Maine tosses Trump - Donald Trump Discussion

[–] Destinata (3565) a year ago

No.

This, children, is REAL 4D chess. The libs are pushing Trump because they know he can rally the Democrat vote like no one else. They won't be voting FOR Biden, they'll be coming out in droves to vote AGAINST Trump.

But they're attacking him, persecuting him, trying to knock him out of the race, you say. At this point they know that any attack on Trump makes him a martyr and he just gets stronger. He'll be able to fundraise the heck out of this, and his base grows.

After Trump gets the nomination, the verdicts on the various trials will start coming in, quite possibly making it impossible for him to serve even if elected.

It's a trap.

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

It's a trap.

Yes, it has been a trap since Nov 3rd 2020.

reply

[–] SamNoyoun (6024) a year ago

They won't be voting FOR Biden, they'll be coming out in droves to vote AGAINST Trump.

Precisely!

I know I would vote for any of these items(🥔🍠🍅🥕🥒🥜) over

https://moviechat.org/nm0874339/Donald-Trump/62c5d14f1bfd387bd657a51e/Best-of-the-Best-names-Describing-Donald-J-Trump-Updated-12042023-NEW

reply

[–] NorrinRad (5470) a year ago

Thanks for showing my post some love!!!

I appreciate you!

🖖

reply

[–] RockAway (1657) a year ago

It's not 'persecution' to be held accountable for your actions.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11546) a year ago

What actions haven't already been through the legal system and found to be nothing?

reply

[–] RockAway (1657) a year ago

Is this a joke? How many times does he have to lose in court before it registers in your brain?

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11546) a year ago

What has he been convicted of?

reply

[–] RockAway (1657) a year ago

Criminal Tax Fraud:https://www.npr.org/2022/12/06/1140756394/former-president-donald-trumps-company-found-guilty-criminal-tax-fraud

Rape: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

Stealing from Cancer Charity: https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/donald-j-trump-pays-court-ordered-2-million-illegally-using-trump-foundation

Why don't you know this stuff?

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11546) a year ago

The first article clearly states it was Trumps company, not the individual. I'm sure you realize that many people are involved in running his business besides him. The 3rd article is a lawsuit, not a criminal conviction. The second article is behind a pay wall, so I couldn't read it and I doubt you did either, but I'm familiar with the case the headline addresses and I assure you, Trump was NEVER convicted of rape. This was all about a civil trial, not a criminal conviction. And since there is confirmed precedent that liberals will lie about sex crimes to affect a persons political career, I'm sure it's all bullshit, wich is exactly why they couldn't get a criminal conviction. Only the weakest losers try to present something as facts that are anything but. Keep reaching

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

It doesn't make any difference, it is only temporary.

Trump is back on the Colorado ballot.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Do you think that will last? Trump is only back on pending appeal. The courts do nothing, he is back off. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/colorado-puts-trump-back-on-2024-gop-primary-ballot-while-ruling-is-appealed/ar-AA1madOA

reply

[–] darkpast (9033) a year ago

political theater that will backfire

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

Yeap, a sham to provoke a reaction.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

There will not be riots. MAGA is being reduced to just noise now. They have no teeth any more.

Remember, these idiots were the ones who posted video and photos of themselves committing crimes and sobbed when they were arrested, tried and sentenced.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/28/maine-kicks-trump-off-ballot-under-14th-amendment-00133294

reply

[–] Corbell (11008) a year ago

Sure. Deprive your enemies of their rights and their chance of peaceful political change.

NOthing could possibly go wrong with that.

How old you are you?

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Who are you talking about? Who was conducting a "peaceful political change" while rioting in the Capitol, attacking the police and chanting "hang Pence"?

I'm a retired old disabled fat man who is wiping his ass with your stupid claims.

reply

[–] Corbell (11008) a year ago

A few hundred rioters on one day do not define the GOP, you stupid old man.

But, a nation wide movement to remove the LEADING CANDIDATE from teh ballot?

That is the type of shit that does define a party, and does.

So, you're old? So I guess your plan is that you will die before the blow back occurrs?

Kind of shitting all over the younger leftards.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

The GOP was well defined by the riot that day. The GOP was both frightened by the rioters and mostly defended the rioters actions later on. The GOP has no spine. If they had a spine, they would be in Control of Congress and the White House like they were from 2017 to 2019.

But that spine problem prevented them from accomplishing much when they had control. Their whining does not compensate for being spineless either.

Surely you understand that each state decides how to run their elections? It is that pesky "state's rights" thing that annoys you so much when they don't do what you want. Get back to me when a majority of states consider removing insurrectionists from the ballot.

If Trump wasn't such a short sighted dumb-ass, then he would have realized that rebellion against the government can be a costly matter when it is time for re-election.

It was the Radical Republicans who thought Lincoln was too slow in protecting rights for all Americans who wrote and pushed for the 14th Amendment to be passed into law. It was mostly Republicans who sued to have Trump removed room the ballot in Colorado.

