1
1
0
There are a couple of things we hear a lot today in political speeches, on the Sunday morning talk shows, and in letters to the editor in our local papers. One is that we are in danger of losing our democracy!... And another is that “authoritarianism” or some version of it — fascism is an equally popular term — is just around the corner.
To Be Anti-Fascist, Support Our Constitution
Posted from robertroper.substack.comPosted in these groups: 
American History
Constitution
American History Constitution
Posted 8 mo ago
Responses: 2
4
4
0
Here is example of supporting our Constitution...Section Three (14th Amendment) provides that no person can hold political office if, having taken an oath to support the Constitution as a state or federal official, they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion."
https://time.com/6305003/trump-indictment-14th-amendment/
https://time.com/6305003/trump-indictment-14th-amendment/
Why the Constitution Blocks Trump Being President Again
Prominent conservative scholars are making the case that the Constitution does not allow Donald Trump to be president
(4)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
SFC Casey O'Mally - Oh, you love "the truth".... That is what you tell yourself. It's funny, but when I hear people say how much they love the "truth", I can't help but notice how many have such a tenuous relationship with what they claim to love.
And, yes, my response may have been quick on the trigger, and while it is not your fault, it is borne from long experience with people asking for facts or examples just so they can find a way to dispute or excuse what is so plainly evident on its face. It goes like this...
Party A) Thing X happened.
Party B) It did not.
Party A) And yet it did.
Party B) Give an example.
Party A) Gives example
Party B) That is not a real example. Give another example
Party A) Provides another example
Party B) That example is fake... I don't like that example
etc. etc. ad nauseum
And, yes, my response may have been quick on the trigger, and while it is not your fault, it is borne from long experience with people asking for facts or examples just so they can find a way to dispute or excuse what is so plainly evident on its face. It goes like this...
Party A) Thing X happened.
Party B) It did not.
Party A) And yet it did.
Party B) Give an example.
Party A) Gives example
Party B) That is not a real example. Give another example
Party A) Provides another example
Party B) That example is fake... I don't like that example
etc. etc. ad nauseum
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
MSgt Steve Sweeney when your examples are "he started a riot" with no actual evidence he did so - and despite him saying to protest PEACEFULLY, then yeah, I am going to say "try again." That isn't fact, it is opinion - and an incorrect one, at that.
I asked for a single act of insurrection. You provided one (tenuous) act of insurrection which he did not do and 4 other things which, while deplorable, are not actually insurrection.
This is the problem I constantly run into. When I say the truth, I mean the actual truth. As in words have meaning and we must use them accordingly, truth. Not what we want the truth to be. Not what your opinion of the truth is. Not the "if you just connect the dots the way I tell you to" truth. ACTUAL truth.
And the truth is, as far as the public has seen, Trump did not commit a single act of insurrection.
Does that mean the GOP should nominate him? Absolutely not. Does that mean the people should vote for him in the general (assuming he gets the nom)? HELL NO! Does it even mean he committed no crimes and any or all of the indictments should be dropped? No way, Jose! But is he ineligible via 14th Amendment? Sorry, that's also a no.
And for the record, I personally believe Biden is not just one, but three sandwiches short of a picnic. He is mentally gone and an embarrassment. But he ALSO is eligible to run. He is a horrible choice, but if that's who the Dems trot out, it's who they trot out. I won't vote for him, either. But I do not see a valid reason to prevent you (or anyone else) from voting for him if you desire.
I asked for a single act of insurrection. You provided one (tenuous) act of insurrection which he did not do and 4 other things which, while deplorable, are not actually insurrection.
This is the problem I constantly run into. When I say the truth, I mean the actual truth. As in words have meaning and we must use them accordingly, truth. Not what we want the truth to be. Not what your opinion of the truth is. Not the "if you just connect the dots the way I tell you to" truth. ACTUAL truth.
And the truth is, as far as the public has seen, Trump did not commit a single act of insurrection.
Does that mean the GOP should nominate him? Absolutely not. Does that mean the people should vote for him in the general (assuming he gets the nom)? HELL NO! Does it even mean he committed no crimes and any or all of the indictments should be dropped? No way, Jose! But is he ineligible via 14th Amendment? Sorry, that's also a no.
And for the record, I personally believe Biden is not just one, but three sandwiches short of a picnic. He is mentally gone and an embarrassment. But he ALSO is eligible to run. He is a horrible choice, but if that's who the Dems trot out, it's who they trot out. I won't vote for him, either. But I do not see a valid reason to prevent you (or anyone else) from voting for him if you desire.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
SFC Casey O'Mally - No actual evidence... besides the people rioting you mean? What sort of evidence do you need? A signed memorandum? A plan filed with a committee? He said a lot of other things too and implied yet more. He doesn't get a pass because he threw a single weasel statement in there. So you are doing exactly what I expected you to do. And yes, "truth" does mean actual truth, and it encompasses more than the statements you want to cherry pick. It has to be derived from the whole. The statements. The tweets and rhetoric leading up to the riot. The actions taken. Everything. It doesn't appear you want to do that.
