2024 Primary

[UNI88]

Both are plausible theories. Who is right?

[kalm]

Both are plausible theories. Who is right?

I don’t think he’s scared of Christie either. Another factor is court proceedings coming out during a debate and his attorneys fear of how he’ll respond.

[UNI88]

Both are plausible theories. Who is right?

I don’t think he’s scared of Christie either. Another factor is court proceedings coming out during a debate and his attorneys fear of how he’ll respond.

I don't know. trump is used to playing the bully, he hits lower and harder than politicians have in a long time. I don't think Christie would let that happen, he'll hit trump back low and hard right. If it descends into a squabble, trump could look bad. He might go from looking like a tough guy to looking like he's throwing a hissy fit.

[UNI88]

GOP Governor Has No Problem Telling Candidates How To Gang Up On Trump In Debate

“To win, they must break free of Mr. Trump’s drama, step out of his shadow, go on offense, attack, and present their case. Then they need to see if they can catch fire this fall — and if they can’t, they need to step aside, because winnowing down the field of candidates is the single best chance to stop Mr. Trump,” said Sununu, a frequent critic of Trump.

“Too much is at stake for us to have wishful candidacies,” he added. “While the other Republican candidates are running to save America, Mr. Trump is running to save himself.”
...
“Once the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire are presented a clear alternative to Mr. Trump, his path forward darkens, and the Republican Party’s future begins to take shape,” he wrote. “The rest of the country needs to see not just that the emperor has no clothes, but that the Republican Party is able to refocus the conversation where it needs to be, on a nominee dedicated to saving America.”

Sununu has been a frequent critic of Trump. He recently said Trump drones on about his legal grievances in public instead of telling supporters how he’ll solve the country’s problems, “which is what all the other candidates are doing.”

[BDKJMU]

Lol at all the Who? responses. And you don’t need to be able to stand to participate in a debate.

[Skjellyfetti]

Who know who else plays basketball? Barack Hussein Obama.

[BDKJMU]

Who know who else plays basketball? Barack Hussein Obama.

Well you’d expect that from a black guy from Chicago. A white guy from ND OTOH..I didn’t even know they played basketball in Bizonland..

[houndawg]

GOP Governor Has No Problem Telling Candidates How To Gang Up On Trump In Debate

“To win, they must break free of Mr. Trump’s drama, step out of his shadow, go on offense, attack, and present their case. Then they need to see if they can catch fire this fall — and if they can’t, they need to step aside, because winnowing down the field of candidates is the single best chance to stop Mr. Trump,” said Sununu, a frequent critic of Trump.

“Too much is at stake for us to have wishful candidacies,” he added. “While the other Republican candidates are running to save America, Mr. Trump is running to save himself.”
...
“Once the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire are presented a clear alternative to Mr. Trump, his path forward darkens, and the Republican Party’s future begins to take shape,” he wrote. “The rest of the country needs to see not just that the emperor has no clothes, but that the Republican Party is able to refocus the conversation where it needs to be, on a nominee dedicated to saving America.”

Sununu has been a frequent critic of Trump. He recently said Trump drones on about his legal grievances in public instead of telling supporters how he’ll solve the country’s problems, “which is what all the other candidates are doing.”

The only ones I hear that are doing that are Christie, Hutchison, and Hurd. It isn't going over well with the base but that really doesn't matter because the rest of the field can kiss acres of Trump's ass and the base isn't going to vote for them. Obviously they know that and they're running for VP. I wonder how long its been since Niki had her pussy grabbed.

[Ibanez]

WhT I saw last night confirmed that

DeSantis is wrong for the job, he wasn’t authentic. He looked uncomfortable and wouldn’t answer questions, and good on Fox for not letting him get away with it.

Vivek is an annoying prick. Republicans like that mentality even though it’s not the best one to have when you want to unite people and be diplomatic

Haley earned my vote last night. She was tough, she shouted down Vivek and was a voice of moderation and reason. I know a lot of liberals and women who are voting for her

Scott’s time is up. His “aw shucks” attitude isn’t going ti help him

Christie was good and needs to keep hammering people.

Pence - my lord he is dull and come off as a grandpa

[BDKJMU]

Both are plausible theories. Who is right?

