Donald is about to go through some things...

[LogGrad98]

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.

Hard to read that in dark mode. lol

 

[fishonjazz]

One of 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.

 

[One Brow]

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

This is the Common Scoring Rubric for the CLA+. There's a lot of judgment calls in there, although it might be more specific for specific problems. What I have seen so far would not be "standardized".

 

[Gameface]

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.

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.

 

[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.