[cosmicgadget]

> he didn’t violate the 14th.

I think you mean "he hasn't been found to have violated the 14th", we all witnessed the insurrection. And even that would be an inaccurate statement on your part, he was found to have violated the 14th by Colorado. Scotus did not vacate this finding.

> This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office.

You keep trying to use Trump's ability to run for federal office as some backwards way to claim he was neither the participant in an insurrection nor found legally to have been one.

[kcplate]

I think this is just some weird political fantasy porn you are appealing to here. You want that Colorado case to have a meaning beyond its failure.

Trump ran. Trump was elected. Challenge it or so be it.

[cosmicgadget]

He was, you're absolutely right! You're welcome to claim the Colorado finding is meaningless because of the scotus decision, just don't use it to fabricate a different set of facts.

[kcplate]

Care to explain how it had any actual bearing on Trumps ability to run for president? How about how it changes my point that he was qualified, ran, was elected, and still holds the office? He was on the Colorado ballot, he received over 1.377M votes from folks in Colorado. You keep pointing to it as meaningful and how it somehow disproves my point that he was qualified to run for the office (and won and now holds the office) but where was this case’s impact on the result?

Apparently whatever nuanced point you think you are making, reality seems to disagree with you.