Don't get me wrong here, But I LIKE Donald Trump.

[rgmwa]

If he became president and therefore POTUS, as he’s married to another man, would his partner still be referred to as FLOTUS? 

[facthunter]

Trump might be a SMALLdicktator so you can cut him some slack there. Stormy Daniels would know if it's just a phallussy.   Nev

[willedoo]

6 hours ago, rgmwa said:

If he became president and therefore POTUS, as he’s married to another man, would his partner still be referred to as FLOTUS? 

FMOTUS. He would not only be first man, but also the first first man.

[Marty_d]

The partner would be whatever a hetero female president's partner would be - but they haven't had one of those yet either.

[onetrack]

[red750]

Colorado has voted to remove Trump from the ballot under Sect 3 of the 14th Amendment. Of course he immediately appealed to the High Court.

 

Read details of Sect 3 here.

 

 

 

 

[onetrack]

Here's a good article on the disgusting, lying and thoroughly rotten behaviour of Rudy Guiliani, whereby he falsely accused honest election workers of fraud - and which resulted in a massive compensation penalty against him.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/17/opinion/giuliani-trial-maga-trump.html

[facthunter]

Seems like he's in some other world.   Nev

Edited December 20, 2023 by facthunter
spelling

[rgmwa]

He's also been sued again on Monday for repeating his claims outside the court. He's an idiot.

[kgwilson]

No surprise there. Who else would hold a press conference outside a sex shop & put some crappy colourant in his hair that ran down his face as dark rivulets as he sweated. A complete fruit loop.

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, rgmwa said:

He's also been sued again on Monday for repeating his claims outside the court. He's an idiot.

As Trump did after he lost the civil rape case. The article posted by OT sums it up nicely.. they are now servants of Trump and lying is a central feature of it as well as making out the  victim.. 

[Litespeed]

7 hours ago, facthunter said:

Seems like he's in some other world.   Nev

His head is certainly with Trump in his own warped Uranus.

 

The Colorado decision is awesome, other states may follow. 

 

Naturally he will appeal to his stacked court, but that may not help.

[old man emu]

Has Trump ever been convicted of insurrection?

 

A Colorado lower court judge previously ruled that Trump's actions on Jan. 6, 2021, during a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters amounted to insurrection but stopped short of disqualifying him, saying Section 3 does not apply to presidents. The matter had been raised by voters in Colorado (who probably knew more of their country's constitution than the Second Amendment). That court matter was most likely a civil matter, so the fact that the judge found that insurrection had occurred, it would have been "on the balance of probabilities" not to the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".

 

The judge's finding that Section 3 does not apply to Presidents is based on the fact that the Presidential Oath of Office is different from the Senatorial Oath.

 

This is the Presidential Oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

The Senatorial Oath is:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

 

The initial applicants appealed that part of the lower court judge's decision to the Colorado Supreme Court. By a slim majority the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is disqualified from appearing on the Colorado ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which bars anyone engaged in "insurrection or rebellion" from holding federal office.

 

 Giving courts powers that are not clearly based in legislation  was a top concern for the dissenting justices in the 4-3 Colorado decision, who said the majority's ruling would strip Trump of one of his most basic rights without adequate due process. They noted that Trump has not been convicted of insurrection by a jury and did not have the right to subpoena records or compel witnesses to testify in the case, among other basic rights afforded to criminal defendants. It is not clear how the US Supreme Court would rule, but it is dominated by a conservative majority that includes three Trump appointees. On the other hand, Trump did not win Colorado when he was elected.

 

Perhaps Trump's defence to a charge of insurrection will be the words of his oath "to the best of my ability". All he has to say was that he tried, but unfortunately he failed.

 

[facthunter]

"So help ME God" is not mentioned. Is the President not restricted by the rule of Law?  HE doesn't think so. (Conveniently). He wouldn't pass a basic Psychological stability test either.  Nev

[kgwilson]

I do solemnly swear "F**** Trump" or is it I affirm Trump is a F***wit". What's the difference.

[facthunter]

Truth has no part of it, so what's a LIARS word worth? Everyone who's worked for him gets in strife once he/she's served their purpose. It will all be about "GETTING EVEN" and eliminating the "Vermin" that oppose "US". ( It's always the ROYAL Plural).  Nev

[old man emu]

Traditionally an oath (from Anglo-Saxon āð,) is either a statement or solemn appeal to deity in witness of truth or a promise. An affirmation, in Law, is a solemn declaration permitted on grounds of conscientious objection to taking and oath.

 

Whether a person "takes the Book and make oath", or takes the card and makes an affirmation depends on their belief in a deity or not. For the person who makes an affirmation, one could say that they are declaring that their word is their bond. 

 

 

[facthunter]

IF a known LIAR takes an oath what value can be placed on it except a charge of Perjury might result as truth was emphasised by requiring the oath be taken.  Nev

[Marty_d]

I pledge allegiance to the underworld
One nation under dog, there of which I stand alone
A face in the crowd, unsung against the mold
Without a doubt, singled out, the only way I know

 

- Green Day (Minority)

[Litespeed]

Common sense, the actual law and constitutional practice sadly will mean nothing as he has a stacked court that has proven to not care a damn about the rule of law and Juris Prudence.

 

However a plain reading of the case indicates he is ineligible.

He does not have to be convicted just shown to have assisted or supported insurrection as per the constitution.

 

I will be a lawyer's shitshow and get very nasty.

[Marty_d]

If this ruling stands, does being voted ineligible to run in one state preclude him from running at all?

[facthunter]

NO. It is probably going to go to the Federal Court, where if the GOP has any sense it will be upheld.   Nev

[rgmwa]

There are about 16 other states also looking at kicking him off their ballots. There is an argument that it would be better to have him on the ballot and defeat him in the election. That would be a more definitive result.

[red750]

What? Have him robbed again?    

[facthunter]

He plays the Dying Swan well. Turns every judgement into a They are getting at YOU by nobbling ME. Thinking GOPers (admitted a rarity) know he's a LIARbility.  Nev