I came across this interesting article on the web:

http://aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/20/can-trump-still-run-for-us-presidency-what-to-know-about-colorado-ruling#:

We're told that "The Colorado Supreme Court has declared
Donald Trump ineligible to run for the US Presidency over his
role in 2021 Capitol attack."

"The top court in the US State of Colorado has ruled that the
former US President is disqualified from holding office again
over his role in the January 6th 2021 assault on the US State
Capitol by his supporters."

"This verdict makes Trump the first US Presidential candidate
in the US history to be deemed ineligible for the White House
under a rarely used provision of the US Constitution that bans
officials who have engaged in "resurrection or rebellion"
against the Constitution after taking an oath to protect it."

"Trump's campaign spokesperson dubbed this verdict as
"flawed" and promised to "swiftly" file an appeal in the
US Supreme Court."

"This ruling can influence other states to invoke similar
rulings in competitive states that Trump needs to win."

There's more at the link I gave.

It will be interesting to see what develops.

Should Trump be allowed to run?

Foxy,
Isn’t this up to the voters of America ?

Of course it is. But his election will have deeper
ripples and effect many of us around the globe.

Foxy,
Voting Biden back in will give the World what it has now. Voting Trump in again will prove disastrous for the disasters running the show now !

America is a Democratic State and the People should decide whom they want as President not the Courts.

The rule of law is the principle that all people are
equal before the law and must obey the law.

Democracy is strengthened because laws are made.

The New York Times says that:

"At least 16 States beyond Colorado currently have open
legal challenges to the former President's eligibility for
office under the 14th Amendment but what happens next
depends on the US Supreme Court."

There's more at the following:

http://nytimes.com/2023/12/20/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-other-states.html

My apologies. I did not give the full link:

http://nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-other-states.html

Dear Foxy,

It was such an egregious attempted insurrection he really should have been banned a long time ago. The wheels of justice do appear to work slowly but thankfully inevitably in the US.

May the attempts to protect their electoral systems from an attack such as this be ultimately successful.

The ruling will be appealed up to the US Supreme Court where, presumably, people who still have a vague understanding of what a democracy should look like, will set things right.

Alternatively, the Colorado Republican leadership have said they will will run a caucus rather than a primary vote, thus negating the court's ruling.

The court's ruling is just another example demonstrating the terror the left in general and the Democrats in particular have of a returning Trump presidency where all their corruption and anti-American activities will be open for investigation. Were Trump to win next November, Biden would need to spend the last two months of his presidency issuing pardons to the myriad Democrats who would lose the legal protection of his incumbency.

But Trump won't win. The entire force of the deep state, legacy media, and social media billionaires are ranged against him. As in 2020, it will matter little how many votes he gets since they'll simply create a greater number or at least count a greater number.

If any of this happened in a third world country we'd all understand that democracy in that place was a façade. Just as democracy in the US is now a sick joke.

Dear Steele,

I totally agree.

Fingers-crossed that justice will prevail in this case.

Dear Steele,

Just to clarify:

Despite 91 indictments across
4 criminal cases including some centred on his attempts to
overturn his electoral loss to Biden in 2020 Trump's
grip on his supporters shows no sign of loosening.

As far as
Biden is concerned? I find it sad for the country that what we
have - is America's best choices. That the country is down to
having to choose the lesser of two evils. I wish that there
were better options.

The Los Angeles Times recently took a stand with an
editorial criticizing Trump. They recounted the all
too familiar critiques of him:

"He's inexperienced with "shamefully little knowledge
of issues facing the country. He's a racist and a
bully, with a temperament utterly unsuited for the job."
And so on.

They point out that it isn't easy to tell how much of
Trump's performance is merely shtick and how much is
real. His rivals are more rational they say, more knowledgeable,
understandable, and predictable.

They state that:

"We hope that we won't have to learn who the real Donald
Trump might be."

The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board decided it was time
to take a stand.

It's a scathing piece with a headline display "Donald Trump
is uniquely unsuited to be President."

They point out that most people have said it - from
politicians of both parties, economists, business leaders,
pundits, yet Trump continues to have his supporters.

The Washington Post confirms that much of the Republican base
has taken leave of its senses. They call it - misplaced
affection for a slogan-speaking cartoon character who
seems to utter whatever nonsense comes into his head and
one Republicans feel is their best chance of winning.

Winning in America for some seems to be the name of the game.
As it does in other parts of the globe.

Hopefully, some sanity will eventually prevail. Not only from
the American people - but according to the rule of law as well.

Now that Australia has shown what an appalling ally to America - our only hope against China - it is by refusing the request to send a ship to the Red Sea, and getting praised for it by Communist China, Australia had better hope like hell that Trump doesn’t get to be President, because he would surely punish us, as he did Europe, NATO and the UN last time he was in power.

The US has just finished the difficult task of convincing Congress that it should OK selling three nuclear submarines to Australia - something it has never done before, and Xi supporter and Communist pawn, Albanese, has shat in them.

The future of AUKAS itself could be in the balance, thanks to this moronic insult to our main ally. But, Comrade Albanese seems interested in 'no nuclear ships in our harbours' New Zealand's crawling for a military alliance because NZ itself doesn't have a defence force itself worthy of the name; more pathetic than Australia's, and that really is saying something.

The loonies love to rubbish Trump and talk about other countries to take their feeble minds off our own problems, and the morons in Canberra causing those problems.

