The bullshit "disenfranchisement" argument against disqualifying Trump

[Lou Bricano]

Political decisions not to proceed with Section 3 disqualifications for fear of
violence would undermine the central goal of that constitutional reform. No
political leader, from Jefferson Davis to Mr. Trump, in the view of those
responsible for the 14th Amendment, should have his path to public office
smoothed by the threat of violence should the laws be enforced.

Decisions disqualifying Mr. Trump or any other insurrectionist from public
office would disenfranchise no voter. Trump supporters remain free to vote for
any candidate who champions the mix of policies Mr. Trump champions.

Disqualification merely prevents voters from choosing candidates who, when they
or their proposals are defeated by democratic vote, would take to the streets or
support those who do so to reverse by violence what they could not achieve
through persuasion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/opinion/trump-president-candidate-constitution.html

Disqualifying Trump is no more "disenfranchisement" than would be keeping a 20
year old off the presidential ballot, or keeping someone who is not a natural
born citizen (e.g. Schwarzenegger) off the ballot. You have a right to vote, but
you only have a right to vote for a constitutionally eligible candidate. Keeping
an ineligible candidate off the ballot is not "disenfranchising" anyone.

Disqualifying Trump would not disenfranchise anyone, nor is it the equally bogus
"election interference."

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

[Default] Rudy "Cunt Flaps" Canoza typed:

>Decisions disqualifying Mr. Trump or any other insurrectionist from public

>office would disenfranchise all voters.


Right

[David Hartung]

Trump has done nothing which disqualifies him from being g President.
There was no insurrection, there was no attempt to overthrow the government.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

He tried to steal an election and block the peaceful transfer of power.
That's a high crime deserving of impeachment, removal and
disqualification. But McConnell, after giving a fabulous speech
describing what Trump did, then voted to acquit because Trump was no
longer president so couldn't be removed. McConnell failed to condier the
disqualification punishment which still applied.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

[Default] Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> typed:

>He tried to steal an election and block the peaceful transfer of power.

ROFLMAO!!!!

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Congrats. You are now officially a member of Trump's cult.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

[Default] Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> typed:

>On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> [Default] Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> typed:
>>
>>> He tried to steal an election and block the peaceful transfer of power.
>>
>> ROFLMAO!!!!
>
>Congrats. You are now officially a member of Trump's cult.

You've been officially a dumb ass kool-aid chugging leftist freak for
some time now.

[Lou Bricano]

On 11/29/2023 2:28 PM, David Hartung wrote:

Yes, he has. I've instructed you on this. He incited and engaged in an
insurrection and tried to steal an unearned second term. This is settled.

[Lou Bricano]

The Senate should have convicted him and permanently disqualified him, but
McConnell was too gutless. McConnell is a feckless cunt.

[Lou Bricano]

On 11/29/2023 2:28 PM, David Hartung lied:

> Trump has done nothing which disqualifies him from being g President. There was
> no insurrection, there was no attempt to overthrow the government.

There was an insurrection and an attempted coup. This is settled.

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <ju...@nogood.com> wrote in
news:nlydnVMzl49pJ_r4...@giganews.com:

Bullshit.

The whole point of the fake electors
was to overthrow the government.

[Lou Bricano]

On 11/29/2023 2:28 PM, David Hartung lied:

> Trump has done nothing which disqualifies him from being g President.

That's a lie.

> There was no insurrection, there was no attempt to overthrow the government.

[David Hartung]

A claim many have made, but which has not been proven.

[Lou Bricano]

That's a lie.

>> There was no insurrection, there was no attempt to overthrow the
>> government.

That's a lie.

>>
>
> Bullshit.
>
> The whole point of the fake electors
> was to overthrow the government.

Hartung keeps bleating this stupid lie — "there was no insurrection" — trying to
convince himself. *Absolutely* there was an insurrection, and a lot more, and
Hartung knows it. The entire coordinated effort amounted to a coup attempt.

* insurrection to prevent the certification of Biden's victory in a free, fair
and clean election
* pressure on Pence to chuck out valid electoral votes
* fake electors
* pressure on states to try, fantastically, to get them to "rescind" their
*certified* electoral votes and legislatively appoint electors (impossible)

The entire thing was an attempted coup to try to keep Trump *illegitimately* in
power, and Hartung knows it.

Trump is unfit for office and needs to be kept out. The best constitutional way
is to disqualify him.

[David Hartung]

The Senate was presented with no evidence.

[%]

you're unfit for newsgroups

[David Hartung]

Rudy all you have done is to make unsupported claims, and make yourself
look like an even bigger fool than usual.

[David Hartung]

100% of the time when you claim something is settled, it is far from
being so, and most of the time you are wrong.

[David Hartung]

Once more you demonstrate your ignorance.

