Kansas Crimson

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:46 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:42 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:36 am The fact Trumps political opponents attempted to do this is insane and as anti democratic as anything I've lived through in this country

There is a reason it was a 9-0 unanimous decision

Me, I would consider trying to avoid the peaceful transfer of power to be significantly more anti-democratic than...checks notes...trying to enforce the Constitution as written.

Trump did nothing violent. He questioned the results, same as democrats did in 2016.

That's why the court ruled unanimously. Just because the media repeats something a lot, doesn't mean that's how it actually happened. There is a reason the viewership of those media outlets drops every year. Most people see through the propaganda, maybe eventually you will too

This is childish. And you either know that, or you don't. And I'm not sure which would be worse.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:51 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:48 am I get it you guys are upset that you couldn't get trump removed from the ballot.

Personally I don't think anyone should ever be removed from a ballot. That isn't how this country is supposed to work. Let the people decide. If someone truly did something worth being taken off a ballot, they'd never get elected by the people anyways

So, if Obama had been born in Kenya after all...let the people decide?

Yes. Obama to me was very controversial, he did some things I agreed with, and some I didn't. I would have loved ron paul in 2008, but the republicans marched out their own deep state puppet instead to go against the dem's. I'm not delusional enough to want him removed from a ballot

Removing candidates is a very dark path our country is flirting with. Fortunately, the courts overruled it

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:57 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:51 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:48 am I get it you guys are upset that you couldn't get trump removed from the ballot.

Personally I don't think anyone should ever be removed from a ballot. That isn't how this country is supposed to work. Let the people decide. If someone truly did something worth being taken off a ballot, they'd never get elected by the people anyways

So, if Obama had been born in Kenya after all...let the people decide?

Yes. Obama to me was very controversial, he did some things I agreed with, and some I didn't. I would have loved ron paul in 2008, but the republicans marched out their own deep state puppet instead to go against the dem's. I'm not delusional enough to want him removed from a ballot

Removing candidates is a very dark path our country is flirting with. Fortunately, the courts overruled it

Ok. So, you are anti-Constitution.

Jfish, of all the delusional people on the internet, you might be the worst.

Trump himself never committed violence or an insurrection, which is why he's never been charged nor convicted with it, and why the Supreme Court (with both progressive and conservative justices on it) ruled 9-0 unanimously

Some leftists tried to stretch the wording in the constitution a bit too far and it didn't work. Move on

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:03 am Jfish, of all the delusional people on the internet, you might be the worst.

Trump himself never committed violence or an insurrection, which is why he's never been charged nor convicted with it, and why the Supreme Court (with both progressive and conservative justices on it) ruled 9-0 unanimously

Some leftists tried to stretch the wording in the constitution a bit too far and it didn't work. Move on

You're wrong (go look up arson laws, for example, if the incitement laws are not clear enough for you), but I'm not even talking about that.

You just said that a person born in Kenya should not be barred from holding the office of the President. That means you think the Constitution should not say what it does (or that it should not be enforced as written).

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:54 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:47 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:40 am

What point do you think this proves?

In this case, a very simple one (and nothing more): that Sparky's knee-jerk reaction that this is a party-determined decision is patently and inarguably wrong on its face.

Is there a reason you barbered my post in responding?

Yes -- the same reason I barbered this one, because my beef is not with you or your analysis. I don't necessarily agree with your analysis but will happily concede that it is well within the bounds of reasonable discussion.

Sparky's knee-jerk partisanship claim, by contrast, is not. It is more of the "widening gyre," more unthinking insistence that any disagreement is based on illegitimate value calculations.

So did scotus rule unanimously on some jurisdictional grounds?

That a particular state doesn’t have the authority to decide constitutional questions

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:24 am So did scotus rule unanimously on some jurisdictional grounds?

That a particular state doesn’t have the authority to decide constitutional questions

Google.com

You'll (and me too) learn more by just reading JFish and DCs posts than by trying to weigh in....

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:13 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:54 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:47 am
In this case, a very simple one (and nothing more): that Sparky's knee-jerk reaction that this is a party-determined decision is patently and inarguably wrong on its face.

Is there a reason you barbered my post in responding?

Yes -- the same reason I barbered this one, because my beef is not with you or your analysis. I don't necessarily agree with your analysis but will happily concede that it is well within the bounds of reasonable discussion.

