Is trump hitler reincarnated or hitlers son ?

[Valcazar]

Who gets to say he is guilty of those things. You god? Cool, let’s just do away with another fundamental pillar of democracy…

Of course I don't.
It gets determined by the various legal systems at play according to what the due process is in each state.
Like lots of things.

Are you arguing against due process?

I suppose that’s why many critics and or “objective” people are waiting for the SCC.

I don't know what the SCC is, but SCOTUS (the Supreme Court of the United States) is going to be involved of course.
That's the normal process.
Of course, it can't get involved until other decisions are rendered in lower courts and legal procedures through due process.
Which is what happening.
If you think the US Supreme Court should be involved, you will be happy that the Maine and Colorado decisions came down so that it can now officially step in and render a decision on this important question.
Since you seem wildly opposed to those lower jurisdiction decisions, though, it seems you want to cut the Supreme Court out of this process for some reason.

Many critics I might point out who are from other countries ( thus aren’t invested), practice law, and aren’t sure it will fly…..I might also point out many critics who call spades spades and the US highly partisan, polarized and dysfunctional..Or do you not read the news very often…

It is very dysfunctional and polarized.
It's why supporting due process, the actual law and constitution and so on - instead of throwing it aside to make special rules for Trump is so important.
You're the one arguing "maybe he's really popular, so the laws shouldn't apply".

…Don’t let facts, logic and law get in your way libtard.

As someone who is politically on the left, you shouldn't bash yourself with this self-hating "libtard" label.
It isn' t healthy.

What was it you said earlier about the right? So much irony…..

You might need to look up what "ironic" means. (Hint, the Alanis Morissette song isn't a good use of the term.)

As far as “picking a fight”. I strongly suggest you go back through the post order. Who responded to who and what…..

Given that we lost a bunch of posts due to the TERB database error, that isn't as helpful as you might hope.
But sure, I came in and made a correct observation about the in-group vs out-group morality/value system of the current GOP. You objected and made a mistaken comparison to the Liberals.
Then I started discussing the actual law and constitution and how it applies and you got all frustrated and insisted that if Trump was supported by 90% of the population the rules and laws shouldn't apply to him.

“mind reading”
Some people need to go through life being told what to think. And there are those who ( like you) who believe it’s their place to tell others what to think….

I'm glad you have realized this about yourself.

Others prefer to let people think for themselves and or to think period. They provide information, or other viewpoints and not much else. and then are content to let people make informed decisions

You should really try this if you value it so much.
Mostly, you have just thrown temper tantrums when people disagree with you or point out the flaws in your thinking.

 

[Not getting younger]

You're the one who keeps bringing up the 80-90 percent threshold, not me.

If you want to make a clear argument, you have every opportunity to.

We won't hold our breath, of course, given your track record.

You wouldn't even answer the simple question of whether or not you feel there should be eligibility rules at all.

Can you not read plain English?
At the end of the day, it’s their country, their lives. If they want to elect him, ( or not). That’s their choice. It’s called freedom and democracy. A concept you seem to struggle with.

 

[Not getting younger]

Of course I don't.
It gets determined by the various legal systems at play according to what the due process is in each state.
Like lots of things.

Are you arguing against due process?



I don't know what the SCC is, but SCOTUS (the Supreme Court of the United States) is going to be involved of course.
That's the normal process.
Of course, it can't get involved until other decisions are rendered in lower courts and legal procedures through due process.
Which is what happening.
If you think the US Supreme Court should be involved, you will be happy that the Maine and Colorado decisions came down so that it can now officially step in and render a decision on this important question.
Since you seem wildly opposed to those lower jurisdiction decisions, though, it seems you want to cut the Supreme Court out of this process for some reason.



It is very dysfunctional and polarized.
It's why supporting due process, the actual law and constitution and so on - instead of throwing it aside to make special rules for Trump is so important.
You're the one arguing "maybe he's really popular, so the laws shouldn't apply".



As someone who is politically on the left, you shouldn't bash yourself with this self-hating "libtard" label.
It isn' t healthy.



You might need to look up what "ironic" means. (Hint, the Alanis Morissette song isn't a good use of the term.)



Given that we lost a bunch of posts due to the TERB database error, that isn't as helpful as you might hope.
But sure, I came in and made a correct observation about the in-group vs out-group morality/value system of the current GOP. You objected and made a mistaken comparison to the Liberals.
Then I started discussing the actual law and constitution and how it applies and you got all frustrated and insisted that if Trump was supported by 90% of the population the rules and laws shouldn't apply to him.



I'm glad you have realized this about yourself.



