Cancel culture

[fallenarch]

Trump isn't playing 4 D chess. All he has to do is sit back and let Joe be Joe. That and let the Dems contort themselves into pretzels trying to get a court ruling that keeps him from being the guy who beat the best candidate they could field.

And they are too stupid to realize that once again, they themselves make Trump the only thing the voters see. They didn't learn their lesson. Trump just needs to be what people see and talk about. They are campaigning for him.

They are gonna single handedly get a womanizing, lying, self centered, connman, convicted of fraud, re-elected.

He won't win by Democratic Party votes. Republicans have let this guy pussy-whip them for all these years and are saying get rid of him for us Democrats. If there was an ounce of testosterone between the entire community they would fix this mess that they alone voted in, refused to stop and allowed themselves to be under a crazy man's foot. Man up @TallTom

 

[Bumblebee]

I didn’t mention or wish to rehash the efficacy. What I said and was true is everything and anything contrary to their narrative was stricken, canceled, deleted and eliminated. Doctors, alternative treatments and any study that showed another path were eliminated.
They can and will do the same to people they deem racist, seditionist or anyone they do not like. It’s coming. Rest assured. The less books we have, the more digital things become, the more time that passes it’ll be all but imposible to remember anyone not found on google.

As much as I too don't want to re-hash this already beaten down topic, for some reason I have to inject a bit of realty...

We (and many others) think we know more than someone who has multiple PhDs, studied and mastered virology and medicine for decades.......yet...........these experts were dismissed and ridiculed for advising what should be done by their own leaders and citizens....

Of course all the armchair quarterbacks know more then they do...that's a given...

This very way of thinking equates to one of our (Suzuki) certified mechanics some of which frequent this site being told they don't have a clue what they are talking about by someone who has never ridden or worked on a motorcycle.......just how long do you think it would take the vast majority of us who post here to tell that person to take a flying leap?

Do we see the irony of this?

 

[sixpack577]

Trump is aside from the point in regards to being taken off of Colorado's ballot.
The fact that he has currently been removed from it should be alarming to anyone paying attention.
This doesn't matter if you are for or against Trump either; why?
Because, first of all, look up Insurection in the constitution's ammendments, and look at who it's aimed at during the civil war.
Now, even for the Never-Trumpers out there, like it or not, Trump has Not been legally charged with being an insurectionist...so a state Cannot keep him off of a ballot for that.
Does Anyone here not want due process for All in this country?
The most wicked of criminals get their day(s) in court, and the system decides their innocence or guilt.
Like it or not, in order for that system to work, it has to be applied fairly.
So, when a state decides that we will just handle a federal matter, based on how the state government feels about a matter, even without legal basis...then things end up in the Supreme Court.
How many more rights do U.S citizens want to hand over to the government?
Apparently alot more than they realize.
It also cannot be a state 'protecting' their citizens from Trump.
The state cannot speak for the citizens without an election by the citizens.
And why are they scared to put Trump's name on a ballot then? As if they speak for the majority of the citizens, then Trump will lose in Colorado anyway.
Now people will want to argue that Trump did this or that.
Bottom line is, like him or not, he said "Now march down to the capitol and peacefully protest".
Lets not talk shady lawyers in every day court cases, on up to big business.
And, realize this isn't a for or against Trump arguement...this is a pay attention as the U.S government continues to try to use him as a scapecoat, so that they can illegally change laws.
Change this today, that tomorrow, and the next thing you know, big U.S cities will be Smart Citys, and will have zones and individual limitations like China has started.
Sounds convinient and great, until you're told you can't travel to any random place because of whatever reason, and realize, we aren't such a free country anymore.
But, the masses are blind to that.
Sit back and enjoy the show...

