UJRefugees.net

dot wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 7:56 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 11:18 pm There is no court case. You said there is. I said show me it. That is literally trying to discuss the facts. You just aren't providing any

Is the disingenuity spreading? You just refusing to operate in good faith now? You are fully aware of the facts, but you're having to pretend you're not being provided any. Anderson v. Griswold, what is the factual finding that was not refuted, that has already been noted here in this thread? Now you already know this, so I'm just curious why Mr. Both Sides™ is hell bent on denying it.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 1:58 am Good Lord, there is literally no caveat. None. Zero. Start anywhere you'd like.

That's the thing, it's in your court. If there's no caveat, then why haven't you begun already? Like I said, Animal didn't need to hem and haw like you do. This disingenuous shtick is of your doing, I'm not keeping you from engaging. Begin or sit down, hack.

necronomous wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 2:16 pm I guess dot is admitting that our judicial system is flawless and never gets anything wrong. There goes their argument for systemic racism.

Disingenuous it is. Looks like the hack has someone gunning for his title.

Ok, lets talk about the texts. Do you have anything new to add to the already known information?

necronomous wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 12:27 am So as I have said, there is no case where he has been charged and convicted of insurrection.

And as the court has said, there's a finding of fact unrefuted that he incited insurrection against the country. Until you recognize reality and can address that, bad faith Both Sides™ has no lines in this play.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 2:07 am Ok, lets talk about the texts. Do you have anything new to add to the already known information?

It's been months. Stop your handwringing, grow some balls, and address the facts of the January 6 insurrection already. You have two separate definitions to work with, the facts and plots are known, the only thing keeping hack from it is hack's reluctance to begin and commit.

dot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 8:08 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 12:27 am So as I have said, there is no case where he has been charged and convicted of insurrection.

And as the court has said, there's a finding of fact unrefuted that he incited insurrection against the country. Until you recognize reality and can address that, bad faith Both Sides™ has no lines in this play.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 2:07 am Ok, lets talk about the texts. Do you have anything new to add to the already known information?

It's been months. Stop your handwringing, grow some balls, and address the facts of the January 6 insurrection already. You have two separate definitions to work with, the facts and plots are known, the only thing keeping hack from it is hack's reluctance to begin and commit.

Holy shit. You still cant. Youre such a fucking hack.
You wanted me to start so here it is: Lets talk about the texts from on and around January 6th. Do you have anything new to add to the already known information?
Lets watch the cowardice and Dodgin' commence!

dot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 8:08 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 12:27 am So as I have said, there is no case where he has been charged and convicted of insurrection.

And as the court has said, there's a finding of fact unrefuted that he incited insurrection against the country. Until you recognize reality and can address that, bad faith Both Sides™ has no lines in this play.

actually, the finding of that judge (court) is the exact basis of the unanimous finding by the Supreme Court that the judge (and the court) were wrong. Stupid.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 8:43 pm Holy shit. You still cant. Youre such a fucking hack.

There has been nothing to stop you from day 1. Inviting you to begin is not dodging, it's giving you the green light and you're still at the starting line. This exchange began at the end of December and literally you are still wobbling about what to talk about in regards to the insurrection. Just begin already, no one else has taken just shy of 3 months to state something concrete since... well you, on the supposed crimes of Joe Biden. Grow. Some. Balls. Hack.

Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 8:44 pm actually, the finding of that judge (court) is the exact basis of the unanimous finding by the Supreme Court that the judge (and the court) were wrong. Stupid.

Except what they found is states don't have the authority to keep anyone off the ballot, that only Congress can do that, flawed as their decision is. What they didn't find, even the bought and paid for justices, was that Trump did not incite insurrection. They did not reverse the factual finding of what he did. He asked them to do that, to exonerate him. They didn't or wouldn't, take your pick. Stupid indeed, mental midget.

dot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 8:08 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 12:27 am So as I have said, there is no case where he has been charged and convicted of insurrection.

