Your pragmatic analysis is spot on. Whether Trump should be allowed on state ballots is an existential political question, and the answer is no. Jack Rakove, Stanford University professor of history and American studies, today emphasized that a proper understanding of the history of the Constitution requires the U.S. Supreme Court Trump to rule Trump ineligible for the 2024 ballot. Former Court of Appeals Judge Michael Luttig and Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe concur. The Constitution effectively inoculates the Republic against the threat of one who has attempted to undermine it. It is therefore the sacred duty of the U.S. Supreme Court to act accordingly, without bias, fear or contortion, via a unanimous opinion, one which meets the demands of this historic moment.
The same Harvard that couldn't even condemn Genocide? That Harvard? Yeah, that's a great place to start.
The 2020 election was stolen by the left capturing the media and suppressing important news stories that would have affected the election outcome. The Hunter Biden Laptop story was suppressed, violating the 1st amendment and by censorship. The Biden administration is in the Supreme Court for it.
Over 50% of Americans polled have stated that they would have voted AGAINST Biden had they known the truth about the Hunter Biden fiasco.
Pesky facts.
But let's go on and on about how Trump is undemocratic and removing what is likely the most popular presidential candidate in the history of the country is the democratic thing to do.
What is happening on the Right is a direct reaction to the corruption of the Left.
Do you want to stop Trump? Stop the corruption within the Democratic party.
Just take a second to think through the logic of the 50% statistic you noted. Biden won 51% of the vote. This suggests everyone polled was a Biden voter and that everyone without qualification would've voted against Biden. Who knew that the Hunter laptop story's dissemination on Twitter would've resulted in Trump winning a 100% popular vote landslide!
But, more seriously, per G. Elliott Morris, here was the way one of the polling questions was framed: "If there was a concerted effort by the FBI, Intelligence Community, Democrat-controlled Congress, and Biden campaign, along with Big Tech, to frame the Biden laptop as ‘disinformation,’ do you agree or disagree the electorate did not have access to information that could have been critical to their decision at the polls?"
Come on, man. Something this tendentiously stated, and questions like it, can't get you anywhere near the conclusion that over 50% of voters would've voted against Biden had some social media sites provided unrestricted access to that story's dissemination.
I totally agree. The talking point I quoted was from a press conference with House leaders and I readily admit that the poll could be biased or skewed in favor of Republicans, as most political talking points are. PolitiFact 'fact checks' it here:
But now ask yourself this. Biden won with 4% vote advantage over Trump.
Do you think if the story's suppression affected the final outcome? ABSOLUTELY. And I have NO problem believing Trump could have won if the story were not suppressed.
The facts remain that the story WAS actively suppressed and misrepresented. This was a coordinated misinformation / disinformation campaign that was used to change the outcome of the 2020 election. There is no question. And THAT should have Americans up in arms, because of the the people don't have objective information to make a decision on, it's not an democratic election.
The Washington Post breaks down the analysis here:
All in all, it's easy to see that something nefarious was happening to cover up the story and that it was an orchestrated event to aid Joe Biden.
Now, just imagine if Trump Jr's laptop was found and he had a history of scandal. It would have been pasted on every Legacy news headline across the country.
The 2020 elections WERE tampered with by Democrats in exactly the same way they accused Trump of tampering the 2016 election: Through misinformation and disinformation...only it wasn't the Russians. It was an American political party that did it. And that is alarming.
I'm persuaded. I hadn't been taking into account the violent threats already impacting this election, both the threats against election workers (which have likely already "baked in" long lines and other obstacles to a fair election) and the threats against Republican officials who endorse other candidates (which is preventing a fair Republican primary).
It's absurd to say: "Well, we should let the voters decide whether they want to elect someone who uses violence and threats of violence as part of their political strategy." No, political violence prevents democracy from functioning. Political violence is the difference between true democracy and a dictatorship with a nominal democracy. Americans who recognize this must use all legitimate means available to head off this threat.