I plan on living for several more decades and will watch the recovery from the damage that Trump has done to the GOP and the country as a whole.

I'm not a leftist.

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

I'm not a leftist.

You are 100% a leftist.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Because I oppose all gun grabs? Even the ones enacted by Biden, Bush and Trump?

Because sexual assault of women as a perk of wealth is disgusting to me?

Because I oppose using the office of the president as a means to enrich one self?

Because I've claimed that all DC politicians are nearly worthless in my eyes?

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

The DS. Biden and Bush are members of the DS, Trump is not.

Lies, allegations, and propaganda.

He donated his entire salary and he is one of a very few that lost financially while holding office in politics.

And yet, 99% of your posts and replies have been partisan and biased.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Is there anyone who is not a member is your deep state other than Trump? How does one gain membership in the deep state?

Trump was lying when he bragged about sexually assaulting women as a perk of wealth?

Trump donates a very tiny percentage of his net worth and you think this makes him admirable? I donate a higher percentage of my net worth than Trump does. I also never used my position in the government to overcharge other government employees for lodging like Trump did.
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/17/1129491352/trump-hotels-overcharged-secret-service-agents

The Trump Organization appears to have overcharged the Secret Service for stays at Trump-owned properties by agents protecting the then-president. The charges exceeded the government's approved rate, according to the House Oversight Committee, which says Secret Service records show payments totaling over $1.4 million.

According to the documents, the Secret Service was charged as much as $1,185 per room per night, nearly five times the government rate, which is set by the General Services Administration.

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

You don't believe in the DS, so your question is irrelevant.

You are regurgitating MSM and propaganda that twisted his words and/or took them out of context.

Are you bragging?

Trump donated 99.9% of his presidential salary.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

I don't think you believe in the deep state any more than the easter bunny or santa claus.

Nope, Trump actually brags about sexually assaulting women and is proud of it.

Claiming that I donate a higher percentage of my net worth than Trump is nothing to brag about, at all. Do you actually understand how little a $400,000 donation is to a multi-billionaire?

Trump claimed to be worth 10 billion in 2015. $400k is .004% of his net worth.

reply

[–] Corbell (11008) a year ago

1. The gop was NOT defined by a few hundred rioters. I note that you offer NOTHING to support this empty and stupid assertion.

2. The GOP, neither the leadership, nor the rank and file, were afraid of a few hundred rioters.

3. The GOP has NOT defended the rioters actions. That is you lying.

4. States rights irrrelevant. You are supporting removing the leading candidat from the ballot. That is not a free election.

5. You are a leftard.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

I think the riot better defined the GOP than any other event since WWII.

Rep Fitzpatrick was frightened of the rioters. Was he lying? https://www.lohud.com/in-depth/news/2022/01/04/january-6-capitol-protest-congress-members-recall-escape/6493506001/#rep-brian-fitzpatrick

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/14/republican-january-6-capitol-attack-rioter?ref=upstract.com
Rep Clay Higgins asked a judge for leniency for a man who attacked police officers at the riot. He said the man had “good character, faith and core principles”. Sounds like he is going way out of his way to support that criminal.

What? States rights are irrelevant now? So when the Constitution says the states run the elections it is irrelevant? Are you calling the US Constitution fake now too? You are very funny.

Not a leftist. I respect the law and think it applies to everyone.

reply

[–] Corbell (11008) a year ago

1. I like the way that you move the goal posts from the GOP to one guy. That is a pure leftard moment on your part.

2. Good example. Perfect for serious discussion. GRANTED, this is the opposite of normal leftard behavior. NOted. So, how badly hurt were the officiers? The piece does not say.

3. Irrelevant in this context. Removal of candidate is textbook tryanny. Next time they bar the whole party.

4. Do you? Let's see.

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

Ranb is almost an expert at moving goal posts.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

I did not "move goal posts from the GOP to one guy".

You claimed that "The GOP, neither the leadership, nor the rank and file, were afraid of a few hundred rioters". I merely provided a link that said Fitzpatrick was afraid. You really think he was the only GOP who was fearful that day?

You claimed "The GOP has NOT defended the rioters actions". I posted a link showing how Clay Higgins supported a rioter. Was he the only supporter?

Your claims are so easy to debunk; try harder in the future. Not dealing in absolutes is a good way to start.

States rights specified in the Constitution are not grounds for tyranny. Try again, harder.

Let's see what now? Do I get to see more of your easily debunked trash? :)

reply

[–] Corbell (11008) a year ago

1. The GOP was not, and is not afraid of a few right leaning rioters. That was a silly claim on your part.

2. Looking at the specifics of a case for sentencing purposes is NOT defending the riot or the rioters. HOW BADLY HURT WAS THE OFFICIER(S)?

3. Confusing generalizations with absolutes, is a VERY common leftard trait. Noted.

4. But barring mainstream candidate is.

5. Dude. You gloating like you are winning, is another leftard trait.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

So you are claiming Fitzpatrick is a liar?