If Americans want a Criminal president, made a criminal by the Democrats. Then, let the ballot box identify the state of the Nation. They have had convicted criminal presidents before, like Clinton. The USA is all about opposition parties making criminals.

Josephus,

What an inane bloody post.

"Then, let the ballot box identify the state of the Nation."

What on earth do you think they did at the last election you clown? And your idol tried to steal an election in response.

I haven't been keeping up with all the issues, but what I do know if that it was found that their was election interference in the state of Georgia. Trump should've won that state, and as such he may very well legitimately should be president.

As I understand it, there's no congress sitting over the Christmas break, but sometime after that there's going to be a big drama over the results of the 2020 election in Georgia.

mhaze,
I'm not convinced Trump will make it through either for the same reasons you outlined.

Lets say hypothetically he does become President again.
The question is will he drain the swamp this time?

The USA needs to do some serious self reflection, otherwise they're headed towards a civil war.
This Trump thing may end up causing it.

"I 'haven't been keeping up with all the issues,"

There's been quite a bit come out over the last two years to the extent that a majority or a large percentage (depending on which poll you read) of USians think it was stolen or at least not free and fair. Additionally it is now pretty much unanimously accepted that Hunter's laptop is indeed Hunter's laptop and, but for the disinformation put together by the FBI, it alone would have swung the election to Trump.

"The question is will he drain the swamp this time?"

If by some miracle he did win, then, yes, he'd be much better prepared for the ferocity of the deep states attempts to overturn the will of the people, and multiple heads would roll. Which is why they can't let him win.

As a student of ancient history, this reminds me of the fate of Tiberius Gracchus. Following many decades of the elite securing all the wealth of the nation (in this case Rome) for itself, the elder Gracchus sought to use the Roman laws to benefit those who had missed out on their share of the increased prosperity. He achieved massive popular support but the elite used every mechanism and lever( legal and illegal) to thwart his efforts. In the end they murdered him.

This was Rome's last best chance to save its democracy. The following century was a story of increasing conflict between the elite and the plebs and their leadership. Each downward step saw increased suppression and oppression, not to mention blood letting on an unprecedented scale, which culminated in the rise of Octavian and the end of the Roman democracy.

Luckily for Rome, it didn't have any major rivals to take advantage its century of mayhem. The US doesn't have that luxury

"There's been quite a bit come out over the last two years to the extent that a majority or a large percentage (depending on which poll you read) of USians think it was stolen or at least not free and fair."
- I've never really felt that the democrats were honorable when it comes to election integrity.
They are cheats, the question is whether Republicans are any better.

"Additionally it is now pretty much unanimously accepted that Hunter's laptop is indeed Hunter's laptop and, but for the disinformation put together by the FBI, it alone would have swung the election to Trump."
- Yes I recall this now that you've refreshed my memory.
The FBI had Burisma whistleblowers including audio evidence on Bidens corruption, and evidence on Hunters laptop proved it.
They kept this information from the public despite being fully aware of the corruption - prior to the 2020 election in order to get Trump out of the Whitehouse.

If you asked me what I thought were the biggest problems in America...
Without thinking too much about it, I'd probably say
1/ Military Industrial (Congressional) Complex
2/ CIA (foreign) and the FBI (domestic)
Both these agencies have covert intelligence and covert action.
- And it's the covert action sides which are most concerning.
The CIA helping to conduct overthrows through the NED
And the FBI's entrapment activities, maybe counterintelligence and civil forfeiture (though I'm not sure the latter is confined to the FBI)
3/ The Israel Lobby.

Leaving aside the FBI activities, I think the other 3 probably amount to a large part of Americas problems,
- although I think if one was to write a more comprehensive list, this would be just the tip of the iceberg.

A Trump Presidency would again bring the ugly mentality of his opponents out in the open.

Not only has China thanked the Albanese government for dudding the US, now Hamas has thanked them for voting in the UN for a ceasefire to cripple Israel.

Great mates Labor has! And the Coalition says bugger all about anything.

Australia has the worst government ever, the worst opposition ever, but dumbarse posters want to argue pointlessly about Donald Trump.

China and North Korea view America as old and weak and ineffective in the image of Biden, like a weary Santa clause giving everyone a free meal. Weakening the values of a strong democracy. There are no strong men putting up their hand to be president except Trump, and the democrats do not like Trump so they must stop him anyway they can.

Nickey Haley is the highest preferred Republican after Trump, but she as a woman in World politics will not hold the authority to Middle Eastern Values where women are viewed as lesser beings.

Voicing concerns about the AUKUS pact?

And, describing the Labor government as the worst ever?

The submarine agreement is part of what is known as the
AUKUS pact. An acronym for - Australia, the United Kingdom, and
the United States. It's a security agreement that was
announced in 2023 by the three countries and seen as a
counterweight to China's growing military presence in the
Asia Pacific.

It's been described as "The single biggest leap" in the
history of this country's defence capabilities.

Beijing has made no secret of it strong opposition to the
AUKUS pact.

As for being the worst government ever?

It's strengthened its ties in the Asia Pacific region.
It's talking to China yet maintaining its own
sovereignty. It's shifted in its position asking for
a permanent ceasefire in Gaza - as have other countries
and as the pro-Palestinians protests around the world
demonstrate in which Jews themselves took part in against
their own government.

Certainly the current government has its challenges. But
it does continue to meet them.

A former US President seeking re-election while facing
dozens of felony charges is unprecedented in American
politics.