And as I put it four years ago at another Constitutional decision point, "To the extent fears of violence in 2016 are heightened by the fervor of Mr. Trump’s supporters, that cannot be allowed to sway [this decision]. There is a word for yielding to threats of violence in the futile hope of indefinitely putting off the inevitable: appeasement." It's way past time to tear this band-aid off.
Yes, there is a risk of provoking outrage and even violence. But there is a similar risk of violence in 12 months if Trump is allowed on the ballot and defeated again in November---or, similarly, if he wins in 2024 but (he or his appointed successor) is defeated in 2028. The risk of violence in each case stems from a candidate willing to persistently claim fraud without any basis in fact *and* then encourage a violent response from his supporters (a candidate, that is, with a proven willingness to rebel against---or give "aid or comfort to the enemies of"---the Constitution of the United States).
We've been waiting eight years for the risk of Trump-incited violence to subside on its own, but the threat has instead only grown. The lesson of January 6th is that our democracy will be overrun if we don't take this threat seriously and face it head-on. It's time to put the necessary law enforcement personnel on alert and disqualify this would-be usurper.
“Non-concession cannot be considered illegal: if false, it is treasonous but it is legal and covered by the First Amendment. The legal responsibilities for the January 6th assault are still to be examined, but in my view they can be hard to prove. On the other hand, the Capitol Assault is politically irrelevant: the non-concession, if based on facts, was the absolute duty of Trump (no matter the consequences), and if not grounded on facts makes him an aspiring usurper even if he did nothing else”
Weird, I think warrantless surveillance of all American communications, drone strikes on Americans without at the sole direction of the President, torture at black sites, and executive orders that usurp the legislature's power of the purse are bigger crimes than Buffalo Shaman's Big Day Out - which was also bad, but it didn't shred the bill of rights on an ongoing basis.
Do you apply the same "normbreakers must be broken" logic to historical presidents who broke a ton of norms like FDR?
Yes, all such cases should be (or should have been) subject to accountability through the applicable mechanisms, including in some cases criminal law, and impeachment, and a disqualification resulting from that impeachment. But Section 3 only applies to the this particular kind of wrongdoing, so you won't get very far with it outside of this context.
They would be "choosing" it via a campaign and election infrastructure shaped by the threat of political violence, which is the same way voters "choose" the leaders of Russia and Iran. This is not a theoretical concern but rather something already underway:
I'm not saying (secret ballot) votes will be directly influenced by threats of violence. Rather, the effect on the vote is indirect. I'm saying that those threats (made more credible since 2016 by Jan. 6, etc.) have intimidated many Republicans into expressing support for Trump or remaining silent, inhibiting those who understand the truth about him from uniting against him. In a world without that threat of violence, there might be many more voices speaking up about him, which could gradually erode Trump's support among their fellow Republicans. (There's also the indirect effect via election workers, which may affect turnout.)
I'm not talking about peer pressure. I'm talking about death threats, false reports to police that trick them into showing up at officials' homes with guns drawn, kidnapping attempts, etc. I'd still like to see Republicans show more backbone, but the point is that we have rules against political violence for a reason. It gives an unfair advantage to the worst.
If we don't recognize and enforce our own laws, indeed we as a nation don't deserve to survive.
It's pretty clear to most of us that Trump has never had any interest in following any laws. He really is the kid that lost the checker's game, kicked the table over and ate the pieces.
Your pragmatic analysis is spot on. Whether Trump should be allowed on state ballots is an existential political question, and the answer is no. Jack Rakove, Stanford University professor of history and American studies, today emphasized that a proper understanding of the history of the Constitution requires the U.S. Supreme Court Trump to rule Trump ineligible for the 2024 ballot. Former Court of Appeals Judge Michael Luttig and Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe concur. The Constitution effectively inoculates the Republic against the threat of one who has attempted to undermine it. It is therefore the sacred duty of the U.S. Supreme Court to act accordingly, without bias, fear or contortion, via a unanimous opinion, one which meets the demands of this historic moment.
