A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot based on the claim that he is constitutionally barred from office because of the January 6 insurrection.
So you’re saying that their method of explicitly stating that they don’t want “A” is to write that they want “B”, “C”, “D”, “and others” rather than just writing: “We don’t want A”? Sorry, but that’s really fucking stupid.
Edit: We’re both looking at the same thing. But where I see an oversight, you see an intentional omission. My question is… if they intended to omit something, wouldn’t it have been better to write that that position is specifically excluded? It would certainly be less confusing, wouldn’t it? If you were to write it right now, wouldn’t you write that the president is specifically excluded from the above if that was your desire? Seems to argue pretty highly for oversight, doesn’t it? Is it your contention that it was just the style at the time for people in the 1860s to be intentionally obtuse? Like Abe Simpson with the onion on his belt?
What I’m saying is that if you explicitly call out a bunch of important positions, but leave out the most important position, then it appears that the omission is intentional. Barring any explanation why it was not listed, but intended to be included, interpreting it as not part of the amendment is logically sound.
So just to be clear, here, your logic is that the people who wrote this amendment in the 1860s were being intentionally obtuse just to fuck with us? Is that really what you’re arguing? Because, buddy… I’ve gotta tell you… if you think that’s how people behave, you have no clue what people are like. And if you’re just arguing that because you realize that your position is ridiculous but you feel entrenched in an argument you have to see through to the end, you deserve all of the childish insults I can hurl at you.
So just to be clear, here, your logic is that the people who wrote this amendment in the 1860s were being intentionally obtuse just to fuck with us?
No, I believe that’s closer to your argument. You are effectively arguing that “They explicitly called out Senators and Representatives, but then just included POTUS under a catch-all.” Some positions were important enough to call out explicitly, but the POTUS is not. You literally edited a post to claim that the omission of POTUS was a whoopsie. That seems like “fucking with us” more than the opposite. I’m saying the omission makes interpreting it as intentional well within reason.
And if you’re just arguing that because you realize that your position is ridiculous but you feel entrenched in an argument you have to see through to the end, you deserve all of the childish insults I can hurl at you.
The funny thing is that in this thread, I’ve already admitted to being wrong. So accusing me of being unwilling to change my position is funny in light of that fact.
You’ve literally stopped making arguments, you’ve implied my position is “really fucking stupid” that only aliens would thing think this, and now that I don’t understand how people behave. You’ve completely abandoned the point while focusing solely on attacking me, and even trying to justify insulting me.
As is so often the case here, an accusation is an admission.
Some positions were important enough to call out explicitly, but the POTUS is not.
I’d like for you to take a moment and truly take in just how insane this idea is. To set the scene, it’s 1868, 3 years after the civil war ended. Among the traitors who attacked the nation are a number of people who held public office. The writers of this amendment wanted to make sure that those traitors never had a chance to hold public office again, and so wrote an amendment to specifically bar them. The reason they called out senators and congresspeople in the opening of the 3rd clause is because senators and congressional representatives were among the traitors. Your idea that they thought that it was important to bar traitors from those positions, but were like: “Well, but a traitor for a president is ok” is… well, I’ve already said insane. Is there a word that’s more derogatory than insane? Use that.
The reason that they didn’t list “the president” at the beginning of that clause is because the president was the guy who fought the traitors that they were trying to bar. The amendment was both punitive and preventative; they wanted to punish the traitors among them who fought against the US and prevent them from holding office again.
Now, I know that in the light of several years of living in the Post-Trump era, the idea of a president being a traitor has become all too normal, but put yourself back in the late 1860s, and think of how batshit insane that would be to them. They didn’t mention the president because under no circumstance did they consider that the president could be a traitor.
The funny thing is that in this thread, I’ve already admitted to being wrong.
Yes, but just because you admitted to being wrong doesn’t mean that you’ve stopped being wrong. You’re still wrong. Stupidly, laughably wrong.
you’ve implied my position is “really fucking stupid”
Right, because it is. Sorry that I’m not coddling your feelings, but that’s the bare truth. If someone is arguing with you that the earth is flat, do you keep showing them pictures from space even after they tell you that NASA faked them? Or do you just call them an idiot and go on with your day? Maybe you’re a much more patient person than I am, but I 100% choose the latter.
As is so often the case here, an accusation is an admission.
I’m not sure what you’re implying that I’m admitting to. That you’re an idiot? Yes. I admit it. You’ve got me.
First good on you for trying to make an argument again instead of just insulting me. Could have dropped the insults altogether, but this is progress at least.
The reason that they didn’t list “the president” at the beginning of that clause is because the president was the guy who fought the traitors that they were trying to bar.
I’m mainly copy-pasting my post from elsewhere:
Our whole system is based on checks and balances, because they knew full well that any part of the government could become corrupt. Hell, even during that time, Lincoln was called a traitor to the country when he was campaigning. The idea that they couldn’t fathom that a president could also be a threat to the republic doesn’t hold much water. It’s literally arguing that they made a “whoopsie” when crafting the amendment and no one from the 38 states and none of the supermajority of both houses of congress was smart enough to say “hey, maybe we should consider the POTUS too.” I just can’t buy it that people at the time thought the POTUS was some purely noble person that would never do wrong.
