The Next President is...

[Sua Sponte]

3 hours ago, ViperMan said:

The solution I'd like to see is CO electoral votes just get tossed. Sorry...you don't want to participate in the election? Fine, your 10 votes are null. See you in 4 years.

Who said we don’t want to participate in an election? The CO Supreme Court just held to disqualify a candidate via our state election laws. 

[Sim]

 

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

Who said we don’t want to participate in an election? The CO Supreme Court just held to disqualify a candidate via our state election laws. 

Your state did.

When your state's Supreme Court unilaterally determined that your states' electoral votes were going to de facto be given to Joe Biden - thereby undermining the very purpose of our national election system and usurping other states' (and the national) election processes. Just try this though experiment: imagine Arizona and Wisconsin "disqualified" Joe Biden from their ballots "according to their state election laws"...blah blah blah. You know as well as I do there would be absolute pandemonium from the MSNBC crowd...which should tell you something is sideways. 

[Swizzle]

49 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

You doing think someone that swears in via the Oath of Office isn’t some type of officer?

Their analysis on the topic starts on PDF Pg. 70 to 89.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

Interesting read and interpretation. However not convincing. The follow-on rulings will be interesting to watch.

Key reasons/keywords: Oath, 'support', officer, offices mentioned...and words mean things, also lack thereof. 

First, the Insurrectionist clause starts at banning, or 'disabling', at the Congressional level and then under the United States to individual states. Note the primacy writing style used. This undoubtably means officers APPOINTED by public authority as mentioned in your citation's para 130-132 who are found guilty of insurrection, yes? These same insurrectionist must have sworn to "support" the Constitution, while POTUS' oath does not. References follow.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C8-1/ALDE_00001126/ (might have to cliffnote more this website after all this...)

&  

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/clause-8/

Second, The Office of the President is filled chiefly by an election & electors. POTUS is not an appointed officer in that sense, despite the position being an office, that is the Office of the President of the United States.

Third, and back to that primacy writing style, why would "an officer of the United States" which is written after "member of Congress" include the POTUS when Congress is written out expressly and POTUS is not?

Lastly,  perhaps most importantly, the preposition 'under' versus the use 'of'. Under meaning that which is below or beneath or lower-than. Section 3 says to disable any insurrectionist from holding any office under the United States. So clarify for us, is it the President of OR under the United States?  I await your answer curiously because a new adjudged interpretation of this matter by you and SCOTUS could change the big guy's business card to PUTUS! Which sounds wrong... (and likewise SCUTUS)

[tac airlifter]

Call me when the progressive left applies the same originalist tenacity to our second amendment as they're pretending to want for the 14th.  These people are hypocrites and liars who claim to protect democracy without actually believing in it.  I don't like the person of Donald Trump but clearly he's who these corrupt assholes fear, so chances are high he'll get my vote.  

[Sua Sponte]

7 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Your state did.

When your state's Supreme Court unilaterally determined that your states' electoral votes were going to de facto be given to Joe Biden - thereby undermining the very purpose of our national election system and usurping other states' (and the national) election processes. Just try this though experiment: imagine Arizona and Wisconsin "disqualified" Joe Biden from their ballots "according to their state election laws"...blah blah blah. You know as well as I do there would be absolute pandemonium from the MSNBC crowd...which should tell you something is sideways. 

So, the CO GOP couldn’t put another candidate on the ballot because Trump was disqualified via CO election laws? If Arizona, Wisconsin, or any state wanted to disqualify a candidate base on their state election laws, that’s well within their right to do so. If done, which is what happened here, then it’ll be appealed to the SCOTUS for an interpretation against the Constitution.
 

The CO Supreme Court issued a stay for their decision until 4 Jan for Trump’s attorneys to file an appeal to the SCOTUS, which they’ll do. It’s a Constitutional interpretation that’s never happened before with the 14th Amendment, the CO Supreme Court just set it up. It was also a 5-4 opinion, so it wasn’t without dissent within the court.

[ClearedHot]

9 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

So, the CO GOP couldn’t put another candidate on the ballot because Trump was disqualified via CO election laws? If Arizona, Wisconsin, or any state wanted to disqualify a candidate base on their state election laws, that’s well within their right to do so. If done, which is what happened here, then it’ll be appealed to the SCOTUS for an interpretation against the Constitution.
 

The CO Supreme Court issued a stay for their decision until 4 Jan for Trump’s attorneys to file an appeal to the SCOTUS, which they’ll do. It’s a Constitutional interpretation that’s never happened before with the 14th Amendment, the CO Supreme Court just set it up. It was also a 5-4 opinion, so it wasn’t without dissent within the court.

