Donald is about to go through some things...

[Al-O-Meter]

One the cool differences between january 6th and something like the BLM riots is that the courts have already decided that one was an insurrection and the other wasn't.

People involved with january 6th have been convicted in court of sedition (insurrection) where as no one has been convicted of sedition stemming from BLM riots.

You posted the opinion of a couple of lawyers who said the provision was self-executing, meaning no courts were needed, meaning government officials can determine unilaterally who is and is not allowed on ballots. The thought you posted specifically states that candidates do not get any due process. It is a monumentally stupid idea that would give absolute power to whomever has the power to declare what is considered an insurrection. That you don't think BLM riots were an insurrection wouldn't matter if the ballot eligibility cabal you seek to empower thinks it was. No due process. No appeal. No justification of any kind. It is dumb, dumb, dumb and obviously wouldn't work.

 

[LogGrad98]

You posted the opinion of a couple of lawyers who said the provision was self-executing, meaning no courts were needed, meaning government officials can determine unilaterally who is and is not allowed on ballots. The thought you posted specifically states that candidates do not get any due process. It is a monumentally stupid idea that would give absolute power to whomever has the power to declare what is considered an insurrection. That you don't think BLM riots were an insurrection wouldn't matter if the ballot eligibility cabal you seek to empower thinks it was. No due process. No appeal. No justification of any kind. It is dumb, dumb, dumb and obviously wouldn't work.

You know there are actually laws and settled legal cases that define with actual language what is and isn't an insurrection and what is and isn't a protest. Believe it or not, the courts use this language to make this determination. I know with the Donald et al trying to redefine basic concepts it's confusing to think there is something written down that guides the courts so they largely don't make it a matter of opinion and so they actually can get it right. Crazy right? I mean I'm almost at the point I just think any old opinion I have must be the only clear-cut facts around with no regard for anything else!

 

[Al-O-Meter]

You know there are actually laws and settled legal cases that define with actual language what is and isn't an insurrection and what is and isn't a protest. Believe it or not, the courts use this language to make this determination.

Yes, and that settled law, those precedents, those definitions, as per the opinion the Fish was forwarding are in the way. They want to get rid of them, It is too inconvenient to have courts with their pesky language, precedents, and due process holding things up. Instead they want to simply declare candidates ineligible unilaterally. Luckily most people can see how that would come back to bite in the future and so no one on the sane side of the asylum fence is seriously pushing it. Trump will get his day(s) in court.

 

[fishonjazz]

Important to note that as many people as could be identified damaging property and rioting, AFTER there was a BLM event in daylight hours, have been arrested and charged with whatever crimes they could be charged with. Considerable effort has gone into identifying people, especially when they have done things like damage police vehicles, engaging in violence, damaging city/state property, etc.. No one turned a blind eye to this in the law enforcement community. Police and prosecutors weren't sympathetic to rioters largely making a statement against them.

This idea that the rioters were given a free pass is 100% false. When a couple people in a work situation started complaining that they weren't held accountable they basically gave me death stares when I told them that they actually were being prosecuted and that I could point to a KSL article I read that very day about convictions against several people who overturned a police car in SLC. They were very put out that I wasn't going to let them rant about how unfair it was that the Jan. 6th anti-American insurrectionists and Trump were being pursued for charges while BLM protesters were facing no consequences.

Ya I believe it was something like 14,000 arrests/charges were made due to the riots. None were charged with sedition though.
There was an insurrection that happened on january 6th though. If it can be proven that trump had to do with conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as aid or comfort then according to the constitution, his name is not even allowed to go on a ballot.

Cool thing is that I think this is something that pretty much all of us would be happy about. Al included (since he says he isn't a trumper and wants desantis to be president). Basically any non maga trumper would be happy about this. It would mean that in the election next year trump would be out! That would mean that Biden might even lose the election. I would think that this would make most non maga trumper conservatives happy! No trump as president and possibly no Biden as well!

Another cool thing about it is that almost no one would have to worry about this happening to them. I mean lets say that I was helping, supporting, giving aid to jan 6th folks and this was applied to me. Oh noes, now my name cant be on a presidential ballot. The horror!

I mean the only thing that would be happening to trump due to this part of the constitution is that he wouldn't be able to be president again. Which is probably going to happen regardless since he is likely to lose if he gets the nomination and runs again. So really not a big deal. Would just give a better candidate the opportunity to beat Biden. In fact, maybe democrats would actually be against this going down.

