The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

[Wandering Monk]

This is what the US Supreme court needs to decide. I think Minnesota and Michigan courts concluded it is up to congress to decide. We will see.

No, the Minnesota decision was about eligibility to be on a PRIMARY ballot, not a general election ballot.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

False as it was a legal proceeding that issue subpoenas and had two Republicans aboard. The Republicans hated Trump because he's dishonest and tried to stop the certification of the 2020 election, plus other legal matters.

Whatever. He had no representation and no one looking out for his defense. It was a sham and the purpose was to get him off the ballot as is now happening.

Frankly, I can't see how any person of a Christian faith can support or even vote for him without walking away from the Gospel.

Because they believe he is sent from God or something like that. Have you asked them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

His defense team was not given the evidence that was going to be presented against him prior to hearing. The standard was not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, why are you ok with a court concluding he participated in an insurrection but was never charged for 3+ years? No prosecutor has ever charged him with it. Why is that? If Jack Smith could charge him with insurrection you know he would. The logical conclusion is that he knows he cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You don’t get to kick a person off the ballot because you think he has committed a crime but can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt which is the standard for the charge of insurrection in a criminal court.

Once again you conflate the standards of a criminal trial and a civil one. This was a civil trial. Even the Trump side is not making your errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, but where is the insurrection charge? That is why he is being taken off the ballot in Colorado.

"Insurrection" is not a criminal charge. It is a description of criminal actions. His DC case deals and charges Trump for the specific criminal actions that he.did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whatever. He had no representation and no one looking out for his defense. It was a sham and the purpose was to get him off the ballot as is now happening.

Because they believe he is sent from God or something like that. Have you asked them?

No,, that was an investigation. People being investigated never have legal counsel. You keep demonstrating absolutely no understanding of the law.

He has been charged using the information from the investigation. There has been discovery. He has representation. Due process is being served.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Wow. That's it? The fact that I (in this hypothetical) repeatedly called you a paedophile, told this to my followers and encouraged my followers to march on your house is completely and totally consequentially disconnected from those people breaking in to your home and hurting you and your family? I bare NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER for that happening?

This is morally insane. If you genuinely believe this, then you literally cannot hold anybody accountable for practically anything.

Do you blame BLM for the violent riots of 2020? Do you blame Schumer for the attempted murder of Kavanaugh?

If you said to go to my house and stand on public property and peaceably protest and if they came in and beat me up, no that is not your fault.

No, he explicitly claimed the election was stolen. He didn't "question", it explicitly claimed - over and over again, to thousands of people he had significant influence over - that it WAS STOLEN.

So what? Why doesn't he have that right to think or say that? Hillary said 2016 was stolen from her.

You have no idea how accountability works if that's seriously what you believe.

I mean, has nobody ever told you "Don't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre"? Or were you instead taught "It's perfectly fine to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre, as long as you don't explicitly tell people to panic and trample over each other"?

That has been settled by law.

No, because he clearly would. That's a justifiable position given the context. Trump's position was not, and the context in which he used those claims was obviously going to contribute to actual violence. I refer you back to the paedophile analogy. Do you not accept that there is a pretty obvious and clear difference between doing what I did and Biden calling someone WHO HAS PROVEN TO BE A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY a threat to democracy? That's just normal political rhetoric. What Trump did was explicitly state, in contradiction of all available facts, that the ELECTION WAS STOLEN, to THOUSANDS OF HIS ADORING FOLLOWERS, at the VERY LOCATION THAT THE VOTE WAS TO RATIFIED AND ON THE DAY IT WAS TO BE RATIFIED, and instruct said followers to MARCH TO THE SPECIFIC PLACE WHERE THAT WAS HAPPENING. He then refused to act to calm down the crowd once violent broke out (until hours later).

12:53 rioters entered capital, 1:50 and 2:13 Trump's tweets about peace in the capital and respecting police etc.

Also, where did Biden explicitly call for violence?

I never said he did. But if you were consistent with your position you would condemn his comments.

