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.
I don’t feel like I avoided your point, I directly addressed it and why I think it doesn’t hold water.
But I need to ask then, why do you think they specifically mentioned Senators, Representatives, and electors for the POTUS, but then just put POTUS under a catch-all? Why list these very important positions but skip mentioning the most important one of all?
I feel like I already did, very directly. I’m not sure what further clarification you need. If you answer this for me, it would probably make it more clear to me either why I’m wrong or what needs further explanation.
I feel like I already did, very directly. I’m not sure what further clarification you need.
At this point we’re both struggling for the high ground debate point of managing the narrative.
You made the original point. I counted that point with my own point. Now the onus is on you to counter my counter, and not go back to your original point, which would just cause endless circling.
“Any office”. Do you think that’s 100% inclusive of all offices?
And if so, is the Office of the President an office?
At this point we’re both struggling for the high ground debate point of managing the narrative.
Please don’t project. If you’re doing this, then it’s you alone doing it.
FTR, I can see both arguments. I’ve maintained that the conclusion by the judge is within the realm of reason. I can also see how your point is within reason.
I don’t feel like I avoided your point, I directly addressed it and why I think it doesn’t hold water.
But I need to ask then, why do you think they specifically mentioned Senators, Representatives, and electors for the POTUS, but then just put POTUS under a catch-all? Why list these very important positions but skip mentioning the most important one of all?
Answer my “any office” point first, and I’ll respond in kind.
I feel like I already did, very directly. I’m not sure what further clarification you need. If you answer this for me, it would probably make it more clear to me either why I’m wrong or what needs further explanation.
At this point we’re both struggling for the high ground debate point of managing the narrative.
You made the original point. I counted that point with my own point. Now the onus is on you to counter my counter, and not go back to your original point, which would just cause endless circling.
“Any office”. Do you think that’s 100% inclusive of all offices?
And if so, is the Office of the President an office?
Please don’t project. If you’re doing this, then it’s you alone doing it.
FTR, I can see both arguments. I’ve maintained that the conclusion by the judge is within the realm of reason. I can also see how your point is within reason.
Could you please answer these specific two questions, with actual yes/no answers …
“Any office”. Do you think that’s 100% inclusive of all offices?
And if so, is the Office of the President an office?
No, I can’t. Because it’s not so simple and it’s not so black and white. As I said, I can see both arguments based on the wording.
But I get it, at this point, I’m not getting the same respect I showed.
You’re being intellectually dishonest.