[Lou Bricano]

That's a lie. McConnell said there was evidence. The House managers presented
evidence.

Stop lying.

[Lou Bricano]

Fully supported claims.

Your concession of defeat is noted.

[Lou Bricano]

On 11/29/2023 7:39 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 11/29/23 19:28, Lou Bricano wrote:
>> On 11/29/2023 2:28 PM, David Hartung lied:
>>
>>> Trump has done nothing which disqualifies him from being g President. There
>>> was no insurrection, there was no attempt to overthrow the government.
>>
>> There was an insurrection and an attempted coup. This is settled.
>
> 100% of the time when you claim something is settled

It is.

[Lou Bricano]

Concession of defeat noted. You just *will not* learn, will you?


When Hartung is defeated and has nothing meaningful — actually, just nothing,
period — to say, he still feels the need to have the last *meaningless* word.
For that occasion, he uses one of a variety of lie/tropes. They often have some
empty fluff/filler in them as a dependent clause, usually missing the required
comma, and a very high fraction of them mention "ignorance."

What's astonishing is that after dozens of times of having instructed him,
Hartung still hasn't figured out that this is what he's doing: conceding defeat.
So he keeps doing it, over and over again. Hartung really is a dull, plodding
creature of habit. That's why he keeps using the same stupid stale tropes, why
he keeps *misusing* commas (and omitting them when they're needed), and other
indications of his stupidity.

Here is a selection of his concessions of defeat that I have collected. One or
more of these is used at least a few times a week, often several times a day. I
will add to this as they occur.

"More ignorance" 11/06/2023

"You also have demonstrated a lack of critical thinking ability." 10/22/2023

"To deny these fact [sic] is to be deliberately ignorant." 10/11/2023
[With this one, Hartung conceded defeat *preemptively*!]

"More deliberate ignorance from Rudy." 10/11/2023

"And you are ignorant." 10/06/2023

"As usual you have demonstrated complete ignorance." 09/25/2023

"Then you are a fool." 09/23/2023

"More ignorance on your part[inverse Hartung comma] Rudy." 11/16/2022

"the fact that you believe what you said shows ignorance on your part rather
than mine." 10/09/2022

"Anyone who believes that a second Trump term would have resulted in any sort of
dictatorship is either ignorant of [sic] less than intelligent." 10/09/2022

"I guess you are even more ignorant than I have long thought." 10/08/2022

"And you have clearly demonstrated your ignorance." 08/23/2022 18.12 ET
"You are truly ignorant. " 08/23/2022 18.12 ET

Yep — the above two concessions are at the same time!


"Wow, are you truly that ignorant?" 11/15/2021

[The ones for 11/06/2021 occurred over a span of only a few minutes]
"As I said, you demonstrate your ignorance." 11/06/2021
"Those loons do nothing here but demonstrate their ignorance." 11/06/2021
"Your ignorance strikes again." 11/06/2021

"Once again you demonstrate your ignorance." 10/27/2021


[The ones for 07/01/2021 were all within a span of *three minutes*.]
"It appears that I know more than you." 07/01/2021

"You are utterly ignorant." 07/01/2021

"You have no idea of what you speak." 07/01/2021

"Are you truly so ignorant?"

"Your ignorance is obvious."

"Once again you demonstrate your own ignorance."
[does Hartung think I might demonstrate the ignorance of someone else? LOL!]

"Your ignorance is noted."

"Your deliberate ignorance is beyond extraordinary!"

"You are so very gullible."

"And you miss it again." [starts with conjunction – bad English composition]

"As usual, you do not get it."

"Once again you demonstrate your ignorance." [missing comma]

"One more time you demonstrate your ignorance." [missing comma]

"You are truly ignorant."

"the more you post, the more ignorance you demonstrate."

"Both of you are demonstrating your ignorance."

"Get over it."

"Your ignorance is showing."

"You have no idea of what you speak."

"We shall see."

"Your ignorance is truly amazing."

[Josh Rosenbluth]

What more evidence do you need beyond 1) signing off on the the fake
electors, 2) pressuring state officials not to certify the results or
withdraw certifications, 3) pressuring the DOJ to announce there was
fraud, 4) pressuring Pence to not accept the results, and 5) doing
nothing for hours while the riot raged?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

[Default] Rudy "Cunt Flaps" Canoza typed:

>On 11/29/2023 2:28 PM, David Hartung typed:

>

>> There was no insurrection, there was no attempt to overthrow the government.
>

>There was no insurrection and no attempted coup. This is settled.

Correct, "Cunt Flaps"

[Lou Bricano]

The claims about Trump's coup attempt have been fully supported, and Hartung
knows it. He is only trolling.

[David Hartung]

Trump believed, and believes to this day that the Democrats had managed
to steal the election. His actions were consistent with those of a man
who was trying to right a wrong.