Ahh, interesting. So comments made by Biden THAT DO NOT MENTION OR CALL FOR VIOLENCE are inflammatory because they "COULD LEAD TO VIOLENCE if someone takes him seriously", but Trump's comments about the election being stolen (despite all evidence to the contrary) that LEAD TO ACTUAL VIOLENCE BECAUSE PEOPLE TOOK THEM SERIOUSLY were NOT inflammatory? That is extremely interesting. It's almost as if you understand perfectly well that just because someone doesn't call for explicit violence doesn't mean that their rhetoric couldn't be considered inflammatory or inciting TO VIOLENCE, but you're just applying this standard selectively because you want to defend Trump and attack the Democrats.
Thus, you expose your clear double-standard. You're ideologically inconsistent. You just want to defend Trump, because you don't mind when violence results from rhetoric if you agree with it. You only care about incitement to violence when it's done by people you disagree with.
There is absolutely zero other reasonable conclusion from your clearly and unambiguously stated double standard.

No, I pointed this out to show your inconsistency. And note that you took my my entire comment to try to make this point. Here is what I actually said, what is in bold is what you took out of the context.

Are you going to be consistent with what you believe and condemn the comments by Biden likening Trump to a nazi and he will end democracy if elected? These are inflammatory and could lead to violence against Trump if someone takes him seriously.

You should have to be dishonest to make your points.

Hillary conceded the election. She did not tell her followers that the election was explicitly rigged. This kind of flagrant equivocation is absurd.

No it is the point. You said because he said the election was stolen is inciting violence. Trump and Hillary said the election was stolen then according to you they both were promoting violence. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, the Minnesota decision was about eligibility to be on a PRIMARY ballot, not a general election ballot.

Ok just michigan then.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

In the American system of justice, in a state Supreme Court decision, do you think the dissenting opinion carries more weight than the majority opinion?

No but it shows that it is not as clear cut as you say it is.

The Constitution doesn't define the term, so it's defined according to the principles of statutory interpretation.

ok, What is the definition then?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I agree, but the first Colorado judge, a Democrat by the way, disagreed and argued that it looked as if the President was left off of the list of officers on purpose. Though no rational reason was given for that. I, like you, think that the meaning is rather clear.

Then that is a very poor reading of those words by that Judge, Democrat or no.

Section 3​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, 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 engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.​

Senators and Representatives, and electors are mentioned separately for precisely the reason that they are NOT "officers under the United States." Not one of them has any individual powers that they can execute. Sworn officers (President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries, etc., SC Justices, etc.) do take oaths of office, as do all members of the military.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you blame BLM for the violent riots of 2020? Do you blame Schumer for the attempted murder of Kavanaugh?

If you said to go to my house and stand on public property and peaceably protest and if they came in and beat me up, no that is not your fault.

But Trump did not just say "demonstrate peacefully". He said that once as a planned out. He many more times riled them up with phrases such as "fight like hell". And yes, he lied about the election. He knew that he had lost. There is testimony and if I recall correctly even a recording or two that show he knew that he lost. So yes, if you lie to someone to rile them up you can be accused of the crimes that they commit due to your lies. Especially since there is evidence that he planned this ahead of time.

So what? Why doesn't he have that right to think or say that? Hillary said 2016 was stolen from her.

Did she? I do not remember her saying that. She did correctly point out that she won the popular vote and that we are using an archaic system that needs to be replaced. That is not saying that the race was stolen. And remember, Trump lied about the election being stolen many many times. He lost both the popular vote and the electoral vote. The latter by a landslide by his own definition.

That has been settled by law.

12:53 rioters entered capital, 1:50 and 2:13 Trump's tweets about peace in the capital and respecting police etc.

Yeah and the insurrectionists, please use the proper terminology, were regularly checking their phones for tweets.

I never said he did. But if you were consistent with your position you would condemn his comments.

What comments? If they are honest and accurate then no. I need to remind you, Trump lied and he knew that he was lying.

No, I pointed this out to show your inconsistency. And note that you took my my entire comment to try to make this point. Here is what I actually said, what is in bold is what you took out of the context.

Are you going to be consistent with what you believe and condemn the comments by Biden likening Trump to a nazi and he will end democracy if elected? These are inflammatory and could lead to violence against Trump if someone takes him seriously.

You should have to be dishonest to make your points.

The problem is that those remarks are actually pretty much correct. Trump even said that the would like to be a dictator for a day. And trust me, no one is ever dictator for just a day unless there is an immediate counter-coup.

