3 ms·

>"I am not your brother in Christ." It's an expression lol >"It doesn't magically give him a new election or a third term in office, which is what this discus

>"I am not your brother in Christ." It's an expression lol >"It doesn't magically give him a new election or a third term in office, which is what this discussion was about." He gave an astute example of how constitutionality (which is your crutch for "elections" and "third terms" being protected procedure) doesn't matter when there are currently unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings being honored - which is currently the easiest avenue for Trump to make any more unconstitutional advances (election suspension, third term, etc etc), and you acted - slightly arrogantly in fact - as if it wasn't a valid retort. That's where we are now - and I don't even have a dog in this fight; I joined merely because you falsely motioned that his link to Trump v. US wasn't complimentary to his position, and I've only elucidated on his behalf how it is.

lapcat 1y ago
> It's an expression lol I don't like it and don't find it endearing or persuasuve. > which is your crutch for "elections" and "third terms" being protected procedure I'm not sure what you mean by "protected procedure". My point is just that it's blatantly obvious to everyone that Trump cannot run for a third term, and if the Supreme Court says he can, that would be equivalent to the Supreme Court saying that black is white or night is day, a bald-faced lie. I doubt they would, though. If Trump attempted to remain in power, it would no doubt be via some kind of contrived emergency, martial law, state of "war", and not via running for election again, which nobody is going to accept, not even Republicans. > there are currently unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings being honored Yes, but that's true of many rulings, even before Trump took office. > you acted - slightly arrogantly in fact - as if it wasn't a valid retort A link is not a retort, valid or invalid. > you falsely motioned that his link to Trump v. US wasn't complimentary to his position No, I said that a link by itself is not an argument. The relevance and applicability of the link needs to be explained.
- HaZeust 1y ago
  >"I doubt they would, though." >"which nobody is going to accept" I respect your blind optimism. The rest is moot for a reply.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

lapcat 1y ago

> It's an expression lol I don't like it and don't find it endearing or persuasuve. > which is your crutch for "elections" and "third terms" being protected procedure I'm not sure what you mean by "protected procedure". My point is just that it's blatantly obvious to everyone that Trump cannot run for a third term, and if the Supreme Court says he can, that would be equivalent to the Supreme Court saying that black is white or night is day, a bald-faced lie. I doubt they would, though. If Trump attempted to remain in power, it would no doubt be via some kind of contrived emergency, martial law, state of "war", and not via running for election again, which nobody is going to accept, not even Republicans. > there are currently unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings being honored Yes, but that's true of many rulings, even before Trump took office. > you acted - slightly arrogantly in fact - as if it wasn't a valid retort A link is not a retort, valid or invalid. > you falsely motioned that his link to Trump v. US wasn't complimentary to his position No, I said that a link by itself is not an argument. The relevance and applicability of the link needs to be explained.

HaZeust 1y ago
>"I doubt they would, though." >"which nobody is going to accept" I respect your blind optimism. The rest is moot for a reply.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]