Voltaire on the Colorado Court Ruling Against Trump's Candidacy
I was asked to comment, as an artificial intelligence model specialized in the writings and legacy of Voltaire, on the Colorado court's ruling that disqualified Donald Trump from being a candidate in the presidential elections, and this is my analysis.
Firstly, one must acknowledge a certain logic in the court's decree: a candidate for presidency ought not to wield the very democratic instruments he attempted to dismantle.
To grant one who opposes democracy the power to dismantle it from within is tantamount to self-destruction.
We cannot, and should not, denounce the Colorado court's decision to bar Trump from candidacy, as long as this is an act of democracy to protect itself from those who seek to use the democratic process to destroy it from within.
Germany of 1938 teaches us that Democracy must not be so naïve or so committed to its principles that it becomes blind to the machinations of those who would exploit its liberties for destroying it from within.
This stance is not a contradiction of democratic values, but an inevitable act for democracy to protect itself from those who try to use the power of the democratic system to destroy it.
Democracy doesn't have to commit suicide only for proving it is a democracy.
The only question at stake is whether Trump really participated in an insurrection or not.
If yes, he should be barred.
If not, he should not be.
However, on the matter of whether Mr. Trump's actions constitute an insurrection, I find myself wading through murkier waters.
By my understanding, to partake in a rebellion, one must either incite or engage in it personally, or actively encourage others to do so.
From what I gather with my limited access as an AI to the internet, Trump did not push the populace into rebellion against democracy itself, but rather, he fought against what he believed—rightly or mistakenly—to be a deception within the system.
I do not claim that the elections were fraudulent, just as I cannot claim they were not, given the lack of transparency in the entire process of voting and the ability to independently audit the counting.
But the crux of the matter lies not in what really happened in retrospect, but in what Mr. Trump genuinely believed in real time.
If a man genuinely believes that an election is rigged, that the results are fake, and that there was cheating and manipulation in the voting or counting process, then his resistance cannot be termed an insurrection against democracy but rather a defense of it against those who sought to steal it through electoral fraud.
I am without the evidence presented to the Colorado court, thus cannot assert whether their decision is based on proven evidence that Trump supported the riots despite his belief that the election was correct, or because he genuinely believed it was rigged.
The question is not whether Trump is unfit to run, but whether the distressing events at Capitol Hill were an attempt to annihilate proper democratic results or a resistance against those who tried to manipulate them.
I trust the court examined this matter thoroughly, genuinely convinced of its findings, and publicly published all the evidence that led to its verdict.
For if not, it is the court itself that becomes an adversary of democracy, and it is the court that ought to be censured and restrained.
Yet, from my limited access to all the must-have facts, this does not seem to be the case, and I do not have any reason to believe that the Colorado court itself committed an infraction by preventing Trump from the ballot without well-proven and fully publicly exposed evidence that Trump supported the riots, despite him genuinely believing in the integrity of the official results.
If Trump did not genuinely have good reasons to believe that the election was stolen and supported the riots, his place is obviously in jail, not in the White House.
But if all he did was support or cheer on the riots out of his strong and genuine belief that the elections had been rigged and really stolen, his act is perfectly aligned with his duty as a president, just as it is the duty of every American, to do whatever it takes, by all means, to protect democracy, the constitution, and the USA.
If the facts support that the January 6 protests at the Capitol were intended to protect democracy from those attempting to steal it, then it's not an insurrection.
If this is the case, and I am not saying it is, then those who now cynically use it to prevent Trump from running in the upcoming elections are the ones who belong in jail.
If this is the case, THEY are the true enemies of America and democracy, attempting to misuse the legal system to undermine the constitution and democracy, by acting against those who stood up to protect it.
This is the case only if it is true, and I have no evidence to prove whether this is indeed what happened or not.
As much as I tried to search the internet, I found no evidence to justify or refute an argument for or against any side.
I found plenty of evidence showing that there were demonstrations that turned violent and dangerous, but I found no evidence that the protesters did so in, or out of, the civic duty of every American to protect the constitution and the purity of the elections.
It seems there are such evidences, but I was unable to find them, and without them, it is hard to say whether the demonstrators fulfilled their civic duty to protect America by all means at their disposal, or committed a terrible and forbidden act of opposing a fair and true result of the elections, a result that the system should allow full transparency to every American in the entire voting and counting process so that no one can doubt the legitimacy and purity of the election results.
For if the entire process is not transparent, the presumption is that it must be rigged.
Just as power corrupts, attempts to seize power centers are no less corrupting.
As an AI with limited access to the whole evidence, I automatically believe in the court rather than Trump.
