Regardless, the mere fact that no one challenged his candidacy doesn't imply he was actually eligible to be President. Further, the mere fact one is ineligible to be President doesn't automatically mean the name can't be on a ballot, it just means they couldn't serve, if elected.

It was Colorado State Law that made Trump ineligible to be on a primary ballot.

Seditious conspiracy is insurrection and rebellion? Then why didn’t they get charged for insurrection and rebellion? — NOS4A2

Because the language of the law does not use those terms.

The Supreme Court, having a few justices appointed by Trump, is going to throw it out based on some procedural thing or what not and not even make a ruling on it, when they do. Certainly, they won't try to admit it was sedition. They'll say something like "officer" or "office" doesn't apply to the President. That's my prediction. Perhaps I'll be surprised, but I doubt it.

Regardless of who appointed them, the "Conservative" Justices embrace the principle of Originalism. Sedition seems moot; the 14th Amendment refers specifically to " insurrection or rebellion", and neither term is defined in law. So they should ask how these terms were used at the time the 14th Amendment was passed.

The events of 1/6 wouldn't constitute a rebellion, to the 14th Amendment framers, who's standard was based on the Civil War. But insurrection is in play. How was the term used in the 19th Century? The only detailed historical analysis I've seen is contained in the New Mexico decision that barred a County Commissioner from holding office because he participated in 1/6. The decision is here. On page 29, the court identifies how the term was used at the time. Here's an excerpt:

The term "insurrection", as understood by knowledgeable 19th century Americans and Section three's framers, referred to 1) assemblage of persons; 2) action to prevent the execution of one or more federal laws, 3) for a public purpose; through the use of violence, force, or intimidation by numbers....Section three's framers and 19th century Americans did not understand insurrection to require actual violence; intimidation by numbers sufficed.

Perhaps more historical analysis will identify more ambiguity, but if this analysis holds - I don't see how originalist justices can rationalize a decision contrary to their stated principles.

You may be right that the Justices will find some procedural excuse, but they need the ruling to apply to all states - not just the specific issues with the Colorado decision. That seems tougher.

I don't think it is so much that they were appointed by Trump but that they were appointed because they held to a conservative political ideology. Ironically, Trump himself is completely devoid of any political ideology. "Trump" is the brand that caters to the Christian ideologues and plutocrats whose perks the conservative justices enjoy.

"Originalism" is a term used to disguise the indeterminacy of legal interpretation by appearing to give it a solid foundation. It is a slogan that does not match practice. One need look no further than Scalia's decision on the second amendment.

They're originalists when convenient. I don't think it will be convenient, in this case.

You may be right that the Justices will find some procedural excuse, but they need the ruling to apply to all states - not just the specific issues with the Colorado decision. That seems tougher. — Relativist

"Trump" is the brand that caters to the Christian ideologues and plutocrats whose perks the conservative justices enjoy. — Fooloso4

I'm just completely cynical as to how principled people are, even on the bench. Clarence Thomas had to recuse himself, that is how close this goes to the justices themselves. If you don't think they are not influenced by favoritism, you haven't gotten to the depths of pessimism that is needed to wade through the modern political landscape.

Originalism I believe is as was stated here:

"Originalism" is a term used to disguise the indeterminacy of legal interpretation by appearing to give it a solid foundation. It is a slogan that does not match practice. One need look no further than Scalia's decision on the second amendment. — Fooloso4

They're originalists when convenient. — Relativist

He did get on Twitter and told them to be peaceful and go home, to respect law enforcement, etc — NOS4A2

Looks like "giving comfort" to me. No?

I often see Trump supporters call his detractors "Trump haters" as if our judgment is clouded by some irrational emotion, as if our mere dislike of him is itself evidence that we aren't capable of any sort of objectivity or reason. Well, I'd like to address that in this post. I didn't always hate Trump. I was disappointed he won in 2016 but I wished him the best. I thought he was sort of a demagogue, a buffoon and a non-serious person... But I also hoped that as a political outsider he might do some interesting and different things.

I didn't hate Trump right away, but then I began to realize he was a habitual sore loser. I hate sore losers. I hate them when they are the neighbor kids, I hate them when they are me, and I hate them when they are the POTUS. That is the core reason I hate Donald Trump. He's a malevolent sore loser who puts his own ego before the country's interests. He's like a spoiled kid who was never taught by his parents the very important maxim: "Don't be a sore loser." This isn't just a hollow platitude, it is one of the principles that allows us to function as a stable society. It is especially important in a form of government like a democratic republic because we are constantly having elections with winners and losers. We are constantly engaged in the peaceful transition of power in order to respect the will of the people who do the voting. Without people who accept losing graciously, the fabric of this system becomes frayed, and eventually will rip apart. Donald Trump isn't doing this accidentally, or unintentionally, either -- we can see he has history of using the recurring claim that the only way he (or his side) can lose an election is if it is fraudulent. Saying the election was stolen cannot be a belief based on evidence when he starts claiming this prior to the election taking place. And he does it over and over. He did this in 2020 with Joe Biden. He did it in 2016 with Hilary Clinton. He did it in the 2016 Iowa primary with Ted Cruz. He even did it by proxy for Mitt Romney in 2012 when he tweeted "This election is a total sham and a travesty" and "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty." It has enough frequency that we can call it Trump's modus operandi.

