If DeSantis wins

[Phoenixmgs]

K, but you've also been arguing in favour of that approach for ages (while also providing a bizarre fictional example of how unreliable it is).



You keep insisting that.



This all just stinks of shifting the goalposts, frankly. You gave a standard, I provided an example of that standard falling through, so you just added more criteria.



Absolute lol, you genuinely have no idea how your own country's legal framework works.

Because it's the simplest way and it's what the majority do. You're trying to claim doing something your brain unconsciously is always doing is complicated.

We've already been through this, the polls say so (I posted the polls).

How is being able to live outside the city with an average job and being able to afford a place to own and you choosing not to take that option the same as being mugged? There is no option that guarantees you don't get mugged. I'm talking about avoiding something like say type 2 diabetes (which everyone can do outside of possible rare exceptions) and you're comparing that to cancer, which you can only mitigate your chances vs completely avoid. You're the one shifting goalposts, straw manning, etc.

Then why did the Maine judge put the removal of Trump from the ballot on hold pending the FEDERAL Supreme Court's decision on the Colorado case if the State could merely decide? Maybe you should message that Maine judge that they don't understand the country's legal framework.

 

[Silvanus]

Because it's the simplest way and it's what the majority do. You're trying to claim doing something your brain unconsciously is always doing is complicated.

No-- I'm saying that it can easily be wrong, and in those circumstances when it does turn out to be wrong, you shouldn't insist the appearance overrides all other considerations.

We've already been through this, the polls say so (I posted the polls).

IIRC, you posted polls that showed something else, then pretended they backed you up.

How is being able to live outside the city with an average job and being able to afford a place to own and you choosing not to take that option the same as being mugged?

It's not. But you chose to employ a line of reasoning that applies to both, so I used the example to show how flawed it is.

Then why did the Maine judge put the removal of Trump from the ballot on hold pending the FEDERAL Supreme Court's decision on the Colorado case if the State could merely decide? Maybe you should message that Maine judge that they don't understand the country's legal framework.

Dude. Because cases get referred upwards. That doesn't somehow mean state courts have no obligation to uphold federal law. It actually demonstrates the opposite.

 

[Ag3ma]

I totally get "it". You're acting like they have some long-ass procedure to remove someone from the ballot. Literally 5 voters challenged Trump's qualification in Maine and the Secretary of State has the power to remove a candidate from the ballot. That's how simple it is. Again, in essence, just a publicity stunt.

No, you obviously don't get it. If someone launches a case to have a candidate disqualified from the ballot in accordance with procedure, that cannot just be ignored by an official. The process might be simple or it might not, but it would be misconduct to just ignore it.

For instance, Maine's electoral law, this appears to be the relevant section:

Title 21-A, §337: Review and challenge of petitions

As you can see, this says that the Maine Secretary of State is obliged to hold a hearing on any properly submitted challenge to a candidate, hear evidence, and produce a ruling, which may then be challenged by a court. For the Maine Secretary of State to ignore a properly filed challenge would be for her to fail to carry out her legal duties. Likewise, the Colorado courts cannot simply pretend that no-one submitted a legal action to have Trump denied as a candidate. In any case, whoever is overseeing the process must then rule according to the facts available before them.

It's like the left doesn't even understand that doing this plays into Trump's narrative

The biggest narrative that's going on here is the bullshit one in your own head that you splurge out in favour of reality. I already told you that some of these (e.g. Colorado) were filed by Republicans , not "the left".

These attempts to remove Trump from the ballot can be launched by any citizens. There is no way for the Democrats to control the actions of 200+ million voters. They can't stop any and all citizens from submitting these challenges. There are a load of random, Trump-hating citizens from all sorts of backgrounds and stations who are on their own initiatives asking for Trump to be removed. Some of them are "left" and some are not. But the point is that there is not an organised campaign, strategy, or PR stunt. It's just what happens when you have 50 states with their own procedures and literally any citizen can kick up a stink.

So what happened to Clinton and Trump because they got impeached? Literally nothing. It just makes for a big headline. You said successful impeachment can remove a public official from office. No it can't.

