The willingness to undermine whatever integrity of our legal system remains to go after Trump on the premise that he's "evil" just goes to show you how crazed DemocRATS are. They don't care about the harm they'll do to trust in institutions; it's all about tying Trump's hands. Considering, as others have pointed out, we KNOW what 4 years of Trump was like vs. almost 4 really bad years of Biden, the doddering, wokeshevik authoritarian. That is why people are rejecting Biden and his "transgender," anti-religion, anti-parent, anti-American, policies, not to mention his absolutely disastrous meddling with the economy that was WAY better before he came along. Oh, and let's not forget the revelations of his career-long graft.
John should be ashamed of himself, but, he and his ilk won't be.
John strikes me as an elitist snob who refuses to consider information that might undermine his ideological world view and sense of intellectual superiority. The first time this unhappy thought occurred to me was when I was listening to a discussion about the first Trump impeachment on an episode of the old Glenn Show in October 2019. Glenn observed that when Trump asked Ukranian president Zelensky for "a favor," Trump referred to Crowdstrike and the DNC server, i.e., was seeking information relating to Russiagate. John dismissed Glenn's point with these words: "Why would he be so concerned about that now? He lives in the present eating his Cheetos. Why does he all of a sudden want to redress something that happened two or three years ago with no relevance to what's going on now?" (Audio of 10/13/2019 Glenn Show at 9:15). The Dems' Russiagate fraud had "no relevance"--is that what John really thinks?
Trump's election caused the establishment to go into anaphylactic shock. The venom in the bee's sting does not cause excessive harm; rather, it is the body's overreaction that results in death.
Russiagate was, at best, a Clinton campaign/DNC disinformation op run against the American public and the press. Again, that is the best case scenario-evidence is emerging that US intelligence agencies were looking for a pretext to surveil the Trump campaign before he was even nominated. This false accusation roiled the body politic for two years, long after its proponents knew its falsehood.
Impeachment One was a similar overreaction. Re-reading the Trump-Zelensky transcript with today's knowledge shows how flimsy the allegations were. Trump and Zelensky gave each other tongue baths, then Trump briefly mentioned rumors of Biden family corruption and asks Zelensky to help determine how true they are. The resulting impeachment was again, an excessive overreaction.
The second impeachment was a show trial, with exculpatory evidence withheld and later destroyed. The prosecution's strongest witness' testimony was hearsay.
E Jean Carroll cannot remember what year her alleged assault took place and yet gets a $80 million settlement.
Trump was convicted and fined $300+ million for fraud, yet no one can point to any entity that was actually harmed. This conviction is so blatantly politically motivated that the governor had to make a public announcement that no one else had to worry about being charged with this crime.
Bragg's case is similarly unique in its statutory interpretation.
The fact that a SOS in Maine can run a trial "in her head" and convict Trump so she can kick him off the ballot is beyond Soviet.
In the meantime, this collective that lost its hive mind with Trump's election has gone all in on censorship of the Internet. Its immigration policies are a declaration of war on the poorest Americans. Its insistence on fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian man and the US dollar is destroying Ukraine and bankrupting us.
During WWII, Churchill said, “If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” The establishment have destroyed all norms in their attempt to get Trump and punish his supporters; the least I can do is vote for the man.
You must know that Trump never "suggested to the American public that maybe injecting disinfectants could be a cure". He stated that disinfectants kill Covid and wondered aloud whether science could somehow be used the same way. Which "lies" did Trump relate to the public? You know very well which "experts" advised Trump- Fauxi etal. Your sudden ignorance is not credible. Do you REALLY think that the rollout could have happened without the development? Is the technician who injects the drug more important than the scientist who developed it? Ridiculous.
Should the Courts (the States!) keep Trump off the Ballot?
It's a tragically ridiculous question.
The answer, of course, is no, no way, not at all, not ever, not in the least, never, absolutely not, how could we even consider such horribly totalitarian insanity? Shall we simply turn the country over to our Designated Betters, those who are so absolutely sure that they know best, what's best for us? (Please sir, tell me what to do!) Gall, temerity, arrogance -- I'm not sure there's a word strong enough to express my disgust at such a ludicrously dangerous idea.
The otherwise esteemed McWhorter tells us that Trump is uniquely evil (until, that is, he tells us he's too stupid to be Evil (which is a silly qualifier anyway.... Evil is evil regardless of IQ or SAT score)); he insists the man is 'uniquely incompetent'.
