Trump's legal defeat in Colorado may turn into political gold

[Danderman123]

23 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Riots are not typically the outcomes of plots. The J6 riot looked to me to be more opportunistic than anything else.

 

"People" are not Trump. In any case, Trump has not even been charged with plotting, let alone convicted. 

The question on the table is your inability to recognize that there was a plot to overturn the 2020 election.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Pretty simple plot, concocted at the last moment:

 

Use the rioters to stop Congress from certifying the Electors;

The rioters chase Pence away from the Capitol;

Senator Grassley conducts the certification, and throws out Biden electors;

The election is overturned, and the House of Representatives decides the winner.

 

Almost worked.

 

BTW, the "Hang Mike Pence" chants were designed to scare away Mike Pence, so he fled to Andrews Air Force base with the Secret Service.

 

Aha...a plot concocted at the last moment....I see. 

 

So cunning 

[ozimoron]

6 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

You serm to have forgotten that incumbent presidents rarely go through primaries.

 

He never knew.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

The question on the table is your inability to recognize that there was a plot to overturn the 2020 election.

 

Your kitchen table? Look back at the OP subject line, if you are able.

[Danderman123]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Aha...a plot concocted at the last moment....I see. 

 

So cunning 

Yep.

 

Trump just realized a couple of days before January 6 that Pence wouldn't follow orders and rule in favor of Trump's fake electors.

 

So, they had to find a way to dispose of Pence and let Grassley preside over the certification.

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Your kitchen table? Look back at the OP subject line, if you are able.

The subject is about Trump getting kicked off the Colorado ballot due to his plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

 

Since you don't seem to understand that there was a plot to overturn the election, perhaps this topic isn't for you.

[Danderman123]

On 12/23/2023 at 9:23 AM, Eric Loh said:

 
It’s the 24% Republicans that approved the court verdict that will be the nightmare for Trump. He can’t risk Rep dissent if he hope to win. Independents have written him off. As legal woes mount, I can see Trump fatigue begin to get into the minds of Reps. If he think that announcing his candidacy early would influence his legal cases, he has greatly miscalculated. 

As the general election nears, there will be an unprecedented number of Republicans rallying against Trump, including many famous ones.

 

IF Biden remains low in the polls, it's not inconceivable that he would replace Harris with a Republican VP nominee as a unity candidate.

 

But, I don't think it will come to that.

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Yep.

 

Trump just realized a couple of days before January 6 that Pence wouldn't follow orders and rule in favor of Trump's fake electors.

 

So, they had to find a way to dispose of Pence and let Grassley preside over the certification.

 

I wonder if Trump knew that his acolytes were setting up a gallows outside the Capitol building? His natsec intelligence officers had to have told him, surely?

[nauseus]

15 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Yep.

 

Trump just realized a couple of days before January 6 that Pence wouldn't follow orders and rule in favor of Trump's fake electors.

 

So, they had to find a way to dispose of Pence and let Grassley preside over the certification.

 

And the link to this revelation is where?

[nauseus]

11 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

As the general election nears, there will be an unprecedented number of Republicans rallying against Trump, including many famous ones.

 

IF Biden remains low in the polls, it's not inconceivable that he would replace Harris with a Republican VP nominee as a unity candidate.

 

But, I don't think it will come to that.

 

Neither do I. Biden will either bail or be bailed.

[nauseus]

24 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The subject is about Trump getting kicked off the Colorado ballot due to his plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

 

Since you don't seem to understand that there was a plot to overturn the election, perhaps this topic isn't for you.

 

The subject concerns a pot of gold. Strange that the word gold does not appear at all within the text? 

 

There was no plot. Just an opportunity for a few nutcases to take advantage of weak Capitol security on the day. Wonder how that could have happened? Maybe it was a plot?

Edited December 24, 2023 by nauseus
+ second para

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

You doubt there was a plot to overturn the 2020 election?

 

Geez, people have already pled guilty to participating in the plot.

You keep avoiding providing proof. Is that because you don't have any?

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

The question on the table is your inability to recognize that there was a plot to overturn the 2020 election.