Impeachment is the process of charging and trying an official in most countries, so when I say "successful impeachment" I mean the charges upheld and the defendant convicted. For which the penalty in the USA is removal from office.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No-- I'm saying that it can easily be wrong, and in those circumstances when it does turn out to be wrong, you shouldn't insist the appearance overrides all other considerations.



IIRC, you posted polls that showed something else, then pretended they backed you up.



It's not. But you chose to employ a line of reasoning that applies to both, so I used the example to show how flawed it is.



Dude. Because cases get referred upwards. That doesn't somehow mean state courts have no obligation to uphold federal law. It actually demonstrates the opposite.

Appearance is the shortcut, sex is the end goal. And you can't misgender someone if you are using pronouns based on sex.

Nope.

Nope.

A state can uphold federal law, but can't decide federal law. That's why the state courts are putting it on hold because they can't decide it and that's what I fucking said. But apparently I don't understand basic legal frameworks...

No, you obviously don't get it. If someone launches a case to have a candidate disqualified from the ballot in accordance with procedure, that cannot just be ignored by an official. The process might be simple or it might not, but it would be misconduct to just ignore it.

For instance, Maine's electoral law, this appears to be the relevant section:

Title 21-A, §337: Review and challenge of petitions

As you can see, this says that the Maine Secretary of State is obliged to hold a hearing on any properly submitted challenge to a candidate, hear evidence, and produce a ruling, which may then be challenged by a court. For the Maine Secretary of State to ignore a properly filed challenge would be for her to fail to carry out her legal duties. Likewise, the Colorado courts cannot simply pretend that no-one submitted a legal action to have Trump denied as a candidate. In any case, whoever is overseeing the process must then rule according to the facts available before them.



The biggest narrative that's going on here is the bullshit one in your own head that you splurge out in favour of reality. I already told you that some of these (e.g. Colorado) were filed by Republicans , not "the left".

These attempts to remove Trump from the ballot can be launched by any citizens. There is no way for the Democrats to control the actions of 200+ million voters. They can't stop any and all citizens from submitting these challenges. There are a load of random, Trump-hating citizens from all sorts of backgrounds and stations who are on their own initiatives asking for Trump to be removed. Some of them are "left" and some are not. But the point is that there is not an organised campaign, strategy, or PR stunt. It's just what happens when you have 50 states with their own procedures and literally any citizen can kick up a stink.



Impeachment is the process of charging and trying an official in most countries, so when I say "successful impeachment" I mean the charges upheld and the defendant convicted. For which the penalty in the USA is removal from office.

It wasn't just a Joe Shmoe that challenged Trump being on the ballot, it was political obviously.

The court that decided Trump should be removed from the ballot in Colorado were all democrat appointed. Funny how ya'll b!tch about conservative appointed judges doing the bidding of the right, but mum on the fact that liberal judges do the same for the left. Trump actually committing insurrection is so paper thin it's not even funny. If people on the left stormed the capital because of what democrats said (about Trump and other elections being illegitimate), would they then all be insurrectionists? No, because you can say the election was illegitimate without being an insurrectionist. You all say the republicans are so evil and are a threat to democracy but when democrats do the same (and worse) stuff, you don't say a single thing about it just because that's your team, and that's bullshit.

Impeachment is just the charging. That's why Clinton and Trump were impeached. If impeachment was the whole process, then neither would have been impeached presidents.

 

[Ag3ma]

The court that decided Trump should be removed from the ballot in Colorado were all democrat appointed. Funny how ya'll b!tch about conservative appointed judges doing the bidding of the right, but mum on the fact that liberal judges do the same for the left.

I would note that the initial Democrat-appointed judge declined to remove Trump from the ballot. On appeal, the Democrat-appointed judges split 4-3. Plus you have to consider all the other states where requests to remove Trump were also declined, some by Democrat appointees. So, really, this little whine is sort of fatuous nonsense.

Trump actually committing insurrection is so paper thin it's not even funny.

On what grounds, precisely, is it "paper thin"?

 

[Silvanus]

Appearance is the shortcut, sex is the end goal.

Ooook. But that's not your approach. You've said before that you'll use someone's gender based pronouns but only if you think their appearance corresponds.

