2024 Primary Elections.

The first part is a lie (or more Trump’s asshole-slurping willful blindness), the second isn’t necessary. My evidence: no historical disqualifications under the 14th amendment section 3 followed a conviction:

The fact that you want to make a conviction necessary, only for Trump, is Exhibit C.

Where did I say it should be only for Trump? If someone hasn't been convicted of insurrection then how can you justify not only taking away their rights, but millions of other people's rights? Why are you so afraid to allow a democratic process play out?

Do you think the people who wrote and voted for the 14th Amendment intended that, for example, Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee should be able to hold office?

And now we are where we are.

No.

Are you under the impression that either Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee was ever charged with, or convicted of, insurrection?

What is that supposed to mean?

No. Are you under the impression that they attempted to run for office?

Your objections ring hollow. I don’t see you caring about the rights of millions to vote for a 20 year old Representative, Senator, or President, or for non-citizens for the same. Nor any sympathy for any of the previous thousands who were disqualified and the 8 or so who remain so. Only for Trump.

Edit: also, you totally (purposefully) failed to address the historical precedents that show conviction is not necessary. I think this is because you know you’re wrong so you keep trying to change the subject. Just admit you’re wrong and we can move on to your masochistic “I’m not a Trump supporter please beat on me daddies” routine uninterrupted by actual debate.

It means, if they had been killed 150 years ago, they would not have been able to spread their hate and we wouldn’t have to deal with their hate filled grandchildren today.

What the fuck are you even talking about? What other millions of people? This discussion is about Trump which why I'm focusing on Trump. If you wanna talk about these other people, then go ahead. I'm well aware that conviction is not necessary, I'm asking you how you justify this without a conviction? Does that mean the Secretary of State in Florida can just declare Biden an insurrectionist and take him off the ballot?

So you think every confederate should have been summary executed?

He already answered that.

Two pages back:

I would expect Joe Biden to sue, the state courts to make a determination that he is eligible and to order the Secretary of State to put him on the ballot, a federal appeals court to uphold unanimously, and SCOTUS to deny cert. That seems entirely fair and legal.

So you're perfectly okay with a SoS saying Joe Biden is an insurrectionist and taken off the ballot? Why would you assume that the state courts would determine Biden eligible? Why would you assume the federal appeals court would uphold it and why do you assume that SCOTUS would deny cert?

Yes, exactly the same was as they can declare someone not a citizen, or too young, or that a petition doesn’t have enough signatures, to get on the ballot. And if the candidate feels they’re wrong, they sue and get a fair trial over the matter.

Why would you assume that the state courts would determine Biden eligible? Why would you assume the federal appeals court would uphold it and why do you assume that SCOTUS would deny cert?

It’d be dumb and quickly thrown out but I’m not saying they can’t try.

Be hilarious to watch how quickly it got tossed.

Stupid Republicans.

Because Biden neither participated in or gave aid and comfort to those who participated in an insurrection.

Duh.

Why? Why do you think it would be thrown out?

Because Biden neither participated in or gave aid and comfort to those who participated in an insurrection.

Duh.

Because Trump engaged in insurrection and Biden didn’t. Back to Exhibit A, apparently.

And it hasn't been established that (A) there was an insurrection and (B) Trump participated in said insurrection. You claiming it to be true, doesn't make it true. The DoJ hasn't accused him of participating in an insurrection and he hasn't been found guilty of insurrection so I ask again, how do you justify taking him off the ballot when those two things haven't occurred?

Says who? You? Where's the proof?

So says the Maine SoS and the Colorado Superior and Supreme Court. You could try reading their rulings.

Edit: what am I saying? Reading is for chumps and losers, so says your God-Emperor. Continuing to repeat the lies, and deflecting when the lies stop working, is much more important.

Yeah and both the Maine ruling and the Colorado ruling will get struck down.

A) Yes it has. We all saw it live. The insurrection was televised.

B) A state Supreme Court and a Secretary of State disagree with you.

You might be right about that. There are any number of grounds on which it might be struck down, some better than others (primary = private assembly is the best shot of keeping him on the primary ballots). But it won’t be because of a finding that Trump didn’t engage in insurrection.

A) That wasn't an insurrection, that was a political rally that got out of hand.
B) And the Supreme Court will shut them down.

If Trump engaged in an insurrection then why hasn't Garland charged him with insurrection?

Yeah. I think the most concise version I’ve heard is something like: ‘They’ve got to go 4-0 with a 3-6 SCOTUS. No matter how good the argument that won’t be easy.’