2024 Republican Primary

[Nimbly9]

Going by the logic of Colorado's Supreme Court, Maxine Waters and others who represent their states should have been removed from the ballot completely for re-election when they had speeches and did social media posts and even told BLM protestors to "fight like hell" and so on and so forth.  Federal property got damaged in some cities as a result of those riots and people got hurt. So if incitement or encouragement of any kind that could lead to political violence falls under Section 3, then they're going to have to apply that standard to everyone.  Clearly it hasn't been applied fairly up 'til now based on their own explanation.

[DJChameleon]

Going by the logic of Colorado's Supreme Court, Maxine Waters and others who represent their states should have been removed from the ballot completely for re-election when they had speeches and did social media posts and even told BLM protestors to "fight like hell" and so on and so forth.  Federal property got damaged in some cities as a result of those riots and people got hurt. So if incitement or encouragement of any kind that could lead to political violence falls under Section 3, then they're going to have to apply that standard to everyone.  Clearly it hasn't been applied fairly up 'til now based on their own explanation.

The BLM riots and the riots on the Capitol are two different beasts. I do kind of side with your point that if you incite a riot no matter which side it's for that there should be a punishment in the same way like she shouldn't have been eligible for re-election if it caused federal damage but it's not even on the same playing field at all whatsoever.

BFFR!!!

To JWB's point, legal scholar Jonathan Turley said:

'The Colorado Supreme Court has handed down the most anti-democratic opinion in decades. Yet, these justices barred voters from being [able] to vote for their preferred candidate in the name of democracy. It is like burning down a house in the name of fire safety.

You know why that's a bad example?

the whole burning down a house in the name of fire safety. No it's more like arresting an arsonist before they have a chance to even burn down the house in the first place in the name of fire safety.   It does seem a bit nanny state to prevent voters from voting for their preferred candidate but when their preferred candidate has done illegal shit, he shouldn't be allowed to be on the ballot to overturn democracy from the inside out. That's basically what he wants to do. He wants to be the King of the US not a president. He wants to just be in office and do whatever the fuck he wants to do without being punished for it and then try to turn around and play coy like he didn't know what the fuck he was doing.

Fuck outta here and Fuck Trump.

[Nimbly9]

If he ends up getting kicked off all the ballots permanently, so be it.  Just saying, it hasn't been applied fairly. I don't think it's the slam dunk that Democrats seem to think it is from a public perception standpoint.  And although none of them are saying it out loud, all the other Republican nominees are jumping for joy because it will galvanize potential GOP voters in a way that will make 2016 look like a slow day at Wal-Mart.  If Trump loses the nomination as a possible outcome to all this, it's gonna be huge for anyone gunning for 2nd place right now.

I guess the thing I'm quibbling with here is that Section 3 is supposed to be a real high bar to clear for people who show up and lead actual action against the government, not something you throw out there because X person said to protest Y.  Trump isn't Jefferson Davis, and he needs to be dealt with on insurrection-related stuff in a court of law and be 1000% convicted of it if the case is that clear-cut.  Taking him off the ballots like this is one of the most undemocratic things I've seen happen since all the Patriot Act garbage from Bush's first term.

What the Colorado Supreme Court is insinuating is that any kind of violence or protest that "gets out of hand", even if not explicitly directed, is insurrection and it could apply to anything from a Tweet to a comment some politician made on CNN.  And this is happening before Trump has been actually convicted of anything. Is that a bar we want to lower in the long-term? We will just have to see.

[SGR]

the whole burning down a house in the name of fire safety. No it's more like arresting an arsonist before they have a chance to even burn down the house in the first place in the name of fire safety.  It does seem a bit nanny state to prevent voters from voting for their preferred candidate but when their preferred candidate has done illegal shit, he should be allowed to be on the ballot to overturn democracy from the inside out. That's basically what he wants to do. He wants to be the King of the US not a president. He wants to just be in office and do whatever the fuck he wants to do without being punished for it and then try to turn around and play coy like he didn't know what the fuck he was doing.

Fuck outta here and Fuck Trump.

As Nimbly rightly points out, he hasn't been convicted. These judges are putting the cart before the horse here. And it's an awful, awful precedent to set. It reeks of desperation, and will probably make Trump's poll numbers go up.

