tvc184

The Fourteenth Amendment which Colorado is referring to is within the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court at required in Article III Sec. 1 & 2 of the Constitution. Insurrection is under federal law and the US Constitution and states have no such jurisdiction to enforce or interpret federal law. To deny any person the same privilege as anyone else (such as being on a ballot within established laws that apply to everyone) would in fact violate the Fourteenth Amendment in Section 1 where it says that everyone will be given due process and additionally “equal protection under the law “. So it appears that it is Colorado violating the Fourteenth Amendment, not Donald Trump.

It could happen but they better have it well planned, likely against their own rules. The first primary is in 4 weeks and within 10 weeks, 19 primaries will be concluded. So within about the next 10-11 weeks, almost half of the country’s primaries will be finished. I’m not saying that they won’t do it, but the fix had better be in already and waiting to spring into action at a moments notice.

🤔 Looking at a felony and up to 10 years in prison. They won’t get that if it’s a first offense but not the best way to start life with a felony assault conviction.

Hahaha…. Your supposed logic trumps your argument. As you said, when the comment was made, it was 100% true. Note that I never said otherwise. But my statement was likewise 100% true. If fixed hurts your feelings, try updated.

I saw much made on some of the sporting and gun forms where the (rightfully imo) complained about Trump pushing for the bump stock ban as part of the definition of a machinegun. The Fifth Circuit I believe has thrown out that ban saying that the ATF did not apply with the actual law on the definition of a machinegun. I agree but that’s not the point. Many people complained that Trump backed up the ban, expanding the definition of a machinegun, so maybe…. they look to the other party??? Okay, you disagree with Trump on that issue. But let’s look at the score for like minded conservatives. Border wall and heavy enforcement of the current laws: Trump - Yes Biden - No Cutting taxes by signing tax cut legislation: Trump - Yes Biden - No Opening up oil exploration: Trump - Yes Biden - No Backing Second Amendment and written definition of machinegun: Trump - No Biden - No So where do like thinking people turn because we don’t agree with Trump on one issue however, the other guy would do the same on the same issue? Trump vs. Biden on strong conservative beliefs: Trump: Yes-Yes-Yes-No Biden; No-No-No-No Any questions on the lesser of evils? Do you cut off your nose to spite your face? Let’s replace Trump’s name with Haley. Does it really change your beliefs, assuming you agree with the above? Whether a person likes Trump, Haley, DeSantis, etc., is Biden ever the answer if your conservative leaning candidate didn’t get the nomination?

We always vote for the lesser of evils. Haley isn’t my first choice but she is definitely in the lesser of evils category.

It’s happened before a few times…. 🙃

If people held their elected officials accountable, there would be much less problems from the local to the national level. Probably the main problem is what does accountable mean? To many I suspect it means, what can you give me that other people will have to pay for. In January 1961, JFK in his inaugural speech said: And so, my fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. After his assassination, that mindset went away with the Great Society. Now some people feel that accountability by elected officials isn’t to the community or nation but what can my country or community do for me.

Fixed it for you….

I read a comment on Facebook from someone at the game who said they were playing football. Now I understand the comment….

The fan site on Facebook had the final as Nederland 63-44.

Call me skeptical that money sent to the Hailey campaign can overcome Trump’s popularity.

Yeah……. !!!

Manslaughter, as in the suspect accidentally killed another person? It could be but it seems (with virtually no public information) that this is likely more than an accident. Of course he could have been deer hunting or target practicing and accidentally killed a person. Then it could be that the police think it might be Murder but didn’t have enough probable cause at the time of the arrest.

The autopsy showed a potentially fatal amount of fentanyl in his blood stream, methamphetamine, cotinine (while nicotine itself is not likely fatal alone, but it raises the heart rate and blood pressure), hypertension, severe arteriosclerosis and he was gasping for breath while he was in the back of a police unit. He was ruled to die of cardiopulmonary arrest with several issues that could have caused death…. BUT, the prosecution says to the jury to ignore all of that and determine that a single issue caused his death. How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt a cause of death when more than one factor could have caused it?

A man convicted of murder when they couldn’t even prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Certainly individual accomplishments don’t necessarily help a team but in the last couple of weeks the Cowboys have had two players set all-time NFL records. DaRon Bland now holds the record for the most interceptions returned for a touchdown in a single season at 5 (and counting). Brandon Aubrey now holds the all-time NFL record for the most consecutive field goals to start a career with 21 (and counting)

“The state can give you nothing because the state produces nothing”

It’s like one of those bundled, home and auto insurance commercials.

That is sometimes surprisingly close to the truth. Many years ago I was training a rookie officer. We were doing an investigation and speaking with an older woman that spoke very little English. My rookie was hitting her with closed end questions that could be answered with a yes or no answer. I was trying to help him but he kept on with his investigation. I finally had enough and had to put a stop to his questioning of the woman. I pulled him to the side and said this woman has no clue what you were saying and you are writing down bogus information. The rookie’s response was, but she’s answering me. Yeah… because she doesn’t know much English, is speaking with a person in authority and thinks it makes us happy to agree with us by smiling and saying yes a lot. So….. I said watch this, and I started speaking with a woman. I asked her something like, did you kill your mother last night? Yes! (Smiling and nodding) Did you bury her body in the backyard? Oh yes! (Smiling) Just to make sure, you did murder your mother last night and buried her behind the house? Yes… yes! Okay, let’s go find someone in the neighborhood who can translate for our investigation.

They had that for years in some classifications and then decided that was not the solution.

I have read that now but watching some of it relatively live it isn’t what was said. I have seen police chiefs, including my own, make improper, incorrect, misleading and on one case an outright false statement about the law. They aren’t always the smartest guy in the room. Even better is when you witness an attorney giving illegal information to a client in front of you and you feel compelled to tell the client that the attorney is wrong. 😎

Okay. The takedown by the car appears to have played no part in the outcome.

That’s why I said spin put out for the media. Maybe it’s a poor choice of words. I would hope that the police never start looking at a murder as if they knew the conclusion before they start. After they get into it and determine what happened? Sure. Treating it as (if those were the words used) and appears that it may be are completely different. I have heard a local police chief say after a police involved shooting something to the effect, it appears at this time that our officer was forced to defend himself from a life threatening attack. If the same chief had said immediately after a police shooting, we are treating this like a lawful self defense, how would the people look at that? The police are going into it with a conclusion already made. That was my only point. If he had witnesses at the scene that made it fairly certain that it was self defense, in my opinion the chief should have said that instead of dancing around the question.

Yeah but if taking the prisoner to the ground was the issue, I wanted to be able to see what the prisoner may or may not have done, if this video of the take down by the police vehicle was the main complaint. Does the longer video show another time when he was taken down?