Neither are. If you’re up close to an avg of 40 points (last 8 polls this week) (no one ever has been at this point in an open primary in our lifetimes) it would be stupid to show up. Almost no chance you’re going to improve your standings, and highly likely you’ll lose ground.

If Trump still has a gigantic lead by the time of the next debate he shouldn’t show. But if his lead was say cut in half, then he should..

[BDKJMU]

Full on attacked Trump directly: Christie, Hutchinson, Pence.
Limited and/or indiret criticism of Trump: Haley, Desantis.

No direct or alluded/indirect criticism of Trump that I can recall: Ramaswamy, Scott, Burgum

-Ramaswamy gained IMHOP, and gets even closer to Desantis for 2nd. Ramaswamy is 4 to 10 points in the most recent polls. I think he goes into double digits in all. Clearly was the most anti establishment, non politician in the room. I expected Desantis (along with Trump) to be heavily attacked, and was surprised to see for the most part Desantis wasn’t. It was Ramaswamy who was attacked (by Christie, Pence, and Haley at least). Ramaswamy might have been attacked as much as Trump. I thought he came out of that well. Couple examples. Christie’s quip about needing on the job training isn’t going to have the effect Christie wanted it to have. Ramaswamy was the only one to raise his hand when asked who would stop sending tens of billions to Ukraine. It isn’t a winning propostion in the conk primary,and yet Christie and Haley attacked Ramaswamy for being against that.
Ramaswamy was the only one who raised his hand that he wouldn’t do anything to address so called ‘climate change’ which he called a hoax. Was the only one one who raised his hand when asked about pardoning Trump. And Raswamy seemed to be enjoying getting attacked amd being the only anti establishment/non politician in the room.

-Desantis didn’t hurt himself, but didn’t have the great night he needed to have to gain ground on Trump. And at times he didn’t seem all that comfortable, which I found a little surprising.

-Haley had a good night, and probably gained, although she’s still a neocon. She’s basically between 4th to 6th place in the recent polls, 2 to 8 points. Only time she mentioned Trump was when she said needed to move on from him.

-Christie didn’t gain by attacking Trump. How many times did he mention he was overwhelmingly elected gov in a blue state? He left off the part about having the lowest aplroval rating of any gov in any state in 20 years lol.
https://time.com/4592420/chris-christie ... al-rating/
He’s 2 to 7 points in the recent polls, and I think he stays there.

-Scott didn’t stand out with his folksy demeanor. Most of the tecent polls he’s 3 to 6 points, one he’s 9. Think he stays in single digits.

-Pence was about as I expected, maybe even a little better. Maybe he gains a little from his 2 to 6 points in the recent polls, but stays single digits.

-Burgum came in at zero to 2 points in the recent polls. Liked what he said on energy and China. Seems like a nice enough guy, and a good gov for Bizonland. And he was in the ER the day before, and still showed up- that has to be worth something. At least he shouldn’t be at zero in any of the polls. But he needs to drop out.

-Hutchinson comes in at near zero, and stays at zero. What a joke.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... primaries/

[kalm]

“The Department of Education is the civil rights issue of our time.”

[houndawg]

WhT I saw last night confirmed that

DeSantis is wrong for the job, he wasn’t authentic. He looked uncomfortable and wouldn’t answer questions, and good on Fox for not letting him get away with it.

Vivek is an annoying prick. Republicans like that mentality even though it’s not the best one to have when you want to unite people and be diplomatic

Haley earned my vote last night. She was tough, she shouted down Vivek and was a voice of moderation and reason. I know a lot of liberals and women who are voting for her

Scott’s time is up. His “aw shucks” attitude isn’t going ti help him

Christie was good and needs to keep hammering people.

Pence - my lord he is dull and come off as a grandpa

Haley surprised me, in a good way - I figured her pledge to pardon Trump was about being VP but I think that ship just sailed. She could beat Biden.

Vivek is this month's My Pillow Guy but maybe an even more irritating asshole. The country doesn't need a snot-nose like him monkeying around in serious business.

Scott doesn't really inspire any feelings in me pro or con, he's like a freshly painted empty room.

Christie seems to get that the base vote isn't up for grabs no matter how much they cheer when you tell them that you're just like Trump, too, so he's correctly staked out a position as the fact-driven adult in the room.