[Lou Bricano]

> Trump believed,[Hartung comma] and believes to this day that the Democrats had managed to steal
> the election.

You have no way of knowing what Trump believes. The fact is, *everyone* around
him told him that the election was *not* stolen, that he simply lost it.

It doesn't really matter what he believed. Even if he believed that he had been
cheated, that does not in any way justify him committing *crimes* to try to
remain in power. If you think you've been cheated, you go to court, which Trump
did, where he lost repeatedly, i.e. *every time*. If you lose, you go quietly
and peacefully. You don't start an insurrection — Trump did — and you don't slop
together an unconstitutional scheme to put forth fake electors. You don't call a
secretary of state and ask him to *fabricate* 11,700 votes, given that the votes
had been counted half a dozen times and certified. You don't pressure the vice
president to do something unconstitutional and illegal in counting the electoral
votes. Trump did all of that, and they are crimes. It was an attempted coup.

Trump committed crimes to try to cling to power. You know this. Stop lying about it.

[Rudy Canoza]

This is complete bullshit. Even if Trump truly believed he had been wronged —
and you have no evidence that he believed it, and we have voluminous evidence
that he knew better — you don't right a wrong by committing more wrongs. That's
what Trump was doing.

The compelling evidence is that Trump knew he lost a free, fair and clean
election, but being a crook, he wanted to cheat and steal his way into an
unearned second term. That's what all the evidence shows. And you *know* it, and
we *know* you know it. Being the most hyper-partisan liar in all of Usenet, you
just refuse to admit it. But you know it.

--
Canoza's law: Hartung is the most hyper-partisan liar in all of Usenet

[Governor Swill]

That you disagree with it is proof enough for me. :)

Swill
--
"I don't want everybody to vote. As a matter of fact, our leverage in
the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
- Paul Weyrich, co founder of Heritage Foundation and Moral Majority

Not left, not right, https://www.forwardparty.com/

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

[Governor Swill]

Ditto.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Being delusional is no defense to being disqualified.

[Lou Bricano]

Being delusional is no excuse for committing crimes. Trump committed crimes to
try to stay in office.

Here is an imperfect but useful analogy. There's a man standing outside the
First State Bank of Starkville, and he imagines to himself, "All that money in
the tellers' cash drawers — that's *my* money. I'm going to go inside and take
it." He robs the bank, is caught and prosecuted. At trial, he either testifies
himself or his lawyer tells the jury that he "believed" the money in the bank
belonged to him, even though he had no account with the bank. How far is that
going to go toward acquittal? Nowhere.

In fact, it is not rational to think that Trump could have been as delusional as
Hartung wants to take him to be. Bill Barr, Chris Krebs, Pat Cipollone, Ivanka
and Jared, Bill Stepien, Richard Donoghue, Matt Oczkowski, Alex Cannon,
Kellyanne Conway — *all* of these close Trump advisors told him he lost. Hartung
has no evidence and no reason to believe that Trump told all of them they were
wrong. Hartung is trying to fabricate a delusion defense for Trump. Trump could
not have rationally believed that he was "trying to right a wrong." He *knew* he
lost, and he was trying to steal a second term. Hartung knows this.

[David Hartung]

So you claim.

[Lou Bricano]

The comma is wrong, you illiterate fuckwit.

>>
>> You have no way of knowing what Trump believes. The fact is, *everyone* around
>> him told him that the election was *not* stolen, that he simply lost it.
>>
>> It doesn't really matter what he believed. Even if he believed that he had
>> been cheated, that does not in any way justify him committing *crimes* to try
>> to remain in power. If you think you've been cheated, you go to court, which
>> Trump did, where he lost repeatedly, i.e. *every time*. If you lose, you go
>> quietly and peacefully. You don't start an insurrection — Trump did — and you
>> don't slop together an unconstitutional scheme to put forth fake electors. You
>> don't call a secretary of state and ask him to *fabricate* 11,700 votes, given
>> that the votes had been counted half a dozen times and certified. You don't
>> pressure the vice president to do something unconstitutional and illegal in
>> counting the electoral votes. Trump did all of that, and they are crimes. It
>> was an attempted coup.
>>
>> Trump committed crimes to try to cling to power. You know this. Stop lying
>> about it.
>
> So you claim.

So I have shown, and so *you* know. Stop lying about it.

* inciting insurrection: a crime
* suborning election fraud in Georgia and elsewhere: crimes
* stealing electronic data from Georgia voting machines: crimes
* ordering DoJ lawyers to meddle in state elections: crimes
* ordering slates of fake electors: crimes
* pressuring Pence to engage in illegal and unconstitutional actions: crimes

Trump did all of these, and you know he did. Stop lying about it.

