So former President Donald Trump has been disqualified from the Presidential primary ballot in Colorado, in a 4-3 Colorado Supreme Court decision. So Republicans in Colorado will not be able to vote for him to be their nominee. They neglected to directly address whether he could appear on the general election ballot in November, though obviously the ruling implies that he should not.
I think the case that Trump engaged in insurrection is pretty weak. On January 6, he made vague figurative statements like "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." But he also said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." He never told anyone to go into the capitol building, nor to use force to stop the certification. Once the protesters were inside the building, he tweeted at them: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!" He also tweeted "Go home with love & in peace." If he were trying to engage in insurrection by inciting the mob, why would he make such statements?
This is sort of like when the mafia boss says, "Nice business you have here. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it." Later, he'll claim that he just meant that it was a nice business, and he was expressing hope that nothing bad would happen. Trump is the expert at getting away with things.
Sorry, but I see no evidence that he thought he was leading an insurrection rather than merely a rally. Politicians use incendiary language all the time, sometimes more incendiary than Trump on that day, and it almost never results in violence. Trump didn’t say anything that one can reasonably look at and say, ‘of course that will lead to a riot.’ If nothing had happened on Jan. 6, no one would be debating whether Trump tried to incite a riot. By contrast, if a mafia boss were caught on tape saying this, that alone would be solid evidence of attempted extortion even if the extortion were never executed.
See pp. 106-116, summarizing the evidence that the court reviewed. There is more detail in the January 6 committee report. None of the judges disagreed with this, nor did the lower court. The issue was all about legal technicalities.
He was trying to cover his ass in case his attempt to overturn the election failed, while simultaneously deliberately inflaming the mob. Then he told the rioters to go home after he realized that his attempt had failed.
Why do you suppose he convened slates of fake electors and had fake election certificates sent to Mike Pence?
It is clear that Trump was trying to overturn the election using illegitimate means including the fake elector scheme. These efforts were backed by (dubious) legal reasoning, such as the Eastman memos, and therefore it could at least be argued (weakly) that they were above board. But I think none of that constitutes insurrection, which I take to require the use of force.
You say that Trump's intent in his Jan. 6 speech was to incite the mob to invade the Capitol and force Pence to declare Trump the winner. Maybe. I still think, based on his actual words, that it isn't a clear-cut case. I also think it is relevant that once the mob entered the Capitol, they mostly just wandered around aimlessly.
Yes but the far-left woketards have been totally brainwashed by the media of the past 3 years, and truly believe Jan 6. was 500x worse than 9/11, pearl harbor, the civil war, and every late night talk show host combined!
I think the calculus here presumes that the problem is Donald Trump rather than Trumpism. If the former, a MAGA coalition can just elect someone else (no shortage of people willing to play the role), and judicial interference just lends credence to their cynical view of democratic procedures.
The same mechanism can be and has empowered Trumplike figures, such as Bolsonaro. And conservative activists are a bigger part of the judiciary than the electorate!
Anybody who thinks Trump "caused an insurrection" does not understand the meaning of the word "insurrection". Unelected bodies have been in control of this country and the media outlets since JFK was assassinated, and they continue pulling the strings - see Operation Mockingbird. These are the same creeps that perform actual insurrections all around the world to this day - see the Haitian president 2021. It is absolutely Orwellian that the far-left zombies are rallying under this call to "protect democracy" by preventing the majority of people from voting for the most popular front-running of this election.
You don't think that having a President convene groups of fake electors to produce fraudulent election certificates, then pressure the vice president to count the fake votes, is a threat to democracy?
Look, I'm just a simple philosopher, and not a legal expert, but it appears there were a lot of fake votes for Biden which got counted in the end, and if true, that would supercede this procedural disqualification some ideologues are trying to make against Trump in this case - See 2000 Mules.
I correctly think election fraud is a general threat to democracy. The more corrupt "elites" gleefully screech "SHUT UP RACIST" at anyone who questions the likely-fraudulent election results of the 2020 election, among other things. The same goes for anyone who demands more transparency in the form of voter ID, paper ballots, single-day voting, or open source election software.
