> The easier answer is to point out that the case barely got a majority decision with 3 Liberal Colorado Supreme Court judges in dissent. Barely a majority decision!

This is why you should actually read the case, or at least read informed summaries. There are loads of questions which need to be "yes" in order for Trump to be taken off the ballot:

1. Was Jan 6 an insurrection?

2. Did Trump "engage" in it?

3. If he did engage in it, is the President even covered at all by the 14th amendment? That is, does he count as an "officer of the United States"?

4. If he is an "officer of the United States", is the oath Trump swore when he became President the kind of oath required by the 14th amendment?

5. Is the 14th amendment "self-executing" -- meaning, does it just happen, or is it like prohibition, where the amendment merely authorizes Congress to pass a law; but congress themselves have to actually pass it?

6. If he is ineligible, is striking him from the primary ballot the right thing to do, or should that be handled some other way?

7. If striking him from the primary ballot is the right thing to do, how is that supposed to be done? Should the Secretary of State take initiative to look into things? Do the voters of the state have standing to sue, as they have in this case?

8. If this is (a) right way to get him off the primary ballot, does the current "expedited" system, which was designed for simple things like "is this person 35 years or older", sufficient to give Trump "due process"? Should he have to actually be convicted of the crime of insurrection first, for instance? Or should the trial in this case be longer than the 7 days (5 days + 48 hours) mandated by the law?

All of the judges -- both the lower court and all the supreme court judges -- agree that the answer to #1 and #2 are "yes".

Re #3, the lower court judge basically said, "Seems like he should be, but in this case you want to err on the side of caution; so I'm saying no."

The dissenters, as I said, agreed that #1 and #2 are "yes"; they disagree on the technicalities around #8. One for instance, said that the only issue is that the Colorado law doesn't explicitly say that the "expedited process" for challenging someone's qualifications includes the 14th amendment. Another says that without a criminal conviction, due process hasn't been followed.

> As for the "Technique" that Trump used??? What Technique? Bloviating like a crybaby because he lost?

He incited a mob to break into the capitol and threaten violence on the members of the government attempting to fulfill duties prescribed by the Constitution, to force them to subvert the Constitutionally-valid election results. I'm told this exact technique has been successfully used frequently in history to subvert democratic institutions; which is exactly why he tried it. I don't think the outcome we got is nearly so foregone as you seem to think.

> i wouldn't fear that a similar sized and unarmed group of protestors was going to somehow take over the US Government by storming the Capital in the same manner as occurred on Jan 6th.

They certainly would if they'd been groomed with stories about widespread election fraud the way the 2020 protesters had.

If you don't want Trump as a dictator starting in 2024, I seriously suggest you do some more reading; starting with the rulings here, in particular the description of what Trump did, and why it counts as insurrection.