I'll make two points here. First, I do not believe it is really about keeping Trump from being on the ballot; the Left (and some on the right) simply and specifically don't trust the voters to vote, because they fear the voters won't vote the way *they* (the Left, and some on the right) want them to.
Second is with regard to 14A3: "...having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have ...given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." This disqualifies the current President as well as many (perhaps the majority) in Congress.
Our Republic is in shambles, being "goverened" by self-serving autocratic better-than-thous who need to be purged from office so we can return to our once revered state of a liberty-loving Constitutional republic.
I'm no Constitutional scholar or lawyer, but I have never been convinced that Jan 6 rose to the level of insurrection. It seems that more Americans believe it was a riot rather than an insurrection. I am in that camp. https://www.umass.edu/news/article/umass-amherst-poll-finds-softening-some-americans-views-events-us-capitol-jan-6-2021. A big distinction. I hope Trump is not the GOPs candidate, but he likely will be. Should courts use bad law to take away the option of citizens to choose Trump, through the skirting of due process, there will not be much credibility remaining in either the electoral or judicial processes.
I've been calling it a riot, because that's what it looked like to me. An agitated but unfocused mob. Perhaps a smattering of participants had insurrection in mind, before or during, but they seem outliers rather than the norm.
And, yes, if voters are denied a chance to vote for him on iffy grounds, we enter banana republic territory.
If one stipulates that such as those in the Colorado judiciary who made this ruling, are intelligent, educated people, it's hard to argue that a solid footing in banana republic territory isn't the goal they have in mind.
You’re too committed to your own political neutrality to journalistically call out the motivated reasoning and pretzel logic for what it is because it ain’t that.
I've met many people who have convinced themselves that they are acting rationally even when it's pretty obvious their biases are coming through. That's different from overt, conscious partisanship, and without crawling into people's brainpans to find out the truth, I prefer to err on the side of caution over accusation.
Raymond La Raja, professor of political science at UMass Amherst and co-director of the poll, says, “Biden has experienced a fairly significant drop off among low-income voters who think his election was legitimate,” he explains. “Among those making less than $40,000, nearly half (49%) say Biden’s election was definitely or probably legitimate, but it was 62% in April 2021. My only explanation is that the swirl of conspiracy theories keeps seeping into the American electorate, particularly for those who might not be doing as well economically.” Hmm.
Social media echo chambers have made it very easy to "question," even when there's no evidence. A government that has been demonstrably untrustworthy in many instances exacerbates this tendency, as does the inherent "I'm cleverer than the dumbasses who don't agree with me" bias that humans have. There's also bandwagoning.
I know several smart people who state they don't believe that Trump lost, but also say they've no evidence to support that belief. It's disappointing.
There is plenty of evidence with more trickling out all the time. Did you see the recent poll that 20% of voters admit to cheating by filling out more than one ballot or ballot box stuffing in 2020?
None. The credibility of elections was damaged by 2020 and further fractured by Arizona in 2022. This would cause me to shrug--and know that the fix is in and this country is no longer "for, by, and about the people." It will clearly be an oligarchy, no different than Russia or Venezuela.
It all depends on how one interprets Trump's words and that includes a wide variety of viewpoints. At worst one can say that his speech(01/06/2021) cleverly fueled the flames of an insurrection without outwardly giving anybody a specific directive. Political figures throughout history have been known to do that. There were remarks like:
"We will stop the steal."
"We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen.
" If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."
At best one can call Trump irresponsible because he should have forseen that among his listeners there are always going to be those who may respond in an extreme fashion. The old "I didn't know" argument doesn't wash because any public figure especially one who has held the highest office in the land always has to anticipate...always has to know. Still, one has to take things in context and in the same speech Trump also said the following:
"Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
" We are going to the Capitol."
Maybe if he had accompanied them to the Capitol then he might have kept them in line. Now, that would have been a good show of peaceful protest and who knows.....leadership.
If Trump had joined in the "invasion," it'd be a different matter. But, even then, he was still President at the time, so we'd be unraveling a whole other ball of wax.
Some things I've read suggest that "sedition" might be a better term, but even that would have to be proven in a court of law. But, 14A doesn't mention sedition, so it'd be irrelevant to this deplatforming exercise.
Keeping Trump off the ballot should not be for insurrection but for being irresponsible. What happened at the Capitol only seeks to weaken the country and we already have enough doing that.
The problem is, once you open that can of worms, it'll be used to keep others off the platform. It's as or more arguable that Biden has been grossly irresponsible re the southern border. Should voters be denied a chance to weigh in on that?
No that's fine because allowing foreign countries to invade is fine if you are a Democrat. If you voice displeasure at the capitol over a problematic election, then you must go to prison for a long time.
What happened at the capitol was Americans expressing their displeasure at a failed ruling class that did manipulate an election in many ways. That is no longer allowed. We are losing whatever fragments of freedom we had and when you agree with false narratives, you push the chains forward.
How did these people not learn the lesson of Harry Reid and the filibuster?
Maybe we need to coin a Reid's Razor, which might state that your own shenanigans will ultimately be used against you. Or more crudely, the acronym FAFO.
I like it. But, I think that two things are likely - that politicians are more canny (as in they know how to get elected) than they are smart, and that they don't care what happens after they've retired or moved on.
I'll make two points here. First, I do not believe it is really about keeping Trump from being on the ballot; the Left (and some on the right) simply and specifically don't trust the voters to vote, because they fear the voters won't vote the way *they* (the Left, and some on the right) want them to.