[Shhon]

[Jwb]

I'm just pointing out what I see as hypocrisy. Many Democrats (but not all, if that even needs to be said) have claimed that the re-election of Trump will be the 'end of Democracy'. And now, an all-Democrat state Supreme Court axes him from the Republican ballot in their state.

I don't see the hypocrisy.

If they believe Trump represents a threat to democracy based on the idea he attempted to stage a coup, then trying preclude him from the ballot using this means is actually perfectly consistent with that premise.  In fact it's the most consistent thing they could possibly do.

If the objection is just that the mere idea of removing ballot access from any candidate seems "undemocratic," then really your problem is with the constitution.  Because that is what section 3 of the 14th Amendment is designed for.

More likely,  the dispute will be over whether Trump in fact committed an act of insurrection. Which this court seems to have upheld but it's highly questionable that if keeps going up the pipeline to the SC, that this court is ever going to rule against Trump. 

[SGR]

I don't see the hypocrisy.

If they believe Trump represents a threat to democracy based on the idea he attempted to stage a coup, then trying preclude him from the ballot using this means is actually perfectly consistent with that premise.  In fact it's the most consistent thing they could possibly do.

If the objection is just that the mere idea of removing ballot access from any candidate seems "undemocratic," then really your problem is with the constitution.  Because that is what section 3 of the 14th Amendment is designed for.

More likely,  the dispute will be over whether Trump in fact committed an act of insurrection. Which this court seems to have upheld but it's highly questionable that if keeps going up the pipeline to the SC, that this court is ever going to rule against Trump. 

That's fair. I'd say that I'm not convinced as of yet that Trump actually committed an act of insurrection. I don't think it's been truly demonstrated. And I'm also not convinced that section 3 of the 14th amendment applies to presidential candidates even if he did.

[Nimbly9]

Only a true insurrectionist would tell people to "peacefully protest" before anyone marched to the capitol and then later tweet it again later the same day. Telling people to do things peacefully - a strategy straight out of Hitler's playbook. Telling people to protest peacefully is how you get death camps.

[DJChameleon]

Only a true insurrectionist would tell people to "peacefully protest" before anyone marched to the capitol and then later tweet it again later the same day. Telling people to do things peacefully - a strategy straight out of Hitler's playbook. Telling people to protest peacefully is how you get death camps.

Yeah, he said one thing in person but when on twitter to say to protest peacefully so that he has a record of himself NOT inciting but in this day and age with everyone having cameras that doesn't work. He was recorded inciting the riots. Also, it's disingenuous as fuck to compare Maxine Waters to what he did.

He is inciting people to overthrow the fucking government. It's kind of funny that Trump Supporters are all about "mah rights mah rights" and the constitution until it doesn't go their way then they want to overthrow the fucking government that contains said constitution. Brain washed zombies.

[Nimbly9]

Also, it's disingenuous as fuck to compare Maxine Waters to what he did.

Not at all. When it comes to making the case that violence happens as a result of a public figure's words, why is Trump at fault but others who "incite" are not?

If rioters burn down federal buildings, they're trying to push for a political outcome through violence, no? They read and watch things to justify their actions. Whether that's a specific message or a generalized thing (2017 - "I will go and take Trump out tonight", 2021 - "get more confrontational" - Maxine Waters).  So the only reason she isn't in jail is because there's no widespread political incentive among her peers to make an example out of her.  Same cynical thought process is why they still haven't done anything substantial about Bob Menendez.  They can cry me a river over Trump in the meantime.

The main point, however, is if all of this is so clear cut and obvious, he should already be in jail over all the fake electors stuff, which to me is a way more logical focus point yet even that seems like they are having difficulties legally moving on those things.

Yeah, he said one thing in person but when on twitter to say to protest peacefully so that he has a record of himself NOT inciting but in this day and age with everyone having cameras that doesn't work.

That's a pretty massive misreading of the guy's thought process (or lack thereof). You think Trump was reading cue cards to specifically use the word peaceful and/or thought it out beforehand? The guy who throws out teleprompter scripts and has the reading comprehension of a 1st grader?  Jack Smith should be taking notes here.

Zeroing in on his speech prior to people marching to the capitol or his Tweets is not something you are going to win debates on.  He said peaceful on more than one occasion.  That's two or possibly three more times than Maxine Waters did...which in her case was zero. You can't discount that and say it didn't matter, because it does matter when you are trying to paint somebody as the modern day Jefferson Davis. 

