Donald is about to go through some things...

[fishonjazz]

MSN

Lofgren told CBS News said she was surprised to learn from the indictment that Trump’s confidantes were seriously considering invoking the 1792 Insurrection Act, which would have authorized him to deploy the military against Americans to stay in power.

“I didn’t realize how close we came to Trump ordering the military into American cities,” Lofgren said. “That’s pretty chilling.

When deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin had told Jeffrey Clark, a former top Justice Department official in the Trump administration listed as “Co-Conspirator 4” in the indictment, that there was no way Trump could stay in power beyond Inauguration Day, Clark had another idea.
“Well, that’s why there’s an Insurrection Act,” Clark told Philbin, according to the indictment.

Kevin Carroll, who advised former White House chief of staff John Kelly during the Trump administration, said the military was nearly placed in an “unthinkable” position.

Commanders would have been “forced to choose whether to abandon an unbroken tradition of American military obedience to civilian control, or turn their guns on civilians to facilitate a losing candidate remaining in the White House beyond Inauguration Day,” Carroll said.

 

[fishonjazz]

MSN

Two conservative constitutional law professors have concluded that Donald Trump cannot be president again unless two-thirds of Congress votes to give him amnesty for leading an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

"Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6," the article concludes, according to the Times.


Paulsen argued that the article could lead to "a lawsuit presenting a vital constitutional issue that potentially the Supreme Court would want to hear and decide."


Both Baude and Paulsen are members of the conservative Federalist Society. They said there was "abundant evidence" that Trump participated in an insurrection.

 

[fishonjazz]

And another, meatier article about the same: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...&cvid=888a40021dec4f059df030b69590fa52&ei=140

“Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications.”

The law professors add, “to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as ‘aid or comfort.’ It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency.” (Maybe trumps dumbass shouldn't have said he would pardon January 6th criminals)

“And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.”


The New York Times notes that both professors “are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.”

“Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot,” Professor Calabresi told The Times, “and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them.” Calabresi also “said…that they may be sued for refusing to do so.”

 

[Al-O-Meter]

You do not understand the value of looking deeper, looking for those broader trends and tendencies that can lead to what we are seeing today.

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.

The rest of your fantasy is equally as ridiculous. My wife is a scientist. I'm keenly aware of the value of education and some of my most vocal moments involve anger over the shutting down schools for two years.

Despite the important role teachers play, I don't see them as being an elite class, evil or otherwise. As for not wanting schools to teach critical thinking skills, I'm again on the opposite side and complaining that evidence shows higher education has stopped teaching critical thinking.

Exclusive Test Data: Many Colleges Fail to Improve Critical-Thinking Skills

Results of a standardized measure of reasoning ability show many students don’t improve much over four years—even at some flagship schools, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of nonpublic results.

www.wsj.com

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.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

In fact I cant remember any left leaning sources telling me of the existence of a deep state cabal of satanists. Only right leaning sources.

Do what LogGrad did and use the search function. Pull up any post from The Thriller or Red on the subject and the source they link to.

 

[One Brow]

that evidence shows higher education has stopped teaching critical thinking.

Exclusive Test Data: Many Colleges Fail to Improve Critical-Thinking Skills

Results of a standardized measure of reasoning ability show many students don’t improve much over four years—even at some flagship schools, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of nonpublic results.

www.wsj.com

That's behind a paywall for me, but I am having trouble imagining a standardized test for critical thinking. Of course, the article thumbnail said "reasoning ability", which would be much easier to test.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

The law professors add, “to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as ‘aid or comfort.’ It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency.”

If this were true then the United States is officially over. That would mean any candidate, without anything needed to be proved in a trial, could be labeled as participating in an insurrection as disqualified from office. Did you tweet in support of BLM at any point in time around when rioters were attacking police officers, vehicles, or buildings? That would label you as participating in an insurrection and disqualified from office. Do you oppose that idea? Then you are giving comfort and aid to insurrectionists which means you are a participant and banned from office.

That is a dumb idea.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

That's behind a paywall for me, but I am having trouble imagining a standardized test for critical thinking. Of course, the article thumbnail said "reasoning ability", which would be much easier to test.

It is the Collegiate Learning Assessment Plus (CLA+) results they are referring to. The data they used is not paywalled.

A Closer Look at CLA+ Test Results

Search the results of the Collegiate Learning Assessment Plus, or CLA+, test of critical-thinking skills from a sampling of public colleges and universities that administer it. Each school\

graphics.wsj.com

 

[fishonjazz]

Do what LogGrad did and use the search function. Pull up any post from The Thriller or Red on the subject and the source they link to.

Thriller and Red aren't sources silly. You go ahead and give a left leaning source that is saying that the left is a deep state cabal.

 

[fishonjazz]

If this were true then the United States is officially over. That would mean any candidate, without anything needed to be proved in a trial, could be labeled as participating in an insurrection as disqualified from office. Did you tweet in support of BLM at any point in time around when rioters were attacking police officers, vehicles, or buildings? That would label you as participating in an insurrection and disqualified from office. Do you oppose that idea? Then you are giving comfort and aid to insurrectionists which means you are a participant and banned from office.

That is a dumb idea.

You are silly for thinking that the BLM riots were an insurrection.

These conservative lawyers who are experts on the constitution think that trump had something to do with an insurrection but didn't mention BLM. They aren't silly though.

I'm sure you believe that these conservative lawyers have been weaponized against conservatives or some other such silliness.

 

[fishonjazz]

I think thats enough silliness for me to read today. Back to ignore.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

You are silly for thinking that the BLM riots were an insurrection.

You're missing the point. A trial serves the role of not only determining guilt or lack thereof, but also of setting a definition for what is or is not an insurrection. If you remove the requirement for a trial to determine who is or who is not eligible to hold office, then anyone can be eliminated. We'd end up with a government like Iran's where there is a Guardian Council who determine which candidates are acceptable to God, and those are the only candidates allowed. The rules proposed by those lawyers would lead to a theocracy disguised as a democracy.