January 6th insurrection thread...

mqt said:
Let me be clear: I don’t like or trust Schiff, and would happily wave goodbye to him on his way out of the Capitol building. I also don’t think he should have done this, as there’s no reason to have done so. However, this edit really didn’t change the meaning of Jordan’s forwarded text. The additional context should have been included, but it would not have changed the message being shared.
Click to expand...

If course it does.

Its teh difference between someone who is trying to invent things that sound right to an insurrectionist that doesn't respect rule of law versus someone that has studied constitutional law and is providing LEGAL MEANS TO DISPUTE A CLEARLY STOLEN ELECTION.
 
I mean it changes the meaning, or it CAN depending on the angle it is presented by the presenter.

And we know Schiff can't be trusted to change his boxers without prejudice.
 
Schiff literally told the American people that there was rock hard evidence of Russian collusion when he KNEW that wasn't true.

Can someone give me a reason why he shouldn't be in jail?
 
thethe said:
If course it does.

Its teh difference between someone who is trying to invent things that sound right to an insurrectionist that doesn't respect rule of law versus someone that has studied constitutional law and is providing LEGAL MEANS TO DISPUTE A CLEARLY STOLEN ELECTION.
Click to expand...

The Federalist’s correction doesn’t point to any provided evidence that there was a basis for declaring it unconstitutional. Stating something can be challenged if it is unconstitutional because Alexander Hamilton said so doesn’t prove the underlying issue.
 
mqt said:
The Federalist’s correction doesn’t point to any provided evidence that there was a basis for declaring it unconstitutional. Stating something can be challenged if it is unconstitutional because Alexander Hamilton said so doesn’t prove the underlying issue.
Click to expand...

The whole 2020 election was unconstitutional.
 
thethe said:
The whole 2020 election was unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

By that logic there should be no concern with Schiff’s framing of the text, because the unconstitutional act is assumed and the message makes sense without further justification.
 
mqt said:
By that logic there should be no concern with Schiff’s framing of the text, because the unconstitutional act is assumed and the message makes sense without further justification.
Click to expand...

Not at all - People don't even understand that the laws were changed unconstitionally.

The whole J6 committee was setup because the idiot leftists thought Trump just wanted the election overturned because he didn't like the result with no actual consideration of our laws. All communication surrounding the election shows a much different picture.

The left has purposefully stayed away from the constitutional arguments because its a losing battle for them and they can't have their sheep understand that.
 
thethe said:
Not at all - People don't even understand that the laws were changed unconstitionally.

The whole J6 committee was setup because the idiot leftists thought Trump just wanted the election overturned because he didn't like the result with no actual consideration of our laws. All communication surrounding the election shows a much different picture.

The left has purposefully stayed away from the constitutional arguments because its a losing battle for them and they can't have their sheep understand that.
Click to expand...

Don’t the courts get to determine the answer to that question?
 
mqt said:
Don’t the courts get to determine the answer to that question?
Click to expand...

The courts purposefully avoided that question in most instances and copped out with 'Standing'

Some courts like in Wisconsin actually spoke to the argument and gave credence to what was presented to them.

It is undeniable that Democrat voters were treated differently. Unconstiutional
It is undeniable that voting laws were changed by state executives/courts. Unconsitutional

Then there are criminal things like kicking Republican election monitors out of rooms and phantom 'Pipe Bursts'.
 
thethe said:
The courts purposefully avoided that question in most instances and copped out with 'Standing'

Some courts like in Wisconsin actually spoke to the argument and gave credence to what was presented to them.

It is undeniable that Democrat voters were treated differently. Unconstiutional
It is undeniable that voting laws were changed by state executives/courts. Unconsitutional

Then there are criminal things like kicking Republican election monitors out of rooms and phantom 'Pipe Bursts'.
Click to expand...

So none of it was declared unconstitutional.
 
thethe said:
None of it was ruled in either direction

The courts were afraid to be looked at as overturning an election so they defaulted to a cop out.
Click to expand...

Seems to me then that you can’t justifiably call the changes unconstitutional. You can say that Republicans felt there were unconstitutional changes or that you think a certain change wasn’t constitutional, but you’ve been arguing as if that’s an outright fact that the changes were unconstitutional.
 
mqt said:
Seems to me then that you can’t justifiably call the changes unconstitutional. You can say that Republicans felt there were unconstitutional changes or that you think a certain change wasn’t constitutional, but you’ve been arguing as if that’s an outright fact that the changes were unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Election laws cannot be changed by another body other than the state legislator. That is crystal clear in the constitution.

Equal protection under the law clauses state that one group of voters cannot have systematic advantage that other voters do not. That is crystal clear.

The fact the courts have shied away from these issues are telling. The outrage from the hysterial left if they overturned the election would have cost the country dearly.
 
FGsrL13VUAAFTBq
 
OK guys, at the risk of causing another insurrection it is, has been, and always will be 100% impossible to establish a just and totally fair election without doing it at the Federal level where a bi-partisan group can agree on what is/is not fair and legal and then enforcing it in all states at all voting places, with cameras, bi-partisan reps from both sides and no interference from the states. Anybody saying otherwise is just trying to set up their own little version of fair.
 
The problems with that are
You'll never get the two sides to agree in DC. One would want universal voter ID and very limited options for not voting in person. The other wants no ID, same day registration, vote from home, non citizens voting, and canvassing.
And if they did agree, the next fight would be about how different states are enforcing the rules differently. If enforcement went to the federal government then there would be concerns that it was being manipulated by the feds.

Right or wrong, losing trust is hard to come back from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top