I watched all that same speeches you and everyone else did - you might have a case for throwing Giuliani under the bus for revving up the crowds that day, but Trump made it very clear he wanted peaceful protest in spite of what Rudy or others wanted.

As I've said on other occasions over the past few years: not the best hill to die on if you really want to get Trump because it opens up doors that are worse for democracy once they are open than what you see today.  You might think you'd like to lower that bar, but I guarantee you actually don't.

It's kind of funny that Trump Supporters are all about "mah rights mah rights" and the constitution until it doesn't go their way then they want to overthrow the fucking government that contains said constitution. Brain washed zombies.

That's not what it was about, but you are free to hold that view if you want.

For what it's worth, I think 99.9% of all protests, "peaceful" or not, are a waste of time as far as the U.S. goes anyway, including January 6th.  If you showed up for that and decided to enter the capitol building, you can't blame anyone but yourself when you get a life sentence or something close to it.

[Jwb]

That's fair. I'd say that I'm not convinced as of yet that Trump actually committed an act of insurrection. I don't think it's been truly demonstrated. And I'm also not convinced that section 3 of the 14th amendment applies to presidential candidates even if he did.

Why wouldn't it apply to the president but it would apply to congress? I know that was the initial ruling by that one judge, and I honestly didn't really understand that.  I'm not a lawyer, so I obviously realize there's usually some technical legal aspect I'm unaware of.  But on face value I don't see why they would create section 3 just to prevent an insurrectionist from getting into congress,  but somehow it's OK for that person to be president? That's very counterintuitive to say the least. 

I do think Jan 6 was an attempted coup. But exactly what counts as an act of insurrection is not strictly defined in section 3. Nor is it made apparent who is to determine whether said individual meets whatever threshold is being applied. That's all unclear,  is my understanding. The reason this section exists is because in the aftermath of the civil war,  it was to prevent certain confederates from being able to run from office.  While I do maintain Jan 6 was an attempted coup, I don't see it as quite as clear cut as literally taking up arms and fighting for the confederacy.  That's about as clear cut as it gets. 

The fact we haven't seen this tactic used since then is in my understanding because there hasn't been a case anywhere close to this either.  The novelty runs both ways.  @Nimbly9  you can't seriously sit here and put forth the idea of politicians inciting BLM riots as your counter example without realizing precisely how weak that counter example is and how well that demonstrates the apparent lack of any other real examples where we can point to similar dynamics as Jan 6. The problem is not the inciting the riot or even targeting government infrastructure.  The charge of insurrection on Jan 6 rests on the idea that the objective was to try to in some way overturn the results and prevent Biden from being sworn in. 

[Nimbly9]

The charge of insurrection on Jan 6 rests on the idea that the objective was to try to in some way overturn the results and prevent Biden from being sworn in. 

An objective which is undermined by asking for peaceful protest in any way.  Words matter - for every thing they point to "Trump said X" as an argument that he plotted something nefarious, you can easily point to other things he said and make a counterargument.  Going by how things actually transpired, it makes more sense to conclude that Trump thought a giant crowd yelling and protesting outside of the capitol would put pressure on Pence or others to delay or open up legal avenues to delay election certification. Because that's all that Trump cares about - being vindicated that the election was stolen and showing off his big crowds in the process.  So at this point he's just a more insolent Al Gore.

Nobody has the power to mind control crowds to break into a place or cause damage or do anything. My point still stands, which is why I think Trump is more likely to be convicted over the fake electors business because that's a lot more clear cut to me.  If you can't make the case there, I don't see how you have a case with Jan 6th when the people who actually deviated from the "peaceful" protesting have been thrown into prison.

[Jwb]

Lol. I really don't think we need to rehash our Jan 6 debate right now do we? I feel like every point you are bringing up are things we have already previously discussed to death.  The ultimate point is that is the nature of the accusation. Your counter examples don't even come close to being relevant.

[Nimbly9]

Lol.  We'll just have to see how it all shakes out.

[DJChameleon]

I watched all those same speeches you and everyone else did - you might have a case for throwing Giuliani under the bus for revving up the crowds that day, but Trump made it very clear he wanted peaceful protest in spite of what Rudy or others wanted.

Yeah, because saying you have the show strength, and you have to be strong is the same thing as saying let's march down there peacefully. You really think Trump supporters are going to decipher the different between the two when they are already riled up.