 

[TallTom]

Trump is aside from the point in regards to being taken off of Colorado's ballot.
The fact that he has currently been removed from it should be alarming to anyone paying attention.
This doesn't matter if you are for or against Trump either; why?
Because, first of all, look up Insurection in the constitution's ammendments, and look at who it's aimed at during the civil war.
Now, even for the Never-Trumpers out there, like it or not, Trump has Not been legally charged with being an insurectionist...so a state Cannot keep him off of a ballot for that.
Does Anyone here not want due process for All in this country?
The most wicked of criminals get their day(s) in court, and the system decides their innocence or guilt.
Like it or not, in order for that system to work, it has to be applied fairly.
So, when a state decides that we will just handle a federal matter, based on how the state government feels about a matter, even without legal basis...then things end up in the Supreme Court.
How many more rights do U.S citizens want to hand over to the government?
Apparently alot more than they realize.
It also cannot be a state 'protecting' their citizens from Trump.
The state cannot speak for the citizens without an election by the citizens.
And why are they scared to put Trump's name on a ballot then? As if they speak for the majority of the citizens, then Trump will lose in Colorado anyway.
Now people will want to argue that Trump did this or that.
Bottom line is, like him or not, he said "Now march down to the capitol and peacefully protest".
Lets not talk shady lawyers in every day court cases, on up to big business.
And, realize this isn't a for or against Trump arguement...this is a pay attention as the U.S government continues to try to use him as a scapecoat, so that they can illegally change laws.
Change this today, that tomorrow, and the next thing you know, big U.S cities will be Smart Citys, and will have zones and individual limitations like China has started.
Sounds convinient and great, until you're told you can't travel to any random place because of whatever reason, and realize, we aren't such a free country anymore.
But, the masses are blind to that.
Sit back and enjoy the show...

Come on man.......you know the Constitution can be shredded in the name of a better America.

/sarcasm for the slower ones.

All of your points are valid. But lost in the efforts to manipulate the only real voice each American has. The vote.

When you can't get votes the Constitutional way, let's figure out how to get them any other way.

BOTH sides are guilty of this. The level of b/s there is just to be an American now, is ridiculous.

You're exactly right, they chip away, chip away, chip away. And we get exhausted trying to stop them.

Floyd is a good example. A total scumbag. But he was protected by the same rights you and I are. If we give them a pass on Floyd, we become Floyd eventually. Not in character, but in a loss of rights as a citizen.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

All gay people have the same mental makeup huh? You go from making sense to saying something moronic in one sentence. That's quite a skill.

Sorry you’re right. A gay judge in liberal leftist colorado. There’s a chance he’s a conservative and votes republican.
I should not have have assumed. Surely his personal feelings didn’t come into play and his decision is based totally on law.

 

[Red05]

Sorry you’re right. A gay judge in liberal leftist colorado. There’s a chance he’s a conservative and votes republican.
I should not have have assumed. Surely his personal feelings didn’t come into play and his decision is based totally on law.

The only thing sure is you have no clue about the thoughts and opinions of gay people. It’s very apparent that you don’t care so it’s apropos.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

The only thing sure is you have no clue about the thoughts and opinions of gay people. It’s very apparent that you don’t care so it’s apropos.

I said two Ivy League liberal Democratic appointed judges. We know how they are wired. That was in reference to THEM.
Then I said and a gay judge. He’s from Colorado. Pretty sure he’s NOT a Republican. In fact I’d bet on it.
You seem to think I was implying I know how all gay people think. Not what I said at all.

 

[Red05]

Sorry you’re right. A gay judge in liberal leftist colorado. There’s a chance he’s a conservative and votes republican.
I should not have have assumed. Surely his personal feelings didn’t come into play and his decision is based totally on law.
View attachment 1674566

You don’t want to own up to your generalization fine.
Using an old law to remove Trump from the ballot stinks to me. Beat him the old fashion way. At the polls.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

You don’t want to own up to your generalization fine.
Using an old law to remove Trump from the ballot stinks to me. Beat him the old fashion way. At the polls.

You are free to assume anything you want.
I clearly explained myself TWICE.
Your assumptions and feelings seem to be clouding your ability.
But since you are so free to ahead and prove me wrong. Shall we google the gay judge in Colorado? Any guess on her past rulings and statements?
I apologize. She is a woman.