Shall we ask, 'Who says?' Incompetent by what standard? John's? The Harvard Faculty's? The Editorial Board of the Times? The night-shift workforce at GM's? Who on earth died and made them king?
And yet.... by any objective measure: fortune, fame, or power -- it'd be difficult to find anyone who's more competent in all 3 than Trump himself. When he walks to lunch he's mobbed by the media. We hear every word he utters (sensible and nonsensical alike). Millions flock to his rallies. In terms of media name count, he ranks consistently in the Top 5 for easily the last 8 years. Doesn't that kind of success (he was elected President after all) require at least some level of competence?
John may not much appreciate how that fortune/fame/power is exercised & applied....but that is entirely a separate issue which has nothing to do with so-called competence and everything to do with how that competence is directed & intended. If Trump were out there, still being Trump, but strongly & positively endorsing -- in typical Trumpian fashion -- climate change accommodation, green energy, DIE amplification, Globalization, and all the rest of the Left's favorite causes, would we still describe him as uniquely incompetent?
I suspect not. Especially since we scatter flowers in the paths of otherwise total nincompoops who support & endorse the Narrative the Left prefers. (Can we say Greta T? John Kerry? Al Gore?)
John then speaks about how this 'unique incompetence' is made uniquely dangerous by its amplification through Social Media to persuade the Deplorables that he's Good. Glenn quite reasonably points out that Trump's opponents could equally use that same social media to persuade those same people that the man is, in fact, bad. But NO, John's insists, 'suasion doesn't work'.
So how is all that possible?
I'm uniquely incompetent, but so tremendously skilled that I can persuade millions of people to vote for me...and vote against much more competent individuals who are so uniquely klutzy that they cannot persuade those same voters, using the same media, that they're not klutzy but competent?
Doesn't that seem rather impossible?
I'm really really bad (uniquely bad) but so amazingly good that my suasion works and yours doesn't?
No! To argue that MY (uniquely competent) judgment of your worth is so perfect and flawless that I should be able to prevent you from being on a ballot (because if you're there all the Other People might vote for you) is simply unacceptable. The otherwise esteemed Mr. McWhorter, for whom I have a tremendous admiration, should be ashamed. Such thinking is beneath him. It should be beneath all of us.
Tragically, and very alarmingly, it's not.
But of course, if I'm Yertle the Turtle, king of all that I see, who better to judge ... just ask me!
Not without an extremely valid Constitutional reason.
I suspect John was being hyperbolic, but part of me understands where he is coming from.
A society will (sometimes) color outside of its lines to avoid potential existential catastrophe. (Ask POTUS #16.)
If John honestly thinks Trump is that, why wouldn't he support running roughshod if necessary?
I have an extremely low opinion of Trump, Trumpism, the current-day GOP and much of its orbit, but I can't bring myself to say Trump's reelection will redound to America's demise. That sounds rather over the top.
I will certainly think less of this place if Trump gets back in. But is he that kind of a threat to the nation ultimately? I can’t say that.
Entrenched superpowers don't flip so readily. But anything is possible, and in fairness, we have seen America flip a lot in recent years. We seem less grounded. Maybe it’s just me.
Trump has already been President. The peace and prosperity we attained under his leadership was the opposite of disaster. Where was John during Trump's term? Napping to NPR?
It never ceases to amaze me John can be so smart and yet so blinded by TDS.
Imagine someone saying "I think Obama needs to be removed from the ballot because we are living in unprecedented times with social media where voters can be persuaded in ways they couldn't before and it's dangerous"
The original targets of Amrndment 14.3 were confederate officers and officeholders who had obviously engaged in insurrection (the civil War) nor did they deny that they had done so: they were proud of it. Section 5 of amendment 14 allows it to Congress to enforce 14.3, and they did so with the insurrection act which is currently federal 18:2383. Trump has not even been charged with insurrection, or even incitement to insurrection, under 18:2383 and he of course denies guilt. That’s a complete different situation from that of the old Confederates. There are questions of fact in Trump’s case that only a formal jury trial can resolve.
But In fact not only has Trump not been indicted under 18:2383 for Jan 6, no one in the entire country has been indicted under 18: 2383 for Jan 6. No one in tbe entire country has been indicted for insurrection for Jan 6—let alone convicted for it. That’s a legal fact.
If Trump were indicted and convicted under 18:2383,—insurrection—then he would automatically be removed from ballots on the basis of section 3 of the 14th amendment. It would be self-enforcing. Until that happens, as much as I dislike Trump, he has a right to remain on the ballot.