Nope.

Nope.

Cool arguments.

A state can uphold federal law, but can't decide federal law. That's why the state courts are putting it on hold because they can't decide it and that's what I fucking said. But apparently I don't understand basic legal frameworks...

But that's not what you said. You've shifted the conversation again, after your original claim about state vs federal jurisdictions turned out to be bollocks.

 

[tstorm823]

Ooook.

I know this is supposed to be a drawn out "ok", but my brain still read it as like a monkey noise. Ooook oook! This is not related to what you're saying at all, just something that gave me a chuckle.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I would note that the initial Democrat-appointed judge declined to remove Trump from the ballot. On appeal, the Democrat-appointed judges split 4-3. Plus you have to consider all the other states where requests to remove Trump were also declined, some by Democrat appointees. So, really, this little whine is sort of fatuous nonsense.



On what grounds, precisely, is it "paper thin"?

Still democrat judges making an illogical decision.

Because if people on the left rioted the Capitol building when democrats cried about elections being illegitimate, that would make those democrates insurrectionists as well. Just having the opinion that an election was invalid doesn't make you an insurrectionist and I very much doubt anyone reading the clause in the Constitution would jump to the conclusion that it would apply in such cases (as it's in direct opposition to the 1st amendment). Just because Trump said the election was illegitimate in the most Trump-like and theater-like way doesn't magically changed it from it being mere speech to insurrection. Hence, paper thin case.

Ooook. But that's not your approach. You've said before that you'll use someone's gender based pronouns but only if you think their appearance corresponds.



Cool arguments.



But that's not what you said. You've shifted the conversation again, after your original claim about state vs federal jurisdictions turned out to be bollocks.

Not what I said. I said you use physical characteristics to determine sex, hence determine pronouns, thus if someone's physical characteristics are changed so much that you determine their sex to be say male instead of female, then people would use those pronouns. It has nothing to do with gender.

Already did those arguments...

That's what I always said... The state doesn't have the jurisdiction to rule on it.

 

[Ag3ma]

Because if people on the left rioted the Capitol building when democrats cried about elections being illegitimate, that would make those democrates insurrectionists as well. Just having the opinion that an election was invalid doesn't make you an insurrectionist and I very much doubt anyone reading the clause in the Constitution would jump to the conclusion that it would apply in such cases (as it's in direct opposition to the 1st amendment). Just because Trump said the election was illegitimate in the most Trump-like and theater-like way doesn't magically changed it from it being mere speech to insurrection. Hence, paper thin case.

Okay. So, first thing, you seem to implicitly agree from that paragraph that the mob storming the Capitol met the definition of an insurrection. Great. If you dispute this, please say.

Next: did Donald Trump invite thousands of his supporters to Washington for a speech, and in that speech did he explicitly ask/tell them to march on the Capitol?

 

[Silvanus]

Not what I said. I said you use physical characteristics to determine sex, hence determine pronouns, thus if someone's physical characteristics are changed so much that you determine their sex to be say male instead of female, then people would use those pronouns. It has nothing to do with gender.

So now you're saying their sex has been "determined to have changed" based on those superficial traits. Well, at least we're both on the same page about how sex can change, I guess.

That's what I always said... The state doesn't have the jurisdiction to rule on it.

It does have the jurisdiction to rule on cases concerning federal law. It doesn't have the jurisdiction to pass legislation. I don't think you really know the difference between those things.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Okay. So, first thing, you seem to implicitly agree from that paragraph that the mob storming the Capitol met the definition of an insurrection. Great. If you dispute this, please say.

Next: did Donald Trump invite thousands of his supporters to Washington for a speech, and in that speech did he explicitly ask/tell them to march on the Capitol?

When did he tell them to illegally trespass/break into the capitol? Was the Million Man March an insurrection or trespassing or whatever? A march is not assumed to be violent.

So now you're saying their sex has been "determined to have changed" based on those superficial traits. Well, at least we're both on the same page about how sex can change, I guess.



It does have the jurisdiction to rule on cases concerning federal law. It doesn't have the jurisdiction to pass legislation. I don't think you really know the difference between those things.