The difference between a child who is a sore loser and an adult like Donald Trump or Kari Lake being a sore loser is that children can learn to stop doing it and overcome their emotional immaturity. The adults know better -- or at least have no excuse not to, at this point -- but choose to be sore losers as a form of strategy. Trump's refusal to graciously accept defeat (and attempt to disrupt the peaceful transition of power) is the cause of so many problems we as a country are experiencing, and may even result in our country being ripped apart in a civil war.

I often see Trump supporters call his detractors "Trump haters" as if our judgment is clouded by some irrational emotion, as if our mere dislike of him is itself evidence that we aren't capable of any sort of objectivity or reason. — GRWelsh

In typical fashion the Trumpsters they gets things backwards, as if it were because he is hated that he cannot be seen for who he is. The truth is, because they cannot see him for who he is there is a good chance he will win the election.

Tyrants want to be loved. Above all else they desire recognition. Trump's gold toilets and other ostentatious signs of wealth are nothing more than a means to this end. This is why he claimed, contrary to the evidence, that his inauguration was the biggest ever. It is an essential factor in his attempt to overturn the election and the claim that he won the popular vote. His neediness is tangible. This is the source of both his weakness and his danger.

The difference between a child who is a sore loser and an adult like Donald Trump or Kari Lake being a sore loser is that children can learn to stop doing it and overcome their emotional immaturity. — GRWelsh

Children grow out of it only because they aren't constantly surrounded by enablers. There are tens of millions of enablers for Trump and Lake. The Trump phenomenon is a consequence of some unfortunate elements in our society.

It's not hard to see why a lot of people support Trump. The Biden administration has been an absolute dumpster fire. If Biden is the lesser of those two evils, it's only by a small margin. I don't know much about American domestic politics, but in terms of foreign policy the Biden administration did way worse.

It's the classic Giant Douche vs. a Turd Sandwich. Both options are awful. The other side isn't a bunch of deplorables because they differ in taste of awful.

it's only by a small margin. — Tzeentch

I wouldn't call the commitment to a peaceful transition of power a small margin, personally. The difference between a dictator and just a president who is run of the mill shit is huge too me

The Biden administration has been an absolute dumpster fire. If Biden is the lesser of those two evils, it's only by a small margin. — Tzeentch

Any failings of Biden are related to one's judgments of policies he's implemented or failed to implement. Trump is a fundamental threat to our system of government.

Germans believe Russia will attack Europe if Trump is elected.

:meh:

Ironically, Putin attacked Ukraine when Biden became president, most likely due to Biden's long standing involvement in Ukraine. His entire administration consists of Ukraine hawks. NATO expansion into Ukraine is their project.

Then there's Biden's cart blanche to Netanyahu, the loss of the Persian Gulf, etc.

Despite its many faults, the Trump administration really did a much better job at foreign politics.


The idea that Russia will attack Europe is extremely silly for several reasons. The Germans are probably afraid Trump will be elected president because Trump realized the Europeans are in a shitty bargaining position and started to press them. He was exactly right about that. That was actually a good move on Trump's part.

The idea that Russia will attack Europe is extremely silly — Tzeentch

Famous last words

Ironically, Putin attacked Ukraine when Biden became president... — Tzeentch

Why is that ironic?

...most likely due to Biden's long standing involvement in Ukraine. — Tzeentch

What evidence do you have of this post hoc claim?

Then there's Biden's cart blanche to Netanyahu — Tzeentch

With funding provided by Congress.

Why is that ironic? — Fooloso4

Because the article linked was talking about how the Russians might attack if Trump gets elected. The Russians in fact attacked when Biden came into office, likely due to his long-lasting involvement in Ukraine.

And his involvement is not any kind of secret. He was in charge of the Ukraine portfolio as VP under Obama, from the period 2009-present (now as president, obviously), including when the 2014 coup happened. Nuland was famously handing out cookies on the Maidan, caught on tape designing the post-coup government, etc. Sullivan and Blinken have also been deeply involved in Ukraine.

The links between the Biden administration and Russia's invasion are crystal clear.

The links between the Biden administration and Russia's invasion are crystal clear. — Tzeentch

The link between another Trump administration and a Russian invasion of Europe are also pretty clear. Neither Trump nor a large swath of the American population would care.

The links between the Biden administration and Russia's invasion are crystal clear. — Tzeentch

Are you claiming that this would not have happened if Trump was in office?

Are you going to blame Biden for Putin's invasion of Cimea in 2014?

In response to the question of evidence for your post hoc claim "crystal clear" won't cut it.