If I had any respect for Mike Pence I would have lost it when the SS detail didn't have to pry him off Trump. The way he sat still for that treatment removes him from any consideration for the job

[Ibanez]

Full on attacked Trump directly: Christie, Hutchinson, Pence.
Limited and/or indiret criticism of Trump: Haley, Desantis.

No direct or alluded/indirect criticism of Trump that I can recall: Ramaswamy, Scott, Burgum

-Ramaswamy gained IMHOP, and gets even closer to Desantis for 2nd. Ramaswamy is 4 to 10 points in the most recent polls. I think he goes into double digits in all. Clearly was the most anti establishment, non politician in the room. I expected Desantis (along with Trump) to be heavily attacked, and was surprised to see for the most part Desantis wasn’t. It was Ramaswamy who was attacked (by Christie, Pence, and Haley at least). Ramaswamy might have been attacked as much as Trump. I thought he came out of that well. Couple examples. Christie’s quip about needing on the job training isn’t going to have the effect Christie wanted it to have. Ramaswamy was the only one to raise his hand when asked who would stop sending tens of billions to Ukraine. It isn’t a winning propostion in the conk primary,and yet Christie and Haley attacked Ramaswamy for being against that.
Ramaswamy was the only one who raised his hand that he wouldn’t do anything to address so called ‘climate change’ which he called a hoax. Was the only one one who raised his hand when asked about pardoning Trump. And Raswamy seemed to be enjoying getting attacked amd being the only anti establishment/non politician in the room.

-Desantis didn’t hurt himself, but didn’t have the great night he needed to have to gain ground on Trump. And at times he didn’t seem all that comfortable, which I found a little surprising.

-Haley had a good night, and probably gained, although she’s still a neocon. She’s basically between 4th to 6th place in the recent polls, 2 to 8 points. Only time she mentioned Trump was when she said needed to move on from him.

-Christie didn’t gain by attacking Trump. How many times did he mention he was overwhelmingly elected gov in a blue state? He left off the part about having the lowest aplroval rating of any gov in any state in 20 years lol.
https://time.com/4592420/chris-christie ... al-rating/
He’s 2 to 7 points in the recent polls, and I think he stays there.

-Scott didn’t stand out with his folksy demeanor. Most of the tecent polls he’s 3 to 6 points, one he’s 9. Think he stays in single digits.

-Pence was about as I expected, maybe even a little better. Maybe he gains a little from his 2 to 6 points in the recent polls, but stays single digits.

-Burgum came in at zero to 2 points in the recent polls. Liked what he said on energy and China. Seems like a nice enough guy, and a good gov for Bizonland. And he was in the ER the day before, and still showed up- that has to be worth something. At least he shouldn’t be at zero in any of the polls. But he needs to drop out.

-Hutchinson comes in at near zero, and stays at zero. What a joke.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... primaries/

that's a good analysis, BDK. Pence was shocking, he was aggressive and holier than thou. It won't help him but it was nice chum to his base.

[BDKJMU]

Full on attacked Trump directly: Christie, Hutchinson, Pence.
Limited and/or indiret criticism of Trump: Haley, Desantis.

No direct or alluded/indirect criticism of Trump that I can recall: Ramaswamy, Scott, Burgum

-Ramaswamy gained IMHOP, and gets even closer to Desantis for 2nd. Ramaswamy is 4 to 10 points in the most recent polls. I think he goes into double digits in all. Clearly was the most anti establishment, non politician in the room. I expected Desantis (along with Trump) to be heavily attacked, and was surprised to see for the most part Desantis wasn’t. It was Ramaswamy who was attacked (by Christie, Pence, and Haley at least). Ramaswamy might have been attacked as much as Trump. I thought he came out of that well. Couple examples. Christie’s quip about needing on the job training isn’t going to have the effect Christie wanted it to have. Ramaswamy was the only one to raise his hand when asked who would stop sending tens of billions to Ukraine. It isn’t a winning propostion in the conk primary,and yet Christie and Haley attacked Ramaswamy for being against that.
Ramaswamy was the only one who raised his hand that he wouldn’t do anything to address so called ‘climate change’ which he called a hoax. Was the only one one who raised his hand when asked about pardoning Trump. And Raswamy seemed to be enjoying getting attacked amd being the only anti establishment/non politician in the room.

-Desantis didn’t hurt himself, but didn’t have the great night he needed to have to gain ground on Trump. And at times he didn’t seem all that comfortable, which I found a little surprising.