And as the court has said, there's a finding of fact unrefuted that he incited insurrection against the country. Until you recognize reality and can address that, bad faith Both Sides™ has no lines in this play.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 2:07 am Ok, lets talk about the texts. Do you have anything new to add to the already known information?

It's been months. Stop your handwringing, grow some balls, and address the facts of the January 6 insurrection already. You have two separate definitions to work with, the facts and plots are known, the only thing keeping hack from it is hack's reluctance to begin and commit.

As fact, but has not been charged with an insurrection or treason. A corrupt court gave a shitty opinion. Whoopty doo

dot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 10:08 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 8:43 pm Holy shit. You still cant. Youre such a fucking hack.

There has been nothing to stop you from day 1. Inviting you to begin is not dodging, it's giving you the green light and you're still at the starting line. This exchange began at the end of December and literally you are still wobbling about what to talk about in regards to the insurrection. Just begin already, no one else has taken just shy of 3 months to state something concrete since... well you, on the supposed crimes of Joe Biden. Grow. Some. Balls. Hack.

Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 8:44 pm actually, the finding of that judge (court) is the exact basis of the unanimous finding by the Supreme Court that the judge (and the court) were wrong. Stupid.

Except what they found is states don't have the authority to keep anyone off the ballot, that only Congress can do that, flawed as their decision is. What they didn't find, even the bought and paid for justices, was that Trump did not incite insurrection. They did not reverse the factual finding of what he did. He asked them to do that, to exonerate him. They didn't or wouldn't, take your pick. Stupid indeed, mental midget.

Jeezus H. Christ. This is me starting right here: Lets talk about the texts that occurred on and around January 6th. Do you have anything new to add to the already known information? That is me beginning. That is me inviting you to discuss the "facts of that day". Here is your chance retard. Balls in your court and the clock is ticking. Tick Tock!

dot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 10:08 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 8:44 pm actually, the finding of that judge (court) is the exact basis of the unanimous finding by the Supreme Court that the judge (and the court) were wrong. Stupid.

Except what they found is states don't have the authority to keep anyone off the ballot, that only Congress can do that, flawed as their decision is. What they didn't find, even the bought and paid for justices, was that Trump did not incite insurrection. They did not reverse the factual finding of what he did. He asked them to do that, to exonerate him. They didn't or wouldn't, take your pick. Stupid indeed, mental midget.

put what ever lipstick you need on that pig. the high court struck down the kangaroo decision. struck it down. meaning they basically said that the colorado judge was a dumb ass.

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 1:59 am

dot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 10:08 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 8:44 pm actually, the finding of that judge (court) is the exact basis of the unanimous finding by the Supreme Court that the judge (and the court) were wrong. Stupid.

Except what they found is states don't have the authority to keep anyone off the ballot, that only Congress can do that, flawed as their decision is. What they didn't find, even the bought and paid for justices, was that Trump did not incite insurrection. They did not reverse the factual finding of what he did. He asked them to do that, to exonerate him. They didn't or wouldn't, take your pick. Stupid indeed, mental midget.

put what ever lipstick you need on that pig. the high court struck down the kangaroo decision. struck it down. meaning they basically said that the colorado judge was a dumb ass.

Unanimously.

necronomous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 12:13 am As fact, but has not been charged with an insurrection or treason. A corrupt court gave a shitty opinion. Whoopty doo

A finding of fact that you have not been able to refute. Let's see if your other defending red M&Ms do any better than your bad faith attempts.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 1:45 am Jeezus H. Christ. This is me starting right here: Lets talk about the texts that occurred on and around January 6th.

You're still just asking questions with no discussion and refusing to begin. You have the two definitions of insurrection, you have the facts revealed as well as the plots behind the scenes exposed. There is literally nothing preventing you from addressing any of it, but you're still wanting to set parameters. Think of it like this, hack. You're going on 3 months late to the party. Catch up.

1 red of bad faith down.