[Governor Swill]

No, he did not believe it and there has already been testimony to the fact.

[Governor Swill]

He did and you're still lying.

[Skeeter]

In article <rGO9N.26239$Ubzd....@fx36.iad>, l...@cap.con says...

>
> Political decisions not to proceed with Section 3 disqualifications for fear of
> violence would undermine the central goal of that constitutional reform. No
> political leader, from Jefferson Davis to Mr. Trump, in the view of those
> responsible for the 14th Amendment, should have his path to public office
> smoothed by the threat of violence should the laws be enforced.
>
> Decisions disqualifying Mr. Trump or any other insurrectionist from public
> office would disenfranchise no voter. Trump supporters remain free to vote for
> any candidate who champions the mix of policies Mr. Trump champions.
>
> Disqualification merely prevents voters from choosing candidates who, when they
> or their proposals are defeated by democratic vote, would take to the streets or
> support those who do so to reverse by violence what they could not achieve
> through persuasion.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/opinion/trump-president-candidate-constitution.html
>
> Disqualifying Trump is no more "disenfranchisement" than would be keeping a 20
> year old off the presidential ballot, or keeping someone who is not a natural
> born citizen (e.g. Schwarzenegger) off the ballot. You have a right to vote, but
> you only have a right to vote for a constitutionally eligible candidate. Keeping
> an ineligible candidate off the ballot is not "disenfranchising" anyone.
>
> Disqualifying Trump would not disenfranchise anyone, nor is it the equally bogus
> "election interference."

Just as long as you can keep him from running. You know Trump can win
you commie bastard.

[Skeeter]

In article <uk8ia2$11gmk$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@nowhere.com says...

>
> On 11/29/2023 2:28 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> > On 11/29/23 16:11, Lou Bricano wrote:

> > Trump has done nothing which disqualifies him from being g President.
> > There was no insurrection, there was no attempt to overthrow the
> > government.
>
> He tried to steal an election and block the peaceful transfer of power.
> That's a high crime deserving of impeachment, removal and
> disqualification. But McConnell, after giving a fabulous speech
> describing what Trump did, then voted to acquit because Trump was no
> longer president so couldn't be removed. McConnell failed to condier the
> disqualification punishment which still applied.

Since Trump wasn't even there.

[Skeeter]

In article <uk8js3$11no7$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@nowhere.com says...
>
> On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> > [Default] Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> typed:

> >
> >> He tried to steal an election and block the peaceful transfer of power.
> >

> > ROFLMAO!!!!
>
> Congrats. You are now officially a member of Trump's cult.

You're the only one talking about him.

[Skeeter]

In article <8vR9N.226874$wvv7....@fx14.iad>, l...@cap.con says...

>
> On 11/29/2023 3:42 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

> The Senate should have convicted him and permanently disqualified him, but
> McConnell was too gutless. McConnell is a feckless cunt.

No, you just failed.

[Skeeter]

In article <sBT9N.35395$rx%7.5...@fx47.iad>, l...@cap.con says...

Where is it?

[Skeeter]

In article <uk957k$1842u$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@nowhere.com says...

What riot?

[Skeeter]

In article <ru1aN.112158$cAm7....@fx18.iad>, l...@cap.con says...

Yet Trump could win this election.

[Skeeter]

In article <Bk2aN.23658$MNN5....@fx09.iad>, l...@cap.con says...

Yet you claim to do.

> The fact is, *everyone* around
> him told him that the election was *not* stolen, that he simply lost it.
>
> It doesn't really matter what he believed. Even if he believed that he had been
> cheated, that does not in any way justify him committing *crimes* to try to
> remain in power. If you think you've been cheated, you go to court, which Trump
> did, where he lost repeatedly, i.e. *every time*. If you lose, you go quietly

> and peacefully. You don't start an insurrection ? Trump did ? and you don't slop

> together an unconstitutional scheme to put forth fake electors. You don't call a
> secretary of state and ask him to *fabricate* 11,700 votes, given that the votes
> had been counted half a dozen times and certified. You don't pressure the vice
> president to do something unconstitutional and illegal in counting the electoral
> votes. Trump did all of that, and they are crimes. It was an attempted coup.
>
> Trump committed crimes to try to cling to power. You know this. Stop lying about it.

He's running high in the polls. Imagine that.

[Skeeter]

In article <a84aN.229145$wvv7....@fx14.iad>, l...@cap.con says...