Higgins asked for leniency, that is defending the rioter's actions, as if they did not deserve actual punishment.

I don't care how badly hurt the officer was. The perp was convicted of a violent crime, but Higgins still "saluted the man’s good character, faith and core principles". Part of those core principles is assaulting police. Higgins is vile.

What you call generalizations were actually rather specific.

I feel like I'm clubbing a baby seal when I refute your accusations.

reply

[–] Corbell (11008) a year ago

1. I'm saying one guy is not enough to justify your shit talk of "the gop being afraid of the rioters".

2. No, it's not. Simply pointing out that the guy has a clean record and is a good guy, is normal for sentencing and in no way mitigates the actual crime(s).

3. SUre you do. If the cop was knocked to the ground and the guy jumped on his face, disfiguring him for life or jacking him up so badly he could not work for years, you would, RIGHTHFULLY SO, be demanding harsher than normal sentencing. That works both ways. Your pretense it doesn't is dishhonest. Which by the way, is a HUGE leftard trait. Just saying.

4. Again, playing silly word games and whining like a fag over generalizations, huge leftard trait.

5. lying about "winning" when you are clearly sucking ass, another huge leftard trait. Drop the shit talk.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

You claimed the rank and file GOP are not afraid of rioters. I found one example who was, there are probably more. Therefore your blanket claim was wrong.

Good guys don't do what that criminal did. Higgins was to get a reduced sentence for a violent criminal.

I care about the officer. I don't care that you are opposed to me insulting Higgins or his actions. My ire is directed at Higgins.

Is the word fag another one of those insults you throw around like leftist? It does not work on me as I'm not a fag either. Why are your attempts at insults so lame and juvenile?

Feeling like a baby seal clubber is not winning. I feel like I have trampled upon a person (you) who lacks the intellectual capacity to make sensible arguments in a debate on a forum.

reply

[–] Corbell (11008) a year ago

1. We already covered your lefty pretense of not understanding how generalizations work.

2. Good people DO sometimes get angry and commit violence. That is why presenting evidence that the convicted criminal is a good person, and should be given a lighter sentence is a normal part of sentencing.

3. Thus, if the officer was not injuried taht is relevant in sentencing.

4. I am trying to sink to your level of incivility. It does not come naturally to me, and I know I am not very good at it, but I try to make up for that with added vulgarity. Thanks for noticing.

5. Yeah, your pretense that you are doing well, when you are not, is....sad.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

You made a false claim, I proved you wrong, end of story. That man was not a good person. I said I felt like I was clubbing a baby seal, not doing well.

reply

[–] Corbell (11008) a year ago

1. Nice assertion. Very popular logical fallacy among lefties.

2. You don;t know him. It is fine to present his character and clear record at sentencing.

3. This is my assumption. The "assault" was the man shoving his way past the cop. The cop was not injuried. The cop did not file assault paperwork UNTIL long after when some lefty politicans decided they wanted to arrest as many righties as possible to support the panic mongering narrative, and the cop was ordered to do so.

4. Blah, blah, blah. You are shit talking.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Injury is not required to prove assault. Why do you insist upon defending the likes of that perp and the people defending them?

reply

[–] Corbell (11008) a year ago

We are discussing sentencing. Discussing the level of injury for sentencing purposes is not denying that an asaault took place.

The way that you respond to normal procedure for CONVICTED CRIMINALS, as though it was a denial or defense, is strongly implying that you do not want these specific criminals to get all the rights normally given to convicted criminals.

Treating your political enemies more harshly than normal for any crimes, is a violation of their right to equal protection under thee law.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

The perp is a common criminal, not a political enemy.

reply

[–] Corbell (11008) a year ago

His previous clean record and the testimony of his good character says otherwise.

Such discussion is part of the normal process. Why do you want to deny this particular convict of such normal consideration?

Oh, right, because you HATE his politics.

Because he is your political enemy....

And you want to USE, the mechanism of law enforcement to crush your political enemies, for political gain.

That btw, makes him a POLITICAL PRISONER.

Good job lefty.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

His present criminal record matters more I think.

reply

[–] Corbell (11008) a year ago

Nope. That was part of his trial. His clean record and good character are valid points to bring up to be considered for his sentencing.

That you find this a problem is you wanting to deny him normal process.

Why? Oh, right, because you HATE his politics.

Because he is your political enemy....

And you want to USE, the mechanism of law enforcement to crush your political enemies, for political gain.

That btw, makes him a POLITICAL PRISONER.

Good job lefty.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Ryan Nichols is a dirt bag who pleaded guilty to two charges: obstruction and assaulting, resisting or impeding police and obstruction of an official proceeding.

Nichols never claimed to be a political prisoner. Because he isn't one.

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

He was one of the J6 protesters and was charged for it, so yes, he is a political prisoner regardless of your biased opinion.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

So committing crimes on January 6th at the Capitol and getting arrested means they are all political prisoners?