It is a desperate move by far left lunatics that are scared and it likely opened Pandora's box as California is now exploring doing the same thing California lieutenant governor calls for exploring options to take Donald Trump off the presidential ballot

[Sua Sponte]

7 hours ago, Swizzle said:

Interesting read and interpretation. However not convincing. The follow-on rulings will be interesting to watch.

Key reasons/keywords: Oath, 'support', officer, offices mentioned...and words mean things, also lack thereof. 

First, the Insurrectionist clause starts at banning, or 'disabling', at the Congressional level and then under the United States to individual states. Note the primacy writing style used. This undoubtably means officers APPOINTED by public authority as mentioned in your citation's para 130-132 who are found guilty of insurrection, yes? These same insurrectionist must have sworn to "support" the Constitution, while POTUS' oath does not. References follow.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C8-1/ALDE_00001126/ (might have to cliffnote more this website after all this...)

&  

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/clause-8/

Second, The Office of the President is filled chiefly by an election & electors. POTUS is not an appointed officer in that sense, despite the position being an office, that is the Office of the President of the United States.

Third, and back to that primacy writing style, why would "an officer of the United States" which is written after "member of Congress" include the POTUS when Congress is written out expressly and POTUS is not?

Lastly,  perhaps most importantly, the preposition 'under' versus the use 'of'. Under meaning that which is below or beneath or lower-than. Section 3 says to disable any insurrectionist from holding any office under the United States. So clarify for us, is it the President of OR under the United States?  I await your answer curiously because a new adjudged interpretation of this matter by you and SCOTUS could change the big guy's business card to PUTUS! Which sounds wrong... (and likewise SCUTUS)

“However not convincing.” Well, no one cares if it’s convincing to you (or anyone else other than a superior court). You would agree with me that a commander at the military level is an officer, correct? Is the president not the “Commander-in-Chief?”

[Sua Sponte]

2 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

It is a desperate move by far left lunatics that are scared and it likely opened Pandora's box as California is now exploring doing the same thing California lieutenant governor calls for exploring options to take Donald Trump off the presidential ballot

It’s going to cause a “trigger effect” like the repeal of Row with some red states. If the SCOTUS agrees with the CO Supreme Court, Trump’s 2024 campaign is done due to all blue states disqualifying him (subject to their state’s election laws) via the insurrection clause. If the SCOTUS disagrees, then he won’t have to be worried about being disqualified in any state over the insurrection clause. 

[ViperMan]

I predict SCOTUS disagrees.

If/when they do, I'll re-engage with another "I was right and you were wrong" post.

[Sua Sponte]

18 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

I predict SCOTUS disagrees.

If/when they do, I'll re-engage with another "I was right and you were wrong" post.

The question I have is how can a former president be disqualified via the Insurrection Clause if said person was acquitted by the Senate during an impeachment trial charged with “Inciting an Insurrection?”

[Swizzle]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

The question I have is how can a former president be disqualified via the Insurrection Clause if said person was acquitted by the Senate during an impeachment trial charged with “Inciting an Insurrection?”

Because of hate, lawfare, and irrationality.

[lloyd christmas]

a few thoughts.  

The Colorado (not lots of electoral votes) play is likely designed to get the SCOTUS response.  The next State (CA) (lots of electoral votes) will know how to more effectively get him off of their ballot having seen SCOTUS’ cards.  

We are in the middle of a “cold” civil war.  There is no way for either side to win.  

The left ALWAYS does what they accuse the right of doing.  It’s their standard play.  Collude with foreign actors?  The Trump collusion story was completely fabricated but it’s becoming very clear the Biden’s did exactly that. Threaten democracy?  Republicans aren’t doing anything close to threatening democracy.  The border is wide open.  The left is attempting to remove Trump from state’s ballots, changing state election laws, trying to keep him in court on baseless accusations, keeping him off social media to suppress his voice, etc.  Insurrections?  You can say the word all you want but that doesn’t mean a bunch of pissed off citizens (for the reasons above) were doing anything other than rioting.  They certainly weren’t trying to overthrow the US government.  Meanwhile, federal buildings and police stations were attacked for an entire summer by leftist.   Racism?  Democrat policies are DESTROYING the black community.  Always have.  Hell, the Republican Party was literally founded to fight the expansion of slavery.  Tyrannical government?  Look at the difference in red and blue responses to Covid.  I could keep going but I won’t.  

This is all pure fucking madness.  It’s like living in a bad dream.  And it gets worse everyday. 

Edited December 21, 2023 by lloyd christmas
Autocorrect

[ClearedHot]

Ten Confederate states removed Lincoln form the ballot...

[Pooter]

In an alternate reality, republicans could do the smart thing here and let the leftist state dominoes fall one by one rendering a trump candidacy meaningless because he's not on the ballot in half the country. Then, insert milquetoast right candidate, beat biden handily and be done with the trump disease forever. 
 