You should really try this if you value it so much.
Mostly, you have just thrown temper tantrums when people disagree with you or point out the flaws in your thinking.

Says you. Have you forgotten who flew off the handle last time……….You seem to act like a petulant child, when people post things in response you don’t like..See this reply, see “mind reading”. How many times have I said. “It’s not my place”. .

What’s also obvious, is your pattern of who you reply to, try to argue with, or bait.

Pretty sure you’ve also never posted anything that would be called disagreeing with your echo chamber.

 

[Valcazar]

Can you not read plain English?
At the end of the day, it’s their country, their lives. If they want to elect him, ( or not). That’s their choice. It’s called freedom and democracy. A concept you seem to struggle with.

So is that an argument for "no eligibility rules of any kind in the US Presidential election" or not?

I don't want to put words in your mouth.

 

[Valcazar]

Says you. Have you forgotten who flew off the handle last time…

No.
I remember you flew off the handle last time as well.

What’s also obvious, is your pattern of who you reply to, try to argue with, or bait.

I do have my preferred chew toys, that's true.

Pretty sure you’ve also never posted anything that would be called disagreeing with your echo chamber.

I don't have an echo chamber and I don't think there is anyone on this board who I haven't disagreed with.

 

[Not getting younger]

So is that an argument for "no eligibility rules of any kind in the US Presidential election" or not?

I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Of coarse you don’t. You just do it, ( often) because you don’t read what is said.. Then make leaps and assumptions that will fit your narrative…Then get your knickers in knots and panties all twisted up, when you don’t like the response

You also seem to think, despite the fact legal scholars can’t seem to reach some kind of consensus. And I’m 100% sure, they likewise grasp eligibility rules/questions…or have you not paused long enough to figure that out. Don’t let those facts get in your way…

But only your worldview is right. ….

Point to a quote where I said or implied none should exist. You do grasp I hope, that if for example a person doesn’t say “the earth is flat”…that doesn’t make them a flat earther..and answering a stupid question……...

 

[y2kmark]

No.
I remember you flew off the handle last time as well.



I do have my preferred chew toys, that's true.



I don't have an echo chamber and I don't think there is anyone on this board who I haven't disagreed with.

Little or nothing to do with the subject of the thread under discussion. Why don't you two find a playground somewhere and take it outside???

 

[Valcazar]

Little or nothing to do with the subject of the thread under discussion. Why don't you two find a playground somewhere and take it outside???

Unlikely.

But since the "Trump is hitler reincarnated" is a silly topic, I will try to keep the actual talk of the constitutional issue on ballot access to the Colorado decision thread.

 

[Valcazar]

Of coarse you don’t. You just do it, ( often) because you don’t read what is said.. Then make leaps and assumptions that will fit your narrative…Then get your knickers in knots and panties all twisted up, when you don’t like the response

So you still aren't going to answer or make any kind of coherent argument, are you?
Why bring up topics you don't want to explore or discuss?

You also seem to think, despite the fact legal scholars can’t seem to reach some kind of consensus. And I’m 100% sure, they likewise grasp eligibility rules/questions…or have you not paused long enough to figure that out. Don’t let those facts get in your way…

When have I ever said this is legally settled?
I have asked you to elaborate your comments, which you refuse to do.
I keep saying this needs to be followed through on properly.
You keep saying if 80% of the people like him, he should be allowed to run.

Only one of us is discussing the legal issues involved, and despite my repeated requests for you to elaborate on your position and what you actually think, you just sputter and yell.

Why is it that - despite the fact legal scholars don't have consensus and that these things are in the process of being adjudicated - you feel that process should be short circuited and he should just be allowed to run?

Or is that a prediction of what you think the final decision will be?
And if so, why and under what reasoning?
Do you think that's the right reasoning?
Is this based on you thinking the 14th amendment doesn't apply?
Or should be ignored as flawed?
Do you think all eligibility rules should be removed as undemocratic?
Do you think federal elections should not be run by the individual states with separate rules?

These are all really interesting questions that presumably shape the view one has on this question and how it should apply if they aren't just being mindlessly partisan.
I've tried - repeatedly - to extend you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't and that - as you claim to be - you are an independent thinker who has real thoughts on the issue and isn't just dealing with it superficially.
You have responded by getting mad that I am asking you what you think.

Point to a quote where I said or implied none should exist. You do grasp I hope, that if for example a person doesn’t say “the earth is flat”…that doesn’t make them a flat earther..and answering a stupid question……...

" And at the end of the day, if “80” or “90” percent of citizens want him….its a democracy isn’t it? "

A sentiment you have made repeatedly.
He should be allowed to run if the people want him to.