This was not The Purge. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2184339/

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

According to the allegations by the establishment that arrested them.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Which establishment and which allegations? Are they real ones you have a link to, or your imaginary allegations?

reply

[–] Corbell (11008) a year ago

If he was a "dirtbag" that should be considered in sentencing.

But, "dirtbag" is a real word. It is a claim that he has a record of bad behavior and poor character.

Pointing out during sentencing that his previous record and his character is NOT that, should also be considered.

This is not, well, this SHOULD not be controversial.

YOU want him to be deprived of normal considerations during sentencing, and just have the book thrown at him, for a reason that you have not been honest about.

And that reason is political.

And if he gets more time, becasue of POLITICS, then he is a PRISONER becasue of your politics. That makes him a POLITICAL PRISONER.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

No. You claimed, "The GOP has NOT defended the rioters actions".

I merely said you were wrong. Your wall of text is not convincing me that the GOP is not defending rioter actions.

reply

[–] Corbell (11008) a year ago

That is because you are emotionally committed to the belief that your enemies are bad people, in order to give yourself some justication to pretend that you are a good person.

BUt in reality, you are the one that wants to deny a person the normal consideration given to all people facing sentencing, so that you can just crush them with more prison time. For no good reason.

That makes YOU the bad person.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

I am not singling out anyone. Everyone who calls a convicted criminal a nice person is scum.

reply

[–] Corbell (11008) a year ago

The entire Justice System, indeed, teh entire Western philosophy of Justice, not to mention the science of human behavior,

says disagrees with that. "Nice people" do sometimes get convicted of crimes. That is half the reason that there even IS a process where consideration of a person's "niceness" or lack there of, is done as part of deciding on a sentence.

YOU are having a fit, because a right leaning rioter, is having the same process as any other convicted criminal....

YOU are UPSET because he is having the same due process as other criminals....

YOU want him to be treated WORSE than other criminals, becuase you dislike his politics.

Your position on this issue, ,is you being AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS.

I, on the other hand, support civil rights.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

You keep forgetting (or not) that you claimed the GOP has not defended rioter actions, when they clearly have. Your smokescreen shames you.

You appear to be the one who is having a fit.

reply

[–] Corbell (11008) a year ago

Poinint out his good record and good character in the SENTENCING PHASE, is not defending his actions.

That bit where you said that "good people" are never convicted of crimes?

That was you having a "fit". Your brain is having real trouble trying to defend your position as it becomes increasingly clear, to it, that you have lost this debate.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

The only person using the term "good people" in this thread is you.

Perhaps if you behaved more rationally, you could make more sense?

reply

[–] Corbell (11008) a year ago

My behavior has been completely rational and made complete sense.

You have lost the argument and are now reduced to just shit talk.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11546) a year ago

lol, you are definitely a lefty. I'd deny it too, if I was one.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Why am I a lefty?

Because I oppose Trump's anti-gun agenda?
Because I'm former military?
Because I'm a former gun dealer and make firearms as a hobby?
Because I'm more conservative than Trump?
Because I think Biden is not suitable to be president?
Because I don't sexually assault women as a perk of wealth?

I've made my positions on various topic very clear on this forum. Why do you think I'm a leftist? Simply because I think Trump sucks?

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

- DS.
- So are some trannies.
- So are some leftoid-libs.
- A fake conservative (CINO).
- 99% of your rants are against Trump and partisan only.
- Lies, allegations and propaganda.

reply

[–] Destinata (3565) a year ago

Rioting? We had a summer of people burning down the country, and you call the Great Mosey a riot? These were 2A supporters, and yet the "insurrectionists" weren't carrying guns. The handful of people who did mischief should have been prosecuted, and the majority who peacefully protested should have been given the same treatment your average criminal does now, a revolving door.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Just because there was worse rioting elsewhere, does not mean the Capital riot, was not a riot. So the people who were arrested in the capitol while carrying guns, were not actually carrying guns? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/guy-reffitt-january-6-sentence-87-months/

Do you really think that people cannot look up information on the internet to counter your claims?

Exactly which people who peacefully protested, without trespassing or causing damage, were poorly treated by the justice system for their actions that day? You have names? If you claim they exist, then you should know their names.

reply

[–] Destinata (3565) a year ago

But...but I was told when they tried to burn America down it was "mostly peaceful." Besides, how many people got arrested and spent serious time in jail or prison from the BLM/Antifa riots?

The point is that there's a two-tier system of "justice" in this country.

What was the percentage of the people who supposedly were carrying guns to overthrow the government? Your headline says "a guy." At the time they were trying to say the flags were weapons. But let's say there was "a guy." Even if it was a leftist crowd thronging the Capitol to overthrow Trump, if all I saw were a few trouble-makers, "one guy" with a gun, and a lot of people moseying through, I wouldn't consider it an "insurrection."

Brandon Straka got arrested even though he didn't even go into the capitol. He's the most famous one. The FBI -- which Trump promises to build a nice, new headquarters for -- has been looking for people who were just in Washington that day. Most of the people in the DC Gulag have been there without benefit of trial since J6. What's sad about people like you is that you don't realize if they can do it to Trumpers -- I'm for DeSantis, btw -- they can do it to anybody. If they decide you're a threat, they can do it to you.