“Monica Márquez is the first Latina and first openly gay person to serve on the Colorado Supreme Court. AP
Márquez went on to earn her law degree from Yale, and worked as the assistant solicitor general and as assistant attorney general in both the Public Officials Unit and Criminal Appellate Section before being appointed to the court in 2010.

She is now a member of the Bench Dream Team — a group of judges dedicated to diversity and inclusion in the judicial system.”

A Yale grad. We’ve seen what kind of people it turns out. And they aren’t conservatives. Dedicated to diversity and inclusion. And you’re gonna tell me her opinions and feelings had nothing to do with her ruling.
Look! I just saw a monkey fly by!!

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

Lt. Gov: California must 'explore every legal option' to remove Trump

Eleni Kounalakis said it was a 'dire matter that puts at stake the sanctity of our constitution and our democracy' - and denied that she was acting out of 'political gamesmanship'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Nope. No political activism going on at all. Like a wildfire they think they have another way to stop him.
Keep poking thst bear. Don’t get upset when he wakes up.

 

[Red05]

I clearly explained myself TWICE.
Your assumptions and feelings seem to be clouding your ability.

You post this:

Sorry you’re right. A gay judge in liberal leftist colorado. There’s a chance he’s a conservative and votes republican.

View attachment 1674566

The laughing meme...you know, hard to miss what you meant, but who cares? You're not on trial.
Marquez, she might be a liberal, but you know as well as I do that's not my point. You had to mention she was gay in asserting how she might lean. A lot of gays people are conservative. I realize that you don't know this, but try not to act like you know anything about the minds of gay people, like your earlier post suggested, no matter how hard you back pedal. Own up to your $hit.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

You post this:

The laughing meme...you know, hard to miss what you meant, but who cares? You're not on trial.
Marquez, she might be a liberal, but you know as well as I do that's not my point. You had to mention she was gay in asserting how she might lean. A lot of gays people are conservative. I realize that you don't know this, but try not to act like you know anything about the minds of gay people, like your earlier post suggested, no matter how hard you back pedal. Own up to your $hit.

yeah. That’s exactly what I meant.
There is absolutely ZERO chance a gay lesbian judge in Colorado who’s in charge of an equity and diversity program is a conservative or votes Republican.
ZERO CHANCE.
I did not mention it. IT is all over the news.
Read any article. ‘Who are the judges that banned trump’
4 liberal appointees
3 Ivy League grads and one who is gay.
The news it reporting it like that. It’s not new, not a revelation. It is the simple truth.
Now you’re free to find me where she is not what I said.
I won’t hold my breath.
And yeah I’ll own my sh!t. She is who she is. We know it. I know it and you do too. Just don’t want to admit it I guess?

 

[TallTom]

You are free to assume anything you want.
I clearly explained myself TWICE.
Your assumptions and feelings seem to be clouding your ability.
But since you are so free to ahead and prove me wrong. Shall we google the gay judge in Colorado? Any guess on her past rulings and statements?
I apologize. She is a woman.

“Monica Márquez is the first Latina and first openly gay person to serve on the Colorado Supreme Court. AP
Márquez went on to earn her law degree from Yale, and worked as the assistant solicitor general and as assistant attorney general in both the Public Officials Unit and Criminal Appellate Section before being appointed to the court in 2010.

She is now a member of the Bench Dream Team — a group of judges dedicated to diversity and inclusion in the judicial system.”

A Yale grad. We’ve seen what kind of people it turns out. And they aren’t conservatives. Dedicated to diversity and inclusion. And you’re gonna tell me her opinions and feelings had nothing to do with her ruling.
Look! I just saw a monkey fly by!!

A Yale Grad. That's a pretty hefty education. High dollar. Top of the heap brains right? Do they teach them how to read and understand English way up there?

The 14th Amendment states in pretty plain wording the following.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5:

"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Not the state of Colorado. Or a Yale educated Judge.

Congress.

Even us dumbasses can read English more goodly than a Yale educated judge.

Welcome to continued effort of the dumbing down of America.

 

[Red05]

That’s exactly what I meant.
There is absolutely ZERO chance a gay lesbian judge in Colorado who’s in charge of an equity and diversity program is a conservative or votes Republican.
ZERO CHANCE.