Second, and probably more importantly in this case, this actually confirms the ruling. You’re arguing that it was an oversight to not include the POTUS because they never thought that someone who wants to be/was the POTUS would be the one to commit the crime; you’re effectively admitting that the POTUS is not included. This is admitting that the POTUS is not part of it, thus making the ruling correct, and thus requiring us to go back and amend it to include the POTUS/VPOTUS.
Yes, but just because you admitted to being wrong doesn’t mean that you’ve stopped being wrong. You’re still wrong. Stupidly, laughably wrong.
You accused me of holding a position because I refuse to admit I am wrong. I’m the only one in this thread (between the two of us) that has done so. So the claim that I’m unwilling to rings particularly hollow.
Sorry that I’m not coddling your feelings, but that’s the bare truth.
I pointed out the attacks not because I particularly care about you respecting me (although it would be nice), but because you abandoned debating positions in favor of insulting. I know, from many years of debating, that the ad hominem is one of the first refuges of a failing argument. And you’ve made it clear you still need to rely on it heavily.
I’m not sure what you’re implying that I’m admitting to.
You may not realize it, but that “you’re just arguing that because you realize that your position is ridiculous but you feel entrenched in an argument you have to see through to the end.”
you’re effectively admitting that the POTUS is not included.
No. Incorrect. Not at all what I’m saying. The POTUS was very much included in the language here:
or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but the presidency is a civil office in the United States. So yeah. They specifically included the president. They just didn’t enumerate that office because the president at the time was not a traitor.
It’s like… say your little brother (let’s call him Andrew) steals your money. Say you’re pretty pissed off about this, and you say something to the effect of “God damn it, Andrew! You are not allowed to take my money! I will not tolerate thievery!”
You’re effectively saying that by uttering that phrase, you’d be 100% ok with your little sister Sally stealing the money instead because you didn’t specifically list her by name. Sure, she was covered under the whole “I will not tolerate thievery” bit, but your dumbass argument says that since you didn’t call out Sally by name, she can totally steal your shit. Do you see how imbecilic that is?
You accused me of holding a position because I refuse to admit I am wrong.
Again, incorrect. I listed that as one of the two possibilities. The other possibility, of course, is that you’re dumb. Because really, the position you’re arguing is so mind-numbingly stupid that there are really only two possibilities here: you’re dumb enough to actually believe it, or you’re too stubborn to admit you’re wrong. So, you know… arguing that you are anything but stubborn really pushes this towards just the one remaining possibility… The good news, though is that you probably have a promising career as a district court judge in Colorado ahead of you.
you abandoned debating positions in favor of insulting
Buddy, this isn’t a debate. This is someone explaining to a small child that you shouldn’t stick a fork in a light socket. I’m not debating the merits of not getting shocked with the kid; I’m telling him that sticking the fork in the light socket is a really stupid idea. Sorry if I get frustrated when you keep trying to jam the fork in there anyway.
So you’re saying that their method of explicitly stating that they don’t want “A” is to write that they want “B”, “C”, “D”, “and others” rather than just writing: “We don’t want A”? Sorry, but that’s really fucking stupid.
Edit: We’re both looking at the same thing. But where I see an oversight, you see an intentional omission. My question is… if they intended to omit something, wouldn’t it have been better to write that that position is specifically excluded? It would certainly be less confusing, wouldn’t it? If you were to write it right now, wouldn’t you write that the president is specifically excluded from the above if that was your desire? Seems to argue pretty highly for oversight, doesn’t it? Is it your contention that it was just the style at the time for people in the 1860s to be intentionally obtuse? Like Abe Simpson with the onion on his belt?
What I’m saying is that if you explicitly call out a bunch of important positions, but leave out the most important position, then it appears that the omission is intentional. Barring any explanation why it was not listed, but intended to be included, interpreting it as not part of the amendment is logically sound.
I mean, sure, if you’re an alien who has never met a human person before.
One of the advantages of arguing from a position of logic and reason is that you don’t have to rely on childish insults.
So just to be clear, here, your logic is that the people who wrote this amendment in the 1860s were being intentionally obtuse just to fuck with us? Is that really what you’re arguing? Because, buddy… I’ve gotta tell you… if you think that’s how people behave, you have no clue what people are like. And if you’re just arguing that because you realize that your position is ridiculous but you feel entrenched in an argument you have to see through to the end, you deserve all of the childish insults I can hurl at you.
No, I believe that’s closer to your argument. You are effectively arguing that “They explicitly called out Senators and Representatives, but then just included POTUS under a catch-all.” Some positions were important enough to call out explicitly, but the POTUS is not. You literally edited a post to claim that the omission of POTUS was a whoopsie. That seems like “fucking with us” more than the opposite. I’m saying the omission makes interpreting it as intentional well within reason.
The funny thing is that in this thread, I’ve already admitted to being wrong. So accusing me of being unwilling to change my position is funny in light of that fact.