The same Harvard that couldn't even condemn Genocide? That Harvard? Yeah, that's a great place to start.
The 2020 election was stolen by the left capturing the media and suppressing important news stories that would have affected the election outcome. The Hunter Biden Laptop story was suppressed, violating the 1st amendment and by censorship. The Biden administration is in the Supreme Court for it.
Over 50% of Americans polled have stated that they would have voted AGAINST Biden had they known the truth about the Hunter Biden fiasco.
Pesky facts.
But let's go on and on about how Trump is undemocratic and removing what is likely the most popular presidential candidate in the history of the country is the democratic thing to do.
What is happening on the Right is a direct reaction to the corruption of the Left.
Do you want to stop Trump? Stop the corruption within the Democratic party.
This is a really silly response.
Just take a second to think through the logic of the 50% statistic you noted. Biden won 51% of the vote. This suggests everyone polled was a Biden voter and that everyone without qualification would've voted against Biden. Who knew that the Hunter laptop story's dissemination on Twitter would've resulted in Trump winning a 100% popular vote landslide!
But, more seriously, per G. Elliott Morris, here was the way one of the polling questions was framed: "If there was a concerted effort by the FBI, Intelligence Community, Democrat-controlled Congress, and Biden campaign, along with Big Tech, to frame the Biden laptop as ‘disinformation,’ do you agree or disagree the electorate did not have access to information that could have been critical to their decision at the polls?"
Come on, man. Something this tendentiously stated, and questions like it, can't get you anywhere near the conclusion that over 50% of voters would've voted against Biden had some social media sites provided unrestricted access to that story's dissemination.
I totally agree. The talking point I quoted was from a press conference with House leaders and I readily admit that the poll could be biased or skewed in favor of Republicans, as most political talking points are. PolitiFact 'fact checks' it here:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/feb/25/elise-stefanik/poll-on-voters-opinion-of-biden-laptop-story-needs/
But now ask yourself this. Biden won with 4% vote advantage over Trump.
Do you think if the story's suppression affected the final outcome? ABSOLUTELY. And I have NO problem believing Trump could have won if the story were not suppressed.
The facts remain that the story WAS actively suppressed and misrepresented. This was a coordinated misinformation / disinformation campaign that was used to change the outcome of the 2020 election. There is no question. And THAT should have Americans up in arms, because of the the people don't have objective information to make a decision on, it's not an democratic election.
The Washington Post breaks down the analysis here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-biden-laptop-claims-russian-disinfo/
And just for good measure, here's the New York Post's take on it:
https://nypost.com/2022/08/26/2020-election-outcome-would-differ-with-hunter-biden-laptop-coverage-poll/
All in all, it's easy to see that something nefarious was happening to cover up the story and that it was an orchestrated event to aid Joe Biden.
Now, just imagine if Trump Jr's laptop was found and he had a history of scandal. It would have been pasted on every Legacy news headline across the country.
The 2020 elections WERE tampered with by Democrats in exactly the same way they accused Trump of tampering the 2016 election: Through misinformation and disinformation...only it wasn't the Russians. It was an American political party that did it. And that is alarming.
I'm persuaded. I hadn't been taking into account the violent threats already impacting this election, both the threats against election workers (which have likely already "baked in" long lines and other obstacles to a fair election) and the threats against Republican officials who endorse other candidates (which is preventing a fair Republican primary).
It's absurd to say: "Well, we should let the voters decide whether they want to elect someone who uses violence and threats of violence as part of their political strategy." No, political violence prevents democracy from functioning. Political violence is the difference between true democracy and a dictatorship with a nominal democracy. Americans who recognize this must use all legitimate means available to head off this threat.
