🇺🇸Father Trump Talk-🚨The Official Thread of the Week Magaverse🚨 👀 the Donald/Elon beef has gone nuclear

[The Real timschochet 6,570]

So I’m bothered by the decision for two reasons. The first I’ve already stated: people should have the right to vote for this idiot if they want to. Taking away that right seems inherently un-American to me. 

The second issue is this: Donald Trump has not been found guilty of the crime of insurrection in a court of law- not yet. Now personally I believe he IS guilty of that crime, and there’s going to be a court trial to determine this, and I think he will be convicted by a jury sometime next year. But that’s no sure thing and it hasn’t happened yet. How then can the Colorado Supreme Court determine that he’s already guilty? At best their ruling should be that IF he is found guilty THEN he is ineligible. But ruling that he’s ineligible now is putting the cart before the horse, IMO. 

[The Real timschochet 6,570]

5 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

what is Abbott doing to interfere with national elections?

what constitutional amendment is he breaking

Not elections. But he has stated that he intends to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants, and just signed a law to this effect. That is correctly the role of the federal government- states have no power over immigration issues. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,300]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

Not elections. But he has stated that he intends to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants, and just signed a law to this effect. That is correctly the role of the federal government- states have no power over immigration issues. 

its the job of the state to enforce laws on crimes being broken in their state, next

IT IS ILLEGAL TO COME INTO THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY

that is a crime, I know in la la land you dont think so, but it is

 

[The Real timschochet 6,570]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

its the job of the state to enforce laws on crimes being broken in their state, next

IT IS ILLEGAL TO COME INTO THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY

that is a crime, I know in la la land you dont think so, but it is

 

It’s not a state crime. Texas has no power to enforce this. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter 10 years ago when Arizona attempted a similar law, and 20 years ago when California tried the same thing. 
 

I am agreeing with your statement that states don’t have the power to enforce federal laws. But conservatives keep trying it with regard to immigration issues, just as segregationists used to try and make the same arguments with regard to voting. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,300]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

It’s not a state crime. Texas has no power to enforce this. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter 10 years ago when Arizona attempted a similar law, and 20 years ago when California tried the same thing. 
 

I am agreeing with your statement that states don’t have the power to enforce federal laws. But conservatives keep trying it with regard to immigration issues, just as segregationists used to try and make the same arguments with regard to voting. 

when federal govt is not only not enforcing the laws on the books but also breaking them, the governors of the state have a right to protect its own people

 

[The Real timschochet 6,570]

Just now, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

when federal govt is not only not enforcing the laws on the books but also breaking them, the governors of the state have a right to protect its own people

 

No they don’t. It’s not a good argument and that’s why both conservative and liberal legal scholars disagree with you. And Abbott will get slapped down again, probably by a unanimous decision. Or by a lower court and the SC won’t even consider it. 
 

He’s doing this to throw meat to the base. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,300]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

No they don’t. It’s not a good argument and that’s why both conservative and liberal legal scholars disagree with you. And Abbott will get slapped down again, probably by a unanimous decision. Or by a lower court and the SC won’t even consider it. 
 

He’s doing this to throw meat to the base. 

good, he should protect his state

unlike newsoulini who is good with only protecting places when Xi comes to town

the federal govt doesn't have the right to ignore federal law, which includes telling border patrol agents to cut fences and let people enter freely

 

[League Champion 1,906]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

newsoulini

 

[The Real timschochet 6,570]

1 hour ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

good, he should protect his state

unlike newsoulini who is good with only protecting places when Xi comes to town

the federal govt doesn't have the right to ignore federal law, which includes telling border patrol agents to cut fences and let people enter freely

 

Gotcha. So on issues you’re opposed to, like prohibiting Trump from being on the ballot, states have no right to supersede federal decisions. But on issues you’re in favor of, like fighting illegal immigration, states DO have the right to supersede federal decisions. Just keeping track, thanks. 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,780]

Now Kalifornia is trying to get Father Trump off the ballot 
 

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/breaking-californias-democrat-lt-governor-reportedly-urges-secretary/

[League Champion 1,906]

6 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Now Kalifornia is trying to get Father Trump off the ballot 
 

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/breaking-californias-democrat-lt-governor-reportedly-urges-secretary/

Texas and South Carolina are fixin to take Biden off the ballot. 

[seafoam1 2,885]

6 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Now Kalifornia is trying to get Father Trump off the ballot 
 

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/breaking-californias-democrat-lt-governor-reportedly-urges-secretary/

Of course they are. Focking idiots. 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,780]

1 minute ago, League Champion said:

Texas and South Carolina are fixin to take Biden off the ballot. 

