"So, you are, in your sad way, trying to maintain that Trump should be disqualified for running for office based on an insurrection that no one has been arrested for, in an incident with over 40,000 hours of video, none of which provides prosecutable evidence of insurrection. In spite of this absurd suggestion, you think you are the rational one."
1. I don't know whether Trump should be disqualified. I think an honest application of originalism would dictate that he should be. But it is a hard uestion for me because I don't believe in originalism as the one sole method of constitutional interpretation. (For me it is A method not THE method).
2. "an insurrection that no one has been arrested for." This is a silly talking point. more than a thousand have been arrested, several hundred have been convicted or pled guilty, for their activities on Jan 6, for crimes that vary from misdemeanors at the low end to seditious conspiracy at thew high end.
3. "Merrick Garland, couldn't create enough of a case to demonstrate any actual sedition."
So, I'm supposed to be impressed with your ability to copy/paste links?
What is this, the third time I've stated, flat-out that there was no insurrection, and the best you can do to refute it is to spew hyperbole and post links I can't be bothered with. There's an expression I live by: Put up, or shut up.
Maybe your civics teacher will accept such a low level of effort. I won't
I think what you actually seem to mean is "put up or shut up, but if you put up I won;t look at it and instead I will just call you a liar."
You claimed that, literally, that there was no sedition and that the government didn't even accuse anyone of sedition. That's false - there have been convictions for seditious conspiracy. I provided links because they document that.
Have a good day, sir. To me there is no point in contiuing this conversation.
"So, you are, in your sad way, trying to maintain that Trump should be disqualified for running for office based on an insurrection that no one has been arrested for, in an incident with over 40,000 hours of video, none of which provides prosecutable evidence of insurrection. In spite of this absurd suggestion, you think you are the rational one."
1. I don't know whether Trump should be disqualified. I think an honest application of originalism would dictate that he should be. But it is a hard uestion for me because I don't believe in originalism as the one sole method of constitutional interpretation. (For me it is A method not THE method).
2. "an insurrection that no one has been arrested for." This is a silly talking point. more than a thousand have been arrested, several hundred have been convicted or pled guilty, for their activities on Jan 6, for crimes that vary from misdemeanors at the low end to seditious conspiracy at thew high end.
3. "Merrick Garland, couldn't create enough of a case to demonstrate any actual sedition."
Your agenda-laden framing aside, that is false.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/jury-convicts-four-leaders-proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-oath-keepers-found-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-additional-oath-keepers-sentenced-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach
My case that people conspired with Trump:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-jan-6-indictment-2020-election/1f1c76972b25c802/full.pdf
So, I'm supposed to be impressed with your ability to copy/paste links?
What is this, the third time I've stated, flat-out that there was no insurrection, and the best you can do to refute it is to spew hyperbole and post links I can't be bothered with. There's an expression I live by: Put up, or shut up.
Maybe your civics teacher will accept such a low level of effort. I won't
"Put up, or shut up"
I think what you actually seem to mean is "put up or shut up, but if you put up I won;t look at it and instead I will just call you a liar."
You claimed that, literally, that there was no sedition and that the government didn't even accuse anyone of sedition. That's false - there have been convictions for seditious conspiracy. I provided links because they document that.
Have a good day, sir. To me there is no point in contiuing this conversation.