A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot based on the claim that he is constitutionally barred from office because of the January 6 insurrection.
you’re effectively admitting that the POTUS is not included.
No. Incorrect. Not at all what I’m saying. The POTUS was very much included in the language here:
or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but the presidency is a civil office in the United States. So yeah. They specifically included the president. They just didn’t enumerate that office because the president at the time was not a traitor.
It’s like… say your little brother (let’s call him Andrew) steals your money. Say you’re pretty pissed off about this, and you say something to the effect of “God damn it, Andrew! You are not allowed to take my money! I will not tolerate thievery!”
You’re effectively saying that by uttering that phrase, you’d be 100% ok with your little sister Sally stealing the money instead because you didn’t specifically list her by name. Sure, she was covered under the whole “I will not tolerate thievery” bit, but your dumbass argument says that since you didn’t call out Sally by name, she can totally steal your shit. Do you see how imbecilic that is?
You accused me of holding a position because I refuse to admit I am wrong.
Again, incorrect. I listed that as one of the two possibilities. The other possibility, of course, is that you’re dumb. Because really, the position you’re arguing is so mind-numbingly stupid that there are really only two possibilities here: you’re dumb enough to actually believe it, or you’re too stubborn to admit you’re wrong. So, you know… arguing that you are anything but stubborn really pushes this towards just the one remaining possibility… The good news, though is that you probably have a promising career as a district court judge in Colorado ahead of you.
you abandoned debating positions in favor of insulting
Buddy, this isn’t a debate. This is someone explaining to a small child that you shouldn’t stick a fork in a light socket. I’m not debating the merits of not getting shocked with the kid; I’m telling him that sticking the fork in the light socket is a really stupid idea. Sorry if I get frustrated when you keep trying to jam the fork in there anyway.
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but the presidency is a civil office in the United States.
You’re just reiterating an earlier point which, when challenged with a question, was answered with a claim that they didn’t include the POTUS because they couldn’t fathom the POTUS being the bad-guy. Which I demonstrated as ridiculous, in-and-of-itself (and you completely ignored, BTW), but also how it defeats your own point. You’re chasing your own tail around here.
Again, incorrect. I listed that as one of the two possibilities.
Fair point, I stand corrected.
Sorry if I get frustrated when you keep trying to jam the fork in there anyway.
You don’t have to apologize to me as you’re frustration is not with me, but yourself.
Ok, hey - this has been fun and all. But um… we’re running into a bit of a brick wall here. See, you think you’ve demonstrated something that you haven’t. You think that two completely separate points I’ve made are the same thing. You think you’re actually making cogent, non-insane points. Etc.
Basically, you’re just a frustrating pile of wrong. And not, like, little wrong things, either. Huge, flashing, fuck-off wrong things. And as much as I’ve enjoyed repeatedly replying to you and saying essentially the same thing over and over, I am aware that that falls under that apocryphal definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
So yeah. I’m going to just stop responding to you now, and probably take a couple of headache pills. I’m sure you’ve got plenty of people in your life you can frustrate instead.
No. Incorrect. Not at all what I’m saying. The POTUS was very much included in the language here:
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but the presidency is a civil office in the United States. So yeah. They specifically included the president. They just didn’t enumerate that office because the president at the time was not a traitor.
It’s like… say your little brother (let’s call him Andrew) steals your money. Say you’re pretty pissed off about this, and you say something to the effect of “God damn it, Andrew! You are not allowed to take my money! I will not tolerate thievery!”
You’re effectively saying that by uttering that phrase, you’d be 100% ok with your little sister Sally stealing the money instead because you didn’t specifically list her by name. Sure, she was covered under the whole “I will not tolerate thievery” bit, but your dumbass argument says that since you didn’t call out Sally by name, she can totally steal your shit. Do you see how imbecilic that is?
Again, incorrect. I listed that as one of the two possibilities. The other possibility, of course, is that you’re dumb. Because really, the position you’re arguing is so mind-numbingly stupid that there are really only two possibilities here: you’re dumb enough to actually believe it, or you’re too stubborn to admit you’re wrong. So, you know… arguing that you are anything but stubborn really pushes this towards just the one remaining possibility… The good news, though is that you probably have a promising career as a district court judge in Colorado ahead of you.
Buddy, this isn’t a debate. This is someone explaining to a small child that you shouldn’t stick a fork in a light socket. I’m not debating the merits of not getting shocked with the kid; I’m telling him that sticking the fork in the light socket is a really stupid idea. Sorry if I get frustrated when you keep trying to jam the fork in there anyway.
You’re just reiterating an earlier point which, when challenged with a question, was answered with a claim that they didn’t include the POTUS because they couldn’t fathom the POTUS being the bad-guy. Which I demonstrated as ridiculous, in-and-of-itself (and you completely ignored, BTW), but also how it defeats your own point. You’re chasing your own tail around here.
Fair point, I stand corrected.
You don’t have to apologize to me as you’re frustration is not with me, but yourself.
Ok, hey - this has been fun and all. But um… we’re running into a bit of a brick wall here. See, you think you’ve demonstrated something that you haven’t. You think that two completely separate points I’ve made are the same thing. You think you’re actually making cogent, non-insane points. Etc.
Basically, you’re just a frustrating pile of wrong. And not, like, little wrong things, either. Huge, flashing, fuck-off wrong things. And as much as I’ve enjoyed repeatedly replying to you and saying essentially the same thing over and over, I am aware that that falls under that apocryphal definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
So yeah. I’m going to just stop responding to you now, and probably take a couple of headache pills. I’m sure you’ve got plenty of people in your life you can frustrate instead.
It was only a matter of time before you went back to just insults. Have a good night.