-Haley had a good night, and probably gained, although she’s still a neocon. She’s basically between 4th to 6th place in the recent polls, 2 to 8 points. Only time she mentioned Trump was when she said needed to move on from him.

-Christie didn’t gain by attacking Trump. How many times did he mention he was overwhelmingly elected gov in a blue state? He left off the part about having the lowest aplroval rating of any gov in any state in 20 years lol.
https://time.com/4592420/chris-christie ... al-rating/
He’s 2 to 7 points in the recent polls, and I think he stays there.

-Scott didn’t stand out with his folksy demeanor. Most of the tecent polls he’s 3 to 6 points, one he’s 9. Think he stays in single digits.

-Pence was about as I expected, maybe even a little better. Maybe he gains a little from his 2 to 6 points in the recent polls, but stays single digits.

-Burgum came in at zero to 2 points in the recent polls. Liked what he said on energy and China. Seems like a nice enough guy, and a good gov for Bizonland. And he was in the ER the day before, and still showed up- that has to be worth something. At least he shouldn’t be at zero in any of the polls. But he needs to drop out.

-Hutchinson comes in at near zero, and stays at zero. What a joke.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... primaries/

that's a good analysis, BDK. Pence was shocking, he was aggressive and holier than thou. It won't help him but it was nice chum to his base.

Thanks. Also I was at least partially incorrect to say Ramaswamy was the only one to raise his hand when asked who would stop sending tens of billions to Ukraine. Desantis might not have shot his hand up like Ramaswamy did, but Desantis did call it a regional conflict amd indicated wouldn’t keep pouring US resources in at the current level, instead focusing on the US Border.

Listened to Ramaswamy and Christie interviewed (separately) on Clay and Buck yesterday. Ramaswamy makes a very compelling case for the MAGA vote as in he can do a better job at being Trump….without being Trump. Sort of what people were saying about Desantis 2021-2022.

[BDKJMU]

BDK conk power rankings before the debate:
1. Trump
2. Desantis
3. Ramaswamy
4. Scott
5. Christie
6. Haley
7. Pence
8. Hutchinson
9. Bergum

After the debate:
1. Trump
2. Desantis
3. Ramaswamy
4. Haley
5. Christie
6. Scott
7. Pence
8. Bergum
9. Hutchinson

Next debate 9/27 at the Reagan Library.

[BDKJMU]

From the debate, possible Trump VP picks ranked in order of most likely to least:
1. Ramaswamy
2. Scott
3. Haley
4. Bergum
Almost no chance Desantis, and zero chance Christie, Pence, Hutchinson.

Obviously are some other names not on the debate stage, but the above 4 would be on any top 10-12 list..

[houndawg]

that's a good analysis, BDK. Pence was shocking, he was aggressive and holier than thou. It won't help him but it was nice chum to his base.

Thanks. Also I was at least partially incorrect to say Ramaswamy was the only one to raise his hand when asked who would stop sending tens of billions to Ukraine. Desantis might not have shot his hand up like Ramaswamy did, but Desantis did call it a regional conflict amd indicated wouldn’t keep pouring US resources in at the current level, instead focusing on the US Border.

Listened to Ramaswamy and Christie interviewed (separately) on Clay and Buck yesterday. Ramaswamy makes a very compelling case for the MAGA vote as in he can do a better job at being Trump….without being Trump. Sort of what people were saying about Desantis 2021-2022.

any of them could, but it ain't happening. Vivek is the My Pillow Guy of the month

[kalm]

I’m guessing this will be tested. Especially considering support from conservative judge Luttig, Federalist Society members, and originalist interpretation.

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

As pointed out by the constitutional scholar Professor Laurence Tribe and former conservative federal judge Michael Luttig in their article in The Atlantic: “the disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation” and was “designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government by waging war on our government and by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.”

Tribe and Luttig are hardly outliers in their view. A forthcoming law review article written by Federalist Society conservative law professors—William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas—not only agrees that the disqualification is self-enforcing but also makes the case that numerous others who supported Trump’s efforts also may be disqualified.