Re the Trump v. Anderson case: The Supreme Court in my reading made the correct decision to keep Trump on the Colorado ballot. The justices answered a simple question as to whether the 14th amendment permitted the federal government rather than the states to remove a candidate or officeholder. The states cannot thanks to the qualifier that appears in five amendments in the Bill of Rights: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson criticized the majority for delving into the area reserved for future cases. This is a fair point. However the majority did leave for a future case the most important and most obvious question: Is the president in Section 3 implied to be among those officials specifically barred from holding office after an insurrection? A very strong argument says No. As former attorney general Michael Mukasey pointed out, the drafters of the 14th amendment took out president and vice-president from the list in Section 3 which reads "No person shall be a Senator...." followed by a list of other specific officials in descending importance of offices specific to a state. Why are only offices specific to a state listed? The nation as a whole doesn't choose senators, representatives and other officials from the state. The nation does choose the president and vice-president, and a nation can defeat the candidate even if it were Jefferson Davis or Robert E Lee. The nation cannot defeat a senator, representative, etc. I would be happy to change my opinion with evidence that disproves this especially from the comments from those who wrote the 14th Amendment or those who debated it.
In any case the majority did not go there and left this question for a future case.
Trump has not been convicted of anything, so removing him from ballots would be REALLY BAD.
I find it to be unconscionable that ANYONE could support efforts to remove Trump from the ballot because you don't like him. Where would it end? It wouldn't. But I guess that's the country we live in now - people on the left accept using elected office and lawfare to punish political opponents.
I don't like Biden, and can argue that he should be removed from ballots for allowing an invasion and aiding and abetting our enemies but wouldn't do so. John is completely, utterly, and irrevocably wrong on this one. He would feel good if it happens, but he'll be one of the first ones to howl wildly should one of his politicians get booted off the ballot, even if it was for a justifiable reason.
That fact that this is even being seriously considered by some is an indication that we are probably, as a country, beyond saving. The next generation will be living in one of three countries that used to comprise the United States of America.
The willingness to undermine whatever integrity of our legal system remains to go after Trump on the premise that he's "evil" just goes to show you how crazed DemocRATS are. They don't care about the harm they'll do to trust in institutions; it's all about tying Trump's hands. Considering, as others have pointed out, we KNOW what 4 years of Trump was like vs. almost 4 really bad years of Biden, the doddering, wokeshevik authoritarian. That is why people are rejecting Biden and his "transgender," anti-religion, anti-parent, anti-American, policies, not to mention his absolutely disastrous meddling with the economy that was WAY better before he came along. Oh, and let's not forget the revelations of his career-long graft.
John should be ashamed of himself, but, he and his ilk won't be.
I love listening to John bash Trump .. he has no idea he is describing Obama.
John strikes me as an elitist snob who refuses to consider information that might undermine his ideological world view and sense of intellectual superiority. The first time this unhappy thought occurred to me was when I was listening to a discussion about the first Trump impeachment on an episode of the old Glenn Show in October 2019. Glenn observed that when Trump asked Ukranian president Zelensky for "a favor," Trump referred to Crowdstrike and the DNC server, i.e., was seeking information relating to Russiagate. John dismissed Glenn's point with these words: "Why would he be so concerned about that now? He lives in the present eating his Cheetos. Why does he all of a sudden want to redress something that happened two or three years ago with no relevance to what's going on now?" (Audio of 10/13/2019 Glenn Show at 9:15). The Dems' Russiagate fraud had "no relevance"--is that what John really thinks?
Trump's election caused the establishment to go into anaphylactic shock. The venom in the bee's sting does not cause excessive harm; rather, it is the body's overreaction that results in death.
Russiagate was, at best, a Clinton campaign/DNC disinformation op run against the American public and the press. Again, that is the best case scenario-evidence is emerging that US intelligence agencies were looking for a pretext to surveil the Trump campaign before he was even nominated. This false accusation roiled the body politic for two years, long after its proponents knew its falsehood.
Impeachment One was a similar overreaction. Re-reading the Trump-Zelensky transcript with today's knowledge shows how flimsy the allegations were. Trump and Zelensky gave each other tongue baths, then Trump briefly mentioned rumors of Biden family corruption and asks Zelensky to help determine how true they are. The resulting impeachment was again, an excessive overreaction.
The second impeachment was a show trial, with exculpatory evidence withheld and later destroyed. The prosecution's strongest witness' testimony was hearsay.
E Jean Carroll cannot remember what year her alleged assault took place and yet gets a $80 million settlement.