Further, I contest your statement that "The irony of democracy is that it has to be protected from the masses, by the elites."
The founding fathers gave the gift of democracy, to the unwashed masses, as a layer of protection against the whims of the "elites". Their education, wealth, and status have not imbued them with any supernatural sense of patriotic duty. The opposite actually seems to be the case.
The real insurrection started before Trump even took office in 2016. It is rooted in corruption, coercion, blackmail, threats of harm. Even the outright elimination of one idiot reality TV star is not going to fix that problem.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say he *tried* to cause an insurrection. Just because he and his adherent failed miserably and farcically doesn't mean we should underplay the severity of what they were aiming to accomplish.
That sounds like typical gaslighting, like you would hear on "the view". Would you also say the same thing about the hundreds of federal agents embedded in the crowd? Or, would it be fair to say you are not interested in watching any of the thousands of hours of footage that the J6 committee tried hide from us measly taxpayers?
The legal decision is incorrect because the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed unconstitutionally and ratified unconstitutionally. Ergo, per Article V of the Constitution, it never became part of the Constitution.
The moral decision is also incorrect, because the underlying problem is largely rising partisanship and this will do nothing but feed the flames. As people become more partisan, they are more willing to forgive undemocratic actors from their political tribe like Trump, not less. Such people will be more and more richly rewarded while being less and less punished, since more partisan voters will be less and less likely to abandon their tribe to vote for the other side, and more likely to vote for their side generally as partisanship is a core part of their identity (further motivating them to act on it). Disenfranchising Trump voters and thumbing your nose at the 85%+ of Republicans who can see that he is being politically targeted will only make the situation worse. If you are worried about what Trump and his supporters will do as president, you should be even more worried about what political partisans will do if they lose an election after the system has very clearly infringed their right to vote.
What we need is for people to trust our institutions again, but that is a two-way street that also requires our institutions to become worthy of our trust again (and yes, I agree that Trump not being in charge would help, but probably not as much as you think). Jonathan Haidt has some top-down policy solutions which could help, but I'm pretty confident these days that the people at the top don't want it fixed. They get more votes if they feed the flames, after all.
I think the case that Trump engaged in insurrection is pretty weak. On January 6, he made vague figurative statements like "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." But he also said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." He never told anyone to go into the capitol building, nor to use force to stop the certification. Once the protesters were inside the building, he tweeted at them: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!" He also tweeted "Go home with love & in peace." If he were trying to engage in insurrection by inciting the mob, why would he make such statements?
This is sort of like when the mafia boss says, "Nice business you have here. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it." Later, he'll claim that he just meant that it was a nice business, and he was expressing hope that nothing bad would happen. Trump is the expert at getting away with things.
Sorry, but I see no evidence that he thought he was leading an insurrection rather than merely a rally. Politicians use incendiary language all the time, sometimes more incendiary than Trump on that day, and it almost never results in violence. Trump didn’t say anything that one can reasonably look at and say, ‘of course that will lead to a riot.’ If nothing had happened on Jan. 6, no one would be debating whether Trump tried to incite a riot. By contrast, if a mafia boss were caught on tape saying this, that alone would be solid evidence of attempted extortion even if the extortion were never executed.
The evidence was discussed in the Colorado court decision: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
See pp. 106-116, summarizing the evidence that the court reviewed. There is more detail in the January 6 committee report. None of the judges disagreed with this, nor did the lower court. The issue was all about legal technicalities.
Can you explain the evidence?
He was trying to cover his ass in case his attempt to overturn the election failed, while simultaneously deliberately inflaming the mob. Then he told the rioters to go home after he realized that his attempt had failed.
Why do you suppose he convened slates of fake electors and had fake election certificates sent to Mike Pence?
It is clear that Trump was trying to overturn the election using illegitimate means including the fake elector scheme. These efforts were backed by (dubious) legal reasoning, such as the Eastman memos, and therefore it could at least be argued (weakly) that they were above board. But I think none of that constitutes insurrection, which I take to require the use of force.