You’ve literally stopped making arguments, you’ve implied my position is “really fucking stupid” that only aliens would thing think this, and now that I don’t understand how people behave. You’ve completely abandoned the point while focusing solely on attacking me, and even trying to justify insulting me.
As is so often the case here, an accusation is an admission.
I’d like for you to take a moment and truly take in just how insane this idea is. To set the scene, it’s 1868, 3 years after the civil war ended. Among the traitors who attacked the nation are a number of people who held public office. The writers of this amendment wanted to make sure that those traitors never had a chance to hold public office again, and so wrote an amendment to specifically bar them. The reason they called out senators and congresspeople in the opening of the 3rd clause is because senators and congressional representatives were among the traitors. Your idea that they thought that it was important to bar traitors from those positions, but were like: “Well, but a traitor for a president is ok” is… well, I’ve already said insane. Is there a word that’s more derogatory than insane? Use that.
The reason that they didn’t list “the president” at the beginning of that clause is because the president was the guy who fought the traitors that they were trying to bar. The amendment was both punitive and preventative; they wanted to punish the traitors among them who fought against the US and prevent them from holding office again.
Now, I know that in the light of several years of living in the Post-Trump era, the idea of a president being a traitor has become all too normal, but put yourself back in the late 1860s, and think of how batshit insane that would be to them. They didn’t mention the president because under no circumstance did they consider that the president could be a traitor.
Yes, but just because you admitted to being wrong doesn’t mean that you’ve stopped being wrong. You’re still wrong. Stupidly, laughably wrong.
Right, because it is. Sorry that I’m not coddling your feelings, but that’s the bare truth. If someone is arguing with you that the earth is flat, do you keep showing them pictures from space even after they tell you that NASA faked them? Or do you just call them an idiot and go on with your day? Maybe you’re a much more patient person than I am, but I 100% choose the latter.
I’m not sure what you’re implying that I’m admitting to. That you’re an idiot? Yes. I admit it. You’ve got me.
First good on you for trying to make an argument again instead of just insulting me. Could have dropped the insults altogether, but this is progress at least.
I’m mainly copy-pasting my post from elsewhere:
Our whole system is based on checks and balances, because they knew full well that any part of the government could become corrupt. Hell, even during that time, Lincoln was called a traitor to the country when he was campaigning. The idea that they couldn’t fathom that a president could also be a threat to the republic doesn’t hold much water. It’s literally arguing that they made a “whoopsie” when crafting the amendment and no one from the 38 states and none of the supermajority of both houses of congress was smart enough to say “hey, maybe we should consider the POTUS too.” I just can’t buy it that people at the time thought the POTUS was some purely noble person that would never do wrong.
Second, and probably more importantly in this case, this actually confirms the ruling. You’re arguing that it was an oversight to not include the POTUS because they never thought that someone who wants to be/was the POTUS would be the one to commit the crime; you’re effectively admitting that the POTUS is not included. This is admitting that the POTUS is not part of it, thus making the ruling correct, and thus requiring us to go back and amend it to include the POTUS/VPOTUS.
You accused me of holding a position because I refuse to admit I am wrong. I’m the only one in this thread (between the two of us) that has done so. So the claim that I’m unwilling to rings particularly hollow.
I pointed out the attacks not because I particularly care about you respecting me (although it would be nice), but because you abandoned debating positions in favor of insulting. I know, from many years of debating, that the ad hominem is one of the first refuges of a failing argument. And you’ve made it clear you still need to rely on it heavily.
You may not realize it, but that “you’re just arguing that because you realize that your position is ridiculous but you feel entrenched in an argument you have to see through to the end.”
No. Incorrect. Not at all what I’m saying. The POTUS was very much included in the language here:
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but the presidency is a civil office in the United States. So yeah. They specifically included the president. They just didn’t enumerate that office because the president at the time was not a traitor.
It’s like… say your little brother (let’s call him Andrew) steals your money. Say you’re pretty pissed off about this, and you say something to the effect of “God damn it, Andrew! You are not allowed to take my money! I will not tolerate thievery!”
You’re effectively saying that by uttering that phrase, you’d be 100% ok with your little sister Sally stealing the money instead because you didn’t specifically list her by name. Sure, she was covered under the whole “I will not tolerate thievery” bit, but your dumbass argument says that since you didn’t call out Sally by name, she can totally steal your shit. Do you see how imbecilic that is?
Again, incorrect. I listed that as one of the two possibilities. The other possibility, of course, is that you’re dumb. Because really, the position you’re arguing is so mind-numbingly stupid that there are really only two possibilities here: you’re dumb enough to actually believe it, or you’re too stubborn to admit you’re wrong. So, you know… arguing that you are anything but stubborn really pushes this towards just the one remaining possibility… The good news, though is that you probably have a promising career as a district court judge in Colorado ahead of you.
Buddy, this isn’t a debate. This is someone explaining to a small child that you shouldn’t stick a fork in a light socket. I’m not debating the merits of not getting shocked with the kid; I’m telling him that sticking the fork in the light socket is a really stupid idea. Sorry if I get frustrated when you keep trying to jam the fork in there anyway.