Also Donald Trump's rhetoric lands him in trouble on the
campaign trail.

He's described opponents as "vermin" attacked immigrants as
poisonous and praised Russian President Vladimir Putin for
his criticisms of indictments.

Trump has said that he wants to be a "dictator" for one
day.

"Bat-s-t crazy" t-shirts are selling well in America.

Hi Josephus,
"Nickey Haley is the highest preferred Republican after Trump, but she as a woman in World politics will not hold the authority to Middle Eastern Values where women are viewed as lesser beings."

After watching this a short while ago, all I can say is I think Nikki Haley is completely bat-shite crazy.
http://youtu.be/t0XQbXiMdls

Nikki Haley is certainly a mixed bag.

She's pro-life, anti abortion. She acknowledges that
climate change is caused by human activity but rejects
policies to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and she
intends if elected to withdraw the US from the Paris
agreement.

She wants to cut foreign-aid to countries. She's also
pro cuts to Social Security, Medicare and believes in
extending the retirement age.

She's very anti Russia's invasion of the Ukraine.
She's pro-Israel. She's against banning immigration
on religious grounds - such as in the case of Muslims.

She supports term limits and mandatory mental comprehensive
tests for politicians over 75 years. She supports mean-testing
programs.

She's an interesting candidate who says she was influenced by
Hilary Clinton to go into politics. She heard Hilary speaking
about the fact that more women were needed in politics.
Nikki said - "That's when I decided to do it."

Looking at the chaos that is America - we should
count our blessings that we live in this country.

With Christmas at our door-steps - lets be kind to each
other. Wishing you all the Joys of the Season and
Many Happy Hours in the New Year.

Take care.

What we should be talking about is getting someone like Donald Trump for ourselves who would:

. Dump the Paris Accord
. Build dams
. Remove all taxes and excises from diesel fuel to save transport, fishing, farms, mining, forestry
. Produce our own diesel from shale oil
. Cull public servants. Their number has reached 2.5 million
. Cut regulations and red tape
. Stop the nonsense of aboriginal land rights and aboriginal interference with development
. Cut all immigration other than that absolutely necessary for Australia’s benefit.

I think the more mature way to look at this is to examine policies and actual affects on the welfare of the US both domestically and internationally. Reaching for the fainting couch because Trump uses colourful language to respond to his domestic foes (who use much more colourful language to deride him) isn't what I'd call mature or a thoughtful way to approach issues of political leadership.

Personally, I look at policies and past performance to decide these issues.

For those who now cry over the various wars that the US has become embroiled in since 2021, it would be worth pondering that Trump was one of the few presidents in US history to NOT start or get embroiled in any new wars. Indeed he was extracting the US from some of its commitments and withdrawing troops back to the homeland. Before Trump was ousted, the Abraham accords were on track to resolving the so-called Palestinian issues. The economy was booming (pre-Covid) and th polling showed people to be much more satisfied with the direction of the country than the current abysmal numbers.

I guess this is why the Trump Derangement Syndrome crowd are much more interested in whining about Trump's language than what he's actually saying and promising.

The US is headed down a very dark path and it'll take a miracle to change that around. In the scheme of things, calling the domestic foe vermin is neither here nor there and concentrating on such things is immature in the extreme.

We lived and worked in the US for close to ten years.
We came back to Australia because we didn't like
what was happening in the country. We didn't want
that for our children. We were not wrong and we're
glad that we came back.

Thankfully, in this country, people who find Donald
Trump suited for the top job in the US and who approve of
his views, in this country are a minority.

" in this country, people who find Donald
Trump suited for the top job in the US and who approve of
his views, in this country are a minority."

But then most of them haven't got the faintest idea what his policies are and how favourable to Australia they would be. They only know what they've been fed here by the compliant media who regurgitate the anti-Trump US legacy media.

It seems to not occur to people and/or they are utterly unperturbed by it, that the alternative to Trump is for the US to be led by quite possibly the most corrupt and venal cabal in any democracy in the modern era.

And not just corrupt but openly and willingly selling out their country's best interests to the highest bidder.

Trump, or possibly DeSantis, truly is the last hope for the US and the ongoing survival our current way of life. And Australia has a bigger stake in this than most understand. We rely on freedom the oceans and a free and open world trading system. These are being fritted away as we look on and fret about Trump's language.

the Supreme Court Verdict on Trump.
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/trump-celebrates-supreme-court-win-by-saying-it-was-his-duty-to-investigate-2020-results/ar-AA1lVbUn?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=265975a990ac4808a19655480995a708&ei=15

"The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected Jack Smith’s desperate attempt to short circuit our Great Constitution," Trump wrote on his social media network, Truth Social. "Crooked Joe Biden and his henchmen waited three years to bring this sham case, and now they have tried and failed to rush this Witch Hunt through the courts."

It seems that authoritarians all around the world are banning their opponents....

"Former TV journalist Yekaterina Duntsova has been barred from running against President Vladimir Putin in an election next March because of alleged mistakes in her application to register as a candidate."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-23/yekaterina-duntsova-barred-from-running-against-putin-election/103262112

______________________________________________________________________

Josephus,

The SCOTUS victory for Trump that you mention is unrelated to the Colorado attempt to ban him from their ballot. This is to do with the kangaroo court attempt to charge him for allegedly causing the January 6 'riots'.