Trump was convicted and fined $300+ million for fraud, yet no one can point to any entity that was actually harmed. This conviction is so blatantly politically motivated that the governor had to make a public announcement that no one else had to worry about being charged with this crime.
Bragg's case is similarly unique in its statutory interpretation.
The fact that a SOS in Maine can run a trial "in her head" and convict Trump so she can kick him off the ballot is beyond Soviet.
In the meantime, this collective that lost its hive mind with Trump's election has gone all in on censorship of the Internet. Its immigration policies are a declaration of war on the poorest Americans. Its insistence on fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian man and the US dollar is destroying Ukraine and bankrupting us.
During WWII, Churchill said, “If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” The establishment have destroyed all norms in their attempt to get Trump and punish his supporters; the least I can do is vote for the man.
You must know that Trump never "suggested to the American public that maybe injecting disinfectants could be a cure". He stated that disinfectants kill Covid and wondered aloud whether science could somehow be used the same way. Which "lies" did Trump relate to the public? You know very well which "experts" advised Trump- Fauxi etal. Your sudden ignorance is not credible. Do you REALLY think that the rollout could have happened without the development? Is the technician who injects the drug more important than the scientist who developed it? Ridiculous.
Should the Courts (the States!) keep Trump off the Ballot?
It's a tragically ridiculous question.
The answer, of course, is no, no way, not at all, not ever, not in the least, never, absolutely not, how could we even consider such horribly totalitarian insanity? Shall we simply turn the country over to our Designated Betters, those who are so absolutely sure that they know best, what's best for us? (Please sir, tell me what to do!) Gall, temerity, arrogance -- I'm not sure there's a word strong enough to express my disgust at such a ludicrously dangerous idea.
The otherwise esteemed McWhorter tells us that Trump is uniquely evil (until, that is, he tells us he's too stupid to be Evil (which is a silly qualifier anyway.... Evil is evil regardless of IQ or SAT score)); he insists the man is 'uniquely incompetent'.
Shall we ask, 'Who says?' Incompetent by what standard? John's? The Harvard Faculty's? The Editorial Board of the Times? The night-shift workforce at GM's? Who on earth died and made them king?
And yet.... by any objective measure: fortune, fame, or power -- it'd be difficult to find anyone who's more competent in all 3 than Trump himself. When he walks to lunch he's mobbed by the media. We hear every word he utters (sensible and nonsensical alike). Millions flock to his rallies. In terms of media name count, he ranks consistently in the Top 5 for easily the last 8 years. Doesn't that kind of success (he was elected President after all) require at least some level of competence?
John may not much appreciate how that fortune/fame/power is exercised & applied....but that is entirely a separate issue which has nothing to do with so-called competence and everything to do with how that competence is directed & intended. If Trump were out there, still being Trump, but strongly & positively endorsing -- in typical Trumpian fashion -- climate change accommodation, green energy, DIE amplification, Globalization, and all the rest of the Left's favorite causes, would we still describe him as uniquely incompetent?
I suspect not. Especially since we scatter flowers in the paths of otherwise total nincompoops who support & endorse the Narrative the Left prefers. (Can we say Greta T? John Kerry? Al Gore?)
John then speaks about how this 'unique incompetence' is made uniquely dangerous by its amplification through Social Media to persuade the Deplorables that he's Good. Glenn quite reasonably points out that Trump's opponents could equally use that same social media to persuade those same people that the man is, in fact, bad. But NO, John's insists, 'suasion doesn't work'.
So how is all that possible?
I'm uniquely incompetent, but so tremendously skilled that I can persuade millions of people to vote for me...and vote against much more competent individuals who are so uniquely klutzy that they cannot persuade those same voters, using the same media, that they're not klutzy but competent?
Doesn't that seem rather impossible?
I'm really really bad (uniquely bad) but so amazingly good that my suasion works and yours doesn't?
No! To argue that MY (uniquely competent) judgment of your worth is so perfect and flawless that I should be able to prevent you from being on a ballot (because if you're there all the Other People might vote for you) is simply unacceptable. The otherwise esteemed Mr. McWhorter, for whom I have a tremendous admiration, should be ashamed. Such thinking is beneath him. It should be beneath all of us.
Tragically, and very alarmingly, it's not.
But of course, if I'm Yertle the Turtle, king of all that I see, who better to judge ... just ask me!
"Should the Courts Keep Trump Off the Ballot?"
Not without an extremely valid Constitutional reason.
