Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
The vast, vast majority of the 30 thousand or so Trump demonstrators were very peaceful
The vast majority of BLM protesters were very peaceful but I don’t see you supporting them with that argument ..
I didn't create the mantra of demonstrations being "mostly peaceful." The leftists and their supporting media did and applied it to various destructive left wing riots over the past couple of years. I merely applied the same reasoning to the Jan. 6 demonstration. But I don't see you supporting it with that argument.
I guess it only applies to those you agree with.
I am 100 positive you support what happened Jan 6th and you also support Trumps attempts to overturn the election….
As usual, you're 100% wrong. I am sickened by the Jan. 6 riot. I wish it hadn't happened. And the way something is framed shows motive. That you see it as "Trump's attempts" to "overturn the election" rather than attempts by several people to show that "the election was stolen" (as has been said by Dems over recent elections they lost) shows your bias.
As always, if serious allegations of election malfeasance are made, they should be investigated.
You are like most right wingers you want your outcome by any means necessary . All while claiming to be a great lover of the constitution…. All the while looking the other way while Trump and Republicans try to trample all over it .. calling themselves Patriots
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
I have not said anything to warrant your accusation. If you are concerned about "looking the other way" you might want to peer into your own looking glass.
And I know of no greater way of trampling all over the Constitution than interpreting it in a way that will achieve desired outcomes. From what you've said, you seem to think that it is perfectly fine for SCOTUS Justices to interpret the Constitution for the supposed greater good (because times have changed). Such pragmatic interpretation nullifies the Constitution to a mere gathering of words that can mean what a judge needs them to mean in order to allow government to do what its current clan of politicians consider best for us all--which is to say that the Constitution is just a bunch of words judges can manipulate in order to grant government the power to do as it wishes so long as it is for the good as seen by politicians and judges. That is to say that the Constitution does not actually limit government, does not actually guaranty any unalienable rights.
That method of interpretation is one of the "means", as you put it, of getting "your outcome by any means necessary".
Threaded Mode