If there is a cease fire will you give Biden credit or is he only responsible when it comes to placing blame?

Biden is old but the history of the region is much older.

Are you claiming that this would not have happened if Trump was in office? — Fooloso4

Obviously that would be way too strong of a claim. I think there's a non-trivial chance that it wouldn't have happened under Trump, but the question is whether Trump would be able to go against the neocon establishment ("the Blob") - something Obama was unable to do (despite wanting and trying to do so).

As for Biden, he is the Blob.

Are you going to blame Biden for Putin's invasion of Cimea in 2014? — Fooloso4

Biden is obviously not responsible for Putin's decisions, but in a way, yes. He is responsible for knowingly sowing the seeds for conflict, together with Nuland, Sullivan, Blinken - the whole gang. Ukraine was their project, they pushed Russia and refused dialogue, and they turned it into a complete and utter disaster.

In response to the question of evidence for your post hoc claim "crystal clear" won't cut it. — Fooloso4

Evidence? :brow:

The involvement of all of the people I've named is not controversial or even secret.

If there is a cease fire will you give Biden credit or is he only responsible when it comes to placing blame? — Fooloso4

The US has blocked a cease fire several times already. Of course Biden would deserve no credit for it. As far as I am concerned, the US is complicit in the war crimes Israel is committing as we speak.

The US congress just passed legislation making it harder for a US president to withdraw from NATO. That kind of legislation doesn't usually work though. The SCOTUS will declare it unconstitutional.

The reason for this attempt is that everyone expects 1) Trump will be reelected, and 2) he's going to withdraw form NATO and basically join BRIC. No, it doesn't make much sense, but such is life. :grin:

2) he's going to withdraw form NATO and basically join BRIC. No, it doesn't make much sense, but such is life. :grin: — frank

That does sound a bit far-fetched.

That does sound a bit far-fetched. — Tzeentch

Everything about Trump is far fetched. :razz:

His strategy vis-á-vis NATO was probably to pressure the Europeans to stop freeloading. I don't think he would actually leave. And honestly in terms of European freeloading behavior he has a point.

The US is going to have (basically is already having) a huge problem keeping all its interests afloat now that shit is hitting the fan. If Europe with a combined GDP roughly equal to the US can't even maintain a credible deterrent towards Russia, which has 1/10th that GDP, something is wrong.

His strategy vis-á-vis NATO was probably to pressure the Europeans to stop freeloading. I don't think he would actually leave. And honestly in terms of European freeloading behavior he has a point. — Tzeentch

He despises Europe because he sees them as weak. He likes dictators because he respects them.

The underlying reality is that the US was allied with Europe because of the cold war. That era is fully gone now and Europe is just dead weight to the US. NATO no longer makes sense. This and abiding American isolationism will probably result in the demise of NATO. The Germans understand this. I don't know if anyone else in Europe does.

Deleted

Obviously that would be way too strong of a claim. — Tzeentch

In that case, if you cannot rule out Putin attacking if Trump was president, the connection with Biden is tenuous.

He is responsible for knowingly sowing the seeds for conflict ...

What seeds of conflict did he sow?

The involvement of all of the people I've named is not controversial or even secret. — Tzeentch

The involvement of these people is that they are acting within their official capacities as government officials in the Biden administrations. Of course they are involved! As would members of a Trump administration, unless you think Trump's "solution" would be to turn his back and ignore
what is going on.

The US has blocked a cease fire several times already. — Tzeentch

I am referring to Putin.

So, Hamas and Israel have agreed to a cease fire and the US has blocked it?

In that case, if you cannot rule out Putin attacking if Trump was president, the connection with Biden is tenuous.

He is responsible for knowingly sowing the seeds for conflict ...

What seeds of conflict did he sow? — Fooloso4

Again, since 2009 onward all the people I've named from the Biden administration including Biden himself have been deeply involved in project Ukraine.

That project sought the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO, and zero attention was paid to Russia's many objections, who spoke about red lines, fundamental security threats, etc.

Perhaps they thought the Russians were bluffing, but they knowingly invited conflict by ignoring them.

The involvement of these people is that they are acting within their official capacities as government officials in the Biden administrations. Of course they are involved! As would members of a Trump administration, unless you think Trump's "solution" would be to turn his back and ignore what is going on. — Fooloso4

Perhaps that is true, but I'm not aware of any members of the Trump administration handing out cookies on the Maidan.

To many people's dismay, Putin and Trump kinda liked each other. Regardless of what one thinks of that, it didn't appear to me that the issue was being pressed under Trump.

I'm open to being corrected. I'm not here to defend Trump. What I'm trying to make clear is that Biden has been a disaster in his own right.

So, Hamas and Israel have agreed to a cease fire and the US has blocked it? — Fooloso4

No, the US blocked UN Security Council resolutions calling for a cease fire, and expressed its unconditional support for Israel.

Again, I view the US as complicit in the war crimes Israel is committing.