> >> quietly and peacefully. You don't start an insurrection ? Trump did ? and you

> >> don't slop together an unconstitutional scheme to put forth fake electors. You
> >> don't call a secretary of state and ask him to *fabricate* 11,700 votes, given
> >> that the votes had been counted half a dozen times and certified. You don't
> >> pressure the vice president to do something unconstitutional and illegal in
> >> counting the electoral votes. Trump did all of that, and they are crimes. It
> >> was an attempted coup.
> >>
> >> Trump committed crimes to try to cling to power. You know this. Stop lying
> >> about it.
> >
> > So you claim.
>
> So I have shown, and so *you* know. Stop lying about it.
>
> * inciting insurrection: a crime

No insurrection.

> * suborning election fraud in Georgia and elsewhere: crimes
> * stealing electronic data from Georgia voting machines: crimes

Who did that? With proof.

> * ordering DoJ lawyers to meddle in state elections: crimes

Proof?

> * ordering slates of fake electors: crimes
> * pressuring Pence to engage in illegal and unconstitutional actions: crimes

Never happened.

>
> Trump did all of these, and you know he did. Stop lying about it.

Yet no one can prove it.

[Skeeter]

In article <j49imiluvgst405ha...@4ax.com>,
governo...@gmail.com says...

> >> insurrection ? Trump did ? and you don't slop together an

> >> unconstitutional scheme to put forth fake electors. You don't call a
> >> secretary of state and ask him to *fabricate* 11,700 votes, given that
> >> the votes had been counted half a dozen times and certified. You don't
> >> pressure the vice president to do something unconstitutional and illegal
> >> in counting the electoral votes. Trump did all of that, and they are
> >> crimes. It was an attempted coup.
> >>
> >> Trump committed crimes to try to cling to power. You know this. Stop
> >> lying about it.
> >
> >So you claim.
>
> He did and you're still lying.
>
> Swill

Yet no proof.

[Skeeter]

In article <vs2aN.154242$_Oab....@fx15.iad>, rc.@hendrie.con says...

> This is complete bullshit. Even if Trump truly believed he had been wronged ?

> and you have no evidence that he believed it, and we have voluminous evidence

> that he knew better ? you don't right a wrong by committing more wrongs. That's

> what Trump was doing.
>
> The compelling evidence is that Trump knew he lost a free, fair and clean
> election, but being a crook, he wanted to cheat and steal his way into an
> unearned second term. That's what all the evidence shows. And you *know* it, and
> we *know* you know it. Being the most hyper-partisan liar in all of Usenet, you
> just refuse to admit it. But you know it.

and he's still above Joe in the polls. 81 million votes my ass.

[Skeeter]

In article <ukae7g$1ebr3$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@nowhere.com says...

Then why is Joe still in office?

[Skeeter]

In article <0fehmihma9ad77urf...@4ax.com>,
governo...@gmail.com says...

That's how a liberal works. Hmmm.

[Skeeter]

In article <VrR9N.83802$qqwd....@fx42.iad>, l...@cap.con says...

>
> On 11/29/2023 2:28 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> > On 11/29/23 16:11, Lou Bricano wrote:
> >> Political decisions not to proceed with Section 3 disqualifications for fear
> >> of violence would undermine the central goal of that constitutional reform. No
> >> political leader, from Jefferson Davis to Mr. Trump, in the view of those
> >> responsible for the 14th Amendment, should have his path to public office
> >> smoothed by the threat of violence should the laws be enforced.
> >>
> >> Decisions disqualifying Mr. Trump or any other insurrectionist from public
> >> office would disenfranchise no voter. Trump supporters remain free to vote for
> >> any candidate who champions the mix of policies Mr. Trump champions.
> >>
> >> Disqualification merely prevents voters from choosing candidates who, when
> >> they or their proposals are defeated by democratic vote, would take to the
> >> streets or support those who do so to reverse by violence what they could not
> >> achieve through persuasion.
> >>
> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/opinion/trump-president-candidate-constitution.html
> >>
> >> Disqualifying Trump is no more "disenfranchisement" than would be keeping a 20
> >> year old off the presidential ballot, or keeping someone who is not a natural
> >> born citizen (e.g. Schwarzenegger) off the ballot. You have a right to vote,
> >> but you only have a right to vote for a constitutionally eligible candidate.
> >> Keeping an ineligible candidate off the ballot is not "disenfranchising" anyone.
> >>
> >> Disqualifying Trump would not disenfranchise anyone, nor is it the equally
> >> bogus "election interference."
> >
> > Trump has done nothing which disqualifies him from being g President.
>

> Yes, he has. I've instructed you on this. He incited and engaged in an
> insurrection and tried to steal an unearned second term. This is settled.

No insurrection. "Go peacefully" and he wasn't even there.


You lose.

[Skeeter]

In article <UyR9N.23625$MNN5...@fx09.iad>, l...@cap.con says...
>
> On 11/29/2023 2:28 PM, David Hartung lied:

>
> > Trump has done nothing which disqualifies him from being g President. There was
> > no insurrection, there was no attempt to overthrow the government.
>

> There was an insurrection and an attempted coup. This is settled.