No it is the point. You said because he said the election was stolen is inciting violence. Trump and Hillary said the election was stolen then according to you they both were promoting violence. Can't have it both ways.

Wow, you keep ignoring the fact that these were obvious lies. And that he planned this ahead of time. As to Hillary saying that the election was stolen from her, I cannot find that she did so ever right after the election . The closest that she came was this quote from 2020 warning the Democrats of how they had to be aware of all of the fraudulent means used to get Trump into the Whitehouse:

"You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,"

You can read more here in context which shows that it was nothing like Trump's lying claims:

'You can have the election stolen from you,' Hillary Clinton warns 2020 Democrats

"You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you," Hillary Clinton said Saturday.

www.usatoday.com

So please, find a quote where Hillary said this shortly after the election or drop the argument. It is not a proper one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then that is a very poor reading of those words by that Judge, Democrat or no.

Section 3​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, 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 engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.​

Senators and Representatives, and electors are mentioned separately for precisely the reason that they are NOT "officers under the United States." Not one of them has any individual powers that they can execute. Sworn officers (President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries, etc., SC Justices, etc.) do take oaths of office, as do all members of the military.

Oh I agree 100%. I was not trying to validate her claim. As to being an officer of the US, I do not see how he can deny it. He claimed to be one:

The suggestions of resignation came at the end of a day when the president asserted his dominance over a justice system that had long sought to insulate itself from political pressures. Calling himself “the chief law enforcement officer of the country,” Mr. Trump demanded a new trial for Mr. Stone, urged federal judges to address the “tremendous” abuse of the special counsel investigation of his campaign and bypassed the traditional pardon process to grant clemency to celebrity convicts recommended by his friends, allies and political donors.

As Trump Claims to Be Law of the Land, Barr’s Irritation Builds (Published 2020)

The president broadly asserted his authority of the criminal justice system, attacking law enforcement officials and issuing pardons.

www.nytimes.com

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No but it shows that it is not as clear cut as you say it is.

Interesting spin on the fact that the majority of the justices who have weighed in on the issue disagree with your position.

ok, What is the definition then?

A key few principles come into play:

• Plain language: in the absence of a prescribed definition in the legislation, the definition of words follows common usage.
• All parts of the legislation are meaningful: if an interpretation would render part of the legislation meaningless or redundant, then it is most likely wrong.
• Past precedents: relevant case law is followed, if there is any.

... so we'd start with the dictionary definition. Here's one:

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Definition of INSURRECTION

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Common usage for pretty much any word covers a range of meanings, though, so we filter them using the second test. The Fourteenth Amendment speaks to "rebellion or insurrection," so we can infer that the two terms both mean something distinct. IOW, any interpretation of "insurrection" that makes insurrection synonymous with rebellion is incorrect.

Here's the same dictionary's definition of "rebellion":

a: open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government
b: an instance of such defiance or resistance

Definition of REBELLION

opposition to one in authority or dominance; open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government; an instance of such defiance or resistance… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The distinction I see between insurrection and rebellion is that a rebellion is generally armed and an insurrection isn't necessarily armed. In both cases, a single act can qualify.

What's your definition?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

His defense team was not given the evidence that was going to be presented against him prior to hearing. The standard was not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, why are you ok with a court concluding he participated in an insurrection but was never charged for 3+ years? No prosecutor has ever charged him with it. Why is that? If Jack Smith could charge him with insurrection you know he would. The logical conclusion is that he knows he cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You don’t get to kick a person off the ballot because you think he has committed a crime but can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt which is the standard for the charge of insurrection in a criminal court.

FYI. You're applying the wrong standard. Here's the standard:

One who applies for a Mandamus to compel his induction into an office, must show affirmatively that he is entitled to hold such office.

Worthy v. Barrett and Others, 63 N.C. 199 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Worthy v. Barrett and Others, 63 N.C. 199, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

IOW, once deemed ineligible, a candidate is presumed ineligible until they demonstrate otherwise.

This quote was from the North Carolina Supreme Court decision about Kenneth Worthy. Worthy was a North Carolina county sheriff before and during the Civil War. He never served in the Confederate Army or engaged in violence again the United States and was never charged with any crime, but he did swear an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy while serving as a sheriff in secessionist North Carolina.