Part of the tactics used by the Democrats to subvert the US democracy is to charge Trump with all sorts of made-up 'crimes' in various jurisdictions in an attempt to distract him and his followers from the main gaol of saving the nation.

There are things for which we can be grateful in this
country. Our democracy is more robust than the US's
which sometimes has a flimsy reliance on norms.

Our Supreme Court selections consult a range of opinions
and are not subject to the same ideological stacking
that overturned Roe versus Wade. The ABC provides a
publicly funded counter-balance in the concentration of
media ownership. Our electoral boundaries cannot simply
be redrawn to the one side's advantage as with gerrymandering.

The establishment of an Anti-Corruption Commission is another
safeguard. Compulsory voting means we lean towards the centre
leaving the crazies yammering on the fringe.

A case in point was Clive Palmer's shamelessly lifted
"Make Australia Great Again" campaign in the last election.
The $100 million spent in advertising yielded laughable
results.

This shows that Australians are savvy enough to sniff out
true BS artists.

This shows that Australians are savvy enough to sniff out
true BS artists.
Foxy,
Unfortunately, they’re the minority.

Indyvidual,

Actually they're not a minority. They may muddle
through - but they get it right in the end.
Lets count our blessings.

"are not subject to the same ideological stacking that overturned Roe versus Wade."

Or the ideological stacking that first instituted Roe v Wade. But stacking that achieves the results the left likes is okey-dokey because....well just because.

Despite the fact that most Australians are savvy enough
to sniff out a true BS artist. Despite all this its
still the right-wing that provides the ideal host
for the Trumpian virus. We've examples of this
in their use of the right-wing media.

We've seen recently a special sort of mania that took
with truth rejection. It descended on us and has yet to
lift. Either way, we need to be wary to help preserve our
democracy especially due to whatever the outcome in the
United States.

Believe all women....especially women of color.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl9ymNhwGa4&t

Believe Christian theologians :

http://time.com/5932016/donald-trump-christian-supporters/

Especially Americans.

Sorry for the typo. Here's the link again:

http://time.com/5932014/donald-trump-christian-supporters/

Humour taken from the web:

"Sure he destroyed democracy.
But the other guy is like 3 years older."

America Chooses:

Chronological age - Biden 80.

Trump - mental age - 3.

Dashing forth in fear
Toward election year
Biden versus Trump
Endless brutal bumps

Trump claims news is fake
And revenge he vows to take
But the polls are really tight
Hold on for you life - our democracy's at stake.

"Trump - mental age - 3."

How very mature.

America's choice.

Age is just a number.

Immaturity is timeless.

I'm so glad that I won't be around too much longer. Under this Labour Government, we seem to be trying to ingratiate ourselves more with our enemies instead of strengthening our ties with our allies. I hope we don't lose this Nuclear Submarine deal with our strongest ally, the US, through the bumblings of Labour.

Hi O Sung Wu,

Welcome back.

No worries. The AUKUS pact has been signed.

I hope that you had a lovely Christmas and All The
Best for the New Year.

Take care.

Hi o sung wu, like you mate I won't be here much longer, the diagnosis is months. I count myself incredibly lucky to have lived through the best of western civilisation & now not have to watch it die.

I guess such a bright shooting star had to burn out quickly. I feel sorry for my grand kids, I doubt there life will be a long & happy one with some of the animals controlling the west.

We copped a 168Km/H storm at 6.30 Christmas day. Roofs, caravans complete buildings gone in minutes. Power is predicted to return Sunday with a little luck. It is getting a bit expensive running my 10KVA gen set 24/7, & that doesn't give us luxuries like Air Condition & Ovens. What it does give is a foretaste of the lives our kids can expect with unreliable power supply as the lefty idiots abandon reliable coal power for windmill scams.

Have a happy new year o sung wu, I'll be thinking of you

Hi Hassie,

I wish you and your family well.

I still manage to stay positive and think that
we live in the best country in the world. I am
optimistic about our future.

All The Best.

Take care.

The US State of Maine has followed Colorado in
barring former US President Donald Trump from the
state ballot in next year's election.

It's now the second state to bar him.

The Supreme Court early next year will decide whether Mr
Trump can still run for President.

"Colorado Bans Trump From Running Over Concerns Usual Election Rigging System Could Fail"

"Pollsters confirmed that even with classic rigging measures like hackable voting machines, unmonitored drop-boxes, illegal immigrants, ballot harvesting, and universal mail-in voting, it may still not be enough to stop Trump from being reelected. "

http://babylonbee.com/news/colorado-bans-trump-from-running-over-concerns-usual-election-rigging-system-could-fail

Only in America.

The global corporations,WEF,and wealthy Oligarchs, are wanting to be the ones who choose the President of the US. That is, a puppet like President Biden, who is carrying out the wealthy elites plans for America and Western countries like Australia and Europe.
They poured millions into Bidens campaign in 2020
And used their owned TV channels and Newspapers to demonise
PR Trump 24\7.

The reason they don't want PR Trump in power is he speaks the TRUTH, things you are not allowed to Ask or say.and he changes their policies to favour the American people not the globalist corporations bleeding America and it's people dry.
Not wanting a President Like PR Trump is about the corporations controlling AMERICA. The last thing they are going to allow is the people to vote in a popular PRESIDENT of their choice.

The CIA, FBI, and GARLAND-The head of the Dept of Justice, are all in a corrupt alliance with the Big Moneyed CEOs, the Bankers, and a lot of the politicians, left and right. They fund their campaigns with big money at elaborate cocktail parties.