But they'll never do that. They'll fight it in the courts, drag trump back into the limelight, and his polling will take a nose dive as 51% of the country re-realizes how much of an insufferable tool he is.

[HeloDude]

36 minutes ago, Pooter said:

In an alternate reality, republicans could do the smart thing here and let the leftist state dominoes fall one by one rendering a trump candidacy meaningless because he's not on the ballot in half the country. Then, insert milquetoast right candidate, beat biden handily and be done with the trump disease forever. 
 

But they'll never do that. They'll fight it in the courts, drag trump back into the limelight, and his polling will take a nose dive as 51% of the country re-realizes how much of an insufferable tool he is.

By your logic, the Dems could all vote with the GOP to impeach and then convict Biden so he would be off the ballot in 2024 since he is so unpopular, corrupt, etc.  I don’t know what will happen in 2024, and I said 2-3 months ago that I gave Trump a 40% chance at winning…but now I’m definitely giving him at least a 50% chance.  Trump could very well win in 2024, and even the Dems are realizing that this is a definite possible outcome.  But your post makes it sound like you don’t believe he even has a chance at winning next November?

[tac airlifter]

6 hours ago, Pooter said:

In an alternate reality, republicans could do the smart thing here and let the leftist state dominoes fall one by one rendering a trump candidacy meaningless because he's not on the ballot in half the country. Then, insert milquetoast right candidate, beat biden handily and be done with the trump disease forever. 
 

But they'll never do that. They'll fight it in the courts, drag trump back into the limelight, and his polling will take a nose dive as 51% of the country re-realizes how much of an insufferable tool he is.

A milquetoast right candidate cannot beat Biden because they have no constituency.  Look at polling in the Republican side right now, the milquetoast candidates have no chance.

i'm not voting for Mitt Romney or any of that ilk, they cannot fix the problems that exist in this country.  I know you don't think it's a smart thing for me to vote for people I want to vote for, but if you pretend to give a fuck about democracy you kinda have to accept the agree to disagree approach to life.  But that is not the way with Democrats, it is obey or be punished.

[ClearedHot]

My wife makes a salad using Napa Cabbage on holidays that every one loves.  I just went to the store to purchase a head of Napa Cabbage for Christmas dinner and paid $10.71 for a single head of cabbage.  This was Winn Dixie (Publix was out), not some FuFu granola Whole Foods or specialty store.  The damage done by the empty meatbag sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is staggering.  Yet his clown Press Secretary continues to say inflation is falling.  I don't know how average families are getting by with these prices.

 

 

[uhhello]

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WPU01130211

 

[ClearedHot]

5 minutes ago, uhhello said:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WPU01130211

 

My parents are farmers, step dad is the horticulture expert and Mom is a CPA who ran the finance part of the business.  They always walked me through the numbers, shocking how small a cut of the final price goes to the farmer.

The numbers you posted are striking and paint a bleak picture.  1940's through 1978 were very flat with a sub 40 index.  Big spikes in 1976-1980 (Carter's term and high inflation period).  The steady march above 100 starts with NAFTA and Clinton, most have no idea what that did to the American Farmer.  The regulations on our side of the Rio Grand put most American farmers on the defensive.  The rules stated American farmers could not use certain methods or chemicals (Methyl Bromide), but allowed unlimited importation from countries like Mexico that used those methods and chemicals to increase production and keep price low.   I really Hoped W would have pulled us out...Obama's term established a new base around 250.  Spike in 2019 was from a salmonella outbreak, prices fell right back down then went up again (like everything else), with COVID.  We are now post COVID and the primary driver towards 400 is inflation, a four fold increase in just 25 years.  Standard cabbage, not the specialty stuff I bought today is up 18.4% from a year ago today.

[arg]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

My wife makes a salad using Napa Cabbage on holidays that every one loves.  I just went to the store to purchase a head of Napa Cabbage for Christmas dinner and paid $10.71 for a single head of cabbage.  This was Winn Dixie (Publix was out), not some FuFu granola Whole Foods or specialty store.  The damage done by the empty meatbag sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is staggering.  Yet his clown Press Secretary continues to say inflation is falling.  I don't know how average families are getting by with these prices.

 

 

Recipe?

And there's no beer on the list.

[herkbum]

We paid $50 for a ham that costs us about $35-$40 last year.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, arg said:

Recipe?

And there's no beer on the list.

Recipe

Got my beer on base earlier in the week, slowly trolling through the Class 6 pushing a cart full of military special bourbon and vodka...oh I was wearing black socks and sandals. 

[SurelySerious]

Recipe

It’s good stuff.

[arg]

7 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Recipe

Got my beer on base earlier in the week, slowly trolling through the Class 6 pushing a cart full of military special bourbon and vodka...oh I was wearing black socks and sandals. 

With Bermuda shorts, retired USAF hat with 19 pins, and T shirt to match, I'm sure.