• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Quotes the US Constitution

No, I was asking if that was the case.

So you must have thought it was, or least suggested that it was, otherwise why ask ?
Your backtracking is comical

Be a man and just own it



****ing expletives aren't ****ing lies, kid.

They're the sound of defeat, as is your condescending tone - "kid"

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - quote attributed to Socrates


But not the type we've been talking about. Straight ****ing line. Walk it.

Stealing secrets for America's enemies can indeed involve the threat of force
The point is that, unlike a coup or the overthrow of a legitimately elected government, a threat of force is not a prerequisite. Whereas any attempt to overthrow such a government does (involve force oir a threat of force)
Learn the difference, and possibly improve your reading comprehension in the process


When did I say this?

When did you say that a coup is only treason if it includes a threat of force - in post #97, when you said"

If it was a violent overthrow, involving at least the threatened use of force, it's conceivable it could be treason, but I wouldn't bet the farm.

More memory failure from you


If that's what you need to tell yourself, go ahead and tell yourself that.

No, I'm telling you


You cannot (ie: you are unable to) give examples of a military takeover (otherwise known as a coup) that includes:

1. A use or threat of use of force
2. No force and no threat of the use of force

QED: You admit, by default, that you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
Amen. And if you live in a district say Detroit, Philly, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Clark County NV who are notorious for voter fraud know all the tricks and they are all hoping no one cares about voter security. But this time we learned that when you have 4-5 big cities where major voting fraud occurred it can change the results of a national election.
When you win a record low 17% of counties, lose Black & Hispanic support, lose 18/19 Bellwether Counties, lose Ohio, Florida, & Iowa — and lose 27/27 House "Toss-Ups" — but you shatter the popular vote record what is wrong with this picture?

Show me one, just one, instance where voter fraud impacted the election outcome in any state or national election.

The fact is, voter fraud happens on an absolutely miniscule scale and has no impact on election outcomes. Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem.

If you want to improperly change the outcome of an election, it is far more efficient and effective to prevent one side or the other from voting. Purge the rolls, close polling places, demand voter ID, restrict early voting. Implement new rules for voting as near to the election as possible. That's how to steal an election.
 
Show me one, just one, instance where voter fraud impacted the election outcome in any state or national election.

The fact is, voter fraud happens on an absolutely miniscule scale and has no impact on election outcomes. Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem.

If you want to improperly change the outcome of an election, it is far more efficient and effective to prevent one side or the other from voting. Purge the rolls, close polling places, demand voter ID, restrict early voting. Implement new rules for voting as near to the election as possible. That's how to steal an election.

The insistence on voter fraud as a valid concern is nothing but a sales pitch for their real intent which is to disenfranchise as many likely Democratic voters as possible without appearing to be racists or discriminatory. Its the same shit they pull on abortion clinics with laws making them have admitting privileges or certain structural codes. Its all just lying and cheating and legalized chicanery for one purpose only, to impose their will against the majority at all costs. They are not remotely interested in democracy or the will of the people, they want power only.
 
The insistence on voter fraud as a valid concern is nothing but a sales pitch for their real intent which is to disenfranchise as many likely Democratic voters as possible without appearing to be racists or discriminatory. Its the same shit they pull on abortion clinics with laws making them have admitting privileges or certain structural codes. Its all just lying and cheating and legalized chicanery for one purpose only, to impose their will against the majority at all costs. They are not remotely interested in democracy or the will of the people, they want power only.

Not really, it is a symptom of a malignant cancer ib the Republican party to hold on to power come what may.
 
Not really, it is a symptom of a malignant cancer ib the Republican party to hold on to power come what may.

And for what purpose do they want power? Sorry but I have been following them daily since the late 60s. The whole party is about whiteness and racial superiority. Every single thing conservatives believe in has its roots in racial politics. If you want proof, just go watch Baldwin debate Buckley back in the mid-60s at Oxford.
 
And for what purpose do they want power? Sorry but I have been following them daily since the late 60s. The whole party is about whiteness and racial superiority. Every single thing conservatives believe in has its roots in racial politics. If you want proof, just go watch Baldwin debate Buckley back in the mid-60s at Oxford.


In Trump's case because he's high on a power trip and he's desperate to hold off the plethora of lawsuits that's coming his way...
(and possibly some jail time)

The point is now that nothing appears to beneath the GOP in it's goal of attaining power

You might be right in saying that the GOP is steeped in racism but ultimately it comes down to money. The GOP is all about justifying the unequal spread of wealth and keeping it in the hands of the rich.
 
In Trump's case because he's high on a power trip and he's desperate to hold off the plethora of lawsuits that's coming his way...
(and possibly some jail time)

The point is now that nothing appears to beneath the GOP in it's goal of attaining power

You might be right in saying that the GOP is steeped in racism but ultimately it comes down to money. The GOP is all about justifying the unequal spread of wealth and keeping it in the hands of the rich.

To be fair, it is about money as well as keeping money away from the "other" people who are nothing but lazy scoundrels. If you really want to see just how deep race politics goes in the conservative movement, spend the time to watch this incredible debate between two giants intellectually, here is the link.

 
If Alabama decided to allow slavery, Texas would not have standing to file suit.

Any slave in Alabama would, though.
Not even close. AL could NOT allow slavery.
 
Judicial power. The courts decided that without evidence Trump didn't have standing.
Trump didn't file the case, Texas did. Since Texas is a state (or was, last I checked) they DO have standing. The court decided that just because Texas has a problem with the way PA (for example) did things that didn't matter because Texas has no business complaining about PA. That's kind of ignoring the whole matter of "Original Jurisdiction" but it's what they did anyway.
 