And as I put it four years ago at another Constitutional decision point, "To the extent fears of violence in 2016 are heightened by the fervor of Mr. Trump’s supporters, that cannot be allowed to sway [this decision]. There is a word for yielding to threats of violence in the futile hope of indefinitely putting off the inevitable: appeasement." It's way past time to tear this band-aid off.
Yes, there is a risk of provoking outrage and even violence. But there is a similar risk of violence in 12 months if Trump is allowed on the ballot and defeated again in November---or, similarly, if he wins in 2024 but (he or his appointed successor) is defeated in 2028. The risk of violence in each case stems from a candidate willing to persistently claim fraud without any basis in fact *and* then encourage a violent response from his supporters (a candidate, that is, with a proven willingness to rebel against---or give "aid or comfort to the enemies of"---the Constitution of the United States).
We've been waiting eight years for the risk of Trump-incited violence to subside on its own, but the threat has instead only grown. The lesson of January 6th is that our democracy will be overrun if we don't take this threat seriously and face it head-on. It's time to put the necessary law enforcement personnel on alert and disqualify this would-be usurper.
Dear Andy,
I am surprised of that normalcy bias.
Even you do not take “factual” sides on the issue, a non conceding candidate makes the election totally abnormal.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ekM9jQqXq8D8qa2fP/united-states-2024-presidential-election-so-help-you-god
“Non-concession cannot be considered illegal: if false, it is treasonous but it is legal and covered by the First Amendment. The legal responsibilities for the January 6th assault are still to be examined, but in my view they can be hard to prove. On the other hand, the Capitol Assault is politically irrelevant: the non-concession, if based on facts, was the absolute duty of Trump (no matter the consequences), and if not grounded on facts makes him an aspiring usurper even if he did nothing else”
Weird, I think warrantless surveillance of all American communications, drone strikes on Americans without at the sole direction of the President, torture at black sites, and executive orders that usurp the legislature's power of the purse are bigger crimes than Buffalo Shaman's Big Day Out - which was also bad, but it didn't shred the bill of rights on an ongoing basis.
Do you apply the same "normbreakers must be broken" logic to historical presidents who broke a ton of norms like FDR?
Yes, all such cases should be (or should have been) subject to accountability through the applicable mechanisms, including in some cases criminal law, and impeachment, and a disqualification resulting from that impeachment. But Section 3 only applies to the this particular kind of wrongdoing, so you won't get very far with it outside of this context.
They would be "choosing" it via a campaign and election infrastructure shaped by the threat of political violence, which is the same way voters "choose" the leaders of Russia and Iran. This is not a theoretical concern but rather something already underway:
- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/us/politics/threats-election-officials-swatting.html
- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trumps-secret-weapon-consolidating-gop-fear-rcna126736
I agree the Left helps Trump in the ways you say, but that's a separate issue.
I'm not saying (secret ballot) votes will be directly influenced by threats of violence. Rather, the effect on the vote is indirect. I'm saying that those threats (made more credible since 2016 by Jan. 6, etc.) have intimidated many Republicans into expressing support for Trump or remaining silent, inhibiting those who understand the truth about him from uniting against him. In a world without that threat of violence, there might be many more voices speaking up about him, which could gradually erode Trump's support among their fellow Republicans. (There's also the indirect effect via election workers, which may affect turnout.)
I'm not talking about peer pressure. I'm talking about death threats, false reports to police that trick them into showing up at officials' homes with guns drawn, kidnapping attempts, etc. I'd still like to see Republicans show more backbone, but the point is that we have rules against political violence for a reason. It gives an unfair advantage to the worst.
If we don't recognize and enforce our own laws, indeed we as a nation don't deserve to survive.
It's pretty clear to most of us that Trump has never had any interest in following any laws. He really is the kid that lost the checker's game, kicked the table over and ate the pieces.
Agreed. But some fish really are bigger and more deadly. Trump has basically promised to King himself. And we've already seen him try.
Correct.