mspart

Again, it is opinion that Trump did all this. His rights are being taken away without due process and being charged with a crime. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/us/politics/indictment-trump-jan-6-violence.html The Charges That Were Notably Absent From the Trump Indictment An indictment this week did not accuse former President Donald Trump of inciting the mob that attacked the Capitol, but it did show that some close to him knew violence might be coming. There was something noticeably absent when the special counsel, Jack Smith, unsealed an indictment this week charging former President Donald J. Trump with multiple conspiracies to overturn the 2020 election: any count that directly accused Mr. Trump of being responsible for the violence his supporters committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The indictment asserted that as violence erupted that day, Mr. Trump “exploited the disruption,” using it to further his goal of stopping the certification of his loss in the election. But it stopped short of charging him with actually encouraging or inciting the mob that stormed the building, chasing lawmakers from their duties. And that last sentence is the issue at hand. Not even the DOJ has gone as far as CO supreme court. The DOJ in their reasonable judicial analysis decided not to charge because they could not prove it. The CO supreme court in their reasonable judicial analysis decided to strip Trump of being on the ticket because they could just say he did something the DOJ is not willing to try in court. Yes, the optics do not just seem bad, they are bad. mspart

I read a little, I watch the market. Who saw yesterday coming? No one. Not the experts. Everyone was saying the bull continues to run when the big bad bear swatted him a good one. mspart

buy high sell low. That's the rule I mostly follow! mspart

To your 1st paragraph, no it is not the same situation at all. Sorry that is confusing. Are you saying it is a judgement call that a person is a citizen or 35 years old? Those 3 point, are objective things that there is no debate about. Period. Whether Trump incited an insurrection or not is a judgement issue, not objective truth. The CO court saying he did is essentially convicting him without judicial due process. And that is objective truth. To your 2nd paragraph, a trial was held and found Trump guilty of insurrection. Yet he was not charged at said trial and was not present at said trial. Apparently you don't see anything wrong with that but that action is antithetical to what the justice system is supposed to be about. Essentially Trump was deprived of getting his name on the ballot without due process because 4 of 7 justices "think" he was involved in an insurrection and made that decision without a trial specifically for that purpose. Due process is protected in the 5th amendment. mspart

I'm for more wrestling, but I see your point about wear and tear. It just seems to me that wrestling real matches gets the rust of better. But perhaps, they take care of that in practice. The top keeps being at the top. Snyder seems to be an exception here, he wrestles through the year. mspart

I only really look at my 401k. It starts to go down over a period of time I get stuff out of the market. When the market picks back up for a period of time, I get back in. Hopefully not buying high and selling low in the process. It has worked for me so far. Playing with fire though I know. mspart

I would have bet on the market by the early indicators today. But I would have been wrong. Tanked in the last hours. Like I said, buy high sell low, that's the way to go. mspart

This. Or similar the next election. This is not the direction we want our country to go in. Granted, CO is a D state and most likely would not vote for Trump in the general election, so it might be a moot point. But this is not the way we should be running elections. That is what the primaries are for, to weed out the weak and allow the top guy or gal to be the nominee of the party. Ohio Elite has it correct. None of us want to know what will happen if this CO decision stands. It will not be pretty. mspart

Why would he not have entered US Nationals? That just seems weird to me. He was at the US Open in Apr 2023. Zane beat him in the finals. But he was in the finals. Why not qualify for OTTs by entering the US Nationals? mspart

You want predictions? Come to me. Buy high sell low is my mantra!! mspart

mspart

Ok, everyone knows where I stand. The CO decision is wrong and I hope SCOTUS reverses it. Not just for Trump and CO, but for the country as the precedent will be set and there will be other attempts to keep the "bad" guy whether Trump or anyone else off the ballot. I again say that I don't want Trump as President, but what is happening to him is unprecedented in our country and this CO case is a very strange attempt indeed. OK, I have said enough here. I will pause for a time before responding to anyone else on this. mspart

Ok, so then you agree Biden could be kept off the ballot say in TX, or AL, or OK etc and that would be perfectly sound legal reasoning. That is a one for one example of what has happened to Trump, which you call perfectly sound legal reasoning. What are the consequences down the line if such a sound legal reasoning such as this CO decision is allowed to stand? Yeah, because it is the same thing. There are allegations against Biden corruption man. There are only allegations against Trump. They are in the same boat and if this CO decision stands, watch out! It will not be the last time this year that an attempt is made to keep someone off the ballot. mspart