The question is why you can't provide proof that Trump was involved in this "plot" you keep talking about?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The question is why you can't provide proof that Trump was involved in this "plot" you keep talking about?

 

Are phone call recordings not proof?

[thaibeachlovers]

27 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The subject is about Trump getting kicked off the Colorado ballot due to his plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

 

Since you don't seem to understand that there was a plot to overturn the election, perhaps this topic isn't for you.

Adding 2 +2 and getting 22. The subject is getting kicked off the Colorado ballot, but he wasn't convicted in a Colorado court of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

Judges decided to exceed their authority and engage in politics.

[ozimoron]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Adding 2 +2 and getting 22. The subject is getting kicked off the Colorado ballot, but he wasn't convicted in a Colorado court of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

Judges decided to exceed their authority and engage in politics.

 

The judge found that Trump had engaged in insurrection but declined to remove him from the ballot because he didn't believe he had the authority to make that decision. He stated that the issue would need to be decided by a higher court.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Pretty simple plot, concocted at the last moment:

 

Use the rioters to stop Congress from certifying the Electors;

The rioters chase Pence away from the Capitol;

Senator Grassley conducts the certification, and throws out Biden electors;

The election is overturned, and the House of Representatives decides the winner.

 

Almost worked.

 

BTW, the "Hang Mike Pence" chants were designed to scare away Mike Pence, so he fled to Andrews Air Force base with the Secret Service.

If there actually was a plot, there must be proof of such, but you have refused to provide any proof. Ergo there was no plot.

[NoDisplayName]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

IIRC, Trump was involved in a plot to overturn the 2020 election. Overturning an election = denying people the right to have their votes count.

 

Are you okay with that?

 

I'm okay with an impeachment process where Trump was acquitted, whereas some are not, and are resorting to court shopping to get a temporary win.  Virtue signaling win, as Colorado grants all 9 electoral votes to one candidate, with Brandon easily taking the state last time around.

 

On the another hand, in the unlikely event a majority of the population (or a majority of the electors) choose Trump, democracy wins.

 

Interestingly, Colorado recently passed a law to grant all electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national vote count, effectively disenfranchising Colorado voters.

 

Under Colorado's Prop 113, if Brandon wins the popular vote in Colorado, but Trump wins the national popular vote, then Trump gets all of Colorado's electoral votes.

 

"Sir, we had to destroy democracy in order to save it.....because Trump could'a won."

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

IIRC, Trump was involved in a plot to overturn the 2020 election. Overturning an election = denying people the right to have their votes count.

 

Are you okay with that?

Yet you are unable to actually provide a single link to an acceptable source that Trump was involved in such a plot or that a plot existed. LOL

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

I'm okay with an impeachment process where Trump was acquitted, whereas some are not, and are resorting to court shopping to get a temporary win.  Virtue signaling win, as Colorado grants all 9 electoral votes to one candidate, with Brandon easily taking the state last time around.

 

On the another hand, in the unlikely event a majority of the population (or a majority of the electors) choose Trump, democracy wins.

 

Interestingly, Colorado recently passed a law to grant all electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national vote count, effectively disenfranchising Colorado voters.

 

Under Colorado's Prop 113, if Brandon wins the popular vote in Colorado, but Trump wins the national popular vote, then Trump gets all of Colorado's electoral votes.

 

"Sir, we had to destroy democracy in order to save it.....because Trump could'a won."

 

If I interpret that correctly it means ensuring that the candidate who wins the popular vote also wins the election. That's hardly disenfranchising anyone except fascists.

[NoDisplayName]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

If I interpret that correctly it means ensuring that the candidate who wins the popular vote also wins the election. That's hardly disenfranchising anyone except fascists.

 

There ya go!  Godwin strikes.  Maintaining the electoral college emboldens nazis!

 

If Brandon gets 75% of the Colorado vote, but Trump gets 50.25% of the national vote, then Trump gets all of Colorado's electoral votes, disenfranchising 75% of Coloradoians.

 

Pure popular vote means candidates will campaign only in New York and California.  Flyover votes don't count.  No point at all in holding sham elections between the Appalachian and Rockies, as the election will be decided on the coasts.