I guess Al's problem with this is that it would lead to a slippery slope of any time a future president participated in an insurrection they too would not be able to be president again. Im actually ok with that. Al likes him some insurrections though so this is understandably very upsetting to him.

 

[fishonjazz]

Yes, and that settled law, those precedents, those definitions, as per the opinion the Fish was forwarding are in the way. They want to get rid of them, It is too inconvenient to have courts with their pesky language, precedents, and due process holding things up. Instead they want to simply declare candidates ineligible unilaterally. Luckily most people can see how that would come back to bite in the future and so no one on the sane side of the asylum fence is seriously pushing it. Trump will get his day(s) in court.

They being the constitution? Courts already decided that january 6th was an insurrection. Constitution states that if trump had to do with conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as aid or comfort then he cant be president. Why do you hate the constitution so much though?

I guess your problem with this is that it would lead to a slippery slope of any time a future president participated in an insurrection they too would not be able to be president again. Im actually ok with that. You likes insurrections though so this is understandably very upsetting to you.

 

[Red]

That is like telling a professional baseball player that he doesn't understand baseball. I am a data engineer professionally. Looking deeper for trends and tendencies is what I get paid to do, and I do understand the value of it as I am compensated quite well.

That may very well be, that’s great, but you don’t seem to appreciate it where historical research is concerned. I’m not citing any deep research here, mine or anyone else’s, but simply pointing out it’s likely understanding that perspective will be helpful when looking at today’s world from the point of view of history.

Which is all I was getting out in pointing out the rise of conspiracism, alternate facts, and the irrational interpretation of current events(e.g. Pizzagate for one example) is concerned. As was pointed out, you left out all context, and simply complained about how many times you saw me use the word QAnon. And from out of the blue here, since the conversation did not involve it, but what came through was resentment, or maybe frustration, on your part, that it came up so often, in your view. I have not gone back to reread any of those comments in which I raised the subject. Chances are I’d likely still see the context the same. I wouldn’t raise the subject for no reason at all. Although I deduce you would, and did, consider it meaningless at the time.

I think you are a good dude, but you get so wrapped up in these wrong ideas that you become completely immune to even glaring evidence that you're on the wrong track.

I am at loss. Because, you also wrote this:

The exact same principle holds true for the topics you wrote about in the broader context of larger society. The responsible parties for putting those ideas into public view are those who claim to be against the things. Statistically speaking, the government and their allies in left-leaning media are the responsible parties. That isn't opinion. That is the story the evidence shows.

You make no sense to me at all. And, no surprise, your words show that we are seeing the history of recent years very differently. There may be historians, in the near term, or more distant future, on the right, who will write a history that you “find true”. We’ll see, but as for this, I don’t agree at all.

 

[Red]

Sorry to break it to you but it was all an 8-chan marketing campaign. It was never anything more than that. Your left-leaning sources all lied to you because they knew the bait was too much for you to resist giving them a click

It was far more than that to its adherents. And it grew from that, Trump seemed to sense its usefulness to him at times. But its relevance lies in part for the simple fact that you don’t see a similar hero cult focused around Biden. The fact that many Trump supporters embraced it tells me something about Trump supporters. And human nature ultimately. One reason for looking there being as simple as knowing all the ways Trump supporters interpret Trump. Why is Trump the figure he is? For instance, some see him within a deeply Christian religious perspective, as somehow sent from God. And Trump became incorporated into the QAnon narrative. To myself, both are ridiculous, but I’m interested in what Trump fulfills in these people. It just helps understand the “Trump scene” as it were.

Obviously, that is something that does not interest yourself, but what you say above is, of course, absurd. You don’t have to be interested in the same things I am! Lol. You don’t have to find anything I say relevant, or factual, or true in the least. But you display some pretty deep ignorance in that last sentence. If you wanted to demonstrate how shallow your thoughts could be, bingo!

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Courts already decided that january 6th was an insurrection.

Show me where "Courts already decided that january 6th was an insurrection." I think you made that up.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Which is all I was getting out in pointing out the rise of conspiracism, alternate facts, and the irrational interpretation of current events(e.g. Pizzagate for one example) is concerned.

