‘We know who he is’: Donald Trump continues to target officer who shot Ashli Babbitt

Disorderly behavior and criminal activity are prevalent outside people's political stances.

 

these were Trump supporters trying to overturn an election, and a President that said he loved them while they were doing it

 

haha. Yes I sure they would have owned the government and overthrown It. was one of the hillbilly rioters going to hold up the gavel to the sky and lightning would strike it like Thor?
You guys crack me up
Thank you for this entertainment!

 

they were Trump supporters, the fact they failed is not supprising

 

Why do you think they were there? Tea and crumpets with the King? (he ducked out, btw).

Their goal isn't changed simply because they didn't succeed.

 

people protest and riot at places of politics. If this was some planned take over then what were their plans exactly? C.H.A.Z. Was 100x more organized than Jan 6th

 

I'm not part of that crowd so I can't speak to their motives. Generally speaking, though, I would argue scaling walls, defecating on public property, stealing governmental laptops, climbing through broken windows, beating police officers and making makeshift hangman's noose and shouting for the seated Vice-President aren't in any political protest/riot handbooks.

Mind you, this is just a best guess as I tend to like living on this side of prison walls. The only thing that would change that objective would be someone hurting one of my children. Beyond that, I'm willing to negotiate.

 

As interesting as your fantasy world is, back here in reality right wingers have, indeed, threatened to kill cops. They have, indeed, plotted to kill cops. They have, indeed, killed cops. Please join us back here in reality. The facts don't care about your feelings. You don't get to just ignore the lives of cops because acknowledging reality would offend your political sensibilities.

 

This is good news. It means you recognize that Trump is a cheater. He's constantly accusing other people of cheating.

He didn't make too much fuss in 2016 only because it worked in his favor. But you wrote it, right there in black and white. A person will think and accuse others of what they, themselves, are always doing.

 

Thanks for confirming my point....I'm not up to date on my lefty acronyms but I'm sure it's another partisan generalization...

 

No one claimed they were geniuses. It was an idiotic plan, but it was, indeed, their intention to overturn the election. But Trump's attempts to steal the election by pressuring state officials and the DOJ is far more worrisome.

 

I addressed Article II in my response to Grey Matter above. The same principal applies Article VI.

You haven't addressed the contradictory position that if one can apply the phrase "perpetual union" from the AOC then why should we not apply the rest of the AOC as "intent".

 

The preamble to the Constitution states its purpose as "to create a more perfect union." Given the "perpetual union" of the Articles, that would indicate a stronger union than one that allows dissolution. Anyhow, whatever you think, Texas v. White holds that there is no right to secession and that's the current precedence, whether you like it or not. I think "Heller" is a ridiculous interpretation of the 2nd amendment...but I accept the ruling and will continue to do so until the Court reverses itself.

The clear DIFFERENCE between the Articles and the Constitution is the difference between confederation and federation. Perpetual union may apply to both.

 

It means change, or more specifically, progress. MORE perfect, not perfect.

 

It may, but the Constitution does not state the purpose is a perpetual union. Not to mention, a "more perfect" union can be interpreted as one that can be dissolved.

That aside, your response sidesteps my point: if one can apply the concept of a perpetual union from the AOC then why can't other areas of the AOC be applied as well?

 

Because the purpose of the Constitution was to strengthen the central government, not weaken it. That meant creating a third "sovereignty," superior to the sovereignty of the individual states, and approved by the sovereign people. There was no sovereign United States under the Articles.

 

Again, the Constitution was clearly a Federalist document but no where does it peclude secession. The Supremecy clause does not prevent it, but only states that the US sovereignty is supreme in specific, enumerated matters. The states did not surrender thier sovereignty in all matters, and when a state declares it's independence from the Union those rules no longer applies.

And again, as I pointed out before, if one uses the justification of a perpetual union from the AOC one can logically use other parts as well. You can not have it both ways.

 

Go find them yourself. Go read the transcript of the hearings, etc.etc.

So, just to clarify, did not support the riots that occurred(which ones(plural) ?) or Trump's statements on the election(which ones ?)

As for my position, I have repeated it several times in this thread. I don't need your support.

 

I don't think so. The only legitimate path toward dissolution would be through an amendment...otherwise the states are subject to Article i, section 10. Lincoln prosecuted the war against the confederacy as a rebellion. He won that war and Texas v. White upheld his prosecution. Until that changes, there is no legitimate way to secession other than by an amendment to the Constitution. "Enumerated matters" includes Article i, Section 10 and the supremacy of federal law.

What other "parts" of the Articles do you propose applying to the Constitution?

 

Why should I a citizen have to go find out for myself what happened in a homicide? It was not even covered in the hearings, what transcripts?

I have been quite clear about my position have restated it here and have no obligation to keep repeating it, this is not about ME. Stick to the issue.

 

You made it an issue. Go read whatever records you can get your hands on. No one is obligated to serve it up to you. Understand that when you pose questions that refer or imply things because you don’t have access to records or transcripts, you will get this same answer.

Great, so I have stated your position accurately.

 

I covered this for you earlier:

"Asserts the sovereignty of each state, except for the specific powers delegated to the confederation government: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated."

 

The Constitution negated that. See Article i, Section 10.

 

They won't release the records!!!!!!!!!!!! Why as a citizen are you OK with that in this homicide?
Geez if this was a black criminal armed with a knife about to stab someone you and the left would he screaming blood murder and demanding EVERY scrap of evidence and the oofifer be lynched.

 

They won't release the records !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????
I can't believe it ! Have you asked for them ? Personally ?

Since you're not from "the left" you can't know or even imagine what "the left" would be screaming about, so we can safely ignore what you have to say on
that topic.