Now, you are right, maybe this isn't an argument for no eligibility requirements, maybe it is an argument just for Trump exceptionalism.

 

[Not getting younger]

So you still aren't going to answer or make any kind of coherent argument, are you?
Why bring up topics you don't want to explore or discuss?

Nice deflection from your near constant inability to read, and subsequent projections and assumptions. And not just with me. You have a hard time with case law, fences, invasions, indexes, the 1960s and nothings.

You are also now engaging in revisionism. I didn’t bring the topic up. And you as you always do, almost like Frank, follow people like a stalker. It’s clear in your post through various threads. One can only conclude you have bones to pick. Grow up Valcazar, it’s not my problem you can’t read, and keep stepping in shit and looking for bones to pick.

Point to a quote where I said or implied none should exist. You do grasp I hope, that if for example a person doesn’t say “the earth is flat”…that doesn’t make them a flat earther..and answering a stupid question……...

" And at the end of the day, if “80” or “90” percent of citizens want him….its a democracy isn’t it? "

first, try wrapping your brain around the fact, legal scholars are having the same debate and there is nothing that suggest consensus. You could also try reading the link provided, and you could try waiting for the SC. This is virtually unprecedented, so who made you god.

Are you implying they, ( legal scholars ) having the same debate, don’t think there should be eligibility rules?. Dont let logic hurt your brain. I’ve already tried to help you keep up there too. I can only conclude you don’t like that fact.

Secondly, if 8 in 10 Americans decide they want him. It’s their country isn’t it? If 99. 9999999999999999% decide they want him rules or not, and you’re the only person that doesn’t…….

Its their country isn’t it? And do you grasp the philosophical part yet? I did say that. Or do not know what that word means or implies

 

[Frankfooter]

first, try wrapping your brain around the fact, legal scholars are having the same debate and there is nothing that suggest consensus.

Source please.

 

[Valcazar]

Nice deflection from your near constant inability to read, and subsequent projections and assumptions. And not just with me. You have a hard time with case law, fences, invasions, indexes, the 1960s and nothings.

LOL.
Aww, you're still mad that you embarrassed yourself in those other threads.
That's kind of sad, actually.

You are also now engaging in revisionism. I didn’t bring the topic up. And you as you always do, almost like Frank, follow people like a stalker. It’s clear in your post through various threads. One can only conclude you have bones to pick. Grow up Valcazar, it’s not my problem you can’t read, and keep stepping in shit and looking for bones to pick.

So you really don't want to answer questions honestly and forthrightly or defend your thinking in any way?
Pity.

first, try wrapping your brain around the fact, legal scholars are having the same debate and there is nothing that suggest consensus.

I completely agree.
I'm asking your opinion and reasoning, since you have strong feelings on this matter.

You could also try reading the link provided, and you could try waiting for the SC. This is virtually unprecedented, so who made you god.

No one has made me god.
You're the one who is saying absolutes about he should be allowed to run, but refusing to discuss your reasoning on the issue.

Are you implying they, ( legal scholars ) having the same debate, don’t think there should be eligibility rules?

No.
I am asking if you do, given your statements on the matter.
Legal scholars aren't going to be arguing about whether or not their should be any eligibility rules, that's a broader question.
Legal scholars will argue about how to apply the rules that exist.
This debate is, in fact, ongoing right now.

You seem opposed to that debate, just saying that he should be allowed to run if people want it.
You don't seem interested in explaining whether this is due to a philosophical opposition to eligibility rules, distaste for this eligibility rule, a belief that all eligibility rules should be suspended at a certain level of popularity, a sort of realpolitik idea that eligibility rules need to be waived in a particular political environment, or a belief that rules should not apply to Trump.

I've left out "you think this eligibility rule is being applied incorrectly" since you haven't once argued along those lines that I've seen.

Dont let logic hurt your brain. I’ve already tried to help you keep up there too. I can only conclude you don’t like that fact.

I never let logic hurt my brain.
I find logic extremely useful, if often over-weighted by certain types of people in debate.
But really, if you want lessons in logic an logical reasoning, we can do that.
We can go over formal logic rules and so on, even branch out into rhetoric if you like.
I'm happy to help.

Secondly, if 8 in 10 Americans decide they want him. It’s their country isn’t it? If 99. 9999999999999999% decide they want him rules or not, and you’re the only person that doesn’t…….

Absolutely - that is an argument about political reality.
Again, please elaborate on this.
As you are surely aware, the current situation is not that 8 in 10 Americans want him.
He is consistently unpopular, has wildly high negative ratings, and lost the popular vote in both general elections he participated in.
So why is "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride" your recurring argument here?