Okay, but you skipped right over the part about showing that there is a rise of conspiracism at all. You blurt it out and show zero evidence that there is any more conspiracism today than 50 years ago with the moon landings, death of Elvis, and the JFK assassination. If you are alleging that there is more consipricism today then show your work on that point before you set about constructing explanations for a phenomenon that may not exist outside your own imagination.

 

[LogGrad98]

Show me where "Courts already decided that january 6th was an insurrection." I think you made that up.

Those are exactly the crimes they've been convicting people on, crimes tied to sedition and insurrection. But you will argue semantics I'm sure.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Those are exactly the crimes they've been convicting people on, crimes tied to sedition and insurrection. But you will argue semantics I'm sure.

No. That is wrong. What I will argue is facts. Here is a hint to the echo chamber dwellers who believe what you said:

"Of the more than 725 people arrested and charged in connection with the January 6th incident, none have been charged with “rebellion or insurrection” under 18 U.S. Code § 2383."

The Terror Attack that Wasn’t | MacIver Institute

www.maciverinstitute.com

I knew Fish wouldn't be able to back up what he was saying because his claim is false even if the majority of people think it is true.

 

[LogGrad98]

No. That is wrong. What I will argue is facts. Here is a hint to the echo chamber dwellers who believe what you said:



I knew Fish wouldn't be able to back up what he was saying because his claim is false even if the majority of people think it is true.

How do they know all of the sealed charges? And yeah, you like your semantics. I'm sure sedition charges were levied because they were inciting an insurrection at like Denny's or something. I called it, you delivered it. Nice!

 

[fishonjazz]

How do they know all of the sealed charges? And yeah, you like your semantics. I'm sure sedition charges were levied because they were inciting an insurrection at like Denny's or something. I called it, you delivered it. Nice!

Yep. I have never been charged with mooning despite mooning someone while a cop saw so mooning isnt against the law! Ludeness is though and i was charged for that.

definition of sedition: Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or INSURRECTION against, established authority.

The courts wouldnt have charged and convicted dudes of sedition if no insurrection happened. But they did charge and convict dudes of sedition because an insurrection did happen.


I would still love to see AL explain his slippery slope of how if this were invoked on trump then all hell would break loose. This constitutional punishment being discussed would only happen when a january 6th happens. I think january 6th occurences are pretty rare. About as rare as a presidential candate with the behavior and character of donald trump really.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Yep. I have never been charged with mooning despite mooning someone while a cop saw so mooning isnt against the law! Ludeness is though and i was charged for that.

Insurrection is against the law. It is 18 U.S. Code § 2383. You said correctly in reference to the BLM riots that courts had a definition for what was insurrection, and again correctly the courts had not decided the BLM riots were an insurrection. The courts have also not decided January 6th was an insurrection.

The courts wouldnt have charged and convicted dudes of sedition if no insurrection happened. But they did charge and convict dudes of sedition because an insurrection did happen.

If you want to see what the slippery slope looks like, it looks like you. First you started with a claim that Trump should get no due process because the Constitutional clause regarding insurrection was self executing, to then falsely claiming insurrection had already been decided by the court, to now holding to the candidate you don't like shouldn't be allowed on a ballot because people who were not the candidate were convicted of crimes that were not the crime cited in the Constitutional clause. You aren't even playing 6-degrees of Kevin Bacon because your pieces don't connect at all.

There is a candidate you don't like and you are working backwards to erase him from the ballot using any means. If you had the governmental power to do as you've indicated using what is apparent to everyone as clearly not applicable and without precedent, do you really think there is no counterpart to you on the politically opposite side of the divide who may someday be in the position to use your methods to remove candidates they don't like? Do you really think that only operators sharing your political beliefs would play hardball like that?

 

[fishonjazz]

Insurrection is against the law. It is 18 U.S. Code § 2383. You said correctly in reference to the BLM riots that courts had a definition for what was insurrection, and again correctly the courts had not decided the BLM riots were an insurrection. The courts have also not decided January 6th was an insurrection.

If you want to see what the slippery slope looks like, it looks like you. First you started with a claim that Trump should get no due process because the Constitutional clause regarding insurrection was self executing, to then falsely claiming insurrection had already been decided by the court, to now holding to the candidate you don't like shouldn't be allowed on a ballot because people who were not the candidate were convicted of crimes that were not the crime cited in the Constitutional clause. You aren't even playing 6-degrees of Kevin Bacon because your pieces don't connect at all.