 

Me?  I want the right to vote against Trump in the next election, like last time around.

 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

There ya go!  Godwin strikes.  Maintaining the electoral college emboldens nazis!

 

If Brandon gets 75% of the Colorado vote, but Trump gets 50.25% of the national vote, then Trump gets all of Colorado's electoral votes, disenfranchising 75% of Coloradoians.

 

Pure popular vote means candidates will campaign only in New York and California.  Flyover votes don't count.  No point at all in holding sham elections between the Appalachian and Rockies, as the election will be decided on the coasts.

 

Me?  I want the right to vote against Trump in the next election, like last time around.

 

 

Simply put, an electoral college win while losing the popular vote, isn't democratic. It has only happened on a handful of occasions and always benefiting Republican candidates. Every peer country has a popular vote system.

Edited December 24, 2023 by ozimoron

[NoDisplayName]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Simply put, an electoral college win while losing the popular vote, isn't democratic. It has only happened on a handful of occasions and always benefiting Republican candidates. Every peer country has a popular vote system.

 

In that case, we can.........democratically............change the constitution.  There is a defined process to do so.

 

Or we can subvert the constitution because the other guy might benefit.

[ozimoron]

Just now, NoDisplayName said:

 

In that case, we can.........democratically............change the constitution.  There is a defined process to do so.

 

Or we can subvert the constitution because the other guy might benefit.

 

How has Colorado subverted the constitution? They can decide if they are a proportional voting state or winner takes all and the rules under which either of those outcomes is decided. All legal.

[NoDisplayName]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

How has Colorado subverted the constitution? They can decide if they are a proportional voting state or winner takes all and the rules under which either of those outcomes is decided. All legal.

 

The electoral college system is defined by the constitution. 

 

You remarked "an electoral college win while losing the popular vote, isn't democratic."

 

Okay, fine.  In that case, submit an amendment to the constitution.

 

[Dan O]

On 12/22/2023 at 3:34 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Trump hating liberals shoot themselves in the foot, again!

 

Everything they do seems to only make him more popular. "What can we do to make him go away?" they cry, seeing the prospect of another term in the big chair for the Donald coming more likely.

 

Will one be plumping the pillows and popping the corn for another bout of weeping snowflakes on U Tube? One can only hope. Revenge will be sweet indeed.

This has nothing to do with liberals and only about an a$$wipe that thinks he's above everyone. More cases are pending in other states about this issue and there's now some  precedent being set. People still using the label snowflake are equal pathetic in their defense of this narcissistic POS and don't have any legitimate defense so you resort to those labels to deflect that. 

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

The electoral college system is defined by the constitution. 

 

You remarked "an electoral college win while losing the popular vote, isn't democratic."

 

Okay, fine.  In that case, submit an amendment to the constitution.

 

 

No need. Colorado has perhaps assured that the winner will always be the winner of the popular vote with this action.

Edited December 24, 2023 by ozimoron

[Dan O]

On 12/22/2023 at 9:50 AM, EastBayRay said:

The dems using the legal system to remove opponents was never going to be a big vote winner. 
 

this might come to bite the libs on the backside. They deserve it for going this route.

Has nothing to do with liberals to remove an opponent, classic non defensive statement when you have nothing else to defend a POS. 

[NoDisplayName]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

No need. Colorado has all by itself assured that the winner will always be the winner of the popular vote with this action.

Colorado has ensured that their votes are no longer significant.  They can save themselves the expense of a state campaign and election by simply rubber-stamping the outcomes of New York and California.  Doesn't matter if 99.9% of their votes go to candidate A, if candidate B is popular on the coast.

 

You can virtue signal all you want by changing the rules in Colorado, as for now, odds are a democrat will win the Colorado vote.  The new law won't change the outcome of where Colorado's electoral votes will go.

 

For now.  But wait until the glove is on the another foot!

 

When Trump, or some other republican wins the national popular vote, they'll be happy to accept the electoral votes of democrat-leaning Colorado, potentially giving them the (p)residency.

 

Actions have consequences.  You can try to rig the system, but sometimes the underlying factors radically change.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

And the link to this revelation is where?

widely reported in the news.

 

What part of it don't you believe?