Trump is being asked why he didn't do a blanket pardon for all the non-violent protesters. He won't respond. But he did give Fauci a medal on his way out, so he found the time to do what he considered important.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Perhaps you should not believe everything that you're told about BLM, antifa or anyone else? Almost everyone else understands this, why don't you?

Yes, I know there is a two-tiered system of justice in this country. One only need to look at how most people who refuse to turn in classified information are treated. They go to jail awaiting trial instead of campaigning for president.

I don't care what percentage of people were carrying guns. I was responding to a stupid claim. This one.

[–] Destinata (2435) 19 hours ago
These were 2A supporters, and yet the "insurrectionists" weren't carrying guns.

Destinata said no guns. All it took to prove him was wrong was one gun. Understand? He does not care about being accurate when he makes a claim, only that it supports his point of view.

Destinata could have said most were not carrying guns, but he wanted us to believe that none of them were carrying guns for some reason. This is American, we carry guns, duh! I carry, sometimes, but not on property where it is not allowed.

How many people are in the "DC gulag" as you call it? A few dozen? https://www.npr.org/2022/04/14/1092580753/capitol-riot-january-6-insurrection-defendants

If they can arrest Trumpers for violating the law, then they should along with all of the other violators. That is how it works.

Trump thinks his supporters who are in prison awaiting a pardon that will never come, are suckers.

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

Carrying is not the same as using. I knew that you would eventually conflate the two as I stated in a previous reply. You are a predictable leftist.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Destinata claims the rioters were not carrying guns. I said they were, and provided a link. We were both talking about carrying guns.

Can you the sentence in which I conflated carry and using guns?

I did address rioters using weapons. I was referring to weapons other than guns which were used to attack the police officers.

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

hahaha, you edited your previous post, you sneaky little shit. Next time, I will blockquote it.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

I edit posts for spelling at times. What do you claim I changed? Which sentence?

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

[–] Ranb (6083) 6 minutes ago
I edit posts for spelling at times. What do you claim I changed? Which sentence?

Don't play coy, you read exactly what I stated.

I should have blockquoted your reply, I didn't think you were sneaky enough to edit your post.

You edited the previous reply to deny that you were conflating "using a gun" with "carrying a gun", nice try.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

I did no such thing. Prove it or admit you are wrong.

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

Yes, you did, that is why I should have blockquoted your post.

You wanted the right to claim that you did no such thing and that it can't be proven when you know that you edited the post prior to replying again.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Tough. If you're going to make an accusation of lying, then prove it. You're acting like a baby who can't get her way.

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

At least you can't deny that you lied.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7755) a year ago

You're insane

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

Are there any other words in your brain aside from "insane" and "pillows"?

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7755) a year ago

Ninjas

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3567) a year ago

It creates a serious risk of provoking violence by people who perceive their legitimate political outlet is being denied by institutions otherwise impervious to the electorate. The Maine Secretary of State, whose primary duties revolve around motor vehicle licensing and administrative record-keeping, is not even subject to popular election. As a Democratic political operative, she decided by stoke of a pen that Republican Mainers cannot vote for the principal national opponent to the president in power.

This Democrat strategy is a disaster for America. If it doesn’t inspire violence, it will certainly inspire reciprocal actions by deep red states against important Democrat candidates. Considering that Trump had zero chance to win Maine’s electoral votes anyway, this is an arrogant and needless sledge hammer to Pandora’s Box. It is as bad for our political process as anything Trump is accused of real or imagined.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11972) a year ago

Of course like always there will MAGA cult insurrections all over the country. Can’t wait.

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

More 9/11s and Pearl Harbors.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18253) a year ago

It will be a blm protest times 1 million.

reply

[–] BKB (11354) a year ago

The question is: Did the Maine Secretary of State even have a right to do this or was she trying to make a name for herself at Trump's expense as most liberals attempt to do and fail?? Either way you want to look at this for what feels like the umpteenth time, the U.S Supreme Court has no other alternative but to allow this man on the 2024 Ballot and to vote him off the right way and to stop making this more difficult than it has to be just because of this bullshit fake outrage over a man who hosted the fucking APPRENTICE for 20 Years along with the Miss Universe.. Hell, I'm still waiting for the answer as to whether the Democrats would've supported this man in 2015 whe he announced his bid for the Presidency and if he would've done it as a Democrat since he donated to this Party for basically EVER??

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Maine Secretary of State explains her actions. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qtuEWBj7tD8

Who does not believe her and why?

reply

[–] BKB (11354) a year ago

I don't believe her because she has 0 right in keeping this man off the ballot that is a clear infringement of the American People's 1st Amendment Rights and WE will decide whether to vote for him or not, NOT The Courts & Judges and NOT the Maine Secretary of State who's only trying to make a name for herself and at Trump's expense.. 2 things happen: The U/S Supreme Court overturns this bullshit and allows Trump to stay on the Ballot and you vote him out the right sensible way or potentially start an unnecessary Civil War 2.0 over this 1 man the Left are overly freaking out over..

