Maine agrees with Colorado

[eyecu2]

Sorry Trump ...you're off the ballot here too.

Stating that her oath to the Constitution supersedes all other personal biases. And she interprets the 14th amendment section 3, as a participant in the Jan 6th insurrection. Not an interpretation...just acknowledged that just like anyone under age 35, or not natural born, cannot be a candidate for president...the actors who participated in the Jan 6 cannot be qualified to be in the office of president.

[1blackman1]

He was an insurrectionist. He still is. He failed severely after he lost by not accepting the results and continuing to just lie for donations. He ain’t worth a shit. Nor are his fervent and ardent supporters.

[ICU 812]

I understood that, after filing an appealed, President Trump would remain on the Ballot in Colorado.

As to "Mail Agrees With Colorado: A a court in Colorado, one judg I think) rulled.

In Main, one appointed state official made a decision.

Neither event involved the people of Colorado or Main through their respective legislatures.

The Main decision has much less legal standing than the Colorado ruling. IT will never stand up in any court.

President Trump has been certified to appear on the ballot in California, Michigan and now Colorado.

[Supra]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Sorry Trump ...you're off the ballot here too.

Stating that her oath to the Constitution supersedes all other personal biases. And she interprets the 14th amendment section 3, as a participant in the Jan 6th insurrection. Not an interpretation...just acknowledged that just like anyone under age 35, or not natural born, cannot be a candidate for president...the actors who participated in the Jan 6 cannot be qualified to be in the office of president.

Yup, her opinion
And you know what they say about opinions.

[VitaMan]

Mr. Trump has done more to damage democracies around the world, and the democratic ideal, more than anyone in the last 100 years.


When you travel abroad, you realize first hand what the local peoples thoughts are of America. Unsolicited comments such as:

"When Americans say they are going to do something, they do it ! No one does that here."
"If it wasn't for America, the world would be in chaos."
"I wish someone would take me to America."


We don't need Donald Trump to MAGA. What we need is for Donald Trump to step aside before he does more damage.

[Supra]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Mr. Trump has done more to damage democracies around the world, and the democratic ideal, more than anyone in the last 100 years.


When you travel abroad, you realize first hand what the local peoples thoughts are of America. Unsolicited comments such as:

"When Americans say they are going to do something, they do it ! No one does that here."
"If it wasn't for America, the world would be in chaos."
"I wish someone would take me to America."


We don't need Donald Trump to MAGA. What we need is for Donald Trump to step aside before he does more damage.

The TDS is strong on this one.

God Bless Trump
God Bless Trump's Family
God bless Trump voters
God Bless Republican's
The rest of you can go to (censored)

Staff Edit - Remove Photo of Child - Biomed1

[ICU 812]

While detractors of President Trump may be correct in their criticism, an appointed official can not use their non-existent discretion to deprive the voting public ofr their right to support or discard him as a viable political force.

[VitaMan]

You may want to consider this:

In her decision, Bellows said she had “little trouble” concluding that the US Capitol riot meets the definition of an insurrection, and that Trump “intended to incite lawless action” to stop the transfer of power.

On that day, Bellows wrote, a “large and angry crowd” entered the Capitol and “assaulted the capitol police officers charged with defending it, vandalized and stole property, and ransacked offices.” She added that the members of the mob were “organized behind a common purpose,” to “prevent by force the certification of the results of the 2020 presidential election that was scheduled to occur in the halls of Congress that afternoon.”

Bellows wrote that the challengers presented compelling evidence that the January 6 insurrection “occurred at the behest of” Trump.

“The record establishes that Mr. Trump, over the course of several months and culminating on January 6, 2021, used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them to the Capitol to prevent certification of the 2020 election and the peaceful transfer of power,”

Former President Donald Trump was removed from the state’s 2024 primary ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”

The 14th amendment says American officials who “engage in” insurrection can’t hold future office. The provision doesn’t say how the ban should be enforced.

[Supra]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

You may want to consider this:

In her decision, Bellows said she had “little trouble” concluding that the US Capitol riot meets the definition of an insurrection, and that Trump “intended to incite lawless action” to stop the transfer of power.

On that day, Bellows wrote, a “large and angry crowd” entered the Capitol and “assaulted the capitol police officers charged with defending it, vandalized and stole property, and ransacked offices.” She added that the members of the mob were “organized behind a common purpose,” to “prevent by force the certification of the results of the 2020 presidential election that was scheduled to occur in the halls of Congress that afternoon.”

Bellows wrote that the challengers presented compelling evidence that the January 6 insurrection “occurred at the behest of” Trump.

