Hodad

You're a loon. There is absolutely no question that the US civil war was about slavery--both explicitly and implicitly. All but one of the states that issued reasons for secession identified slavery as a primary justification. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't issued until 2 years after the war began. Imagine, states take the time to write up articles explicitly explaining why they are seceding, and then 150 years later some uneducated internet jackasses decide to 'splain that "Nah, what they really meant was..."🤪 Sorry apologists for white supremacy, nobody is buying your revisionism.

The Biden economy is already better than the Trump economy in most measurables. Sorry your "feelings" don't agree with reality.

Also now ineligible and off the ballot in Maine.

No room for nuance or complexity? Yet, you're the one painting with a roller ("Of course politicians of opposing parties stick together.), while I'm the one presenting historical context and examples of politicians doing the right thing in spite of party. Rough case of projection you got there, buddy.

The U.S. Attorney for Colorado can bring federal criminal charges against someone, but it's not like a wedding D.J. situation. They don't take requests. And they don't have authority over Colorado ballots. More to the point, that's simply not how constitutional matters are handled. And this is the point you just refuse to accept and understand. If you think the state is violating your right to free speech, you file a civil suit. If you think someone has discriminated against you you file a civil suit. If you think Obama was born in Kenya and is ineligible, you file a civil suit. And yes, if you think Trump had been rendered intelligible due to his actions on and after Jan 6, you file a civil suit. Hell, even if he had been found guilty of insurrection in a criminal case, you'd still need to file a civil suit to remove him from the ballot. There is no component in criminal law to take such action. It's a civil matter. That's why this process IS due process. It's THE process.

I don't know whether this false equivalency and both-sides-ism makes you feel better about conservative politics or something, but it's objectively false. Nixon was going to be convicted because what he did was very wrong and Republicans of that era prized integrity of oath and office over pure party loyalty. Al Franken, a popular and influential Democrat, was dropped like a hot stone over what was ultimately a childish prank, but it was a prank in the sphere of an issue Democrats about which Democrats are passionate, so they put their money where their mouths are. A majority of Democratic Senators are actively calling for Mendez to resign over strong allegations. Today's GOP has an integrity problem. They should have been lined to to do the right thing and kick Trump to the curb for his egregious before, as they were prepared to do with Nixon. Many even publicly acknowledged Trump's misdeeds. But when it came time to cast a vote, they chose politics instead. "Winning hasf become more important than anything else, and they've learned that their voters jg offyust don't demand integrity any longer. Oaths of office are less important than any chance to "stick it to" the opposition. Why build something greatt when you can burn it all down instead?

Why? Primarily because the public citizens of Colorado have no power to bring federal criminal charges. They can, however bring a civil suit

Yes, they absolutely can. Impeachment is a political process, particularly right now. It can acquit, but not exonerate, btw. In the case of both impeachments, there is no question that Trump was guilty. His political party simply chose, for political reasons, not to hold him accountable. Case in point, for the 2nd impeachment McConnell and allies roundly and publicly condemned Trump for doing all of the things of which he was accused, but still voted against conviction on the thin premise that the process was negated when Trump was removed from office. The plain truth is that McConnell thought that after the coup attempt Trump was all done--no longer a threat to party or country, so he sought a politically expedient end to save further embarrassment to the party. He didn't want the next election cycle to be about how "the last Republican was convicted." I guarantee you that if those establishment folks had any inkling that Trump wouldn't go away, they would have bitten the bullet and voted to convict. To be fair, to Mitch and crew, it does seem preposterous to thinking Republicans that people would support the man after a coup attempt. They underestimated their success over two decades of grooming their base to tolerate anything that would spite the "liberals." And now here we are. The first President in the history of the country to subvert the peaceful transfer of power is the leading the race for the Republican nomination. The old guard did their work too well. Today's GOP doesn't believe in America. They don't believe in the constitution. They don't believe in elections and democracy. They believe in power at any price. They believe in vengeance and spite.

1. Punt. There is no established process anywhere. Someone has to have the courage to do the work and address thorny constitutional questions. 2. He was originally appointed to the bench by a Republican and is a registered Republican. Whether or not that's a factor in his reluctance, I can't say. ?‍♀️ 3. You think it's worse to be "cancelled" (publicly criticized) than face threat of death? Okaaaay. 4. Disagree. It would be excellent if our legal system would hold Trump accountable for his actions in a way that Republican senators refused to do--a refusal they are certainly now regretting. He did unimaginable harm to this country and was Mike Pence's moment of courage away from a successful coup. It is pure lunacy to give him another try.