I suspect John was being hyperbolic, but part of me understands where he is coming from.
A society will (sometimes) color outside of its lines to avoid potential existential catastrophe. (Ask POTUS #16.)
If John honestly thinks Trump is that, why wouldn't he support running roughshod if necessary?
I have an extremely low opinion of Trump, Trumpism, the current-day GOP and much of its orbit, but I can't bring myself to say Trump's reelection will redound to America's demise. That sounds rather over the top.
I will certainly think less of this place if Trump gets back in. But is he that kind of a threat to the nation ultimately? I can’t say that.
Entrenched superpowers don't flip so readily. But anything is possible, and in fairness, we have seen America flip a lot in recent years. We seem less grounded. Maybe it’s just me.
John, Sam Harris and the elites have a good case of TDS.
If Trump is reelected, it will be a modern Count of Monte Cristo story.
A remake well worth
watching.
I think that when it comes right down to it, our Constituion is working the way it was envisioned.
It's a freakin' messy process that seems to take too long. But the wheels are still turning!
I find it invigorating. This election sure will be interesting, regardless if who wins.
Trump has already been President. The peace and prosperity we attained under his leadership was the opposite of disaster. Where was John during Trump's term? Napping to NPR?
It never ceases to amaze me John can be so smart and yet so blinded by TDS.
Imagine someone saying "I think Obama needs to be removed from the ballot because we are living in unprecedented times with social media where voters can be persuaded in ways they couldn't before and it's dangerous"
The original targets of Amrndment 14.3 were confederate officers and officeholders who had obviously engaged in insurrection (the civil War) nor did they deny that they had done so: they were proud of it. Section 5 of amendment 14 allows it to Congress to enforce 14.3, and they did so with the insurrection act which is currently federal 18:2383. Trump has not even been charged with insurrection, or even incitement to insurrection, under 18:2383 and he of course denies guilt. That’s a complete different situation from that of the old Confederates. There are questions of fact in Trump’s case that only a formal jury trial can resolve.
But In fact not only has Trump not been indicted under 18:2383 for Jan 6, no one in the entire country has been indicted under 18: 2383 for Jan 6. No one in tbe entire country has been indicted for insurrection for Jan 6—let alone convicted for it. That’s a legal fact.
If Trump were indicted and convicted under 18:2383,—insurrection—then he would automatically be removed from ballots on the basis of section 3 of the 14th amendment. It would be self-enforcing. Until that happens, as much as I dislike Trump, he has a right to remain on the ballot.
Re the Trump v. Anderson case: The Supreme Court in my reading made the correct decision to keep Trump on the Colorado ballot. The justices answered a simple question as to whether the 14th amendment permitted the federal government rather than the states to remove a candidate or officeholder. The states cannot thanks to the qualifier that appears in five amendments in the Bill of Rights: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson criticized the majority for delving into the area reserved for future cases. This is a fair point. However the majority did leave for a future case the most important and most obvious question: Is the president in Section 3 implied to be among those officials specifically barred from holding office after an insurrection? A very strong argument says No. As former attorney general Michael Mukasey pointed out, the drafters of the 14th amendment took out president and vice-president from the list in Section 3 which reads "No person shall be a Senator...." followed by a list of other specific officials in descending importance of offices specific to a state. Why are only offices specific to a state listed? The nation as a whole doesn't choose senators, representatives and other officials from the state. The nation does choose the president and vice-president, and a nation can defeat the candidate even if it were Jefferson Davis or Robert E Lee. The nation cannot defeat a senator, representative, etc. I would be happy to change my opinion with evidence that disproves this especially from the comments from those who wrote the 14th Amendment or those who debated it.
In any case the majority did not go there and left this question for a future case.
Trump has not been convicted of anything, so removing him from ballots would be REALLY BAD.
I find it to be unconscionable that ANYONE could support efforts to remove Trump from the ballot because you don't like him. Where would it end? It wouldn't. But I guess that's the country we live in now - people on the left accept using elected office and lawfare to punish political opponents.
I don't like Biden, and can argue that he should be removed from ballots for allowing an invasion and aiding and abetting our enemies but wouldn't do so. John is completely, utterly, and irrevocably wrong on this one. He would feel good if it happens, but he'll be one of the first ones to howl wildly should one of his politicians get booted off the ballot, even if it was for a justifiable reason.
That fact that this is even being seriously considered by some is an indication that we are probably, as a country, beyond saving. The next generation will be living in one of three countries that used to comprise the United States of America.