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 1:59 am put what ever lipstick you need on that pig. the high court struck down the kangaroo decision. struck it down. meaning they basically said that the colorado judge was a dumb ass.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:20 am Unanimously.

And once again, someone didn't do the reading assignment. Supreme Court struck down states being able to remove a candidate from the ballot, they did not rule on whether he did not incite an insurrection despite begging from Trump to do so. The factual finding stands. Refute it or admit you can't.

2 reds of bad faith down. I wonder what the broken records will say next.

dot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:25 pmSupreme Court struck down states being able to remove a candidate from the ballot, they did not rule on whether he did not incite an insurrection despite begging from Trump to do so. The factual finding stands. Refute it or admit you can't.

2 reds of bad faith down. I wonder what the broken records will say next.

Supreme Court struck down dumb judge's dumb verdict. Supreme Court said he was wrong. Unanimously said it. And now we laugh at you as you try to spin it as though you aren't dumb.

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:30 pm Supreme Court struck down dumb judge's dumb verdict. Supreme Court said he was wrong. Unanimously said it. And now we laugh at you as you try to spin it as though you aren't dumb.

I mean, you can keep trying to ignore the facts like Trump begging the Supreme Court to find he didn't incite insurrection, but it isn't going to erase it from happening. Just like you can't refute the factual finding that he did so. And just so we point out how little you know about what you're trying to posture over, the judge was a she and they didn't strike down her decision. They actually upheld that Trump had to stay on the ballot which was her ruling. But at the same time, she ruled that he did incite insurrection. In not refuting her finding despite Trump begging for it, the Supreme Court has let that finding stand.

Just once, try educating yourself on what you want to post about so you don't look so dumb.

dot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:39 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:30 pm Supreme Court struck down dumb judge's dumb verdict. Supreme Court said he was wrong. Unanimously said it. And now we laugh at you as you try to spin it as though you aren't dumb.

I mean, you can keep trying to ignore the facts like Trump begging the Supreme Court to find he didn't incite insurrection, but it isn't going to erase it from happening. Just like you can't refute the factual finding that he did so. And just so we point out how little you know about what you're trying to posture over, the judge was a she and they didn't strike down her decision. They actually upheld that Trump had to stay on the ballot which was her ruling. But at the same time, she ruled that he did incite insurrection. In not refuting her finding despite Trump begging for it, the Supreme Court has let that finding stand.

Just once, try educating yourself on what you want to post about so you don't look so dumb.

as usual, you are wrong. the colorado court made the really dumb decision that Trump could be kept off of the ballot because he engaged in an insurrection. Here was the Supreme Court's Unanimous finding on that:

A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party in this year’s election,
from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado
secretary of state to exclude the former President from the Republican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any
write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him.
Former President Trump challenges that decision on several grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress,
rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.


We reverse.

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:52 pm as usual, you are wrong. the colorado court made the really dumb decision that Trump could be kept off of the ballot because he engaged in an insurrection. Here was the Supreme Court's Unanimous finding on that:

A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party in this year’s election,
from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado
secretary of state to exclude the former President from the Republican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any
write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him.
Former President Trump challenges that decision on several grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress,
rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.


We reverse.

And you'll find that nowhere in that did they refute the factual finding. So I'll throw you a bone, we should clarify my earlier quip. When I said try educating yourself, that means more than copy pasting words. You're gonna have to also understand what it means. Sorry to give you extra work, but you clearly need it. Until then, thanks for proving me right.

dot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:56 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:52 pm as usual, you are wrong. the colorado court made the really dumb decision that Trump could be kept off of the ballot because he engaged in an insurrection. Here was the Supreme Court's Unanimous finding on that:

A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party in this year’s election,
from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado
secretary of state to exclude the former President from the Republican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any
write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him.
Former President Trump challenges that decision on several grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress,
rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.


We reverse.