You did make it clear, and I was criticizing his opinion. I think he's trying really hard to find any excuse to punt. Obviously this is a hornets nest of a case because it touches politics--Trump politics, specifically. Maybe he doesn't want to move houses or deal with death threats? Maybe it's because he's Republican and it's difficult these days to be a Republican and cross Trump? Maybe he's worried about being re-elected a year from now.?‍♂️ Whatever the cause, even if sincere and earnest, that kind of foot-dragging avoidance is a massive cop out. And the majority opinion called it out: "In our view, declining to decide an issue simply because it requires us to address difficult and weighty questions of constitutional interpretation would create a slippery slope that could lead to a prohibited dereliction of our constitutional duty to adjudicate cases that are properly before us." ^^ In other words, we shouldn't start punting on issues just because they are difficult or important, otherwise what's the goddamn point of a Supreme Court? lol I don't have any real qualifications. One of my degrees is a pre-law degree, so I've read and studied many of the landmark SCOTUS cases, and that informs my thinking. My goodness, where would we be if the SCOTUS had simply punted whenever they had to define and rule on sometimes nebulous language from centuries past? One last thing to add. It is actually quite common here for there to be overlap- and occasionally friction -between civil and criminal verdicts. They can and often do exist independent of one another. O.J. was acquitted in his murder trial, but found liable in his civil trial. Trump has been found liable for fraud in a civil trial now and no criminal trial has occurred. The fact that he hasn't been criminally tried for insurrection is similarly does not prevent such an assessment in a civil trial like this case. The lower court provided extensive fact finding and rationale in making the assessment, and even the dissenters on the CO Supreme Court aren't disputing Trump's involvement in the insurrection. If there is broad agreement that Trump has indeed fomented insurrection then all that is left is to figure out who makes the call on eligibility? And again, if not Supreme Courts, then who? There is no other option. That's what they are there for.

Yes, exactly. Let's compare a challenge to legal eligibility by birth citizenship, age, place of residence and challenge to legal eligibility based on this qualifying factor. They are all questions that 100% would be settled in civil court and then appealed through supreme courts as needed. And the argument above regarding the difficulty of defining terms and determining legislative intent from 150 years ago is completely asinine. That's literally the bread and butter of Supreme Court business. What does "arms" mean in "the right to bear arms"? What is infringement? What did the founding fathers mean by "all men are created equal"? What's a man? Does that include women? Did that include blacks? What does "equal" mean in terms of equal treatment under the law? When does life begin? When does citizenship begin? And on and on and on. Untangling complex questions and grievances is the job. Who else is going to do it? Left to a political body we'd get a new definition every time.?

So your idea of "honesty" is to ask how many people who weren't at the Capitol committed violent acts? Jeebus. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were just confused again. Apparently it's worse than that.

That's just silly. Not being qualified to run for office is not taking away someone's freedom. Some people are eligible and others don't meet the standards identified in the Constitution. Did we "take away" Arnold Schwarzenegger's freedom because he's not eligible to run for president? And a civil trial IS due process for these questions. Due process was followed. The overwhelming majority of cases heard by the Supreme Court are civil case just like this one, having followed this exact process. You don't seem to know much about our courts. You say the courts shouldn't be going down this road, but this is the road. That's the primary job. This is how constitutional questions are settled. Contrary to popular belief in some circles, Trump is not a special snowflake entitled to his own special legal privilege.

It's not my fault you have no idea what you're talking about. A. Newsweek is not exactly reliable these days. The Brand was sold for parts. So, grain of salt. B. That administration and their mouthpieces lie about everything, but their favorite thing to lie about is crowd size. Because Trump loves to stroke his own ego. C. You're bumfuzzled as usual. The number you're citing, accurate or not, is referring to when Trump was speaking at the Ellipse. It's a two-mile walk from there to the Capitol. Most of the crowd didn't go. Only the hardcore crazies. D. About 10k people were "protesting" on the Capitol grounds. The riot -- which followed a months-long disinformation campaign by former President Donald Trump and his allies, who claimed without evidence that the election had been stolen through fraud -- lasted seven hours, during which approximately 10,000 people came onto Capitol grounds, with many engaging in violent clashes with officers trying to protect the building and lawmakers inside. At least 2,000 made it inside the Capitol building.

Not sure what you mean. It's a civil case and had a standard civil trial. There were lawyers for both sides and evidence presented for both sides. There were witnesses and testimony for both sides. The lower court in Colorado found that Trump participated in an insurrection, and on appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed. And both courts provided well and extensively reasoned justifications for that finding. And, realistically, no matter what kind of trial was held, the ultimate decision was going to end up in front of the same 7 justices to render an opinion. The events of that day have already been legally established as an insurrection. There's no question that Trump was the cause and prompter of that sentiment, right up to the last moment. He even chose not to call them off--just watched it all unfold, probably with that stupid smirk on his face. But here's the full text of the clause: “No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States ... 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.” Even if one can twist themselves into a pretzel to argue that Trump didn't really participate in the insurrection, it's entirely indisputable that he has offered aid and comfort to the perpetrators, right?

It's a short (though rambling) speech. You could just read it. "Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them." You're off by 10x. 10k people showed up at the Capitol.