If you have enough traits of the other sex that people perceived that's your sex, that's the pronouns they will use. I've said this for how many pages now? Hence the Miss Doubtfire example and The Muppets example.

State can't rule on federal issues. When it rules on something, it's using precedent from previous federal decisions.

 

[Ag3ma]

When did he tell them to illegally trespass/break into the capitol? Was the Million Man March an insurrection or trespassing or whatever? A march is not assumed to be violent.

Okay, so you are implicitly accepting that Donald Trump told a mob to march on the Capitol where they proceeded to sack it, which qualifies as an insurrection. To start with, this puts Trump at a significant element of risk.

Intent is indeed trickier. Trump did not explicitly tell them to storm the Capitol. However, the prosecution can still try to demonstrate there was a very good chance he expected it to happen, or was happy that it did. There's are some language about fighting in his speech. Probably not enough. What I think can get him in real trouble is that after the attack started, there is evidence Trump refused to call for assistance or to try to cool the mob down, even despite being asked. I think a reasonable case could be made that if he took no action to mitigate the attack, he wanted it to happen. Why else do nothing? There was evidence that law / intelligence services were aware of militants discussing violence were going to attend. Had Trump been made aware? If so, this could also severely count against him because the case could be made he knowingly sent militants at the Capitol. Plus the context of a wider strategy of trying to overturn the election and/or delay the confirmation, which a riot could help accomplish. I'm not an expert on the law, but there may also be angles regarding recklessness or negligence, rather than actual intent: a reasonable person should have seen the risk of riling up a mob and directing it at a target.

 

[Silvanus]

If you have enough traits of the other sex that people perceived that's your sex, that's the pronouns they will use.

So it's not based on sex then.

State can't rule on federal issues. When it rules on something, it's using precedent from previous federal decisions.

OK, so let me ask you this. If states can't uphold federal law, what do you think happens when someone breaks federal law? Do you think its always a federal agency that travels to the state to arrest/prosecute?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Okay, so you are implicitly accepting that Donald Trump told a mob to march on the Capitol where they proceeded to sack it, which qualifies as an insurrection. To start with, this puts Trump at a significant element of risk.

Intent is indeed trickier. Trump did not explicitly tell them to storm the Capitol. However, the prosecution can still try to demonstrate there was a very good chance he expected it to happen, or was happy that it did. There's are some language about fighting in his speech. Probably not enough. What I think can get him in real trouble is that after the attack started, there is evidence Trump refused to call for assistance or to try to cool the mob down, even despite being asked. I think a reasonable case could be made that if he took no action to mitigate the attack, he wanted it to happen. Why else do nothing? There was evidence that law / intelligence services were aware of militants discussing violence were going to attend. Had Trump been made aware? If so, this could also severely count against him because the case could be made he knowingly sent militants at the Capitol. Plus the context of a wider strategy of trying to overturn the election and/or delay the confirmation, which a riot could help accomplish. I'm not an expert on the law, but there may also be angles regarding recklessness or negligence, rather than actual intent: a reasonable person should have seen the risk of riling up a mob and directing it at a target.

Again, if the Million Man March ended up becoming a riot, would the people that put it together be charged with a crime? If any protest ends up as a riot, are the organizers responsible?

So........ paper thin then, right? So any intelligence that militants might come to a protest or gathering or march means you have to cancel it or be held responsible? This is crazy talk, do you not know the ramifications of that? You could easy then stifle anything you want essentially. Also, extra security / national guard was requested several times and denied/delayed every time. You just want Trump to be officially declared an insurrectionist because you don't like Trump and that's the only reason. If this was someone from a party you like, you'd be doing the same defense I'm doing. I'm like Tommy Lee Jones from The Fugitive, "I don't care" if I hate Trump or love Trump, I would say the exact same thing about this either way because even if I would want them to get Trump (and I do, but properly and fairly), I know you can't bend/stretch the law to do so because then it makes a precedent that can be applied to someone that you do like.

So it's not based on sex then.



OK, so let me ask you this. If states can't uphold federal law, what do you think happens when someone breaks federal law? Do you think its always a federal agency that travels to the state to arrest/prosecute?