Apparently Hitler pal-ed up with the corporations in Germany.
PR Trump ran in 2016 with his own money, and the Wealthy Elites
were shocked, because they had no control over him.
There’s a lot of corruption they don't want uncovered that might send them to prison.

Victor Davis Hansen explains why the US leftist elite are terrified of Trump....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V6jH-6F6K0&t

Should there be a public price to pay for a former
United States President who refused to engage in a
peaceful transfer of power and incited a violent
coup to stay in office?

Common sense says yes.
As do a majority vote of the Colorado and Maine supreme
courts. They say that Trump has gone far beyond the
limits of what is acceptable in a candidate for the
country's highest office. That checks and balances of
the branches of government exist for a reason.

Clearly whatever the future outcome - having Trump's
actions recognized by well-respected state courts is
a victory for common sense and integrity.

Hopefully America's highest court will agree.

"Should there be a public price to pay for a former
United States President who refused to engage in a
peaceful transfer of power and incited a violent
coup to stay in office?"

Yes there should be.

But Trump didn't do any of those things. Nor has he been convicted of or even indicted with doing those things. Banning someone from running for office based on unproven claims isn't how democracy works. But it is how totalitarian regimes work and the brown shirts like Foxy are just fine with that.

"Hopefully America's highest court will agree."

Careful what you wish for Foxy. Remember how Australia's highest court made a fool of you over Pell,

Donald Trump has been criminally indicted 4 times
and will have a series of trials to attend this
year as he desperately tries to run again for the
White House.

His candidacy already faces challenges from the
Colorado and Maine Supreme Courts which have ruled
against him - Mr Trump cannot run for President in
those states because they ruled he engaged
in an insurrection with his actions in the days leading
to the US Capitol riot on 6th Jan. 2021.

http://bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61084161

Cardinal Pell's record of abusing young boys goes back
to the 1960s. He was not found to be innocent. He got off
on a legal technicality. Those are the undeniable facts.

"Donald Trump has been criminally indicted 4 times".

But none of them are for "refus[ing] to engage in a peaceful transfer of power" which was original claim. I'd explain it to you but well.....

"they ruled he engaged in an insurrection with his actions in the days leading to the US Capitol riot on 6th Jan. 2021."

They ruled without trial. Which the brown shirts of the left are totally OK with. But, and this is going to go over your head, that's not how democracy or even natural justice works.

Re Pell..."Those are the undeniable facts."

Not only are they deniable...they aren't even facts,

Trump has been indicted on 4 felony counts that
accuse him of working to overturn the results of the
2020 presidential election in the run up to the violent
riots at the US capitol. The charges include conspiracy to
defraud the US government and witness tampering. The 4
court indictments by the Justice Department reveals details
that are available on the web.

He has been indicted for trying to block the peaceful transfer
of power.

Our opinions are our opinions.
Our perceptions are our perceptions.
However we should not confuse them
with facts or truths.

Opinions don't affect facts. But facts should affect
opinions and do, if one is rational.

Foxy,

I know that mere details are beyond your comprehension and that you adopt the view that what you want to be true is indeed true. But....

Colorado and Maine have blocked Trump based on the 14th Amendment that bars anyone engaged in "insurrection or rebellion" from holding federal office.

Trump has not been convicted of "insurrection or rebellion". Trump hasn't been charged with "insurrection or rebellion". I can't explain it more simply for you and yet I know it will still elude you.

mhaze,

I keep giving you facts.

You keep denying them.

That is your problem, not mine.

Go find someone else to play with.

post-truth mhaze,

You really do try it on don't you.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

It says nothing about having to have been convicted. Indeed it was directed at Confederate officers who were for the most part not tried but kept from elected office due to the Amendment.

Further States have a degree of autonomy which they are exercising just as they did in regard to the birth-right conspiracy around Obama. He would not be allowed on the ballot of a number of States now given their introduction of laws not to accept reproductions of birth certificates. Certificates mind you that are perfectly eligible with the Federal government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_eligibility_legislation

How about you may the effort to research this stuff before accusing others of not understanding what is involved.

SR, Did Trump engage in rebellion or insurrection against the Constitution of USA? Does a running candidate have the right to challenge the results of an Election? Not according to Democrats, but that right is within a democracy.

"Go find someone else to play with."

You can always tell when Foxy suddenly realises she's been shown to be wrong. She declares she doesn't want to talk about it any more. Of course a more honest approach would be to acknowledge the error and move on, but....

Its very true, SR, that the 14th Amendment doesn't require that the state needs to prove that a person perpetrated rebellion or insurrection in order to remove said person's democratic rights. That's taken as a given.

The framers would not have envisaged a society that had become so anti-democratic that it would seek to remove democratic rights based on mere deranged assertion.

As I said, Trump hasn't been proven or even charged with insurrection. Why? Because it didn't happen.

So why are these fascists of the left (tautology?) seeking to remove him from the ballot. Well, as Hanson explained, they are terrified of him winning a democratic election. My own view is that he won't win the election because it won't be democratic.

But with people like SR thinking its OK to uproot democratic norms based on mere assertion, the past century of democratic government is rapidly coming to an end.

post-truth mhaze,

Firstly did you really write this without blushing?

"Of course a more honest approach would be to acknowledge the error and move on"

You refused to acknowledge your error regarding Biden's daughter instead you doubled down, and now you have the temerity to write something like that? Deeply hypocritical.

