bias. Because, there is definitely no constitutional or legal realm for somebody being thrown off a ballad because of a crime they have not been convicted of yet. And yes, you are totally right that he's trying to get into office so we can pardon himself. Technically what's going to happen after he gets back into office, is the case is just going to drop and there's going to be no pardon because this whole case is being brought on currently by the Biden white house. So when the bite and white house is gone because this whole case is being brought on currently by the Biden white house. So when the bite and white house is because this whole case is being brought on currently by the Biden white house. So when the bite and white house is gone finally, because this whole case is being brought on currently by the Biden white house. So when the biden White House is gone, there's not going to be the threat of eliminating your competition. And that's what Joe Biden is doing or trying to do because Joe Biden is smart enough at his age to know that Trump has a pretty good lead on his failure ass. So, the best thing to do is try to eliminate your competition so he's not your competition anymore. That's what this is over. Is because Joe Biden is not viable.

[SeymourBill420]

And, lol, oath breakers. I have never once broke my oath to the Constitution. I don't think you're too educated on the Constitution you sound like a liberal whack nut. Liberal whack nuts don't know shit about the constitution. But, also don't forget, not all states ratified the 14th amendment. So you can't apply the 14th amendment in a state where the state never ratified it. But the 14th amendment was one of those amendments that were very controversial. And a lot of states did not sign on to it. Did not agree to it they nullified it. And you're talking about idiots like me? You must be looking at the mirror at this point

[goaded]

@SeymourBill420 You really do talk a lot. Could you try to give shorter responses, please?

Not all Republicans worship Trump, some of them understand that he engaged in an insurrection; that doesn't make them "fake Republicans". Do you see riots in Colorado, right now?

Jan 6 was an insurrection, it's obvious.

The constitution was designed to be (democratically) updated every generation; that was its strength. It is overdue, since most people want more controls on firearms and most people want controls on money in politics.

"not all states ratified the 14th amendment. So you can't apply the 14th amendment in a state where the state never ratified it."
No. As long as an amendment is ratified by enough states, it becomes the law of the land, including the states that didn't. How do you not know this?

I am sorry about calling you an idiot, it was a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded It takes some serious nerve for you to call him a useful idiot. If it was so obvious that Trump engaged in an insurrection, the FBI would have found that to be the case. They very expressly state that Trump did not conspire to commit an insurrection. Now, those state courts are overreaching and violating federalism by making determination of facts about controversies and events that they don't even have jurisdiction to rule on.

[goaded]

"A useful idiot is a person perceived as propagandizing for a cause—particularly a bad cause originating from a devious, ruthless source—without fully comprehending the cause's goals, and who is cynically being used by the cause's leaders."

The FBI never officially said anything about whether Jan 6 was an insurrection.

Reporting about "FBI finds scant evidence U. S. Capitol attack was coordinated" ("scant", by the way doesn't mean "no") was in August 2021, and there has been a mountain more evidence come out since then that shows the attack was planned, using thousands of useful idiots to cover for the seditionists who have since been convicted, which was in turn to give Republican lawmakers a chance to steal the presidency for Trump.

Next time they won't make the same mistakes and appoint oath breakers throughout the government willing to lie for Trump, like Jeffrey Clark. There's even a published plan for it.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Scant evidence that Capitol attack was coordinated, and none that Trump was the one coordinating anything. That second part is important.

[goaded]

Now we know better, don't we? We know that the march on the Capitol was planned in advance, that the people requesting protest permissions lied about their intent to march. We know that Trump intended to call a mob and send them to the Capitol back in December (there's a draft of a tweet he wrote).

And, again, that was never an official statement from the FBI, but sources talking to journalists.

“I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House),” Trump wrote in an unsent draft tweet obtained by the committee. “Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!”
www.huffpost.com/.../trump-tweets-jan-6-committee_n_62cdcc71e4b007c97c83ddff

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded The only thing we know is that you're stretching the absolute hell out of those facts to fit your world view.

[goaded]

Do you think there would have been any problems on Jan 6 if Trump hadn't called his supporters there and told them the election was being stolen?

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded It's an interesting question... I think there probably would have been, yes. It certainly wouldn't have gotten the same level of publicity/attention, but I do think there would have been problems.

[goaded]

Even if Trump hadn't spent the last decade lying about election integrity?

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded If you'll recall, Democrats spent a lot of time lying about election integrity too; even as far back as Gore

[goaded]

Except they weren't lying. Evidence matters.

Subsequent research found Gore would have won Florida in 2000 if the ballots had been consistently counted across the state web.archive.org/.../index.htm , and in 2000 the victory came down to about 500 votes in one state, not tens or hundreds of thousands in multiple states. Remember someone called Roger Stone organising a riot to pressure an early end to counting? Whatever happened to him?