After the war, Worthy tried to run for county sheriff again, but his nomination was rejected by the county clerk on the grounds that Worthy was ineligible because of the 14th Amendment.

Worthy challenged the county clerk's decision by appealing to the state for a writ of mandamus to get the county to accept his nomination.

The State Supreme Court rejected Worthy's appeal.

You can find more about this and other relevant past cases here:

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.

www.citizensforethics.org

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you blame BLM for the violent riots of 2020?

No.

Do you blame Schumer for the attempted murder of Kavanaugh?

Don't know enough about the specifics.

If you said to go to my house and stand on public property and peaceably protest and if they came in and beat me up, no that is not your fault.

So you're just going to completely ignore ALL THE OTHER FACTORS I MENTIONED?

So what? Why doesn't he have that right to think or say that?

Strawman. Never said he doesn't have the right to think or say that. I said that when he tells people that, over and over again, despite a total lack of evidence and every court case failing, despite his own party telling him not to, and in front of thousands of people on the day the vote is to be ratified, and tells them to march on the building where the vote is being ratified, and fails to act when violence breaks out, and goes on to explicitly defend the people who committed that violence, that is wrong.

You seem allergic to specifics. Is there a reason you deliberately misinterpreted my position, which has always been the above, as being about Trump "not being allowed to think or say" what he wants?

Hillary said 2016 was stolen from her.

Does she claim the election was rigged, and did she do this to thousands of people on the day and at the location the vote was to be ratified, and instruct them to march on the Capitol, and refuse to act when violence broke out, and repeatedly defend the perpetrators of that violence?

Again, the details matter. Why do you keep glossing over them when I have been very specific about including them?

That has been settled by law.

No, it hasn't. It's still ongoing.

12:53 rioters entered capital, 1:50 and 2:13 Trump's tweets about peace in the capital and respecting police etc.

That's false, as I explained in a previous post. The tweets were significantly later than you are claiming: (SOURCE: Timeline of the January 6 United States Capitol attack - Wikipedia) the fist tweet urging the people to "stay peaceful" wasn't sent until 2:38pm and WASN'T EVEN SENT BY HIM, and the first tweet he sent after the violence broke out (at 2:24pm) was this:

"Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!"

His next tweet, calling for peace, wasn't until 3:13pm, long after the violence started, and long after colleagues, family and advisers told him to instruct the protesters to leave. Then later, he tweeted this:

"These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"

Boy, it sure does sound like he's justifying what happened.

I never said he did. But if you were consistent with your position you would condemn his comments.

No, because that's not my position. Re-read my posts.

No, I pointed this out to show your inconsistency.

There is no inconsistency. There is a world of difference in both content, intention and context between Biden's words and Trump's. I have always expressed how important that difference is.

And note that you took my my entire comment to try to make this point. Here is what I actually said, what is in bold is what you took out of the context.

Are you going to be consistent with what you believe and condemn the comments by Biden likening Trump to a nazi and he will end democracy if elected? These are inflammatory and could lead to violence against Trump if someone takes him seriously.

You should have to be dishonest to make your points.

Once again, go back and re-read my arguments. I have never once said that the mere fact he said them was the bad thing - it's way more specific.

No it is the point. You said because he said the election was stolen is inciting violence.

That's false. I have been very specific about ALL OF THE DETAILS which made it obvious he was inciting violence. I never once said that JUST STATING THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN MEANT HE WAS INCITING VIOLENCE. Don't try to lecture me on dishonesty when you make arguments like this.

Trump and Hillary said the election was stolen then according to you they both were promoting violence.

That's also false. Hillary has never claimed the election was fraudulent, she concede the election, and she never instructed thousands of her followers, on the day of the vote's ratification, to march on the Capitol.

Can't have it both ways.

You seriously don't understand my argument. Go back and read my posts.

To illustrate, this is like saying that the kid who shouted "fire" in a packed theatre as a joke isn't responsible, and shouldn't be punished for, the injuries that resulted when people trampled each other to escape, because if we were "consistent" we would hold a different kid responsible and punish them because they shouted "fire" when there was an actual, small fire in a much less crowded theatre and there were no injuries that resulted.