Democrat Party would be in trouble doing a write in campaign.  Most of their base can’t read or write. 

[Dizkneelande 1,093]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

No they don’t. It’s not a good argument and that’s why both conservative and liberal legal scholars disagree with you. And Abbott will get slapped down again, probably by a unanimous decision. Or by a lower court and the SC won’t even consider it. 
 

He’s doing this to throw meat to the base. 

… 1 Section 10 expressly guarantees states the sovereign power to repel an invasion and defend their citizenry from overwhelming and “imminent danger.” 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,187]

1 minute ago, Dizkneelande said:

… 1 Section 10 expressly guarantees states the sovereign power to repel an invasion and defend their citizenry from overwhelming and “imminent danger.” 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,300]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Gotcha. So on issues you’re opposed to, like prohibiting Trump from being on the ballot, states have no right to supersede federal decisions. But on issues you’re in favor of, like fighting illegal immigration, states DO have the right to supersede federal decisions. Just keeping track, thanks. 

no I am against the FEDs breaking laws.  I am against the states breaking laws, if the feds break the laws then the states should be able to uphold federal law, they are the ones affected

 

[thegeneral 3,087]

1 hour ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Now Kalifornia is trying to get Father Trump off the ballot 
 

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/breaking-californias-democrat-lt-governor-reportedly-urges-secretary/

There’s I believe 12 or so other States with something similar in the pipeline.

 

[HellToupee 1,674]

[League Champion 1,906]

1 minute ago, HellToupee said:

Hahahaha 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,780]

34 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

There’s I believe 12 or so other States with something similar in the pipeline.

 

The guillotines will be working OT in January 2025. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,300]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/12/19/virginia-hung-cao-endorses-trump-colorado-ballot-disqualification/

this guy seems based 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,300]

who wouldn’t vote for Hung Cao (cow)

[weepaws 3,160]

Oh my soul, so now we have states removing people running for president, shouldn’t the people have the right to vote for the wrong president, if they can now start telling people in Colorado who they can’t vote for would be the start of communism. 

Both the red and blue team want this.  I’ll choose God.  

HTH. 

[HellToupee 1,674]

MSM with TDS

 

[The Real timschochet 6,570]

Another perfect phone call for Trump: 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/trump-recorded-pressuring-michigan-canvassers/index.html

[Tree of Knowledge 1,780]

15 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

MSM with TDS

 

Is the Plain Dealer even an Ohio newspaper?  They are owned by a NY company and cut the Ohio staff to basically nothing.  

[Tree of Knowledge 1,780]

17 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Another perfect phone call for Trump: 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/trump-recorded-pressuring-michigan-canvassers/index.html

He was 100% correct.  Look up the Muskegon fraud case that has come to light. 

[Mike Honcho 5,250]

On 12/20/2023 at 2:12 PM, The Real timschochet said:

No they don’t. It’s not a good argument and that’s why both conservative and liberal legal scholars disagree with you. And Abbott will get slapped down again, probably by a unanimous decision. Or by a lower court and the SC won’t even consider it. 
 

He’s doing this to throw meat to the base. 

By the fifth court---we will see, but they are pretty out there.

[jerryskids 6,689]

On 12/20/2023 at 12:00 PM, The Real timschochet said:

So I’m bothered by the decision for two reasons. The first I’ve already stated: people should have the right to vote for this idiot if they want to. Taking away that right seems inherently un-American to me. 

The second issue is this: Donald Trump has not been found guilty of the crime of insurrection in a court of law- not yet. Now personally I believe he IS guilty of that crime, and there’s going to be a court trial to determine this, and I think he will be convicted by a jury sometime next year. But that’s no sure thing and it hasn’t happened yet. How then can the Colorado Supreme Court determine that he’s already guilty? At best their ruling should be that IF he is found guilty THEN he is ineligible. But ruling that he’s ineligible now is putting the cart before the horse, IMO. 

You know he has not been charged with insurrection?  

[The Real timschochet 6,570]

6 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You know he has not been charged with insurrection?  

I do now. I didn’t realize at the time I posted that. 
My understanding is that an actual charge of insurrection was omitted for tactical reasons. But even so it makes the Colorado ruling even more problematic. Anyhow I stand corrected. 

[jerryskids 6,689]

4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I do now. I didn’t realize at the time I posted that. 
My understanding is that an actual charge of insurrection was omitted for tactical reasons. But even so it makes the Colorado ruling even more problematic. Anyhow I stand corrected. 

Thanks.  People give you a hard time, but I appreciate your willingness to admit an error.  If I ever make a mistake, I hope to have that same willingness.     

The "tactical reason" is that they didn't think they could convict him of insurrection, because they have nothing directly tying him to insurrection. All they have is people like @thegeneralarguing "but but he got people riled up and they stormed the Capitol$#@!"