Georgia really did remove tens of thousands from the voter rolls in 2019 on the basis that they'd moved away although they hadn't, and the Post Office knew it. "We found 198,351 Georgia voters who supposedly moved from their registration addresses who, in fact, have not moved at all, and therefore were wrongly purged, a 63.3% error rate."
www.gregpalast.com/.../...urge-Errors-Download.pdf

Everybody could see ridiculously long queues to vote in predominently Democractic voting areas in other years. Ohio was purging voters just before the abortion referrendum, just a couple of months ago.

If you live in Ohio, did you know your voter registration might have been cancelled? ↗

Evidence of voter fraud in 2020?
Maybe a dozen or two voting twice or for a dead relative, and they were mostly Republicans who believed the lies that Democrats would be doing the same.

Arrests of people who had asked and been told they were eligible to vote in Florida.

Outright lies about election workers that led to them being hounded out of their homes (Guiliani admitted as much in the defamation trial he lost).

Attempts to get an AG to baselessly announce investigations into non-existent election fraud “just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R[epublican] Congressmen”.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Well actually, there's lots of evidence that the 2020 election was rigged, it just wasn't rigged through fraudulent voting. But to your point; the Democrats were lying plenty about election integrity in 2016 and all through 2019. It's the same kind of double speak that happened with the vaccine. Democrats spent all this time yelling and screaming about how they'd never take a Trump vaccine, but then they pushed the vaccine hard as soon as Biden came into office.

The reality is that both sides of the aisle talk out both sides of their mouths.

[goaded]

Nope. And the trials this year will prove it.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded The trials have already extensively proven that the allegations are empty,

[ProbablyClueless]

*allegations against Trump

[OddBeMe]

It was rigged! But not rigged through fraud! Lol dude, get a life.

[goaded]

@ProbablyClueless The trials haven't even started properly yet. In part because of a Trump-appointed judge who is happy to help him delay them as long as possible (the documents case, which is so amazingly open and shut, I doubt it will last a week). More evidence of the conspiracy to steal the presidency comes out every week. Witnesses, all Republicans, explain their parts in the conspiracy.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded We've already seen all their evidence though. We see how the prosecutors and conducting themselves.

[ProbablyClueless]

@OddBeMe Yeah, there was an entire TIME Magazine article about it. They expressly told people exactly how they rigged the election.

[goaded]

@ProbablyClueless We haven't seen all of the evidence yet, not even close, although what we have seen is enough to prove Trump's guilt. He's not even really claiming he didn't do those illegal things, he's claiming he was allowed to, as president.

As to how the prosecutors (and judges?) are conducting themselves, they are for the most part being extremely patient with a defendant who's spending his time on pre-trial release doing things that would get anyone else thrown in jail until the trial.

The one exception is the Trump-appointed judge in the documents case, who is allowing the trial to be delayed over and over to Trump's benefit and against the people's right to see a speedy trial.

[OddBeMe]

@ProbablyClueless Time mag article? Got a link, perhaps? Not sure what bullshit article you think Democrats spell out their evil plan like a James bomb monologue…

[ProbablyClueless]

"There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy." time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

You can say "well, it's okay because they did it to protect the election," if you want. But the Administrative state working with privatized corporate interests to impede the (legal) efforts of a political candidate is rigging an election; objectively so.

"Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears."

The administrative state (government agencies are expressly prohibited from taking political stances ) straight up admitted to rigging the election. And, data showing the support for Trump (or at least against Biden) clearly demonstrates that the American people's minds were far from made up.

[goaded]

Nothing you quote there says a government agency was working on a political basis. Read it carefully.

Outside organisations "got states to change voting systems and laws" by convincing politicians to vote to change the laws. They helped defer the extra costs (like voluntary taxes).

Nothing in that article talks about getting people to vote a particular way, nor in any way allowing people to vote illegally. They were ensuring that as many people as possible could legally vote, including by "fend[ing] off voter-suppression lawsuits". If you believed in democracy, you'd agree that these are all good things.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded The court system; the judicial system is a government body. But even if it weren't, the US Chamber of Commerce is directly involved and embedded with the FTC, DOT, among others; to act like there's an arm's length relationship there is laughable at best and blatantly dishonest in any rational interpretation.

I read the article very carefully. That's how I know it says that election was objectively rigged.

[goaded]

Yes, and? People were making arguments in front of courts, not paying them to make decisions on their behalf. US Chamber of Commerce are lobbyists, but so is almost everyone. If they were the government, they wouldn't have to lobby the government, would they?

If you read it so carefully, which government agency was acting politically? Exactly.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded You're clearly arguing in bad faith now. No sane person would argue what you're arguing, even if they accept the rosy picture this article takes on the. situation as fact That article very clearly states "suppressing lawsuits" and "pressuring social media companies" (social media companies that have since been proven to have an insider relationship with the FBI and CIA as a means of stopping Trump supporters from having their say.

If the legal challenges actually got into court and weren't instead shot down on flakey procedural grounds, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The election rigging happened precisely because the left wanted to prevent the conversation from ever happening.