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Maine law says the SoS has the duty to evaluate challenges to the ballot. Are you claiming that this is a fake law?
https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/BellowsDecisionChallengeTrumpPrimaryPetitionsDec2023.html
https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/21-A/title21-Asec336.html
https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/21-A/title21-Asec337.html

Why is it that the people that complain the loudest, are the ones that insist upon remaining so ignorant?
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S4-C1-2/ALDE_00013577/

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereo

The 1st Amendment right to place a person on a ballot, or vote, is a new one for me. If being on a ballot was a fundamental 1st Amendment right, then there would be no need to pass additional laws allowing people to be elected to office and there would not be any laws that restrict who can hold office. Your claim is the stupidest I've read this month.

So, the Constitution says other people decide how election are run, but you are overruling the Constitution? What other laws do not apply to you now?

Your imaginary civil war might be at best, a few thousand MAGA's against the US military and other US citizens who don't want people shooting at them. I would call that a minor revolt by criminals. Your call though.

Why are you blaming the Democrats when it was the republicans who drafted and pushed for passage of the 14th Amendment and other Republicans who are pushing the states to keep trump off of the ballot?

Why would you not rather have a winner on the ballot instead of a twice proven loser of the popular vote like Trump?

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

1. That was not an insurrection.

2. Trump did not call for an insurrection.

3. Even if one and two were true, Trump does not qualify as an insurrectionist because he was never a congressman, state legislator, or state officer, Section Three applies to him only if he was an “officer of the United States.” The Constitution makes very clear that the President is not an officer of the United States.

4. Trump was accused of insurrection and acquitted by the senate (the double jeopardy principle overrules any proceeding accusations).

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Maine said it was an insurrection, it seems that is good enough for Maine. Don't like it? Then file suit yourself. Why have you not instructed the Maine SoS in the error of her ways?

What part of the Constitution makes it very clear that the "President is not an officer of the United States"? Can you quote that part?

Are you really going to tell us what the 14th Amendment says without actually reading it or posting a link to it, or quoting it?
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

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,

1. as a member of Congress,
2. or as an officer of the United States,
3. or as a member of any State legislature,
4. 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.

I included the four numbers as clarification.

Trump road block to the ballot is #4. The president is an executive officer of the State. The word "state" is synonymous with the word "country".

The GOP has demonstrated that they are unwilling to remove this disability "by a vote of two-thirds of each House". The GOP as a whole cannot be united enough to back Trump in 2024. Trump has said he wants to be a dictator and he will not tolerate anyone who does not back him up no matter what.

You oppose sexual assault as a perk of wealth or his gun grab? Then you cannot be on his team.

Maine is not trying Trump as an insurrectionist in court, so double jeopardy does not apply.

Trump claimed he won the election in 2020 making him unable to be elected a third time. Do you believe him or is Trump an idiot?

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

They acquitted him because they know there was no insurrection and Trump didn't call for it.
It is all political persecution.

1. Show me where the protesters of J6 used guns and rifles.

2. Show me where the protesters of J6 took someone hostage.

Before you answer my first question, look carefully at my wording so that you don't conflate/twist my words with lies as you always do.
For example, note where I specifically say the word "used" and not "had."

Trump claimed he won the election in 2020

But he did win the 2020 election.
Trump didn't have to say it. Everyone with eyes, common sense and deductive reasoning knew it.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Guns are not required for an assault. Or are MAGA too stupid to use anything else as a weapon? The rioters used blunt objects to attack people. I know you're not this stupid. But rather you are grasping at straws in a vain attempt at excusing their violent actions that day.

Shooting a firearm is not required for it to be "used". Ever heard of brandishing? Why are you asking about hostages? Is a riot not a riot unless hostages were taken?

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used

But a review of the federal charges against the alleged rioters shows that they did come armed, and with a variety of weapons: stun guns, pepper spray, baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs.

There is video of protesters using weapons at the riot; are those video faked? Right before Ashli Babbett was killed, the rioters used weapons in an attempt at breaking through a door. Was that video faked? https://www.nbcnews.com/video/capitol-shooting-that-led-to-ashli-babbitt-s-death-captured-on-video-99180613572

It is like you never read the Constitution, but are unashamed that you know almost nothing about it. The 22nd Amendment says in part; "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"

Are you going to try to convince us that the 22nd Amendment does not apply to Trump for some reason?

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

Changing the subject, deflecting, and ranting with the usual bullshit of internet scriptures.

Once again:

1. Show me where the protesters of J6 used guns and rifles.

2. Show me where the protesters of J6 took someone hostage.

If you can't provide evidence of both, than there was no insurrection.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

I did not change the subject. You wanted gun use, other than brandishing guns, the rioters did not use them, as far as I know. If you want gun use, then show me.