That's why they dug deep into the federal code for the crap they charged him with.  This has been my primary objection in this entire farce.  If you are going to indict a former POTUS, it should be for something serious like insurrection, not "conspiracy to cheat the government" or whatever they ginned up.  

[The Real timschochet 6,570]

13 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Thanks.  People give you a hard time, but I appreciate your willingness to admit an error.  If I ever make a mistake, I hope to have that same willingness.     

The "tactical reason" is that they didn't think they could convict him of insurrection, because they have nothing directly tying him to insurrection. All they have is people like @thegeneralarguing "but but he got people riled up and they stormed the Capitol$#@!"

That's why they dug deep into the federal code for the crap they charged him with.  This has been my primary objection in this entire farce.  If you are going to indict a former POTUS, it should be for something serious like insurrection, not "conspiracy to cheat the government" or whatever they ginned up.  

I disagree with you. I think the charges are legit and that he will be tried and convicted. I believe the key will be the sworn testimony of Mark Meadows.  But we’ll find out, 

[thegeneral 3,087]

14 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Thanks.  People give you a hard time, but I appreciate your willingness to admit an error.  If I ever make a mistake, I hope to have that same willingness.     

The "tactical reason" is that they didn't think they could convict him of insurrection, because they have nothing directly tying him to insurrection. All they have is people like @thegeneralarguing "but but he got people riled up and they stormed the Capitol$#@!"

That's why they dug deep into the federal code for the crap they charged him with.  This has been my primary objection in this entire farce.  If you are going to indict a former POTUS, it should be for something serious like insurrection, not "conspiracy to cheat the government" or whatever they ginned up.  

I have said the greater issue with Trump and why he should be removed from consideration to be the Prez is his actions leading up to Jan 6th.

There are more today with him personally calling Michigan canvassers not to certify their counts

I am arguing with people who want to blame Nancy Pelosi, the deep state, the Easter Bunny for the riots on Jan 6th instead of Trump.

These shetbags in DC rioted because of Trump, they bought all his BS, he is responsible for that day.

[jerryskids 6,689]

11 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

I have said the greater issue with Trump and why he should be removed from consideration to be the Prez is his actions leading up to Jan 6th.

There are more today with him personally calling Michigan canvassers not to certify their counts

I am arguing with people who want to blame Nancy Pelosi, the deep state, the Easter Bunny for the riots on Jan 6th instead of Trump.

These shetbags in DC rioted because of Trump, they bought all his BS, he is responsible for that day.

See what I mean, @The Real timschochet?   

[thegeneral 3,087]

5 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

See what I mean, @The Real timschochet?   

Which parts do you disagree with.

Are you on the train that the deep state is to blame for the riots?

Do you agree that Trump’s act trying to overturn election results is all BS?

 

[The Real timschochet 6,570]

15 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

See what I mean, @The Real timschochet?   

But I agree with him. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,187]

Imagine running your mouth about insurrection and not knowing Trump hasn’t been charged with it. Sorry, no points for Tim.  

[jerryskids 6,689]

3 hours ago, thegeneral said:

Which parts do you disagree with.

Are you on the train that the deep state is to blame for the riots?

Do you agree that Trump’s act trying to overturn election results is all BS?

 

 

3 hours ago, thegeneral said:

I have said the greater issue with Trump and why he should be removed from consideration to be the Prez is his actions leading up to Jan 6th.

There are more today with him personally calling Michigan canvassers not to certify their counts

I am arguing with people who want to blame Nancy Pelosi, the deep state, the Easter Bunny for the riots on Jan 6th instead of Trump.

These shetbags in DC rioted because of Trump, they bought all his BS, he is responsible for that day.

Well, for starters, the part i had already bolded.  Nothing Trump did rises to the level of insurrection, which is why they didn't charge him with it.  If we can agree on this, I'll continue.  If not, then I'm back to laughing at you.

[thegeneral 3,087]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

 

Well, for starters, the part i had already bolded.  Nothing Trump did rises to the level of insurrection, which is why they didn't charge him with it.  If we can agree on this, I'll continue.  If not, then I'm back to laughing at you.

Seems as there are a couple issues here. Why did these numbskulls collect in DC?

Yes he was not charged in any of these current cases with Insurrection that I am aware of. 

[jerryskids 6,689]

4 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Seems as there are a couple issues here. Why did these numbskulls collect in DC?

Yes he was not charged in any of these current cases with Insurrection that I am aware of. 

Why are you wasting my time with such a question?  Instead, leap forward to the point where Trump directed the people to storm the Capitol (or in some entrances, calmly enter).