The problem is not "it's going to cause injury when you shout 'fire', so we should punish people for doing it in all circumstances". It's "under these specific circumstances, shouting 'fire' would obviously - and did - cause tremendous harm, and we should hold this person responsible for it." This is not a particularly difficult thing to grasp. When somebody lights a firework in a building that results in the building burning down, you don't defend that person from blame by suggesting that consistency thus demand we punish all people who have ever used fireworks. It's pretty obvious that there is a difference between doing something in one context and doing something in another context, ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT CONTEXT RESULTS IN ACTUAL HARM.

Nobody here is arguing that Trump BELIEVING the election was rigged, or even really SAYING the election was rigged, is necessarily sufficient to make him responsible for January 6th. It's about the very specific circumstances that made WHAT HE DID, AT THAT TIME, AND HIS SUBSEQUENT AND CONCURRENT ACTIONS make him responsible for the THINGS THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AS A RESULT.

I have not been ambiguous about this. You know full well what the argument is because I've been extremely consistent. Why do you have to misrepresent it?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Did she? I do not remember her saying that. She did correctly point out that she won the popular vote and that we are using an archaic system that needs to be replaced. That is not saying that the race was stolen. And remember, Trump lied about the election being stolen many many times. He lost both the popular vote and the electoral vote. The latter by a landslide by his own definition.

Hillarys quotes:

"No, it doesn’t kill me because he knows he’s an illegitimate president, I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did." 2016

There was a widespread understanding that this election was not on the level, We still don’t know what really happened.” 2020

You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,” 2020

Many of the left said the same type of things. It is an easy Duck Duck Go search.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Interesting spin on the fact that the majority of the justices who have weighed in on the issue disagree with your position.



A key few principles come into play:

• Plain language: in the absence of a prescribed definition in the legislation, the definition of words follows common usage.
• All parts of the legislation are meaningful: if an interpretation would render part of the legislation meaningless or redundant, then it is most likely wrong.
• Past precedents: relevant case law is followed, if there is any.

... so we'd start with the dictionary definition. Here's one:

Definition of INSURRECTION

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Common usage for pretty much any word covers a range of meanings, though, so we filter them using the second test. The Fourteenth Amendment speaks to "rebellion or insurrection," so we can infer that the two terms both mean something distinct. IOW, any interpretation of "insurrection" that makes insurrection synonymous with rebellion is incorrect.

Here's the same dictionary's definition of "rebellion":

Definition of REBELLION

opposition to one in authority or dominance; open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government; an instance of such defiance or resistance… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The distinction I see between insurrection and rebellion is that a rebellion is generally armed and an insurrection isn't necessarily armed. In both cases, a single act can qualify.

What's your definition?

These definitions of revolting against a government can mean speeding, public protest, not paying taxes etc.. These are acts of defiance. Why cannot a protest such as the attacks on police and destruction of public property at capital buildings such as in 2020 fall under these definitions?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No.


Don't know enough about the specifics.


So you're just going to completely ignore ALL THE OTHER FACTORS I MENTIONED?


Strawman. Never said he doesn't have the right to think or say that. I said that when he tells people that, over and over again, despite a total lack of evidence and every court case failing, despite his own party telling him not to, and in front of thousands of people on the day the vote is to be ratified, and tells them to march on the building where the vote is being ratified, and fails to act when violence breaks out, and goes on to explicitly defend the people who committed that violence, that is wrong.

You seem allergic to specifics. Is there a reason you deliberately misinterpreted my position, which has always been the above, as being about Trump "not being allowed to think or say" what he wants?


Does she claim the election was rigged, and did she do this to thousands of people on the day and at the location the vote was to be ratified, and instruct them to march on the Capitol, and refuse to act when violence broke out, and repeatedly defend the perpetrators of that violence?

Again, the details matter. Why do you keep glossing over them when I have been very specific about including them?


No, it hasn't. It's still ongoing.


That's false, as I explained in a previous post. The tweets were significantly later than you are claiming: (SOURCE: Timeline of the January 6 United States Capitol attack - Wikipedia) the fist tweet urging the people to "stay peaceful" wasn't sent until 2:38pm and WASN'T EVEN SENT BY HIM, and the first tweet he sent after the violence broke out (at 2:24pm) was this:

"Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!"

