Breaking!!! - CO Supreme Court strikes Trump from ballot.

[WyattEarp]

How often do you allow a source of news to actively mislead you before you dump it? I used to watch Fox alot 15 years ago but it just got too much on the clear, obvious misleads.

I don't watch Fox News because it foments too much disenchantment. However, I get the same vibe from MSNBC and CNN. Although, I'm not exactly sure of CNN's current direction. These 24/7 networks need to stir up and hold the attention of a loyal base and deeply committed viewers.

No one should expose themselves to this much partisan information.

There are other sources that give you different opinions on the same page and respect their audience to make some judgements on their own. For the most part, they will still lean politically.

 

[shack]

I actually have a great deal of sympathy for your argument, but let the voter's decide is also a very compelling argument.

Unfortunately, he's already proven that he won't accept the results of an election. It is too dangerous to even give him a chance to run. The stakes are too high. He came close last time.

 

[WyattEarp]

I agree with what Valcazar just wrote. The 14A doesn't facially require a criminal finding of guilt. If the USSC says that the 14A applies only after a criminal conviction, then I would shrug and say "That's a logical, but not inevitable interpretion of the 14A."

That's a reasonable take. I just don't think the Supreme Court will allow Colorado to take Trump off the ballot unilaterally.

Now as far as a USSC decision, they are going to give their reasoning. They will likely look at the opinions written in Colorado. I will admit the USSC might not discuss "due process" as noted in the dissenting opinions. They could give a procedural reason for overturning it that is more mundane in nature.

However if you follow U.S. law over the decades, "due process" is an overarching theme in court decisions. One shouldn't easily dismiss the "due process clause" simply because they believe it doesn't specifically deprive "life, liberty and property". "Liberty" is applied broadly.

So jokingly I disagree with the argument "Due process! We don't need no stinkin' due process!"

C'mon, Wyatt. Lose gracefully without taking a tantrum for once.

I'm not sure what contest you think we are engaged in on this thread. I'm not exactly sure how you have determined who has won or lost.

Lastly, the record shows that you initially directed the F bomb towards me. I try to express my opinion firmly without too much rancor. However, I will match the aggressive tone of people addressing me.

 

[shack]

Saving democracy? Do you really believe that's what Washington is? You can't be that naive. It's not a democracy, its a kleptocratic ship. And Trump is the only one who threatens to sink it. Biden on the other hand is its Captain. An inept one mind you, somewhat reminiscent of the Captain of that Italian cruise ship that sunk in the Mediterranean.

The point is that however much or little of a democracy you think the US is, for the most part it is working and stable. The people vote and their voices are heard and there has always been a peaceful transition of power over almost 250 years. trump didn't just threaten, he attempted to make elections irrelevant.

 

[shack]

In a democracy the people choose who they want for their leaders.
A hard concept for you to understand comrade?

What don't you understand about the people choosing Biden but trump refusing to accept that? You just said that is what's supposed to happen. He doesn't deserve another chance to make elections irrelevant.

Are you trying to contradict yourself by saying he should be able to run again and be given a chance to try to break the rules again?

 

[squeezer]

I don't watch Fox News because it foments too much disenchantment. However, I get the same vibe from MSNBC and CNN. Although, I'm not exactly sure of CNN's current direction. These 24/7 networks need to stir up and hold the attention of a loyal base and deeply committed viewers.

No one should expose themselves to this much partisan information.

There are other sources that give you different opinions on the same page and respect their audience to make some judgements on their own. For the most part, they will still lean politically.

I don't know of MSNBC or CNN settling for $800M with more fallout pending on further lawsuits for their blatant lies, do you? I only know of one network, sorry 3 networks falling under the crushing lawsuits of Smartmatic and Dominion and none of them go by the name of MSNBC or CNN, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[WyattEarp]

I don't know of MSNBC or CNN settling for $800M with more fallout pending on further lawsuits for their blatant lies, do you? I only know of one network, sorry 3 networks falling under the crushing lawsuits of Smartmatic and Dominion and none of them go by the name of MSNBC or CNN, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, there is a difference between lying and abject bias. Partisan bias is still a problem nonetheless. The Fox News defamation case shouldn't excuse partisan journalism.

We can't forbid the likes of the Pulitzer people from awarding media outlets prizes for biased and inaccurate reporting, but we can certainly criticize them.

 

[mandrill]

I don't watch Fox News because it foments too much disenchantment. However, I get the same vibe from MSNBC and CNN. Although, I'm not exactly sure of CNN's current direction. These 24/7 networks need to stir up and hold the attention of a loyal base and deeply committed viewers.

No one should expose themselves to this much partisan information.

There are other sources that give you different opinions on the same page and respect their audience to make some judgements on their own. For the most part, they will still lean politically.

Well, Earp. Whatever news sources you get your own news from did very little to dilute your own biases this year. You began and ended 2023 as just as much of a right wing troll.

Which probably goes to show, it's less the news source than the news recipient which creates the bias.