No charges for either.

[Skeeter]

In article <XnsB0CBCB61D1AB1...@69.80.101.49>,
noe...@verizon.net says...

>
> David Hartung <ju...@nogood.com> wrote in
> news:nlydnVMzl49pJ_r4...@giganews.com:
>

> > Trump has done nothing which disqualifies him from being g President.
> > There was no insurrection, there was no attempt to overthrow the
> > government.
> >
>

> Bullshit.
>
> The whole point of the fake electors
> was to overthrow the government.

Never happened.

[Skeeter]

In article <arT9N.226876$wvv7....@fx14.iad>, l...@cap.con says...

> That's a lie.

>
> >> There was no insurrection, there was no attempt to overthrow the
> >> government.
>

> That's a lie.

>
> >>
> >
> > Bullshit.
> >
> > The whole point of the fake electors
> > was to overthrow the government.
>

> Hartung keeps bleating this stupid lie ? "there was no insurrection" ? trying to
> convince himself. *Absolutely* there was an insurrection, and a lot more, and
> Hartung knows it. The entire coordinated effort amounted to a coup attempt.
>
> * insurrection to prevent the certification of Biden's victory in a free, fair
> and clean election
> * pressure on Pence to chuck out valid electoral votes
> * fake electors
> * pressure on states to try, fantastically, to get them to "rescind" their
> *certified* electoral votes and legislatively appoint electors (impossible)
>
> The entire thing was an attempted coup to try to keep Trump *illegitimately* in
> power, and Hartung knows it.
>
> Trump is unfit for office and needs to be kept out. The best constitutional way
> is to disqualify him.

You mean to keep him from running because you know he can win. That's
election interference.

[Skeeter]

In article <bzCdnRR66p47nvX4...@giganews.com>, pursent100
@gmail.com says...

> you're unfit for newsgroups

i wouldn't let around the homeless camps, they deserve better

[Skeeter]

In article <tiT9N.161403$Ee89...@fx17.iad>, l...@cap.con says...

>
> On 11/29/2023 2:28 PM, David Hartung lied:
>

> > Trump has done nothing which disqualifies him from being g President.
>
> That's a lie.
>
> > There was no insurrection, there was no attempt to overthrow the government.
>

> There was an insurrection and an attempted coup. This is settled.

Yet no charges.

[pothead]

On 2023-12-01, Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:
> In article <uk8ia2$11gmk$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@nowhere.com says...
>>
>> On 11/29/2023 2:28 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> > On 11/29/23 16:11, Lou Bricano wrote:
>> >> Political decisions not to proceed with Section 3 disqualifications
>> >> for fear of violence would undermine the central goal of that
>> >> constitutional reform. No political leader, from Jefferson Davis to
>> >> Mr. Trump, in the view of those responsible for the 14th Amendment,
>> >> should have his path to public office smoothed by the threat of
>> >> violence should the laws be enforced.
>> >>
>> >> Decisions disqualifying Mr. Trump or any other insurrectionist from
>> >> public office would disenfranchise no voter. Trump supporters remain
>> >> free to vote for any candidate who champions the mix of policies Mr.
>> >> Trump champions.
>> >>
>> >> Disqualification merely prevents voters from choosing candidates who,

>> >> when they or their proposals are defeated by democratic vote, would don't disagree with that
at all.
Colin Powell is correct

>> >> take to the streets or support those who do so to reverse by violence
>> >> what they could not achieve through persuasion.
>> >>
>> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/opinion/trump-president-candidate-constitution.html
>> >>
>> >> Disqualifying Trump is no more "disenfranchisement" than would be
>> >> keeping a 20 year old off the presidential ballot, or keeping someone
>> >> who is not a natural born citizen (e.g. Schwarzenegger) off the
>> >> ballot. You have a right to vote, but you only have a right to vote
>> >> for a constitutionally eligible candidate. Keeping an ineligible
>> >> candidate off the ballot is not "disenfranchising" anyone.
>> >>
>> >> Disqualifying Trump would not disenfranchise anyone, nor is it the
>> >> equally bogus "election interference."
>> >
>> > Trump has done nothing which disqualifies him from being g President.
>> > There was no insurrection, there was no attempt to overthrow the
>> > government.
>>
>> He tried to steal an election and block the peaceful transfer of power.
>> That's a high crime deserving of impeachment, removal and
>> disqualification. But McConnell, after giving a fabulous speech
>> describing what Trump did, then voted to acquit because Trump was no
>> longer president so couldn't be removed. McConnell failed to condier the
>> disqualification punishment which still applied.
>
> Since Trump wasn't even there.

