Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey indicted on federal bribery charges (ETA: FARA charges added)

[BPPLEE]

The phrase was "weaponized prosecutions, witch hunts and lawfare"

The first and last do not apply to Congressional mouth-flapping. While I grant the middle one is ambiguous, the context and topic of the thread is clear.

Keep to the topic.

Yet here we are again

 

[Pommer]

Last wordism - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com

 

[BPPLEE]

Last wordism - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com

Did you read that article?

 

[DaisyDay]

Thank you for proving my point

Except that your point was that Democrats, of which I am not, always complain about witch hunts, etc. whenever one of their own gets prosecuted, which is clearly false.

However, the endless, harassing "investigation" of Biden and his family was a baseless witch hunt combined with revenge porn. The investigation and prosecution of Hunter Biden for tax evasion was appropriately carried out during Trump's term. The gun charge was way overblown - he owned it for fifteen days but never used it to commit any crime.

The problem with the Maga crowd is that they claim, echoing Donald, that any investigation, every prosecution is a witch hunt and all criticism is partisan, fake and outrageous. Your tu quoque is both false and fallacious.

 

[BPPLEE]

Except that your point was that Democrats, of which I am not, always complain about witch hunts, etc. whenever one of their own gets prosecuted, which is clearly false.

However, the endless, harassing "investigation" of Biden and his family was a baseless witch hunt combined with revenge porn. The investigation and prosecution of Hunter Biden for tax evasion was appropriately carried out during Trump's term. The gun charge was way overblown - he owned it for fifteen days but never used it to commit any crime.

The problem with the Maga crowd is that they claim, echoing Donald, that any investigation, every prosecution is a witch hunt and all criticism is partisan, fake and outrageous. Your tu quoque is both false and fallacious.

I never said always or every, and you just did exactly what I claimed

 

[Pommer]

I never said always or every, and you just did exactly what I claimed

If our friend says they’re not Democrat, that they did exactly as you claimed, refutes your own argument.

 

[Pommer]

Did you read that article?

I believe my sole edit was removed by Aschlafly, and may not have seen the final “product”.

 

[BPPLEE]

If our friend says they’re not Democrat, that they did exactly as you claimed, refutes your own argument.

Liberal, supports Democrats even though she may not officially be one

 

[Hans Blaster]

I believe my sole edit was removed by Aschlafly, and may not have seen the final “product”.

Conservapedia is just the personal delusions Andrew Schlafly has about reality. It's very much like how "Gateway Pundit" is the same about current events, but for his friend and fellow Missourian, Jim Hoft.

 

[Pommer]

Liberal, supports Democrats even though she may not officially be one

Just because the GOP is chock-full of people who consider themselves to be “conservatives“, it does not follow that Democrats are the “liberal” party.
That’s a political fallacy.

The Democratic Party is center-left, which only looks like it radical left from the radical right’s POV.

 

[BPPLEE]

Just because the GOP is chock-full of people who consider themselves to be “conservatives“, it does not follow that Democrats are the “liberal” party.
That’s a political fallacy.

The Democratic Party is center-left, which only looks like it radical left from the radical right’s POV.

You say that but then almost always support what the Democrats do (especially Biden and Harris)

 

[Pommer]

You say that but then almost always support what the Democrats do (especially Biden and Harris)

Because I recognize the Democratic Party as a center-left Party, (whereas I’m slightly left of Bernie Sanders).
I agree less with the Democratic Party than you might surmise but that’s because you cannot see how much further to the left I think they should go.

 

[BPPLEE]

Because I recognize the Democratic Party as a center-left Party, (whereas I’m slightly left of Bernie Sanders).
I agree less with the Democratic Party than you might surmise but that’s because you cannot see how much further to the left I think they should go.

I didn’t mean just you

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Because I recognize the Democratic Party as a center-left Party, (whereas I’m slightly left of Bernie Sanders).
I agree less with the Democratic Party than you might surmise but that’s because you cannot see how much further to the left I think they should go.

Left of Bernie Sanders? So what is that? Pol Pot?

 

[rjs330]

Just because the GOP is chock-full of people who consider themselves to be “conservatives“, it does not follow that Democrats are the “liberal” party.
That’s a political fallacy.

The Democratic Party is center-left, which only looks like it radical left from the radical right’s POV.

They are the liberal party. They support every single liberal agenda that's out there. And not just centrist in opinion but leftist in opinion and policy generation.