Sparky's knee-jerk partisanship claim, by contrast, is not. It is more of the "widening gyre," more unthinking insistence that any disagreement is based on illegitimate value calculations.

Gotcha. I just wouldn't personally take the unanimous vote to mean unanimity in reasoning/analysis.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:37 am
Gotcha. I just wouldn't personally take the unanimous vote to mean unanimity in reasoning/analysis.

And nor would I.

Although the concurring opinion(s) indicate that the reasoning underlying the principal finding -- on the state's ability to adjudicate the 14th amendment -- is unanimous.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:08 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:03 am Jfish, of all the delusional people on the internet, you might be the worst.

Trump himself never committed violence or an insurrection, which is why he's never been charged nor convicted with it, and why the Supreme Court (with both progressive and conservative justices on it) ruled 9-0 unanimously

Some leftists tried to stretch the wording in the constitution a bit too far and it didn't work. Move on

You're wrong (go look up arson laws, for example, if the incitement laws are not clear enough for you), but I'm not even talking about that.

You just said that a person born in Kenya should not be barred from holding the office of the President. That means you think the Constitution should not say what it does (or that it should not be enforced as written).

Was he born in Kenya?

Fish if I was wrong, there wouldn't be a unanimous Supreme Court decision backing me

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:03 am Jfish, of all the delusional people on the internet, you might be the worst.

Trump himself never committed violence or an insurrection, which is why he's never been charged nor convicted with it, and why the Supreme Court (with both progressive and conservative justices on it) ruled 9-0 unanimously

Some leftists tried to stretch the wording in the constitution a bit too far and it didn't work. Move on

That has nothing to do with why the Supreme Court ruled how it did. From the looks of it, they just made the assertion that Congress has to have a formal determination of it before a state can rule to have him removed from the ballot. It's just a technicality on procedures.

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 12:16 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:08 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:03 am Jfish, of all the delusional people on the internet, you might be the worst.

Trump himself never committed violence or an insurrection, which is why he's never been charged nor convicted with it, and why the Supreme Court (with both progressive and conservative justices on it) ruled 9-0 unanimously

Some leftists tried to stretch the wording in the constitution a bit too far and it didn't work. Move on

You're wrong (go look up arson laws, for example, if the incitement laws are not clear enough for you), but I'm not even talking about that.

You just said that a person born in Kenya should not be barred from holding the office of the President. That means you think the Constitution should not say what it does (or that it should not be enforced as written).

Was he born in Kenya?

What is wrong with you.

I asked: So, if Obama had been born in Kenya after all...let the people decide?
You responded: Yes.

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 12:17 pm Fish if I was wrong, there wouldn't be a unanimous Supreme Court decision backing me

This is a perfect example of how empty (and telling) it is when you congratulate yourself for being "right".

You do not have a basic understanding of what makes an action or decision or opinion "right" or "wrong", and you also do not have an understanding on what "unanimous" really means here.

can i answer? is so. my answer is: NO!

a person born in kenya cannot run for POTUS.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 12:25 pm can i answer? is so. my answer is: NO!

a person born in kenya cannot run for POTUS.

And that is also what the Constitution says. It is not, evidently, what Randy thinks the Constitution should say.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 12:21 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 12:16 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:08 am

You're wrong (go look up arson laws, for example, if the incitement laws are not clear enough for you), but I'm not even talking about that.

You just said that a person born in Kenya should not be barred from holding the office of the President. That means you think the Constitution should not say what it does (or that it should not be enforced as written).

Was he born in Kenya?

What is wrong with you.

I asked: So, if Obama had been born in Kenya after all...let the people decide?
You responded: Yes.

Was he?

But the thing is, Obama would have to actually be from Kenya, not just some political opponents claiming he was.

Kind of like how trump would have to actually be an insurrectionist, not just political opponents trying to claim that

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:13 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 12:21 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 12:16 pm

Was he born in Kenya?

What is wrong with you.

I asked: So, if Obama had been born in Kenya after all...let the people decide?
You responded: Yes.

Was he?

It does not matter, in the context of this simple point. Maybe I need to provide more context.

You said: Personally I don't think anyone should ever be removed from a ballot. That isn't how this country is supposed to work. Let the people decide. If someone truly did something worth being taken off a ballot, they'd never get elected by the people anyways.

I asked: So, if Obama had been born in Kenya after all...let the people decide?

You responded: Yes.

That means that YOUR opinion is that election results should trump the Constitution.