You can agree with the outcome of what happened, but that doesn't make the election any less rigged.

[ProbablyClueless]

Trump supporters were denied the chance to make their voices heard. And then Jan 6 happened. The riot is the cry of the unheard. It's that simple. If Democrats had legitimately won that election, they wouldn't have had any problem with Trump's challenges because the facts would have been on their side.

[goaded]

I get it. You're rubber, I'm glue.

Which government agency was acting politically? Exactly.

Arguing in court is a good thing. They're what decides who is right and who is wrong. Social media companies are companies. They don't have to do what anyone else says, but they can be convinced to do the right thing.

"If the legal challenges actually got into court and weren't instead shot down on flakey procedural grounds,"
You mean, when the courts chucked them out? THAT WAS IN A COURT! Giuliliani has admitted lying about election workers, he's on the hook for nearly $150 million.

"Trump supporters were denied the chance to make their voices heard."
Bullshit. Everyone was given a chance to make their voices heard without risking a deadly disease with no vaccine and no cure.

"It's that simple. If Democrats had legitimately won that election, they wouldn't have had any problem with Trump's challenges because the facts would have been on their side."
They did legitimately win that election and didn't have any problem "with Trump's challenges because the facts [were] on their side", that's why all the legal challenges Trump tried, failed. A riot is not a legal challenge.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded I just told you which government agencies were acting politically; the FBI, DOJ, CIA and Dept. of Defense.

Arguing in court is a great thing, but it's precisely what didn't happen.

The courts chucking the arguments out isn't the same litigating the case. Giuliani's ruling is pretty wild. I can't imagine that it will hold up, especially not the $150M penalty.

COVID had a mortality rate of less than 1% and it absolutely had a cure. If you consider that deadly, than I recommend you stay inside without any sharp objects nearby.

Those legal challenges got suppressed, per the TIME article. Your own people are self snitching, buddy.

[goaded]

No, you didn't. The courts decided there was no case to answer, and that's been proven over and over since then. Giuliani's sentence will be upheld, because he admitted he defamed those women. What's the cure for covid, then? 1% of America is 3.3 million people (and why am I not surprised you're also a covid denier?).

The legal challenges were defeated in a court of law, and Trump's response was to attack the Capitol.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Oh yes I did. And also, I'm not a Covid denier at all. There's tons of treatment options available for Covid, and there were lots in short order after the virus appeared.

Trump also did not attack the Capitol. If Trump's explicit calls for a "peaceful protest" are calls to insurrection, then handfuls of Demcrats are unquestionably guilty of inciting insurrention.

[goaded]

Name one efficacious treatment for covid available in mid 2020, then.

You can keep repeating the nonsense that two words make up for calling the armed mob to DC with a secret plan to march on the Capitol, lying to them about the election, telling them they have to fight like hell and not doing a thing about the violence until it was clear it wasn't going to achieve its aim. Not to mention the fake electors scheme hatched in a conspiracy to steal the presidency. With the aid of Republicans in Congress.

There's a reason people like Jim Jordan were begging Trump for pardons before he left office.

[exitseven]

He is back on the ballot in Colorado and Michigan ruled that he stays on the ballot. Same with California. I think that the Supreme Court will have to rule on this sooner rather than later.

If you think about it, denying over half of the country the right to vote for the leader that they want will finally cause that civil war that democrats have been pushing for.

[goaded]

No, he's not "back on the ballot in Colorado", SCOTUS hasn't even decided whether to take up the case yet. www.scotusblog.com/.../

Michigan said, essentially, that the Republicans can nominate a two year old North Korean child, if they want to. That doesn't mean they'll be eligible to go on the presidential ballot.

Trump supporters don't make up anything like "half of the country", and the law's the law. Trump tried to claim Obama was ineligible, remember? The difference was that that was bullshit.

[exitseven]

@goaded www.cbsnews.com/.../

[goaded]

I stand corrected. The state supreme court originally stayed their ruling until the day before the ballots must be finalised; the appeal to SCOTUS delays it until they decide not to take up the case or to make their own ruling. So the ballots will reflect the status quo ante.

The initial ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection, and the state supreme court's ruling that that makes him ineligible to be president still stand, unless and until SCOTUS take up the case and decide it was incorrect.

[normalice]

Um, it's republicans doing it. The federalist society's lawyers are the ones pushing this and it is wildly frustrating that the media isn't repeating that information over and over to people.

[strateguy632]

for this the law provided "write in" when corrupt leaders try to prevent their oponent trump.

[OddBeMe]

You think biden is secretly behind this?

[Cubus]

They kick him out in blue states, so that doesn't really matter, as these states would go to Biden anyway.

[OddBeMe]

Maine kinda swings doesn’t it.

[Cubus]

It's moderately blue, but still it's unlikely for a Republican to win it.

[CaptainSmartass]

Unless Trump's side picks another candidate, it smacks of totalitarian dictatorship.

Simples...

[msc545]

Maybe. Hard to say.