 

[mandrill]

Yes, there is a difference between lying and abject bias. Partisan bias is still a problem nonetheless. The Fox News defamation case shouldn't excuse partisan journalism.

We can't forbid the likes of the Pulitzer people from awarding media outlets prizes for biased and inaccurate reporting, but we can certainly criticize them.

Accepting that TV and social media news are businesses which rely on acquiring and maintaining a loyal viewer base, there is a hierarchy of Dumb, isn't there?

The further right you go, the dumber the dumdums get. Fox News has dumber viewers than CNN and Newsmax is probably even dumber than Fox.

Most CNN viewers can tune out any spin. Most Fox viewers can't. That's why Fox has to lie to keep its base of dumdums.

 

[mandrill]

That's a reasonable take. I just don't think the Supreme Court will allow Colorado to take Trump off the ballot unilaterally.

Now as far as a USSC decision, they are going to give their reasoning. They will likely look at the opinions written in Colorado. I will admit the USSC might not discuss "due process" as noted in the dissenting opinions. They could give a procedural reason for overturning it that is more mundane in nature.

However if you follow U.S. law over the decades, "due process" is an overarching theme in court decisions. One shouldn't easily dismiss the "due process clause" simply because they believe it doesn't specifically deprive "life, liberty and property". "Liberty" is applied broadly.

So jokingly I disagree with the argument "Due process! We don't need no stinkin' due process!"

You still don't understand what I am saying - which is simply "due process" varies depending on the type of litigation and the interests at stake. A criminal prosecution will require due process in the form of a jury trial. A civil case will require due process that could simply be a judge reading transcipts and hearing argument.

I'm not sure what contest you think we are engaged in on this thread. I'm not exactly sure how you have determined who has won or lost.

Lastly, the record shows that you initially directed the F bomb towards me. I try to express my opinion firmly without too much rancor. However, I will match the aggressive tone of people addressing me.

The fact that I am persecuting you, am biased and unreasonable and am rancorous is a persistent theme in your posts.

Perhaps being less acutely sensitive might aid you.

 

[dirtydaveiii]

Former federal judge says the Constitution could disqualify Donald Trump in 2024, not Joe Biden's actions

\

www.usatoday.com

 

[dirtydaveiii]

I only watch Fox news and Newsmax. I can't stand watching CNN, MSNBC etc etc

In the words of Colonel Jessop " You can't handle the truth"

 

[WyattEarp]

Former federal judge says the Constitution could disqualify Donald Trump in 2024, not Joe Biden's actions

\

www.usatoday.com

This former justice isn't getting a lot of coverage.

I believe the consensus is that it will be overturned. So much so that some of the progressives here believe it will be overturned, but seem to be quibbling over how.

 

[Leimonis]

I only watch Fox news and Newsmax. I can't stand watching CNN, MSNBC etc etc

My friend has a cat who drink only from a toilet.

 

[WyattEarp]

Well, Earp. Whatever news sources you get your own news from did very little to dilute your own biases this year. You began and ended 2023 as just as much of a right wing troll.

I don't think you follow the discussions in their totality. I am quite more flexible in my posts than you give credence. While I might disagree with policy, I don't needlessly persecute President Biden. On the flip side, I am not in support of Trump's campaign but I am also not interested in Courts, prosecutors or what have you trying to obstruct or impede his campaign. I didn't blindly agree with every Trump policy.

If members are asymmetric in their political views, they should try to understand and come to terms with that. We all can still engage and have constructive discussions with people who disagree with us and challenge us.

 

[squeezer]

Yes, there is a difference between lying and abject bias. Partisan bias is still a problem nonetheless. The Fox News defamation case shouldn't excuse partisan journalism.

We can't forbid the likes of the Pulitzer people from awarding media outlets prizes for biased and inaccurate reporting, but we can certainly criticize them.

So, if Trump lies, MSNBC and CNN should report it as a story instead of stating that it's a lie? In other words stay out of reporting the facts and just allow the spin and lies to go unchallenged?

 

[squeezer]

I only watch Fox news and Newsmax. I can't stand watching CNN, MSNBC etc etc

I am sure most here already know this and it doesn't surprise any of us Mitchy!

 

[WyattEarp]

You still don't understand what I am saying - which is simply "due process" varies depending on the type of litigation and the interests at stake. A criminal prosecution will require due process in the form of a jury trial. A civil case will require due process that could simply be a judge reading transcipts and hearing argument.

That's fine, but you seem to be locked on this idea that I manufactured this argument as it relates to this Colorado case. This argument was initiated by the dissenting judges. The Chief Justice specifically cited the lack of a conviction for insurrection.

Regardless of my opinion, I would say "due process" is in play on appeal. Your animosity towards arguments I present is duly noted.

 

[WyattEarp]

So, if Trump lies, MSNBC and CNN should report it as a story instead of stating that it's a lie? In other words stay out of reporting the facts and just allow the spin and lies to go unchallenged?

I think you are trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[squeezer]

I think you are trying to put words in my mouth.

Not at all my friend but I'm trying hard to save you from putting your foot in your mouth!!!