Trump didn't file the case, Texas did. Since Texas is a state (or was, last I checked) they DO have standing. The court decided that just because Texas has a problem with the way PA (for example) did things that didn't matter because Texas has no business complaining about PA. That's kind of ignoring the whole matter of "Original Jurisdiction" but it's what they did anyway.
Without evidence not even the states have standing. No evidence, no standing.

Allegations are not evidence.
 
To be fair, it is about money as well as keeping money away from the "other" people who are nothing but lazy scoundrels. If you really want to see just how deep race politics goes in the conservative movement, spend the time to watch this incredible debate between two giants intellectually, here is the link.

Sadly racism will always play a part in politics - particularly the politics of the GOP as many if not most non-white people gravitate to the Democrat party which champions equality and justice. Whereas the GOP champions the rich and acts as their guardian.
The Republican voter is drawn in because of a feeling of nationalism.. If you asked a crowd of them which is the #1 country in the world, to a man they would say the USA. And that, in their mind makes THEM the greatest in the world
Being ahead of other countries is one thing...but they also believe that they're ahead of other races within their own country.
 
No, I was asking if that was the case.

And you wouldn't ask it, if you didn't believe it to be true now would you

****ing expletives aren't ****ing lies, kid.

They are a sign of a bankrupt argument - as is your slander

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - quote attributed to Socrates

"There is an old adage among lawyers "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table." - your expletives are "pounding" the table


Whatever the case, Donald Trump has not committed treason, which was the point of all this, a long time ago:

He would do if he declared martial law

So you accept that a group from the military, deposing a legitimately elected government, in a bloodless coup with no violence, is treasonous activity ?

Do you also accept that police, having arrested you, can charge you with a crime and then (without reference to any DA department) decide to drop those charges ?
 
Of course it's impossible to "lay any certain number" of deaths at the feet of that scumbag, but I'm glad you acknowledge that he is causing deaths of Americans. Of course there would have been victims during a pandemic, but if there was an adult in the white house that put country over himself, there would not be 300,000 dead, with families mourning and hospitals overflowing.

They can put the traitor in prison for many different reasons, I'm sure once his ass is in the street, some actions will be taken. He is in bed with our enemies for personal gain, he invites our foreign enemies to help him cheat in and interfere in our elections, he bribed other leaders to help him cheat in this election, etc. He has weakened our national security in doing so, now we have Russia hacking into our system. When the Puppet dances for him, Mr. Putin smiles. As far as financial fraud and crimes, I'm sure they'll have a lot to choose from. His whole life has been corrupt, stealing and scamming people, and hiring lawyer after lawyer defending his sorry ass in the courts.

Your insults directed at President Trump do nothing to advance your argument.
 
Your insults directed at President Trump do nothing to advance your argument.
Who gives a crap? I don't have to advance any "arguments". I don't need to argue anything about that corrupt conman, what I state is truth, not insults. Stop defending that impeached pig, it's not a good look.

t_2dff28835ab7448db3fab748e8461f67_name_image.jpg
 
No, but such differences are nominal. What we have now is radical changes to the issuance and validation of ballots in several states. Those differences are much more substantial and lead to various states using systems that, arguably, impacted the parity with systems in other states. I’m not sure that such radical differences are unconstitutional but they do constitute a difference between the states that SCOTUS should have looked at.

Wrong, just like your slavery question. The CONSTITUTION allows the states great leeway in deciding how to run their elections. There is and always has been variance in how states run them- from who can vote absentee- Texas requires an excuse in order to vote absentee, many others waived the restrictions due to Covid. Many states even in 'good' times allow anyone wanting an absentee ballot to get one. Many states automatically sent ballots out, some automatically sent request letters out.

Do note the whiny right doesn't want to sue the states with easier absentee rules that tRump won.... just the ones he lost.... :rolleyes:
 
And you wouldn't ask it, if you didn't believe it to be true now would you



They are a sign of a bankrupt argument - as is your slander

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - quote attributed to Socrates

"There is an old adage among lawyers "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table." - your expletives are "pounding" the table




He would do if he declared martial law

So you accept that a group from the military, deposing a legitimately elected government, in a bloodless coup with no violence, is treasonous activity ?

Do you also accept that police, having arrested you, can charge you with a crime and then (without reference to any DA department) decide to drop those charges ?
I saw your crap the first time around. No need to post it again just because I ignored it.
 
I saw your crap the first time around. No need to post it again just because I ignored it.


You mean "cr@p" about the police charging people and dropping charges

You know some people think the police don't have the authorization to drop charges

What do you think of ignorant people like that ?
 
You mean "cr@p" about the police charging people and dropping charges

You know some people think the police don't have the authorization to drop charges

What do you think of ignorant people like that ?
We've had this discussion. There is no new ground being broken. The conversation is over.
 
We've had this discussion. There is no new ground being broken. The conversation is over.


No you bailed abruptly rather admit you were wrong. It's not surprising you wish to brush it under some mental carpet - running away from debate is the usual preference of cowardly debaters.

So you you still maintain that the police cannot charge an individual, nor can the police decide to "drop" charges ?
 
No you bailed abruptly rather admit you were wrong. It's not surprising you wish to brush it under some mental carpet - running away from debate is the usual preference of cowardly debaters.
If that's what you need to tell yourself, go ahead and tell yourself that. The conversation is over.
 
If that's what you need to tell yourself, go ahead and tell yourself that. The conversation is over.

Of course it is - because you bailed rather than admit you were wrong

Jut like you're running away now.

For the record, you said the police do not charge people and don't drop charges

Just curious, but if ever you do crawl back out from under your rock , do you still believe this ?
 
Back
Top Bottom