And do you grasp the philosophical part yet? I did say that. Or do not know what that word means or implies

I have no idea what you think the philosophical part is here.
Is it "In a democracy the people should have the final say"?
Beyond that anodyne concept, what do you think that means or implies?
"The people" put in a rule that insurrectionists shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

 

[Not getting younger]

What’s the matter petulant child, haven’t you embarrassed yourself enough or is it more likely you’re not as smart as you think you are. As with other occasions.

Are the words “philosophical question” too big for you?

Or

Are your panties twisted up like a petulant child’s yet again because you didn’t use your brain and wonder “ gee what would happen if 99% wanted him” rather than 80. Rules or not.

Let’s not also ignore you not wrapping your brain around there’s no consensus amongst legal scholars for the near unprecedented thing.

who made you god Valvazar and learn to read. As with “mind reading” and you preferring telling people what to think, vs my approach. Clearly you didn’t. And it’s beyond tiresome when all you need to do is read.

 

[Valcazar]

What’s the matter petulant child, haven’t you embarrassed yourself enough or is it more likely you’re not as smart as you think you are. As with other occasions.

Are the words “philosophical question” too big for you?

Or

Are your panties twisted up like a petulant child’s yet again because you didn’t use your brain and wonder “ gee what would happen if 99% wanted him” rather than 80. Rules or not.

Let’s not also ignore you not wrapping your brain around there’s no consensus amongst legal scholars for the near unprecedented thing.

who made you god Valvazar and learn to read. As with “mind reading” and you preferring telling people what to think, vs my approach. Clearly you didn’t. And it’s beyond tiresome when all you need to do is read.

So you just don't have an answer for your position at all, then?
Nothing?

Ah well.
I guess I was being too optimistic.

 

[Not getting younger]

So you just don't have an answer for your position at all, then?
Nothing?

Ah well.
I guess I was being too optimistic.

obviously you can’t read, nor grasp much. Can’t tell you how disappointing it is, to see you taking lessons from Frank…but that is what elitist do when brought down to earth. Deflect from their brain farts and fucks ups, and start stomping like children if not from the room.

If 99% of Americans want him, rules or not. And you and a few authoritarians don’t. What say you Valcazar. Is it their country and a democracy or not? Who made you god.

 

[Valcazar]

obviously you can’t read, nor grasp much. Can’t tell you how disappointing it is, to see you taking lessons from Frank…but that is what elitist do when brought down to earth. Deflect from their brain farts and fucks ups, and start stomping like children if not from the room.

If 99% of Americans want him, rules or not. And you and a few authoritarians don’t. What say you Valcazar. Is it their country and a democracy or not? Who made you god.

Now you're postulating 99% want him?
Why are you embracing this fantasy world?

More importantly, why are you so afraid of elucidating and defending a position?

 

[nottyboi]

Trump is the first president since i think jimmy Carterthat did not start a new war. ....

 

[Not getting younger]

Now you're postulating 99% want him?
Why are you embracing this fantasy world?

More importantly, why are you so afraid of elucidating and defending a position?

Why are you so afraid to answer that question petulant child? I’ve answered your at least a dozen times..Who just keeps deflecting and is just looking for wee bones having been brought down to earth too often... Afraid it will expose you as an authoritarian elitist that can’t read, or grasp simple words? Nor pause long enough to think.

Why don’t you adult, and admit to yourself you stepped in shit yet again. And you just don’t like the taste of crow.

What say you Valcazar. If 99% want him, rules or not. Who are you to stand in the way of democracy

 

[Not getting younger]

Now you're postulating 99% want him?
Why are you embracing this fantasy world?

More importantly, why are you so afraid of elucidating and defending a position?

And btw before I forget child who is so clearly desperate to find a way out and clearly has a hurt butt and brain yet again.

“now you’re postulating”. Can you not read English or grasp big words like “if”. You’re projecting yet again, twisting words……or do you not know the meaning of either postulate or philosophical now…or can you not read. Which is it child?

Why am I embracing this fantasy world?”. Because Einstein, you said if I could my wave magic wand. So I said..Or is your memory so bad in your rush to avoid looking foolish yet again. Have you forgotten your own words…in your childish stamping of your feet, trying to untwist your elitist panties. Obviously you have.

so why are so afraid to answer the question. Do you have the backbone to?

 

[squeezer]

Liz Cheney , a harden Republican who during the 4 years of Trump's mayhem voted with him 93% of the time has seen the light during his attempted insurection and now is preaching to other Republicans to wake the fuck up.