Can you not read? Never said that.

I literally just said on this very page "A state can uphold federal law, but can't decide federal law."

 

[Silvanus]

Can you not read? Never said that.

You've been loudly insisting that it's based on sex for absolutely ages now.

I literally just said on this very page "A state can uphold federal law, but can't decide federal law."

Uh-huh, and then you said they can't "rule on" federal law. And your original argument that started this tangent was based on the notion that states can't interpret or prosecute federal law.

 

[Ag3ma]

Again, if the Million Man March ended up becoming a riot, would the people that put it together be charged with a crime?

If the Million Man March turned violent and there were a reasonable case that the organisers incited violence, or intended / hoped the march turned violent, I think it very likely that they would have been charged with a crime. I would very much hope you would think that they should be charged, too.

You just want Trump to be officially declared an insurrectionist because you don't like Trump and that's the only reason.

I don't particularly want Trump to be declared an insurrectionist, actually (I'd find it immensely amusing, of course). I think it should be tested.

The only way to know whether a crime has been committed or not is to try it. To simply declare an acts in advance to be legal has the logical consequence that acts which are potentially crimes go unpunished, and thus the legal system de facto permits crime. It is also a way to test the law: whether it meet the needs of society, and if not what revisions are required.

Obviously, the practice of declining to try cases happens routinely, because prosecutorial services have the function of reviewing cases and deciding which are worth pursuing. However, they nearly always have very extensive experience and precedent of similar cases and laws to make good judgements. And even then, sometimes they just have to test things out.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

If the Million Man March turned violent and there were a reasonable case that the organisers incited violence, or intended / hoped the march turned violent, I think it very likely that they would have been charged with a crime. I would very much hope you would think that they should be charged, too.



I don't particularly want Trump to be declared an insurrectionist, actually (I'd find it immensely amusing, of course). I think it should be tested.

The only way to know whether a crime has been committed or not is to try it. To simply declare an acts in advance to be legal has the logical consequence that acts which are potentially crimes go unpunished, and thus the legal system de facto permits crime. It is also a way to test the law: whether it meet the needs of society, and if not what revisions are required.

Obviously, the practice of declining to try cases happens routinely, because prosecutorial services have the function of reviewing cases and deciding which are worth pursuing. However, they nearly always have very extensive experience and precedent of similar cases and laws to make good judgements. And even then, sometimes they just have to test things out.

You definitely can't charge someone because someone merely hoped something would happen and it happened. I'm sure there's tons of people that hope either Trump or Biden were to die and they wouldn't be charged with murder if that so happened. You can't be charged for intending something would happen either unless you did things to actually facilitate that happening.

I don't care if they try him but it's obvious it's politically motivated because it wouldn't be done if Trump was running. The case is paper thin and very very very likely not an insurrection, and thus has a very low chance of going through and not really worth pursuing.

 

[Ag3ma]

You definitely can't charge someone because someone merely hoped something would happen and it happened.

Yes, but he didn't just "hope", did he? He told them to march on the Capitol. And if there is a case that he did so expecting or wanting violence - especially with a wider context that it could serve his aims to disrupt or delay the handover of power to Biden.

and very very very likely not an insurrection

Now it's interesting you drop that in. I have given you two explicit opportunities to make that argument, and you did so neither time. I'm fascinated why you've suddenly brought it up now.

You can look up occasions where the Insurrection Act 1807 has been invoked. Several of these are similar in scope or severity to the Jan 6th Capitol riot, and I think they would very much provide precedent to justify it as insurrection.

 

[tstorm823]

You can look up occasions where the Insurrection Act 1807 has been invoked. Several of these are similar in scope or severity to the Jan 6th Capitol riot, and I think they would very much provide precedent to justify it as insurrection.

Would you call any of those insurrections?

 

[Ag3ma]

Would you call any of those insurrections?

What's important is whether US law considers them to be insurrections. Given the lack of explicit definition of "insurrection" in US law elsewhere (it seems to fill a nebulous space between rebellion and civil unrest), then the sort of incidents where the Insurrection Act has been invoked are therefore insurrections.