Gay and lesbian. Noted.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

Gay and lesbian. Noted.

When she is advertised as that she is THAT.

Justice Monica Márquez — The Appellate Project

theappellateproject.org

And in case you forgot the G and L are in LGBT which is their alphabet description. She is what she is and proud of it. If you don’t think Colorado and her supporters are proud of their first openly gay judge you’re fooling yourself. Why do you have a problem with someone saying exactly what she is and has championed?

Her partisan score is STRONG. But I’m sure you still think she ruled on law and not her TDS feelz. Lmao

https://ballotpedia.org/

 

[WuzzaCBXRider]

I doubt she ever referred to herself as gay and lesbian. The terms may have a similar definition bur ‘gay’ is typically used for men and ‘lesbian’ is the definition for (gay) women.

 

[fallenarch]

Unbelievable. If we are going to have a civil war, let's at least stop the crap about why we are having it. The constitution clearly says all elected and civil office holders. This is the clearest direction I have ever seen in the Constitution, and the crap about the founders were concerned about Congress, not the president just that: crap. First of all, the founders were long dead when the 14th Amendment was passed (1868 is nearly a century after the penning of the Constitution in 1787). Second, the amendment clearly goes past Congress and says any officer. This means the president. Any argument that the 14th Amendment doesn't cover the president would rest only on knowledge of what the authors were thinking, not what they wrote, agreed to, and ratified. Basically B.S.

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

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.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

Unbelievable. If we are going to have a civil war, let's at least stop the crap about why we are having it. The constitution clearly says all elected and civil office holders. This is the clearest direction I have ever seen in the Constitution, and the crap about the founders were concerned about Congress, not the president just that: crap. First of all, the founders were long dead when the 14th Amendment was passed (1868 is nearly a century after the penning of the Constitution in 1787). Second, the amendment clearly goes past Congress and says any officer. This means the president. Any argument that the 14th Amendment doesn't cover the president would rest only on knowledge of what the authors were thinking, not what they wrote, agreed to, and ratified. Basically B.S.

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

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.

Nobody is arguing over the language or whether or not it covers all the way up to the top. I heard some. On fox as well as cnn.
The thing is ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion’.
Trump has not been convicted of it.
He physically did not take part in going into the capital.
Even his arch nemesis Jack Smith did not charge him with it.
You may be convinced he did but half the country is not.
Whether he did or didn’t is as of now still a matter of opinion not fact.
Yet the Colorado judges FELT he did. No proof. No charges. Just their opinion he did it. They did not rule on the law. How could they? It’s like accusing somebody of murder when nobody got killed.

 

[busabobh]

I live in Colorado, do not like Trump but he should be allowed on the ballot unless convicted. Biden bends in the wind to every special interest group, so don’t want him either. We need new candidates in both parties. Reparations, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Irish,Jews, Latinos, short people fat people the list goes on. Get over it, 70 , 80 over. 100 years , move on. Not going to change anyone’s mind,, They only believe the facts they choose, and or the ones that fit their need. Funny how history changes as time and the moral compass goes

 

[fallenarch]

Nobody is arguing over the language or whether or not it covers all the way up to the top. I heard some. On fox as well as cnn.
The thing is ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion’.
Trump has not been convicted of it.
He physically did not take part in going into the capital.
Even his arch nemesis Jack Smith did not charge him with it.
You may be convinced he did but half the country is not.
Whether he did or didn’t is as of now still a matter of opinion not fact.
Yet the Colorado judges FELT he did. No proof. No charges. Just their opinion he did it. They did not rule on the law. How could they? It’s like accusing somebody of murder when nobody got killed.

It includes providing aid and comfort to insurrectionists. Trump has done that clearly and openly. On 1/6, he waited to order help and promised "the good people" involved in the insurrection (some convicted in a court of law) pardons. This is just people Trump stall. Another issue is how this loser get a security clearance?

Did you see the news today? They have a recording of Trump trying to force Michigan election officials to not certify the vote.