From what I have read, when the facts come out it's going to get interesting.
For example, Trump did say something like "march peacefully and patriotically over the capitol and
make your voices heard".
But of course he was also lashing out for weeks before claiming the election was stolen, which it
was by the corrupt FBI working with social media and the MSM to bury the Hunter laptop and ban
conservatives reporting on it.

Anther contested item is, did Trump indeed request from Pelosi to call out the National Guard?
Remains to be proven.

And lastly what do the released videos show?
Were there FBI or other plants in the crowd pretending to be MAGA people?
Remains to be proven.

--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024.
Crazy Joe Biden Is A Demented Imbecile.
Impeach Joe Biden 2022.

[Governor Swill]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 23:14:24 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pot...@snakebite.com> wrote:

>On 2023-12-01, Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:
>> In article <uk8ia2$11gmk$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@nowhere.com says...

<snip>

>>> He tried to steal an election and block the peaceful transfer of power.
>>> That's a high crime deserving of impeachment, removal and
>>> disqualification. But McConnell, after giving a fabulous speech
>>> describing what Trump did, then voted to acquit because Trump was no
>>> longer president so couldn't be removed. McConnell failed to condier the
>>> disqualification punishment which still applied.
>>
>> Since Trump wasn't even there.
>
>From what I have read, when the facts come out it's going to get interesting.
>For example, Trump did say something like "march peacefully and patriotically over the capitol and
>make your voices heard".

He also said, "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to
have a country anymore."

and

"States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information. They
voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice President Pence has
to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the
happiest people."

>But of course he was also lashing out for weeks before claiming the election was stolen, which it
>was by the corrupt FBI working with social media and the MSM to bury the Hunter laptop and ban
>conservatives reporting on it.

*yawn*

>Anther contested item is,

If by "contested" you mean, "it makes Trump look bad so I refuse to believe it."

>did Trump indeed request from Pelosi to call out the National Guard?
>Remains to be proven.
>
>And lastly what do the released videos show?
>Were there FBI or other plants in the crowd pretending to be MAGA people?

Republicans: "If it was only Magas, it wasn't an insurrection."

Also Republicans: "If there were government plants egging them on, yes, it was an
insurrection."

>Remains to be proven.

*laughs and points*

[Phil Omdahl]

On 12/1/2023 8:22 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 23:14:24 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pot...@snakebite.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-12-01, Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:
>>> In article <uk8ia2$11gmk$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@nowhere.com says...
> <snip>
>>>> He tried to steal an election and block the peaceful transfer of power.
>>>> That's a high crime deserving of impeachment, removal and
>>>> disqualification. But McConnell, after giving a fabulous speech
>>>> describing what Trump did, then voted to acquit because Trump was no
>>>> longer president so couldn't be removed. McConnell failed to condier the
>>>> disqualification punishment which still applied.
>>>
>>> Since Trump wasn't even there.
>>
>>From what I have read, when the facts come out it's going to get interesting.
>> For example, Trump did say something like "march peacefully and patriotically over the capitol and
>> make your voices heard".
>
> He also said, "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to
> have a country anymore."
>
> and
>
> "States want to revote.

No "states" expressed any interest in "revoting." There is no mechanism for a

"revote."

> The states got defrauded.

They were not. That's a Trump lie.

> They were given false information.

They were not. They counted their votes in the election, and certified the results.

> They voted on it.

The states voted on it when they conducted their elections.

> Now they want to recertify.

That's a Trump lie.

> They want it back.

That's a Trump lie, and there is no constitutional mechanism for getting
anything "back."

> All Vice President Pence has
> to do is send it back to the states

Pence had no constitutional authority to do that.


> to recertify

There was nothing to "recertify," and no mechanism for doing so. Trump was
talking out his asshole, as he always does.

> and we become president and you are the happiest people."

Trump was attempting a coup.

>
>> But of course he was also lashing out for weeks before claiming the election was stolen, which it
>> was

It was not. The election was not stolen. Trump was *attempting* to steal it.

>
> *yawn*
>
>> Anther contested item is,
>
> If by "contested" you mean, "it makes Trump look bad so I refuse to believe it."
>
>> did Trump indeed request from Pelosi to call out the National Guard?

No.

>> Remains to be proven.

No. That's a bullshit lie. Pelosi did *not* refuse an "offer" from Trump for
National Guard troops — there was *no* such offer. Trump lied about that.

>>
>> And lastly what do the released videos show?
>> Were there FBI or other plants in the crowd pretending to be MAGA people?

No. There is *zero* evidence of that.