And you'll find that nowhere in that did they refute the factual finding. So I'll throw you a bone, we should clarify my earlier quip. When I said try educating yourself, that means more than copy pasting words. You're gonna have to also understand what it means. Sorry to give you extra work, but you clearly need it. Until then, thanks for proving me right.

Trump won his case in the Supreme Court. You're gonna need more lipstick.

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:58 pm Trump won his case in the Supreme Court. You're gonna need more lipstick.

They refused to find what he wanted them to find. No matter which way you slice it, that means the factual finding of inciting insurrection stands.

dot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 8:00 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:58 pm Trump won his case in the Supreme Court. You're gonna need more lipstick.

They refused to find what he wanted them to find. No matter which way you slice it, that means the factual finding of inciting insurrection stands.

he won the case. i'm pretty sure that's what he wanted them to find. lipsticker.

In dodgin Dot world a unanimous decision vindicating Trump is actually a win.

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 8:04 pm he won the case. i'm pretty sure that's what he wanted them to find. lipsticker.

And even if President Trump
were subject to section 3 he did not “engage in” anything
that qualifies as “insurrection.” The Court should reverse on these grounds and end these unconstitutional
disqualification efforts once and for all.

Try again. Seriously, educate yourself, mental midget.

dot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 8:25 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 8:04 pm he won the case. i'm pretty sure that's what he wanted them to find. lipsticker.

And even if President Trump
were subject to section 3 he did not “engage in” anything
that qualifies as “insurrection.” The Court should reverse on these grounds and end these unconstitutional
disqualification efforts once and for all.

Try again. Seriously, educate yourself, mental midget.

they did reverse. stupid.

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 8:27 pm they did reverse. stupid.

They let stand the factual finding of insurrection. Stupid.

dot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 8:34 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 8:27 pm they did reverse. stupid.

They let stand the factual finding of insurrection. Stupid.

that's what you took away from that finding? holy shit.

they reversed the finding of the Colorado Supreme Court. nothing remains standing.

oh wait. i think i get it.

you have to make sure that you keep the insurrection in there, even though they reversed the case, so that you don't look even more dumb for thinking there actually was an insurrection that day. you can't have the supreme court on record as saying there was no insurrection. so you have to try to split some hairs and separate that part out and say "well they never said there wasn't an insurrection".

they reversed the courts finding, dummy. read into that whatever makes you sleep better.

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 8:48 pm that's what you took away from that finding? holy shit.

they reversed the finding of the Colorado Supreme Court. nothing remains standing.

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 8:55 pm oh wait. i think i get it.

you have to make sure that you keep the insurrection in there, even though they reversed the case, so that you don't look even more dumb for thinking there actually was an insurrection that day. you can't have the supreme court on record as saying there was no insurrection. so you have to try to split some hairs and separate that part out and say "well they never said there wasn't an insurrection".

they reversed the courts finding, dummy. read into that whatever makes you sleep better.

I'm not the one who went to the trouble to post it, failing to realize it didn't say what you were saying it said. It still doesn't, in point of fact. Again, try educating yourself before posting.

dot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 9:07 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 8:48 pm that's what you took away from that finding? holy shit.

they reversed the finding of the Colorado Supreme Court. nothing remains standing.

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 8:55 pm oh wait. i think i get it.

you have to make sure that you keep the insurrection in there, even though they reversed the case, so that you don't look even more dumb for thinking there actually was an insurrection that day. you can't have the supreme court on record as saying there was no insurrection. so you have to try to split some hairs and separate that part out and say "well they never said there wasn't an insurrection".

they reversed the courts finding, dummy. read into that whatever makes you sleep better.

I'm not the one who went to the trouble to post it, failing to realize it didn't say what you were saying it said. It still doesn't, in point of fact. Again, try educating yourself before posting.

so wait. you wanted the Supreme Court to rule.

We find that the Judge was wrong in banning Trump from the ballot, but we agree with them on the finding that Trump participated in an insurrection and that part still stands??

wtf?