I know you have AV equipment that can bend the laws of space and time, but I'm skeptical that the videos taken before the insurrection contain comments coerced by prosecutors many months later. And the Ray Epps conspiracy theory remains a massive red flag that you're well off the deep end. He's just another MAGA kook like thousands of others. Except that after FOX kisses another hefty judgment, hell be rich.

Right? -- The election fraud story is thoroughly debunked moronic nonsense. But, damn, if it were true-- if there were an organization in the country capable of committing millions of acts of voter fraud without leaving any evidence and without anyone leaking information --that organization is clearly vastly more qualified to run our government than the mere mortals who currently do so.

A is blatantly, embarrassingly false. B is almost certainly false. Informants are not "operatives." C is definitely false. D1 is definitely false. D2 (because apparently you love the D) is also false. Only the people who breached the Capitol and the planners (like Tarrio) have been charged. You're just a shameless liar. Have some dignity.

Why do you think "the odds" matter? Does the constitution say that it has to be a really good insurrection to be disqualifying? Many of those people are on video-- or in court --saying exactly what they intended and wanted to happen. Why don't you believe them? They may be fools, but you're still allowed to believe their expressed motives.

Of course the Jan 6 rioters intended to overthrow the government, Dummy. That's exactly what Trump told them to do. The final conclusion to that rambling, incoherent, lie-filled screed (sounds a lot like you, actually, with his string of silly, false grievances) was that they would all march down to the Capitol, fight like hell and "stop the steal" or they wouldn't have a country anymore. He said all that specifically in reference to the vote certification. The crowd understood exactly what he meant. They've testified to it in court. Many of them are on video talking about their "1776 moment." They certainly expressed intent to harm Pence and Pelosi before they stormed the Capitol to get at those lawmakers. It was a crowd full of stupid people who are easily manipulated. It really doesn't matter whether or not you think the fools had any chance of success. The fact is that they acted on Trumps urging, and acted with intent. There isn't a law against insurrections that have a likelihood of success greater than X%. There is simply a law against insurrection.

Seeing as how no BLM riot had the expressed intent or opportunity to subvert democracy and, through violence, install an unelected ruler, there isn't really much to compare. ?

Jeebus, apparently you are just plain dumb. Jack Smith didn't "give up," he charged Trump with multiple felonies. That's what the trial--one of many--will be for. And Trump absolutely did the things he's accused of doing. The only question is whether a jury will be convinced of the criminality of those actions and hold him accountable.

Laffer is largely discredited at this point. His theories were questionable to begin with, but when put into practice the experiment was objectively a failure. It failed again when W tried it. Like most religions, faith in the universal goodness of tax cuts went unrewarded. Reagan didn't grow revenues with tax cuts, as Laffer proposed. Taxes were cut dramatically and net revenue fell. And the economic growth came from both natural recovery and from massive deficit spending and debt accumulation. But, yes, GDP was up. And yes, there were new jobs--which is important, since now every family needs two of them to make ends meet. The "middle class" isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon. For the vast majority of history there was a small aristocracy, a slightly larger merchant/professional class, and everyone else peasants, paupers and serfs. America was the "land of opportunity" because it was untouched by European hands, a nation overflowing with land and resources. But in a property ownership society, how do you build and maintain a middle class after all the land and resources have been claimed? It doesn't take much--just some modest worker protections, a mildly defensive trade policy and a serious progressive tax scale. In the generation after the New Deal they had a good recipe to grow the middle class. The social policy sucked, but economically, that was the heyday of the white picket fence American dream. Reaganomics was a massive positive for China, but here at home income inequality has exploded and the middle class has become grist in the mill of economic pressures. Even the rise of the "knowledge worker" hasn't been enough to offset those changes (though it's critical to international competitiveness). Anyway, if you want a home for every family and a chicken in every pot, the 80s aren't your economic model. If you want a massive working class--struggling class--and a big lottery in which some will become unfathomably wealthy, Reagan's your guy.

Of course they did. That's not really debatable, even. They shifted favor to capital over labor, dramatically cutting taxes on the rich while busting unions, deregulating, unwinding the "New Deal" and eliminating economic protections--again, to benefit the wealthy. All of this was done based on the argument they the wealth would "trickle down" from the wealthy to everyone else. Of course, that was always a bogus idea. GHWB called it "Voodoo economics" and he was right. What actually-and predictably-happened is that the wealth did not "trickle down." Instead, income inequality exploded as we turned millionaires into billionaires and the middle class into the working poor. Literally everything you complain about economically is traced back to those policy shifts. Instead of making things here, capital sought cheap labor abroad. Instead of building things, we consume things others built. Instead of one person being able to support a family with a manufacturing job, out takes two adults working at Wal Mart. That's the weirdest thing about modern conservativism. It's a near-religious belief in the Reagan dogma. Rather than looking at the actual effects of the supply-side experiment, they complain about the outcomes and propose to"fix" them by doing even more of the same things that caused them.