“The record establishes that Mr. Trump, over the course of several months and culminating on January 6, 2021, used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them to the Capitol to prevent certification of the 2020 election and the peaceful transfer of power,”

Former President Donald Trump was removed from the state’s 2024 primary ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”

The 14th amendment says American officials who “engage in” insurrection can’t hold future office. The provision doesn’t say how the ban should be enforced.

Who was charged with insurrection?
Democrats are going to rig and steal it again, this shit needs to STOP!

[oilfieldace]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Sorry Trump ...you're off the ballot here too.

Stating that her oath to the Constitution supersedes all other personal biases. And she interprets the 14th amendment section 3, as a participant in the Jan 6th insurrection. Not an interpretation...just acknowledged that just like anyone under age 35, or not natural born, cannot be a candidate for president...the actors who participated in the Jan 6 cannot be qualified to be in the office of president.

Did you mean one liberal in Maine?

[VitaMan]

Originally Posted by Supra

Who was charged with insurrection?
Democrats are going to rig and steal it again, this shit needs to STOP!

A response to your 2nd line statement: if you say so
A response to your first line question:



We await a Supreme Court resolution that will establish nationwide uniformity.



Meantime below is a scholarly discussion of the issues:



Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment has been “enabled” by a criminal statute that sets out punishment—including disqualification from office—for rebellion or insurrection.


Critics of the decision to remove Trump from the ballots point out that Trump was never charged under that criminal statute. Nor was he convicted for insurrection during his impeachment trial.


Section 3 doesn’t mandate a criminal conviction; and it doesn’t require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, even if Trump was not convicted by the Senate, he was charged with insurrection by the House, 232‐to‐197; and the Senate voted to convict 57-to-43—but short of the 2/3 majority required for a guilty verdict.




Under Section 3, Trump’s conduct need not meet the criminal standard of Brandenburg v. Ohio (“inciting or producing imminent lawless action and … likely to incite or produce such action”). Also, Section 3 need not recognize a mistake‐of‐insurrection defense. That is, intentional acts that amount to engaging in insurrection might be covered by Section 3, even if the actor wrongly believes no insurrection would or did occur.


And claims that Trump is being denied due process would be applicable under the Fifth Amendment only if he were deprived of life, liberty, or property in a criminal proceeding.




Maine’s secretary of state acknowledged it would’ve been easier to reach her conclusion had Trump been found guilty or not guilty of the crime. However, she said her responsibility was to look at the evidence for herself and did not depend on the existence of a criminal trial or verdict.

[dilbert firestorm]

insurrection and riot are two very different things that go boom at night.

an insurrection usually involves weapons.

best example of an insurrection: Kingdom of Hawaii.

[Supra]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

A response to your 2nd line statement: if you say so
A response to your first line question:



We await a Supreme Court resolution that will establish nationwide uniformity.



Meantime below is a scholarly discussion of the issues:



Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment has been “enabled” by a criminal statute that sets out punishment—including disqualification from office—for rebellion or insurrection.


Critics of the decision to remove Trump from the ballots point out that Trump was never charged under that criminal statute. Nor was he convicted for insurrection during his impeachment trial.


Section 3 doesn’t mandate a criminal conviction; and it doesn’t require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, even if Trump was not convicted by the Senate, he was charged with insurrection by the House, 232‐to‐197; and the Senate voted to convict 57-to-43—but short of the 2/3 majority required for a guilty verdict.




Under Section 3, Trump’s conduct need not meet the criminal standard of Brandenburg v. Ohio (“inciting or producing imminent lawless action and … likely to incite or produce such action”). Also, Section 3 need not recognize a mistake‐of‐insurrection defense. That is, intentional acts that amount to engaging in insurrection might be covered by Section 3, even if the actor wrongly believes no insurrection would or did occur.


And claims that Trump is being denied due process would be applicable under the Fifth Amendment only if he were deprived of life, liberty, or property in a criminal proceeding.




Maine’s secretary of state acknowledged it would’ve been easier to reach her conclusion had Trump been found guilty or not guilty of the crime. However, she said her responsibility was to look at the evidence for herself and did not depend on the existence of a criminal trial or verdict.

Are these your opinions?
You know what they say about opinions...
If you say so



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHSHS!!!!

SNICK SNICK SNICK SNICK

[VitaMan]

They are not

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

He was an insurrectionist. He still is. He failed severely after he lost by not accepting the results and continuing to just lie for donations. He ain’t worth a shit. Nor are his fervent and ardent supporters.

This Country will see worse without Trump. If anyone thinks getting rid of Trump solves the Country's problems I have some bad news for them.