Second is with regard to 14A3: "...having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have ...given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." This disqualifies the current President as well as many (perhaps the majority) in Congress.
Our Republic is in shambles, being "goverened" by self-serving autocratic better-than-thous who need to be purged from office so we can return to our once revered state of a liberty-loving Constitutional republic.
Exactly right.
Peter!! I just used that exact title, word-for-word, on an article I posted on December 11 (except without the question mark).
It's what they're saying, so quoting them seems just so.
I'm no Constitutional scholar or lawyer, but I have never been convinced that Jan 6 rose to the level of insurrection. It seems that more Americans believe it was a riot rather than an insurrection. I am in that camp. https://www.umass.edu/news/article/umass-amherst-poll-finds-softening-some-americans-views-events-us-capitol-jan-6-2021. A big distinction. I hope Trump is not the GOPs candidate, but he likely will be. Should courts use bad law to take away the option of citizens to choose Trump, through the skirting of due process, there will not be much credibility remaining in either the electoral or judicial processes.
I've been calling it a riot, because that's what it looked like to me. An agitated but unfocused mob. Perhaps a smattering of participants had insurrection in mind, before or during, but they seem outliers rather than the norm.
And, yes, if voters are denied a chance to vote for him on iffy grounds, we enter banana republic territory.
If one stipulates that such as those in the Colorado judiciary who made this ruling, are intelligent, educated people, it's hard to argue that a solid footing in banana republic territory isn't the goal they have in mind.
Intelligence is often trumped (pun obviously intended) by emotion. This whole thing reeks of motivated reasoning and pretzel logic.
You’re too committed to your own political neutrality to journalistically call out the motivated reasoning and pretzel logic for what it is because it ain’t that.
I've met many people who have convinced themselves that they are acting rationally even when it's pretty obvious their biases are coming through. That's different from overt, conscious partisanship, and without crawling into people's brainpans to find out the truth, I prefer to err on the side of caution over accusation.
My point is the motivated reasoning.
They could be blinded by hate or incentivized by potential promotion in DNC circles.
Raymond La Raja, professor of political science at UMass Amherst and co-director of the poll, says, “Biden has experienced a fairly significant drop off among low-income voters who think his election was legitimate,” he explains. “Among those making less than $40,000, nearly half (49%) say Biden’s election was definitely or probably legitimate, but it was 62% in April 2021. My only explanation is that the swirl of conspiracy theories keeps seeping into the American electorate, particularly for those who might not be doing as well economically.” Hmm.
Social media echo chambers have made it very easy to "question," even when there's no evidence. A government that has been demonstrably untrustworthy in many instances exacerbates this tendency, as does the inherent "I'm cleverer than the dumbasses who don't agree with me" bias that humans have. There's also bandwagoning.
I know several smart people who state they don't believe that Trump lost, but also say they've no evidence to support that belief. It's disappointing.
There is plenty of evidence with more trickling out all the time. Did you see the recent poll that 20% of voters admit to cheating by filling out more than one ballot or ballot box stuffing in 2020?
None. The credibility of elections was damaged by 2020 and further fractured by Arizona in 2022. This would cause me to shrug--and know that the fix is in and this country is no longer "for, by, and about the people." It will clearly be an oligarchy, no different than Russia or Venezuela.
The left is seeding revolution.
It all depends on how one interprets Trump's words and that includes a wide variety of viewpoints. At worst one can say that his speech(01/06/2021) cleverly fueled the flames of an insurrection without outwardly giving anybody a specific directive. Political figures throughout history have been known to do that. There were remarks like:
"We will stop the steal."
"We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen.
" If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."
At best one can call Trump irresponsible because he should have forseen that among his listeners there are always going to be those who may respond in an extreme fashion. The old "I didn't know" argument doesn't wash because any public figure especially one who has held the highest office in the land always has to anticipate...always has to know. Still, one has to take things in context and in the same speech Trump also said the following:
"Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
" We are going to the Capitol."
Maybe if he had accompanied them to the Capitol then he might have kept them in line. Now, that would have been a good show of peaceful protest and who knows.....leadership.
If Trump had joined in the "invasion," it'd be a different matter. But, even then, he was still President at the time, so we'd be unraveling a whole other ball of wax.
Some things I've read suggest that "sedition" might be a better term, but even that would have to be proven in a court of law. But, 14A doesn't mention sedition, so it'd be irrelevant to this deplatforming exercise.
Keeping Trump off the ballot should not be for insurrection but for being irresponsible. What happened at the Capitol only seeks to weaken the country and we already have enough doing that.
The problem is, once you open that can of worms, it'll be used to keep others off the platform. It's as or more arguable that Biden has been grossly irresponsible re the southern border. Should voters be denied a chance to weigh in on that?
No that's fine because allowing foreign countries to invade is fine if you are a Democrat. If you voice displeasure at the capitol over a problematic election, then you must go to prison for a long time.
What happened at the capitol was Americans expressing their displeasure at a failed ruling class that did manipulate an election in many ways. That is no longer allowed. We are losing whatever fragments of freedom we had and when you agree with false narratives, you push the chains forward.
How did these people not learn the lesson of Harry Reid and the filibuster?
Maybe we need to coin a Reid's Razor, which might state that your own shenanigans will ultimately be used against you. Or more crudely, the acronym FAFO.
I like it. But, I think that two things are likely - that politicians are more canny (as in they know how to get elected) than they are smart, and that they don't care what happens after they've retired or moved on.