And I have no doubt you believe as you say you do. You are obviously under the sway of the right-wing media and essentially repeat everything they are telling you about Joe Biden. No shock there.
And I have no doubt you believe as you say you do. You are obviously under the sway of the right-wing media and essentially repeat everything they are telling you about Joe Biden. No shock there.
(2)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
MSgt Steve Sweeney You are trying to blame Trump for what other people did.
January 6th was not an insurrection. But even if it was, Trump is not legally at fault. An argument can be made that he was morally at fault, and I would not argue against it. But legally? No. He did not plan that, he did not direct that, he did not order that.
Yes, he certainly filled many speeches with bombast. He absolutely used combative language - just as MANY politicians do. He DID say "fight like hell," but he said it in reference to a fighting spirit, not a fistfight - just as MANY politicians do.
And sure, some people took things way too far. And they even did it because they thought it would please Trump. They did it in his name... But not on his orders.
Legally, Trump has committed no act of insurrection. If you want to argue his MORAL responsibility, that's fine. It's a great reason not to vote for him. But there is no cause to remove him from the ballot.
And it is not just my opinion here. Multiple 14A cases have now come up for this - and not a single one has been successful.
As far as Biden is concerned, I do not need to parrot right-wing media. Note that I have not discussed Obama's third term or globalist cabals or treason or any of that other stuff with Biden. I see it - but I have not bought in. I actually use discernment in my media consumption, which, by the way, still consists of more left-wing sources than right. My *primary* news source is NPR. But I do have eyes and ears. And Biden's cognitive impairment is obvious. If you cannot see what is right in front of you, that is on you. Of course, the party of Pelosi, Feinstein, and Fetterman may not see his current mental state as a problem.
(And before you bring up McConnell, I will state first that I am not a Republican, so he is not "my party's guy," and second, I *am* a Kentuckian, but I have never voted for McConnell, and ran a VERY low budget - and largely ineffective - "Ditch Mitch" campaign in his last election cycle. I want him gone.)
January 6th was not an insurrection. But even if it was, Trump is not legally at fault. An argument can be made that he was morally at fault, and I would not argue against it. But legally? No. He did not plan that, he did not direct that, he did not order that.
Yes, he certainly filled many speeches with bombast. He absolutely used combative language - just as MANY politicians do. He DID say "fight like hell," but he said it in reference to a fighting spirit, not a fistfight - just as MANY politicians do.
And sure, some people took things way too far. And they even did it because they thought it would please Trump. They did it in his name... But not on his orders.
Legally, Trump has committed no act of insurrection. If you want to argue his MORAL responsibility, that's fine. It's a great reason not to vote for him. But there is no cause to remove him from the ballot.
And it is not just my opinion here. Multiple 14A cases have now come up for this - and not a single one has been successful.
As far as Biden is concerned, I do not need to parrot right-wing media. Note that I have not discussed Obama's third term or globalist cabals or treason or any of that other stuff with Biden. I see it - but I have not bought in. I actually use discernment in my media consumption, which, by the way, still consists of more left-wing sources than right. My *primary* news source is NPR. But I do have eyes and ears. And Biden's cognitive impairment is obvious. If you cannot see what is right in front of you, that is on you. Of course, the party of Pelosi, Feinstein, and Fetterman may not see his current mental state as a problem.
(And before you bring up McConnell, I will state first that I am not a Republican, so he is not "my party's guy," and second, I *am* a Kentuckian, but I have never voted for McConnell, and ran a VERY low budget - and largely ineffective - "Ditch Mitch" campaign in his last election cycle. I want him gone.)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Our first foundational document for governance, the Articles of Confederation, was only one step removed from anarchy, at least at the federal level. And the fledgling nation was falling apart, quickly. So they held a convention, and came up with the Constitution. The assembled men understood the Articles of Confederation were too weak to hold the autonomous states together, so they came up with a more authoritarian government which placed more power at the federal level. But a great many of those folks were still worried about too strong of a central government.
So the Constitution was set up TWO steps removed from anarchy.
What our nation has devolved to is a nation that is about three steps removed from fascism. And it is not the folks on the right driving us there.
So the Constitution was set up TWO steps removed from anarchy.
What our nation has devolved to is a nation that is about three steps removed from fascism. And it is not the folks on the right driving us there.
(1)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
MSgt Steve Sweeney - The people that founded this Nation didn't like the Government and the Constitution was looked at as a document that allowed a functioning state that had limited powers. Today, too many people in power are Rent Seekers, the Biden's and Clinton's are prime examples.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
MSgt Steve Sweeney I would go the opposite direction....
It is probably a bad idea to put people who crave power in positions of power.
It is probably a bad idea to put people who crave power in positions of power.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
PO1 Kevin Dougherty
Actually about 80% of the Articles is found in the Constitution. They were actually just another step in the over 150 years of trial and error that became our Constitution. Genius it is, but it did not spring spontaneously from the minds of our founders. I'm chewing on a series regarding that subject.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google