That is why I am hoping that the appeal to the Supreme Court results in them saying "we have to respect the state's decision" but my realistic brain knows that's not going to be the case

I thought that as well, and expected that the only way it could be moved to the federal system is if the actions/decision is believed to violate federal law (similar to gerrymandering cases violating the voting rights act).

But I’m not a lawyer or a judge, so I know shit, apparently.

This is a bad take.

It overvalues the republican narrative machine. What's the alternative? Rolling over and letting him do whatever because we're afraid of whatever lie he'll choose to tell? Hard pass.

If several blue states do the same, he will lose the nomination or the RNC will have to change the rules to put him in as the nominee. There are more republicans living in California than there are in Texas, and if they can't vote for Trump, they'll have to vote for another clown, which gives one of them a fighting chance of beating Trump. Regressives are selfish - they won't be able to resist infighting.

I'm sure this will boost his fundraising. That's guaranteed to happen anytime he's held to account. But the alternative is to not hold him to account for his many publicly committed crimes. I fear that much more.

the system is rigged against him

Also known as, the Constitution of the United States of America.

But since he nor his idiot supporters will ever understand logic, reason, the common good, and the rule of law, I would agree that they’ll spin this just like they spin everything else.

But that doesn’t mean these steps shouldn’t be taken.

Surely the ship has already sailed on this subject? We're 91 indictments deep -- the base is already as bought into the "underdog" narrative as they can possibly get. I'm just as loathe to throw additional fuel on the fire as the next guy... but the state of Colorado has every right and responsibility to enforce an impartial rule of law

14th Amendment Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. It's preposterous to allow that traitorous criminal to run for any office. While it may cause individuals to rise up in rebellion again, for which they would pay a heavy price, the damage would be much worse should he get into office.

This is not actually setting a precedent... This determination was made numerous times before without convictions, mostly in the aftermath of the Civil War. The precedent of a conviction or even a formal charge being unnecessary is long-standing.