Baude and Paulsen note that this could include people like former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn (who proposed a plan to seize voting machines), the “fake electors,” Jeffrey Clark of the Justice Department, and “at least one member of Congress” (that would be Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA)) who had supported Clark’s plans—and even lobbied for removal of senior DOJ officials who opposed Clark’s scheme.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-can ... -amendment

[GannonFan]

I’m guessing this will be tested. Especially considering support from conservative judge Luttig, Federalist Society members, and originalist interpretation.

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

As pointed out by the constitutional scholar Professor Laurence Tribe and former conservative federal judge Michael Luttig in their article in The Atlantic: “the disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation” and was “designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government by waging war on our government and by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.”

Tribe and Luttig are hardly outliers in their view. A forthcoming law review article written by Federalist Society conservative law professors—William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas—not only agrees that the disqualification is self-enforcing but also makes the case that numerous others who supported Trump’s efforts also may be disqualified.

Baude and Paulsen note that this could include people like former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn (who proposed a plan to seize voting machines), the “fake electors,” Jeffrey Clark of the Justice Department, and “at least one member of Congress” (that would be Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA)) who had supported Clark’s plans—and even lobbied for removal of senior DOJ officials who opposed Clark’s scheme.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-can ... -amendment

Of course it will have to be tested, especially when you have folks thinking that something like this could be "designed to operate directly and immediately" - there's literally no mechanism for that to happen. Who decides what's an insurrection or rebellion, and who's to say what constitutes aid or comfort? Do I decide? Do you? An internet poll? It was written for a very specific thing (i.e the Civil War) so Congress didn't really pay a lot of attention to the particulars of how it is decided what triggers this provision and how it's enforced. Back then it was easy - did you fight for, hold office for, or operate in a function for supporting the South during the war. There wasn't a lot of gray area (I so intended that pun). But in this case, who decides that Trump supported an insurrection or rebellion? Congress that was in place when it happened has already not held him accountable for it. I wouldn't doubt if this gets kicked up to the SCOTUS and they punt it back to Congress saying to rewrite it and get it reapproved with clearer instructions over how to actually do this. May not even have to get reapproved, but at least write legislation on how something like this gets decided.

[UNI88]

There’s a GOP Case Against Trump That Could Sway Voters. Only One of His Rivals Is Making It.

The instant media consensus after Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate was that millennial investor-turned-provocateur Vivek Ramaswamy was the big winner. And there’s no question that he succeeded in making himself the center of attention, if not always in a good way. But the only person on stage who made any headway in the possibly quixotic quest to dethrone former President Donald Trump from atop the polling hierarchy was former South Carolina Gov. and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, whose sharp performance was highlighted by a pragmatic, rather than a moral or emotional, case against Trump.
...
So far only Haley, who at least isn’t despised by the voters she needs, has begun to make the kind of case against Trump that will work with Republicans. And that means facing this hard truth: GOP partisans are still largely in thrall to Trump, but they also want to win in 2024 after four years in the wilderness. And Haley’s tactical decision to refrain from substantive attacks on Trump in favor of arguments about his unpopularity with the American people and many liabilities as a candidate is probably the only way that she—or anyone—can really reach Republican voters without alienating them. She pointed out that a supermajority of Americans desperately want to avoid a Biden-Trump rematch. And Republicans, she said, “have to face the fact that Trump is the most disliked politician in America. We can’t win a general election that way.”

[BDKJMU]

There’s a GOP Case Against Trump That Could Sway Voters. Only One of His Rivals Is Making It.

The instant media consensus after Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate was that millennial investor-turned-provocateur Vivek Ramaswamy was the big winner. And there’s no question that he succeeded in making himself the center of attention, if not always in a good way. But the only person on stage who made any headway in the possibly quixotic quest to dethrone former President Donald Trump from atop the polling hierarchy was former South Carolina Gov. and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, whose sharp performance was highlighted by a pragmatic, rather than a moral or emotional, case against Trump.
...
So far only Haley, who at least isn’t despised by the voters she needs, has begun to make the kind of case against Trump that will work with Republicans. And that means facing this hard truth: GOP partisans are still largely in thrall to Trump, but they also want to win in 2024 after four years in the wilderness. And Haley’s tactical decision to refrain from substantive attacks on Trump in favor of arguments about his unpopularity with the American people and many liabilities as a candidate is probably the only way that she—or anyone—can really reach Republican voters without alienating them. She pointed out that a supermajority of Americans desperately want to avoid a Biden-Trump rematch. And Republicans, she said, “have to face the fact that Trump is the most disliked politician in America. We can’t win a general election that way.”