You say that Trump's intent in his Jan. 6 speech was to incite the mob to invade the Capitol and force Pence to declare Trump the winner. Maybe. I still think, based on his actual words, that it isn't a clear-cut case. I also think it is relevant that once the mob entered the Capitol, they mostly just wandered around aimlessly.
Yes but the far-left woketards have been totally brainwashed by the media of the past 3 years, and truly believe Jan 6. was 500x worse than 9/11, pearl harbor, the civil war, and every late night talk show host combined!
I think the calculus here presumes that the problem is Donald Trump rather than Trumpism. If the former, a MAGA coalition can just elect someone else (no shortage of people willing to play the role), and judicial interference just lends credence to their cynical view of democratic procedures.
The same mechanism can be and has empowered Trumplike figures, such as Bolsonaro. And conservative activists are a bigger part of the judiciary than the electorate!
Anybody who thinks Trump "caused an insurrection" does not understand the meaning of the word "insurrection". Unelected bodies have been in control of this country and the media outlets since JFK was assassinated, and they continue pulling the strings - see Operation Mockingbird. These are the same creeps that perform actual insurrections all around the world to this day - see the Haitian president 2021. It is absolutely Orwellian that the far-left zombies are rallying under this call to "protect democracy" by preventing the majority of people from voting for the most popular front-running of this election.
You don't think that having a President convene groups of fake electors to produce fraudulent election certificates, then pressure the vice president to count the fake votes, is a threat to democracy?
Look, I'm just a simple philosopher, and not a legal expert, but it appears there were a lot of fake votes for Biden which got counted in the end, and if true, that would supercede this procedural disqualification some ideologues are trying to make against Trump in this case - See 2000 Mules.
I correctly think election fraud is a general threat to democracy. The more corrupt "elites" gleefully screech "SHUT UP RACIST" at anyone who questions the likely-fraudulent election results of the 2020 election, among other things. The same goes for anyone who demands more transparency in the form of voter ID, paper ballots, single-day voting, or open source election software.
Further, I contest your statement that "The irony of democracy is that it has to be protected from the masses, by the elites."
The founding fathers gave the gift of democracy, to the unwashed masses, as a layer of protection against the whims of the "elites". Their education, wealth, and status have not imbued them with any supernatural sense of patriotic duty. The opposite actually seems to be the case.
The real insurrection started before Trump even took office in 2016. It is rooted in corruption, coercion, blackmail, threats of harm. Even the outright elimination of one idiot reality TV star is not going to fix that problem.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say he *tried* to cause an insurrection. Just because he and his adherent failed miserably and farcically doesn't mean we should underplay the severity of what they were aiming to accomplish.
That sounds like typical gaslighting, like you would hear on "the view". Would you also say the same thing about the hundreds of federal agents embedded in the crowd? Or, would it be fair to say you are not interested in watching any of the thousands of hours of footage that the J6 committee tried hide from us measly taxpayers?
The legal decision is incorrect because the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed unconstitutionally and ratified unconstitutionally. Ergo, per Article V of the Constitution, it never became part of the Constitution.
The moral decision is also incorrect, because the underlying problem is largely rising partisanship and this will do nothing but feed the flames. As people become more partisan, they are more willing to forgive undemocratic actors from their political tribe like Trump, not less. Such people will be more and more richly rewarded while being less and less punished, since more partisan voters will be less and less likely to abandon their tribe to vote for the other side, and more likely to vote for their side generally as partisanship is a core part of their identity (further motivating them to act on it). Disenfranchising Trump voters and thumbing your nose at the 85%+ of Republicans who can see that he is being politically targeted will only make the situation worse. If you are worried about what Trump and his supporters will do as president, you should be even more worried about what political partisans will do if they lose an election after the system has very clearly infringed their right to vote.
What we need is for people to trust our institutions again, but that is a two-way street that also requires our institutions to become worthy of our trust again (and yes, I agree that Trump not being in charge would help, but probably not as much as you think). Jonathan Haidt has some top-down policy solutions which could help, but I'm pretty confident these days that the people at the top don't want it fixed. They get more votes if they feed the flames, after all.