Next you claim Trump hasn't been proven or even charged with insurrection. Why? Because it didn't happen."

It has been proven in a court of law. "The district court found that Trump had engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021, but concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to the presidency."

On appeal the Supreme Court determined the 14th Amendment did apply to the presidency but also found that the district court "did not err in finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection".
http://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2023/23sa300.html

That is two separate courts which determined on the evidence before them that Trump engaged in insurrection.

Please do better research, this is getting embarrassing.

mhaze,

People walk away from your posts on this forum
simply because your level of ignorance blocks
any wish to continue to engage with you.

"It has been proven in a court of law. "

You have a strange idea of proof. This wasn't a trial. There were no witnesses. There was no chance for the accused to rebut evidence.

This was more like a Soviet style show trial....oh wait, now I know why you approve of it.

nhaze,

You really are an embarrassment.

Given up arguing Foxy? Good idea...it never ends well for you.

The inane ad Hominem is more your style.

mhaze,

Opinions do not affect facts.
But facts should affect opinions and do,
if you are rational.

post-truth maze,

What on earth are you talking about? The were 5 full days of evidence given at the District Court and "The court issued its written final order on November 17, finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection and President Trump engaged in that insurrection."

As to the preponderance of the evidence: "As noted above, the district court held that the Electors proved their challenge by clear and convincing evidence. And because President Trump chose not to brief this issue, he has abandoned it."

Trump and his lawyers didn't try an convince the court that an insurrection didn't happen, nor that his speech didn't constitute his involvement, but rather that the speech was protected under the First Amendment and therefore couldn't be used against him.

The court did look at what the framers of the Constitution intended and found the language used to be largely unambiguous.

Trump tried to assert: "that Section Three does not bar him from running for or being elected to office because Section Three bars individuals only from holding office." That was rejected because it would mean throwing out the stipulated age minimum and the residency requirement.

Really your argument has to be with his legal team. Reading between the lines of the judgement comments such as "Lawyers who practice in this area are well-aware of this." indicate the judges were not enthralled with the quality of Trump's representatives.

This has been litigated in multiple jurisdictions. This alone found that there was reason to rule Trump off the ballot.

Little wonder that that's the one you want to talk about. They claim they looked at all the evidence but in fact there were no witnesses, no video of the alleged offence, no attempts to explain why Trump wasn't charged with insurrection etc etc.

Just a left leaning court trying to subvert democracy.

The TDS crowd really are terrified of Trump and those who support him to the extent that they are happy to overthrow democracy to maintain their grip on power.

I suspect that if a Republican state ruled Biden out because if the 25th Amendment, you and your ilk would be dancing to a different tune.

It's a waste of time fussing over Trump when we are stuck with a moron like Albanese, who had better look out if Trump is the next President. It could mean goodbye AUKUS and lot of the the benefits we get as an ally of the US. Trump likes allies to pull their weight, which Albanese Australia certainly does not do.

post-truth mhaze,

Why are you like this now? I gave you a link to the judgement and even gave the quote which detailed how Trump's team chose not to counter the fact that "the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection and President Trump engaged in that insurrection."

Yet you are still banging on about: "They claim they looked at all the evidence but in fact there were no witnesses, no video of the alleged offence, no attempts to explain why Trump wasn't charged with insurrection etc etc."

There is plenty of video of both the insurrection and Trump's speech. Why claim otherwise.

Now you are claiming: "Just a left leaning court trying to subvert democracy."

Not so. This is from a New York Times article:

"The decision on Trump on Tuesday was not the first time the court has removed a political candidate from the ballot. In 2020, it ruled that a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, Michelle Ferrigno Warren, could not appear on the primary ballot because she had not collected enough signatures from voters. A lower court had been more lenient, citing the Covid-19 pandemic, but the state’s highest court disagreed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/colorado-supreme-court-barred-trump.html

Hardly an indication of partisanship.

And this from you couldn't be more apt: "happy to overthrow democracy to maintain their grip on power"

That is exactly what Trump and his supporters attempted on January 7th, they are now being held to account as they should in any rules based democracy.

Your Trump Derangement Syndrome has you accepting behaviour you would have condemned once upon a time. Time to start crawling back out of that rabbit hole before it is too late.

mhaze,

Go forth - but don't multiply.

Yet again SR demonstrates that he is all in favour of subverting democracy so long as those he favours are doing the subverting.

Students of history will have seen this attitude before, eg Germany 1933.

Somehow SR thinks that because there are plenty of (highly edited) videos around in the media, then that's good enough for the courts. But that's not how justice works in a functioning democracy.

Trump's team have now asked the SCOTUS to rule. We'll see what happens then.

Talking about democracy working in the US?

Well, NBC News tells us that Trump built the
Supreme Court's conservative majority - he
appointed 3 justices - trying to create a
rock solid conservative majority - but it
didn't always rule in his favour. And since
he's left office the Supreme Court has not
been receptive to his claims.

Examples given tell us that Trump tried to stop
the Congressional Committee from accessing
White House documents from his administration
the court rebuffed him.

There's more at the following:

http://nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-built-supreme-court-conservative-majority-loses-rcna-131956

Here's the link again:

http://nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-built-supreme-court-conservative-majority-loses-rcna131956

post-truth mhaze,

Lol.