Haley was on Clay and Buck last Thur, and I don’t really recall her making that arguement. And you don’t get a bigger conk audience than that- 500+ radio stations + very popular podcast. Maybe she was making that arguement on other media.

One thing I remember her talking about is the abortion issue. Her biggest strength is she can blunt the donks advantage over the abortion issue because of Dobbs. Between being a woman, and having a very cogent, practical grasp of the issue, the left isn’t going to be able to effectively label her as some anti abortion extremist like they can for some other male conks. She could pick up indie’s & suburban women on that issue without losing many thumpers.

Trumps biggest shortcoming 2020, compared to conks in previous elections, wasn’t with minorities, it was suburban, college educated women. For that reason alone I think Haley should be one of the top VP considerations, despite her neoconess. I’m not sure if Trump would pick her, or if she would accept.

[BDKJMU]

And so it begins. The 1st one drops out.

[kalm]

I’m guessing this will be tested. Especially considering support from conservative judge Luttig, Federalist Society members, and originalist interpretation.



https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-can ... -amendment

Of course it will have to be tested, especially when you have folks thinking that something like this could be "designed to operate directly and immediately" - there's literally no mechanism for that to happen. Who decides what's an insurrection or rebellion, and who's to say what constitutes aid or comfort? Do I decide? Do you? An internet poll? It was written for a very specific thing (i.e the Civil War) so Congress didn't really pay a lot of attention to the particulars of how it is decided what triggers this provision and how it's enforced. Back then it was easy - did you fight for, hold office for, or operate in a function for supporting the South during the war. There wasn't a lot of gray area (I so intended that pun). But in this case, who decides that Trump supported an insurrection or rebellion? Congress that was in place when it happened has already not held him accountable for it. I wouldn't doubt if this gets kicked up to the SCOTUS and they punt it back to Congress saying to rewrite it and get it reapproved with clearer instructions over how to actually do this. May not even have to get reapproved, but at least write legislation on how something like this gets decided.

It’s a constitutional amendment not just written for but because of the civil war. You could make similar “who gets to decide case against many of them.

A jury of citizens already determined the Oath Keepers were guilty of seditious conspiracy. The leap to aiding and abetting isn’t a long one.

[GannonFan]

Of course it will have to be tested, especially when you have folks thinking that something like this could be "designed to operate directly and immediately" - there's literally no mechanism for that to happen. Who decides what's an insurrection or rebellion, and who's to say what constitutes aid or comfort? Do I decide? Do you? An internet poll? It was written for a very specific thing (i.e the Civil War) so Congress didn't really pay a lot of attention to the particulars of how it is decided what triggers this provision and how it's enforced. Back then it was easy - did you fight for, hold office for, or operate in a function for supporting the South during the war. There wasn't a lot of gray area (I so intended that pun). But in this case, who decides that Trump supported an insurrection or rebellion? Congress that was in place when it happened has already not held him accountable for it. I wouldn't doubt if this gets kicked up to the SCOTUS and they punt it back to Congress saying to rewrite it and get it reapproved with clearer instructions over how to actually do this. May not even have to get reapproved, but at least write legislation on how something like this gets decided.

It’s a constitutional amendment not just written for but because of the civil war. You could make similar “who gets to decide case against many of them.

A jury of citizens already determined the Oath Keepers were guilty of seditious conspiracy. The leap to aiding and abetting isn’t a long one.

Nothing's a big leap, per se, but you still have to make that leap. Fine, a jury of citizens found something. First of all, it was technically seditious conspiracy. The amendment calls out insurrection or rebellion. Are they technically the same? Who makes that determination? And next, you need to find somebody, at least a jury of citizens at a minimum, to technically link Trump to the same activity or something more. But at least you need to have a trial. These guys are making it out like there's already enough legwork done that individual states can just cross him off the ballot. I don't necessarily disagree that he should be off the ballot (remember, I wanted him impeached and removed from office at the moment for his actions and lack of during 1/6), but you need some systematic way of doing it, just not election officials in 50 different states applying their own discretion. Nothing's going to happen until this goes to court, and even then, it might have to go straight up to SCOTUS. It's too big of a constitutional question, with little to no precedent, to be decided otherwise.