His next tweet, calling for peace, wasn't until 3:13pm, long after the violence started, and long after colleagues, family and advisers told him to instruct the protesters to leave. Then later, he tweeted this:

"These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"

Boy, it sure does sound like he's justifying what happened.


No, because that's not my position. Re-read my posts.


There is no inconsistency. There is a world of difference in both content, intention and context between Biden's words and Trump's. I have always expressed how important that difference is.


Once again, go back and re-read my arguments. I have never once said that the mere fact he said them was the bad thing - it's way more specific.


That's false. I have been very specific about ALL OF THE DETAILS which made it obvious he was inciting violence. I never once said that JUST STATING THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN MEANT HE WAS INCITING VIOLENCE. Don't try to lecture me on dishonesty when you make arguments like this.


That's also false. Hillary has never claimed the election was fraudulent, she concede the election, and she never instructed thousands of her followers, on the day of the vote's ratification, to march on the Capitol.


You seriously don't understand my argument. Go back and read my posts.

To illustrate, this is like saying that the kid who shouted "fire" in a packed theatre as a joke isn't responsible, and shouldn't be punished for, the injuries that resulted when people trampled each other to escape, because if we were "consistent" we would hold a different kid responsible and punish them because they shouted "fire" when there was an actual, small fire in a much less crowded theatre and there were no injuries that resulted.

The problem is not "it's going to cause injury when you shout 'fire', so we should punish people for doing it in all circumstances". It's "under these specific circumstances, shouting 'fire' would obviously - and did - cause tremendous harm, and we should hold this person responsible for it." This is not a particularly difficult thing to grasp. When somebody lights a firework in a building that results in the building burning down, you don't defend that person from blame by suggesting that consistency thus demand we punish all people who have ever used fireworks. It's pretty obvious that there is a difference between doing something in one context and doing something in another context, ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT CONTEXT RESULTS IN ACTUAL HARM.

Nobody here is arguing that Trump BELIEVING the election was rigged, or even really SAYING the election was rigged, is necessarily sufficient to make him responsible for January 6th. It's about the very specific circumstances that made WHAT HE DID, AT THAT TIME, AND HIS SUBSEQUENT AND CONCURRENT ACTIONS make him responsible for the THINGS THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AS A RESULT.

I have not been ambiguous about this. You know full well what the argument is because I've been extremely consistent. Why do you have to misrepresent it?

We are not going to agree and I am tired of arguing about this. If Trump remains on the ballots he is going to win in November, no doubt then we will see what the left does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hillarys quotes:

"No, it doesn’t kill me because he knows he’s an illegitimate president, I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did." 2016

There was a widespread understanding that this election was not on the level, We still don’t know what really happened.” 2020

You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,” 2020

Many of the left said the same type of things. It is an easy Duck Duck Go search.

Get your dates right. The first quote was from 2019. Not 2016. And look at the context. She never said that she won. She knows that she lost the electoral college vote. But she did win the popular vote. She never claimed to have actually won. She should have won because she was the popular choice, but we still have an out of date method of determining who won the Presidency.

Recipe: Fried Chicken and Andouille Gumbo - Recipelink.com

Fried Chicken and Andouille Gumbo, Main Dishes, Chicken, Poultry

www.recipelink.com

So do you have anything that shows that she is doing anything at all like Trump is doing? Trump is still lying to this day about winning the election.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are not going to agree and I am tired of arguing about this. If Trump remains on the ballots he is going to win in November, no doubt then we will see what the left does.

That is rather dubious. You need to check the latest polls and it is going to get worse for Trump if the economy continues to boom. People are realizing that all of Trump's claims are lies. Well except for a few rather slow ones. Near record low unemployment. Record growth, bigger than anything Trump had. Actual progress in working on some of the real problems of the country. Meanwhile Trump is sounding more senile every day. Yes, both men are past their prime, but Trump is winning the race to that finish line.

 

[Subduction Zone]

These definitions of revolting against a government can mean speeding, public protest, not paying taxes etc.. These are acts of defiance. Why cannot a protest such as the attacks on police and destruction of public property at capital buildings such as in 2020 fall under these definitions?

No, none of those qualify as an insurrection from any definition that I have seen.