Your Trump Derangement Syndrome has you wrapped up in a little cocoon of denial hasn't it.

You really are a silly little fellow aren't you.

Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection, but the requisite 2/3rds of the Senate vote required to convict was not achieved.

Trump wanted to roll out the Insurrection Act to go after BLM protests. He obviously thought they qualified as insurrection. But you can't accept that the attacks on Jan 6th attempting to subvert the orderly transfer of power constitute a far more accurate use of the term.

It is deemed by multiple courts that January 6th was an insurrection, yet you refuse to acknowledge them.

You slip into a rant rather than address anything directly put to you.

Well I hope it is of some comfort in your declining years.

"It is deemed by multiple courts that January 6th was an insurrection, yet you refuse to acknowledge them."

Washington DC voted 96% Democrat. The courts you refer to were in DC and the jurors were those 96%. Grandmothers with cancer were convicted of insurrection. In a country with more guns per capita than almost anywhere else on the planet, the only gun fired was used to kill an unarmed war veteran who was trying to de-escalate the situation.

When you're trying to overthrow the government, you don't meekly walk between the ropes as directed.... http://www.sakafete.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/maxresdefault-233-777x437.jpg

Yet in all those trials no one has been able to demonstrate that Trump caused the riot. Despite a massive and massively one-sided congressional inquiry where evidence was selectively withheld, no one has deemed the evidence sufficient to charge Trump with insurrection, let alone prove it.

Now, their original plan was to have him jailed because of their fantasies over the insurrection, but the evidence just wasn't there.

So they've now just jumped a step and decided to treat him as convicted without a trial. And the fascists of the left are good with that.

SR, as he always does, has decided that he'll just believe whatever they tell him to believe. They tell him they looked at all the evidence and that's good enough for him - why would they lie asks the clueless SR?

Trump is leading in the polls and the hapless and hopelessly corrupt Biden is headed for a trouncing. What to do? Well, use the courts to defeat the majority.

If Trump is allowed to run, I still expect him to lose. Like 2020, he'll receive the majority of votes cast, but not the majority counted.

But the ramifications of him winning are disastrous for the kleptocrats that is the Democrat party, so why take the risk?

post-truth mhaze,

You really are losing it now.

You claim: "The courts you refer to were in DC and the jurors were those 96%."

The courts we have been talking about are in Colorado, both the District Court and the Supreme Court.

But I have gone and looked at the decisions of a few of the other courts which have looked at the ballot question. So far none of the judgements I have seen claimed an insurrection didn't happen nor that Trump had no involvement.

Many, like Minnesota, have handed it back to Congress to decide. It Supreme Court's Chief Justice Natalie Hudson ruled “There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office,”.

http://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-election-president-f6b72c94bb351c1b870d4884e54f6a75

And this drivel from you: "SR, as he always does, has decided that he'll just believe whatever they tell him to believe. They tell him they looked at all the evidence and that's good enough for him - why would they lie asks the clueless SR?"

Again, for the slow witted, the Trump team did not present countering evidence to the question of whether an insurrection occurred nor his role in it. The evidence which was presented convinced the District Court Judge and the 7 member Supreme Court. So yes, they looked at all the evidence presented.

Get over it.

" So yes, they looked at all the evidence presented."

Well they say they did.

Congress spent 9 months and tens of millions of dollars looking at it and didn't come to a conclusion. DC prosecutors had access to all that data and a whole lot more but didn't see enough to even charge Trump let alone enough to convict. (And remember these people aren't really interested in the facts, only how they can cause Trump problems eg the NY fraud case).

People have been jailed over the so-called insurrection even while exculpatory evidence was suppressed and withheld. eg the so-called Sharman.

There was no insurrection and if there were there is no evidence Trump was responsible. Yet Colorado spent a few days to look at it and decided to overturn democracy on the basis of that cursory, partisan look.

In the 1930's, there were any number of show trials in the USSR which sought to give a veneer of legality to the decisions to execute people Stalin saw a rivals. Apologists in the West always claimed these were legitimate trials, with the (by then dead) defendant given every opportunity to offer evidence. That was untrue but nonetheless sincerely believed by the apologists. You won't see the parallels.

post-truth mhaze,

You waffle on with: "There was no insurrection and if there were there is no evidence Trump was responsible."

FINAL REPORT
Select Committee to Investigate the
January 6th
Attack on the United States Capitol

IV. “Incite,” “Assist” or “Aid and Comfort” an Insurrection (18 U.S.C. § 2383) Section 2383 of Title 18 of the United States Code applies to anyone who “incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrectionagainst the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid orcomfort thereto.” 632 The Committee recognizes that section 2383 does not require evidence of an “agreement” between President Trump and the violent rioters to establish a violation of that provision; instead, the President need only have incited, assisted, or aided and comforted those engaged in violence or other lawless activity in an effort to prevent the peaceful transition of the Presidency under our Constitution. A Federal court has already concluded that President Trump’s statements during his Ellipse speech were “plausibly words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment.” 633 Moreover, President Trump was impeached for “Incitement of Insurrection,” and a majority of the Senate voted to convict, with many more suggesting they might have voted to convict had President Trump still been in office at the time.
End quote.

http://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You ask :

« Can Donald Trump still run for US President ? »
.

I guess it’s up to the US Supreme Court to decide that.

There are 9 justices on the US Supreme Court at present : 6 nominated by Bush and Trump (3 each), and 3 nominated by Clinton, Obama, and Biden (one each).