[Max Boot]

On 11/29/2023 7:36 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 11/29/23 17:42, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>> On 11/29/2023 2:28 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 11/29/23 16:11, Lou Bricano wrote:
>>>> Political decisions not to proceed with Section 3 disqualifications for fear
>>>> of violence would undermine the central goal of that constitutional reform.
>>>> No political leader, from Jefferson Davis to Mr. Trump, in the view of those
>>>> responsible for the 14th Amendment, should have his path to public office
>>>> smoothed by the threat of violence should the laws be enforced.
>>>>
>>>> Decisions disqualifying Mr. Trump or any other insurrectionist from public
>>>> office would disenfranchise no voter. Trump supporters remain free to vote
>>>> for any candidate who champions the mix of policies Mr. Trump champions.
>>>>
>>>> Disqualification merely prevents voters from choosing candidates who, when

>>>> they or their proposals are defeated by democratic vote, would take to the

>>>> streets or support those who do so to reverse by violence what they could
>>>> not achieve through persuasion.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/opinion/trump-president-candidate-constitution.html
>>>>
>>>> Disqualifying Trump is no more "disenfranchisement" than would be keeping a
>>>> 20 year old off the presidential ballot, or keeping someone who is not a
>>>> natural born citizen (e.g. Schwarzenegger) off the ballot. You have a right
>>>> to vote, but you only have a right to vote for a constitutionally eligible
>>>> candidate. Keeping an ineligible candidate off the ballot is not
>>>> "disenfranchising" anyone.
>>>>
>>>> Disqualifying Trump would not disenfranchise anyone, nor is it the equally
>>>> bogus "election interference."
>>>
>>> Trump has done nothing which disqualifies him from being g President. There
>>> was no insurrection, there was no attempt to overthrow the government.
>>

>> He tried to steal an election and block the peaceful transfer of power. That's
>> a high crime deserving of impeachment, removal and disqualification. But
>> McConnell, after giving a fabulous speech describing what Trump did, then
>> voted to acquit because Trump was no longer president so couldn't be removed.
>> McConnell failed to condier the disqualification punishment which still applied.
>

> A claim many have made,

And proved.

[Max Boot]

On 11/29/2023 2:28 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 11/29/23 16:11, Lou Bricano wrote:
>> Political decisions not to proceed with Section 3 disqualifications for fear
>> of violence would undermine the central goal of that constitutional reform. No
>> political leader, from Jefferson Davis to Mr. Trump, in the view of those
>> responsible for the 14th Amendment, should have his path to public office
>> smoothed by the threat of violence should the laws be enforced.
>>
>> Decisions disqualifying Mr. Trump or any other insurrectionist from public
>> office would disenfranchise no voter. Trump supporters remain free to vote for
>> any candidate who champions the mix of policies Mr. Trump champions.
>>
>> Disqualification merely prevents voters from choosing candidates who, when
>> they or their proposals are defeated by democratic vote, would take to the
>> streets or support those who do so to reverse by violence what they could not
>> achieve through persuasion.
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/opinion/trump-president-candidate-constitution.html
>>
>> Disqualifying Trump is no more "disenfranchisement" than would be keeping a 20
>> year old off the presidential ballot, or keeping someone who is not a natural
>> born citizen (e.g. Schwarzenegger) off the ballot. You have a right to vote,
>> but you only have a right to vote for a constitutionally eligible candidate.
>> Keeping an ineligible candidate off the ballot is not "disenfranchising" anyone.
>>
>> Disqualifying Trump would not disenfranchise anyone, nor is it the equally
>> bogus "election interference."
>
> Trump has done nothing which disqualifies him from being g President.

Trump incited and participated in an insurrection, and engaged in numerous other
criminal acts to try to steal a second term. Trump is disqualified from being
president, or any other office.

[Skeeter]

In article <aO9eN.9989$xHn7...@fx14.iad>, max....@lathymes.com
says...

No charges.

[Max Boot]

On 12/13/2023 7:33 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

91 charges. Trump is guilty of all of them.

[Max Boot]

On 12/13/2023 8:14 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <HdkeN.29125$yEgf....@fx09.iad>, max....@lathymes.com
> says...

> No insurrection.

There was, of course, an insurrection, and Trump organized, financed, directed,
incited and participated in it. Trump is guilty.

[Max Boot]

On 12/13/2023 8:58 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <meleN.15139$xHn7....@fx14.iad>, max....@lathymes.com

> No proof

Mountains of proof.

[Max Boot]

On 12/13/2023 9:44 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <U0meN.8215$vFZa...@fx13.iad>, max....@lathymes.com

> None and

*Mountains* of proof. This is settled.

[Max Boot]

On 12/13/2023 10:28 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <RvmeN.7916$Iswd...@fx05.iad>, max....@lathymes.com

> Let's see it.

You've already seen it. You know Trump is guilty. You've admitted it.

[Max Boot]

On 12/13/2023 12:24 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <YKneN.29199$yEgf...@fx09.iad>, max....@lathymes.com

> This is how Rudy kicks my flabby doughy pimply ass.

Right.