What is it with your hostage fetish?

Why are use of firearms and the taking of hostages required for an insurrection? Why can't you explain that?

Merriam Webster defines insurrection as; an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

I cannot find a federal definition of insurrection, but it is a crime. https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2021/title-18/part-i/chapter-115/sec-2383/

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Unless there is a law defining exactly what the word insurrection means, the courts decide what it means. I think they're sticking with the common one listed above. I have no problem thinking that a court might see election interference as insurrection.

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

So you have nothing, you should have said that to begin with instead of ranting with excuses.

You only have hyper-partisan opinions and false narratives based on selectively edited clips.

Trump was never found guilty for insurrection because it never happened.

No one is charging him for it because they know for a fact that the charge for insurrection would never stick since there was no insurrection.

Trump never incited a riot and never encouraged people to overthrow the government.

This is nothing less than election interference based solely on opinions.
A person should be found guilty based on facts, not opinions.

Everything that they have accused Trump for is what they are guilty of.
They overthrew the duly elected president on Nov 3rd 2020.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

I have the legal opinions of those like the Maine SoS who decide who to alow on the ballot. What have you got to say she is wrong? Anything?

Why does anyone have to be found guilty of being an insurrectionist to be called an insurrectionist? Is there any law that says a state cannot remove a person from the ballot that they deem unsuitable? The law Maine used has been around for a while. Why did you not object to it being used until now?

Which video clips are you objecting to any why? Got links?

Some of the people who decide who goes on the ballot say you are wrong. Sucks to be you I guess. :)

Can you explain why you think Trump was duly elected when he lost the electoral vote?

If you actually believe that trump was duly elected, then he cannot be on the ballot in 2024. Have you actually ever read the US Constitution?

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

He can, since they rigged and stole the election.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

The election was certified by Pence. It what kind of lala land do you lie in where you think there are do-overs for a certified election? The election is done.

If Trump really thinks he won the presidency twice, then he knows he is not allowed to be elected again. Trump knows he is lying when he says he won.

Why do you think the Maine SoS was wrong? Can you link to legal opinions or laws?

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

You just admitted that “the election is done” and then contradicted with “he is not allowed to be elected again.”

Trump was elected, they hijacked it, and then they placed a non-elected puppet in the WH.

Maine made their decision based Colorado’s ruling.
The Washington Post has the 45-pg PDF petition that was used for Colorado to put Trump back on the ballot until the SC ruling.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Did you read the law? There is an election, it is certified. if person is elected twice to the presidency, they cannot be elected again. It is that simple.

If Trump claims and actually believes he won in 2020, then he must also believe that he cannot be allowed to run in 2024. Understand now?

Maine made their decision based upon their own law. Did you read about it or just assume something? I posted links above, you think Maine law is fake?

All i see after a brief search is the ruling removing him from the ballot. What do you have?

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

You are conflating winning an election with certifying it.
Trump won the election but they fraudulently certified a puppet instead. It is that simple.

Since Trump won but they certified someone else, than he is allowed to run in 2024. Understand now?

Maine made their decision based on Colorado’s ruling.
There is a 45-page petition in PDF format that was used to temporarily put Trump back on the ballot in Colorado until the SC ruling.

Don't ask me for links because you know by now that I don't spoon-feed.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

You are confusing what actually happened and what Trump thinks or claims to have happened.

I am claiming that the election was won by Biden who got enough electoral votes. Then Pence certified that Biden got enough electoral votes, making Biden the winner.

Trump claims that he won with enough electoral votes even though he brought in fake electors to try to steal the election.

What Trump believes is not real. Understand now? But if Trump truly believes he won in 2020, then he must believe he cannot legally run again. I think Trump knows he lost fair and square since the GOP could not find enough fraud to say otherwise.

If you can't simply copy and paste the link you read, then I'll just assume that you're lying, again. So how easy that is for me? I have never read anything about how being on a ballot is a 1st Amendment issue; I have read that it is a 14th and 15th issue though.

It okay with me if you're going to settle for being a coward who cannot support their claims. It is a good look for you. You're always wearing a yellow belly here on this forum. It's like your uniform. :)

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

But Biden didn’t get the votes, Trump got the votes and they switched those votes to Biden.

Since it was fraudulently certified for someone else, than Trump can run again regardless of what anyone believes. Get it.

Alternate electors are not illegal. They have been used since at least the 2000s eg. Bush v Gore.
Podesta used them in 2016 and he had plans to use them in 2020 in case their rigging failed.

If you are too incompetent to find a PDF file on the TWP website, than admit it instead of deflecting with juvenile excuses.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

This vote switching. How come there is no actual evidence for it? Another one of your fantasies that you refuse to post a link to?

You seem to be confusing faithless electors with alternate electors. A faithless elector is one who refuses to vote for the candidate chosen by the people in that state's election. Some people did encourage certain 2016 electors to be unfaithful, but it did not happen, except in DC where the elector refused to cast a vote. Some states forbid unfaithful electors.