There is a candidate you don't like and you are working backwards to erase him from the ballot using any means. If you had the governmental power to do as you've indicated using what is apparent to everyone as clearly not applicable and without precedent, do you really think there is no counterpart to you on the politically opposite side of the divide who may someday be in the position to use your methods to remove candidates they don't like? Do you really think that only operators sharing your political beliefs would play hardball like that?

So give me an example. You brought up the blm riots. Find me a politician who watched rioters committing crimes while the rioters were wearing their hats, shirts, waving their flags, did nothing to stop the rioters, contributed to the crimes, said they would pardon the rioters for the crimes, while also being the reason the crimes were being committed in the first place. If you can find a politician that fits that description then I 100% think their name should never be on a presidential ballot. Democrat. Republican. Independent. Doesn't matter to me. You do all that and you shouldn't be president. You apparently are cool with a politician causing crimes to occur, being cool with the crimes occurring, participating in the crimes occurring, and wanting to pardon the criminals of the crimes. You are silly in that way.

Trump is unique. He is different. He is an exception. He shouldn't be allowed to run for president. The constitution has a part included that the conservative lawyers, who are experts on constitutional law, believe can and should be used to stop trump from ever having a chance to be president again. Give me an example of another politician who has behaved similar to president trump where this piece of the constitution would be used against them. Explain why you think this is simply "a candidate someone doesn't like." Do you think democrats have liked all the other candidates prior to trump (and current ones)? I dont. Yet I have never heard of this proposal prior. And again, the proposal didn't even come from "the deep state" or democrats or whatever.


If someday there is a counterpart to me on the politically opposite side of the divide who is someday in the position to use that constitutional method (is isn't my method lol) to remove a candidate who did what trump did then I think that would be awesome. I wouldn't be upset in the slightest. Even if that candidate was someone I once thought was fantastic. Once that candidate does what trump did and results in what resulted then I no longer think they are fantastic and no longer want them anywhere near the whitehouse. Its so weird that you or anyone else want trump to be eligible after what he did.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

You apparently are cool with a politician causing crimes to occur, being cool with the crimes occurring, participating in the crimes occurring, and wanting to pardon the criminals of the crimes.

What I believe is that the law should be applied equally. Child murderers get their day in court. Rapists get their day in court. Donald Trump gets his day in court. That is not the same thing as being cool with child murder, rape, or Donald Trump.

Trump is unique. He is different. He is an exception.

If you can make exceptions to empower the government into not needing to follow laws when it comes to bad people then you no longer have laws. Anyone can be labeled as bad.

 

[fishonjazz]

What I believe is that the law should be applied equally. Child murderers get their day in court. Rapists get their day in court. Donald Trump gets his day in court. That is not the same thing as being cool with child murder, rape, or Donald Trump.

If you can make exceptions to empower the government into not needing to follow laws when it comes to bad people then you no longer have laws. Anyone can be labeled as bad.

According to these conservative lawyers It's constitutionally required of us to keep his name off the ballot. Take it up with the founding fathers I guess.

I will continue to wait for your example of this being applied to someone else and how I might have a problem with it.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

According to these conservative lawyers. It's constitutionally required of us to keep his name off the ballot. Take it up with the founding fathers I guess.

The founding fathers didn't believe this either which is why this clause has never been used this way despite far worse happening throughout American history. You found two yahoos who offered up a specious legal theory. I'm not worried about it.

 

[fishonjazz]

The founding fathers didn't believe this either which is why this clause has never been used this way despite far worse happening throughout American history. You found two yahoos who offered up a specious legal theory. I'm not worried about it.

According to your post you admit the clause does exist. It never being used this way prior is irrevelant as trump and january 6th hadn't happened before. Again, take it up with the founding fathers/constitution.

I will continue to wait for your example of this being applied to someone else and how I might have a problem with it.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

According to your post you admit the clause does exist.

Yes, there is a clause in the US Constitution that would prevent those who participated in an insurrection from holding office. That part is real. It is the imaginary extension where it also strips due process rights, the presumption of innocence, or any involvement of the courts this is wackadoodle. Sorry to be the one to have to break it to you but don't hold your breath as that isn't how the law actually works. Trump will get his day in court.