So, it looks like the answer to your question is « Yes ».

But as Trump claims he won both the 2016 and the 2020 presidential elections (the latter having been stolen from him), if that were true, he would be ineligible to run for a third term in 2024.

He claims it’s true but also claims he is eligible for a third term – which he wouldn’t be if it were true.
.

Next question :

« Can Donald Trump be re-elected as President ? »

Answer : « Yes » - provided the US Supreme Court considers that his claim to have won the 2020 presidential election is a « Big Lie », and that it is because he lost that election that he is eligible to present his candidacy once more in 2024.
.

Last question :

« Will Donald Trump be re-elected as President ? »

Answer : « No ».

He lost the 2016 presidential popular vote to Hilary Clinton by nearly 3 million votes and he lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden by more than 7 million votes. His popularity with voters on election day is obviously on a downward curve.

He is a very talented showman. That’s for sure.

We’ll see how many votes that’s worth.

.

Hi Banjo,

Interesting times ahead.

I guess we shall have to wait and see what develops
with Trump. He certainly has his supporters - whether
the rule of law will be determined against him - time
will tell. I suspect that few Americans would want to
set the precedent of indicting a President. And of course
whatever the outcome - whoever gets elected could pardon
Trump. Including if he gets re-elected.

Interesting situation.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Nice line however I think 'assuming office' means being certified into it which did not happen in Trump's case.

Actually the Twenty Second Amendment reads:

"Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

Also it appears you numbers might be a bit awry. mhaze insists "If Trump is allowed to run, I still expect him to lose. Like 2020, he'll receive the majority of votes cast, but not the majority counted."

It is unfortunate that Trump was so bad and so obviously acting out of naked self interest and nepotism that when he did speak truth to power the changes to the system that could have been wrought are unlikely to be realised.

Perhaps we are fortunate here that the excesses of Morrison and the LNP with Robodebt, corruption, secret ministries, cosy arrangements with the likes of PwC have all been tackled by the incoming government.

Morrison's defenders, who were so thick on the ground, now have dissipated until the diehard followers of Trump who have excused an insurrection.

CBS News has announced that the Supreme Court has
decided to hear Colorado's case over Trump's 2024
ballot eligibility. This could have serious
ramifications for the 2024 presidential election.
We're told that arguments will be held Feb.8th and
a decision should come quickly.

Stay tuned.

Trump is accused insurrection. The speech that day does not support it.
I heard that speech that Trump gave on the day involved/ I think I
heard it live or very soon after it was given.
At the end of the speech he said We will walk down to the
Capital and make sure they hear us and we will walk down there peaceably.
That is from memory, but I am certain that the last word was "Peaceably",
When I heard the speech repeated later that day and since bulletins
that last word was missing.
I am certain about this as it was a very noticeable omission.
Over the time since I have heard cuts of that speech and that word is never heard.
I suspect it was chopped off by the news media in the US,

By removing that word it changes the tenor of the speech significantly.
It makes a nonsense of the accusations that have been made since.

Kudos Bezza.

.

Dear Bezza,

.

You wrote :

« I heard that speech that Trump gave on the day [January 6, 2021] … At the end of the speech, he said We will walk down to the Capital and make sure they hear us and we will walk down there peaceably. That is from memory, but I am certain that the last word was "Peaceably" … »
.

You may be right, Bezza, but I’m afraid with all the trafficking and fake news that goes on these days, we have no way of knowing which version is authentic and which one is not.

The problem with people like Trump (who are notorious pathological liars) is that you can’t believe a word of what they say. Trump spoke for more than an hour that day and spent most of that time citing various counties and states where he claimed the Democrats had committed electoral fraud. He rattled off loads and loads of statistics by heart without the blink of an eye for dozens of counties and states to prove his point.

The problem is Trump and his team of lawyers subsequently filed and lost 62 lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in 9 states (including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia. Among the judges who dismissed the lawsuits were some appointed by Trump himself.

Nearly all the suits were dismissed or dropped due to lack of evidence. Judges, lawyers, and other observers described the suits as "frivolous" and "without merit".

Never mind, whether he pronounced the word “peaceably” or not is of no importance. The US Supreme Court will declare him eligible for election in time for him to be registered as the candidate of the Republican Party and we’ll just have to wait and see if he can do any better this time than he did last time.

Judging by his track record so far, I very much doubt it.

.

Lets look at Trump's behaviour.

It included his refusal to accept Joe Biden's victory.
He consistently peddled his "stolen election" fantasy.
He applied pressure on state and federal officials
including Vice President Pence, to embrace his "stolen
election" fantasy.

The speech he delivered to his supporters before the riot
was incendiary - "fight like hell or you won't have a
country anymore." Then his failure to intervene after
thousands of his supporters invaded the Capitol building
interrupting the congressional ratification of the election
results - all of that is more than enough to conclude
that Trump did violate his oath to - "faithfully
execute" his office and to "preserve, protect, and defend
the Constitution."

It's now up to the Supreme Court to decide what needs to be done.

Dear Bezza,

What on earth are you talking about? A simple google search for the transcript has it being displayed by numerous news organisations.

Here is part of the NPR one.

"Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down.

Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections. But whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time."
http://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

There is no great conspiracy.

I've just heard the news that DeSantis has backed out
of running for office and has thrown his support behind
Donald Trump for the Presidency.

I'm not sure what to make of all this.

Can Trump really get elected?