An alternate elector is another person who is selected to be an elector so they can vote for a person who did not win the popular vote. Simply selecting an alternate elector who will do the candidate's bidding is not allowed by any state.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/post-misleadingly-equates-2016-democratic-effort-to-trumps-2020-alternate-electors/

I know that you will say my link sucks, but my links are far better than the fantasy claims you post here.

I don't really care to put much effort into finding a link you say exists, but probably says something completely unrelated to what you claim it does. You are so unreliable, that no one should take your word for anything here. That is why you should provide a link without anyone asking.

reply

[–] tvfan (14576) a year ago

I'm not confusing anything.
Alternate electors is the same thing as what the MSM and the establishment continues to re-label as "fake electors", and leftoids like you repeat it on a daily basis.

Since you insist: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/factcheckorg-media-bias

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

Then why can't you define what an alternate elector is and a fake elector is?

I'm not going to guess what you think the MSM thinks about something. You're just going to have to type it out here.

Left leaning does not mean fake.

reply

[–] robocat893 (16260) a year ago

According to you the Democrats outsmarted all you Republicans by rigging the 2020 election. You believe that thousands if not millions of people somehow got organized, worked together without any problems across state lines and without a single glitch stole the presidency. No one has yet to provide any evidence of this. It must hurt to be as stupid as you.

reply

[–] BKB (11354) a year ago

The 1st Amendment right to place a person on a ballot, or vote, is a new one for me." - Ranb

You know why this is new to you?? Because you're Gen Z and don't know fucking History 101 if it came up and bit you in your liberal ass.. How about do some research before you post making you look foolish?? The U.S Supreme Court tosses this and leaves Trump on the ballot or they have the potential to start uncivil rest over it and all because you couldn't keep this 1 man everyone on the left freaks out over including YOU in Donald Trump on the 2024 Ballot and simply vote him out

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

That is not how it works. You make a claim, you prove that you're right, and not stupid. Right know I think you're being stupid, but if you can prove me wrong, I will admit it.

I'm a boomer. Where do you get these silly ideas from anyway?

I'm kind of tired of the old "they better do what I want if they don't want a civil war". The likes of you don't have the stomach for a real fight.

I want someone worthwhile on the GOP ballot, someone who can beat Biden. Right now Trump has only proven he is no match for mumbling Biden.

reply

[–] BKB (11354) a year ago

That IS how it works and No, you're not even close to being a Boomer Gen Z so stop pretending and another thing, you state how you're tired of "They better do what I want if they don't want a Civil War" is fucking right!! These are people's rights!! Do you understand this??

The likes of you don't have the stomach for a real fight."

Yeah, I'm smart and don't see the need to start civil unrest over 1 man in Donald Trump that YOU have clearly developed TDS from and years from now, you're going to look back, provided you're still alive since you seem so hell bent on starting a war over him, and you'll feel stupid over it.. You will..

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

So anyone should be allowed to accuse you of anything, no matter how immoral and it is up to you to prove them wrong? Should I suggest that you supplied Epstein with rape victims for his Lolita Island? It would obviously be wrong for me to do that, but you insist that it is acceptable behavior here.

Why do you think I'm Gen Z? Did you know those labels are based upon dates of birth? I'm an old man who was born between 1946 and 1964, that makes me a boomer. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/609811/age-ranges-millennials-and-generation-z

I think it is very funny that you have such delusions of grandeur that you think you can wage a civil war. Perhaps a civil war in your head, but not on land. Good luck storming the castle.

I will not start a war over Trump. But I will defend myself and my family from any war that comes my way. I'm too old and crippled to go to war and not be a hazard to my fellow combatants. I'll wait for the war to come to me.

You really think I can start a war by saying mean things about Trump? That is crazy talk, boy.

reply

[–] TandyMan (11358) a year ago

This was always the narrative since they pushed the Insurrection angle without a win in the courts. If Trump makes progress with his appeals and bullshit, we will see a return to homeground war, or Pandemic 2.0. There will be no new election. They already cheated obviously the first time. They can't pull it off again. The next Great Reset is begun.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

You really think Biden can get away with calling off an election? I think you're naive. The president does not run the election, the states do.

What war are you going to fight in? Will you lead from the front or from MovieChat?

reply

[–] TandyMan (11358) a year ago

I will get banned if I describe my home grown war.

I absolutely believe Biden can pull off calling off an election. We all said exactly this when he stole the last one. The illusion of democracy is over. The next reset has begun. Buildings will fall soon.

reply

[–] Ranb (11382) a year ago

As long as you're not actually planning a civil war here, you have nothing to worry about.

How would Biden call off the election? He cannot actually stop all 50 states from holding elections. They have to elect their state level and local politicians every two years also.

The president lacks the authority to stop conventions. Conventions can be done over the internet now too.

Do you think the military will stay local to Biden if he declares himself to be a dictator? I think you're having some sort of wet dream. When your fantasies fail to emerge, you will give credit to Trump for stopping Biden even if Trump is in prison.

reply