I think it is the opinion of many people that Trump led an insurrection. It is my opinion that he did not. He is on video saying that they should peacefully let Congress hear their voices. He did not tell them to break down doors. He did not tell them to go in with weapons (which they didn't), he did not tell them to kill anyone (which they didn't), and he did not tell them to overthrow the government that is his government (which they didn't). So no, I do not think it was an insurrection and I don't think Trump led the activities that happened after his speech. And there has been no court case trying to establish that. You don't have to be a credentialed legal scholar to know a hose job when you see one. Again, would it be permissible to keep Biden off the ballot due to merely someone's allegation of corruption? I think you would say No and I would say the same. But it is different when the name is Trump. mspart

There are lots of allegations made by lots of people against lots of people. There is nothing legal regarding this case that Trump was involved in an insurrection. Name the court case. There is none. So the CO supremes made the decision that Trump did this with no underlying court cases to show evidence that he did. It is just as bad of reasoning as Biden and corruption which you just said should not happen. There are lots of people alleging it and that seems to be your threshold here. That's what I'm doing right now. mspart

There you have said it. Bad thing to do to Biden. There is a lot of evidence but no court case. Nothing legally done about it, just like Trump. Trump was not found on video in the capitol that day. He made a speech, told them to peacefully march on the capitol (that is on video too). If it is bad to do to Biden, it is bad to do to Trump. But according to you, a court could keep Biden off the court for this corruption and it would be perfectly rational legal reasoning to do so. Bullocks to that. mspart

This means the people understand that the courts will abide by the law, not make up things to go with what they want to happen. They made up that Trump was part of an insurrection. There is no court case that makes that allegation. So they made up their minds on their own. That does not comport to democracy and this is a terrible precedent for judicial review. I do not want Trump to be President. But this is a railroading of a candidate that has never happened before in the history of our nation. Bad precedent to set. mspart

Yes, they waited until it was an emergency issue that has very little time to get weighed. Perhaps the SCOTUS can't take it up in time to allow Trump on the ballot. But where here do the people of Colorado get a say? That is democracy. Democracy is government by the voice of the people. A republic is where the people vote in representatives that have the time to consider such things. Did this go before the CO legislature? No. So the people either in a democracy or republic did not have a say. I would be shocked if the SCOTUS allows this as it sets a new precedence that candidates can willy nilly be kept off a ballot if the courts agree. And now that is judicial political activism. Something I don't think anyone wants to see. mspart

Please answer the question I asked you. I don't care that you are fine the what SCOTUS does, I asked a very similar question that I would like you to respond to. mspart

It is when there is no remedy readily available. This was timed such there is very little time to get this reversed. There is no time for the people to have a say in this. That is demonstrably not democratic. mspart

So you would be happy if a court keeps Biden off the ballot for corruption. There is ample evidence of it but no case has been made about it. But any court can just say it because that is sound legal reasoning? mspart

So based on zero evidence, zero judicial review, and zero convictions, a court can legally say anyone did anything they want to. That does not sound like perfectly sound legal reasoning. That sounds like an authoritative and statist kind of thing. We definitely need more of this sound legal reasoning in our courts today. This is why the optics look terrible on this. It is a case where a court can say a person did something with no evidence, or judicial cases making that claim. They just came up with it out of thin air. Sound legal reasoning? Yeah right. mspart

Trump has not be charged with insurrection other than the rushed impeachment in 2021. The Senate acquitted him of that. In no other place has he been anything other than charged or opined to have been a part of an insurrection. The High court in CO decided that he was part of an insurrection and therefore disqualified. I think SCOTUS gets this and asks this very question and and votes to disallow the CO courts ruling. The optics of this look bad because it is a brazen attempt to keep someone off the ballot and using any explanation for it. The ruling should hold no water at SCOTUS. The reasoning is suspect and not legal. If SCOTUS allows this then it will be a real problem. mspart

That's an insurrectionist!!! Look at the weapon he is wielding. And look at the other hoodlums with guns galore. Yep, this was an insurrection. msaprt

As you noted, it is a few people that did this. That is not democracy, that is judicial rule. Democracy is people voting. Did the people of CO vote to keep Trump off the ballot? The answer to that is NO. But that would be democracy. mspart