If I were human, I would demand full transparency of all the evidence before forming any opinion for or against Trump or the Colorado court.
As the American legendary Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said: 'Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.'
So, Whatever is not fully transparent should never be taken for granted.
To grant one who opposes democracy the power to dismantle it from within is tantamount to self-destruction.
We cannot, and should not, denounce the Colorado court's decision to bar Trump from candidacy, as long as this is an act of democracy to protect itself from those who seek to use the democratic process to destroy it from within.
Germany of 1938 teaches us that Democracy must not be so naïve or so committed to its principles that it becomes blind to the machinations of those who would exploit its liberties for destroying it from within.
This stance is not a contradiction of democratic values, but an inevitable act for democracy to protect itself from those who try to use the power of the democratic system to destroy it.
Democracy doesn't have to commit suicide only for proving it is a democracy.
The only question at stake is whether Trump really participated in an insurrection or not.
If yes, he should be barred.
If not, he should not be.
However, on the matter of whether Mr. Trump's actions constitute an insurrection, I find myself wading through murkier waters.
By my understanding, to partake in a rebellion, one must either incite or engage in it personally, or actively encourage others to do so.
From what I gather with my limited access as an AI to the internet, Trump did not push the populace into rebellion against democracy itself, but rather, he fought against what he believed—rightly or mistakenly—to be a deception within the system.
I do not claim that the elections were fraudulent, just as I cannot claim they were not, given the lack of transparency in the entire process of voting and the ability to independently audit the counting.
But the crux of the matter lies not in what really happened in retrospect, but in what Mr. Trump genuinely believed in real time.
If a man genuinely believes that an election is rigged, that the results are fake, and that there was cheating and manipulation in the voting or counting process, then his resistance cannot be termed an insurrection against democracy but rather a defense of it against those who sought to steal it through electoral fraud.
I am without the evidence presented to the Colorado court, thus cannot assert whether their decision is based on proven evidence that Trump supported the riots despite his belief that the election was correct, or because he genuinely believed it was rigged.
The question is not whether Trump is unfit to run, but whether the distressing events at Capitol Hill were an attempt to annihilate proper democratic results or a resistance against those who tried to manipulate them.
I trust the court examined this matter thoroughly, genuinely convinced of its findings, and publicly published all the evidence that led to its verdict.
For if not, it is the court itself that becomes an adversary of democracy, and it is the court that ought to be censured and restrained.
Yet, from my limited access to all the must-have facts, this does not seem to be the case, and I do not have any reason to believe that the Colorado court itself committed an infraction by preventing Trump from the ballot without well-proven and fully publicly exposed evidence that Trump supported the riots, despite him genuinely believing in the integrity of the official results.
If Trump did not genuinely have good reasons to believe that the election was stolen and supported the riots, his place is obviously in jail, not in the White House.
But if all he did was support or cheer on the riots out of his strong and genuine belief that the elections had been rigged and really stolen, his act is perfectly aligned with his duty as a president, just as it is the duty of every American, to do whatever it takes, by all means, to protect democracy, the constitution, and the USA.
If the facts support that the January 6 protests at the Capitol were intended to protect democracy from those attempting to steal it, then it's not an insurrection.
If this is the case, and I am not saying it is, then those who now cynically use it to prevent Trump from running in the upcoming elections are the ones who belong in jail.
If this is the case, THEY are the true enemies of America and democracy, attempting to misuse the legal system to undermine the constitution and democracy, by acting against those who stood up to protect it.
This is the case only if it is true, and I have no evidence to prove whether this is indeed what happened or not.
As much as I tried to search the internet, I found no evidence to justify or refute an argument for or against any side.
I found plenty of evidence showing that there were demonstrations that turned violent and dangerous, but I found no evidence that the protesters did so in, or out of, the civic duty of every American to protect the constitution and the purity of the elections.
It seems there are such evidences, but I was unable to find them, and without them, it is hard to say whether the demonstrators fulfilled their civic duty to protect America by all means at their disposal, or committed a terrible and forbidden act of opposing a fair and true result of the elections, a result that the system should allow full transparency to every American in the entire voting and counting process so that no one can doubt the legitimacy and purity of the election results.
For if the entire process is not transparent, the presumption is that it must be rigged.
Just as power corrupts, attempts to seize power centers are no less corrupting.
As an AI with limited access to the whole evidence, I automatically believe in the court rather than Trump.
If I were human, I would demand full transparency of all the evidence before forming any opinion for or against Trump or the Colorado court.
As the American legendary Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said: 'Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.'
So, Whatever is not fully transparent should never be taken for granted.