Now that doesn't mean extreme left. Like communist. But definately left.

It may be that you are so far left that you can't see how leftist the party is.

The Rebublicans are more center right than just right. That can be shown by the divisions within the party. The Democratic Party has far fewer divisions when it comes to the lefts agenda.

 

[Pommer]

They are the liberal party. They support every single liberal agenda that's out there. And not just centrist in opinion but leftist in opinion and policy generation.

Now that doesn't mean extreme left. Like communist. But definately left.

It may be that you are so far left that you can't see how leftist the party is.

The Rebublicans are more center right than just right. That can be shown by the divisions within the party. The Democratic Party has far fewer divisions when it comes to the lefts agenda.

From my perspective that GOP is about two-thirds towards the right’s “edge” (which I would view as just shy of dissolving the Constitution in order to draft a new one, only this time we’re going to get it “right!”)

Since Trump is going to decimate make the system of governance we have now “better”, why not help him with a brand-spanking New Constitution to “break in”!?

 

[rjs330]

From my perspective that GOP is about two-thirds towards the right’s “edge” (which I would view as just shy of dissolving the Constitution in order to draft a new one, only this time we’re going to get it “right!”)

Since Trump is going to decimate make the system of governance we have now “better”, why not help him with a brand-spanking New Constitution to “break in”!?

The right is about preserving the Constitution. It's the left that is constantly wanting to change it. It's the left that really predominantly believes its a living breathing document or that it needs to be altered because it was created by a bunch of old white men who are long dead so their ideas need to be updated.

Call for changes to rhe 2nd Ammendment, the removal of the Electoral College are two examples of the left wanting to re-write it.

Now that's not to say the right is never interested in something either. Such as removing rhe blanket US citizen if born in the US from the 14th Ammendment. I think both spectrums have some interest in it, for their own policies.

I will say I have heard far more calls from the left regarding changing a dusty old document than I have from the right.

That being said, the Consitution does allow for change. Through the Constitutional Convention. I think right now every side is too afraid of the other side to actually have one.

 

[Pommer]

The right is about preserving the Constitution. It's the left that is constantly wanting to change it. It's the left that really predominantly believes its a living breathing document or that it needs to be altered because it was created by a bunch of old white men who are long dead so their ideas need to be updated.

Call for changes to rhe 2nd Ammendment, the removal of the Electoral College are two examples of the left wanting to re-write it.

Now that's not to say the right is never interested in something either. Such as removing rhe blanket US citizen if born in the US from the 14th Ammendment. I think both spectrums have some interest in it, for their own policies.

I will say I have heard far more calls from the left regarding changing a dusty old document than I have from the right.

That being said, the Consitution does allow for change. Through the Constitutional Convention. I think right now every side is too afraid of the other side to actually have one.

If our glorious founders didn’t want for their progeny to change the Constitution they wouldn’t have put in ways to change it. It’s supposed to be malleable, refusing to do so for the sake of refusing, abdicates our (or the people present at the time of such proposed changes) power for “what’s got us to the point where we (all) are!”

The real movement would be to bring the Constitution to be more in line with the society as situated, and cease trying to cram the society into a 238 year-old document.
Conservative thought is valued even by lefties like me, but political-laziness isn’t “conservative”.

Here’s the thing:
If we (as a nation) are so deeply divided over how best to live under a constitution (as it is now) then either one side or the other would have to “win” and the other side has to lose…or we can agree to fiddle with the innards of our Republic to make it so people today (and into the future) have a better basis for all to have for living in an open, just and free society.

We’re just as smart as the founders and can make things better for more people.

 

[Pommer]

That being said, the Consitution does allow for change. Through the Constitutional Convention. I think right now every side is too afraid of the other side to actually have one.

Constitutions aren’t written when “things are going good”…which is why they’re being written (in the first place).

 

[rjs330]

If our glorious founders didn’t want for their progeny to change the Constitution they wouldn’t have put in ways to change it. It’s supposed to be malleable, refusing to do so for the sake of refusing, abdicates our (or the people present at the time of such proposed changes) power for “what’s got us to the point where we (all) are!”

So you now say its okay to change it. It seemed that you were making a different claim earlier.

And all that you just posted agreed with me. That the Constitution makes allowances for change.

So now I guess I'm confused. The Constitution can be changed, but its not easy to do. And shouldn't be. Malleable makes it sound like its easily moldable. I dont think that's the case.