NJ Rep cites Constitution to avoid swearing in GOP "Traitors."

[TLK Valentine]

What you call ‘cancel culture’ was the absolute norm in the past. People simply did not behave like that because the consequences would have been fierce and often fatal.

Well, that was always the best part of supporting Donald -- with him, all things are permissible.

Now his followers have to face a world with consequences again... and they're afraid.

 

[mmksparbud]

People do not lose their rights just because what they want to do is not popular. This is THE USA we do not repress freedom here. This cancel culture mentality needs to come to an end, it is flat out unamerican.

Yes, there are laws, and those who break them pay the consequences. Freedoms end where laws are broken. It would be unamerican to do otherwise.

 

[disciple Clint]

Unless we consider fraud and terrorism in the name of overturning a legitimate election to be sedition...

...and there's also no small amount of irony in the "You lost; get over it" crowd threatening secession because they lost and can't get over it.

Fraud and terrorism, you are talking about the liberals when you use those terms anyone who has any knowledge of what has happened over the past 4 years knows that for a fact.

 

[disciple Clint]

Sorry but you don’t seem to know the history of your own country very well. Go back 150 years and the kind of talk Trump supporters are engaging in would have certainly been considered sedition and likely prompted armed response.

On a wider note, the kind of language Trump et al use was never ok in America, and this idea of total freedom of speech is laughable. If someone 150-200 years ago had publicly insulted another mans wife, or smeared them in the way Trump loves to do, the expectation would have been that they would be physically attacked if not killed for it.

What you call ‘cancel culture’ was the absolute norm in the past. People simply did not behave like that because the consequences would have been fierce and often fatal.

And you should also mention that if a President of the United States had been treated back then the way Trump has been treated, well fierce and fatal would be an understatement. We are living in an age that respects nothing and expects everything without having to work for it, That is in total contrast to what our country is all about. We have liberals attempting to erode our national identity and promote globalism, That would have been treason less than 100 years ago.

 

[disciple Clint]

Yes, there are laws, and those who break them pay the consequences. Freedoms end where laws are broken. It would be unamerican to do otherwise.

Well the OP was about "any House member that decides to challenge that vote on January 6 won't be seated." Do you support that concept of providing consequences for people who exercise their rights by doing something within the scope of their job but that you find objectionable?

 

[mmksparbud]

Well the OP was about "any House member that decides to challenge that vote on January 6 won't be seated." Do you support that concept of providing consequences for people who exercise their rights by doing something within the scope of their job but that you find objectionable?

I was talking about people who are calling for secession. I find that very unamerican, at the very least. It sounds like treason to me though I'm told there is a difference.

 

[disciple Clint]

I was talking about people who are calling for secession. I find that very unamerican, at the very least. It sounds like treason to me though I'm told there is a difference.

Well what ever it is, it is not helping resolve any problems, they would have been better off not to have made that statement and yes I think it was unamerican but it was not a crime of any kind.

 

[mmksparbud]

Well what ever it is, it is not helping resolve any problems, they would have been better off not to have made that statement and yes I think it was unamerican but it was not a crime of any kind.

I don't know about that--but inciting riots over it would be.

 

[disciple Clint]

I don't know about that--but inciting riots over it would be.

We have had far too many riots, the conservatives should leave that up to the liberals they have all the experience in that activity.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well what ever it is, it is not helping resolve any problems, they would have been better off not to have made that statement and yes I think it was unamerican but it was not a crime of any kind.

I don't know, GOP officials calling for states to leave the union could be interpreted as sedition, which is a crime last time I checked. And certainly un-American.

 

[disciple Clint]

I don't know, GOP officials calling for states to leave the union could be interpreted as sedition, which is a crime last time I checked. And certainly un-American.

NO I do believe that in this nation you can count on your right to free speech with very few exceptions

 

[TLK Valentine]

NO I do believe that in this nation you can count on your right to free speech with very few exceptions

Speech intended to incite illegal activity is not protected under the First Amendment.

 

[Speedwell]

And you should also mention that if a President of the United States had been treated back then the way Trump has been treated, well fierce and fatal would be an understatement. We are living in an age that respects nothing and expects everything without having to work for it, That is in total contrast to what our country is all about. We have liberals attempting to erode our national identity and promote globalism, That would have been treason less than 100 years ago.

Which? Attempting to erode our national identity or promoting globalism?

 

[disciple Clint]

Speech intended to incite illegal activity is not protected under the First Amendment.

The court can decide what the intent of the statement was and I do not think that this qualifies as Speech intended to incite illegal activity

 

[TLK Valentine]

The court can decide what the intent of the statement was

Can't you? You heard the same words any court did.

and I do not think that this qualifies as Speech intended to incite illegal activity

Well, secession is illegal... just sayin.

 

[disciple Clint]

Can't you? You heard the same words any court did.
As we learned with the Hillary case, a key element in deciding if an act is illegal is establishing intent, Mr Comey concluded that Hillary did not commit a crime because although what she did was indeed a violation of the law, well several violations of the law, she could not be prosecuted because she did not intend to violate the law.


Well, secession is illegal... just sayin.

 

[TLK Valentine]

As we learned with the Hillary case, a key element in deciding if an act is illegal is establishing intent, Mr Comey concluded that Hillary did not commit a crime because although what she did was indeed a violation of the law, well several violations of the law, she could not be prosecuted because she did not intend to violate the law.

So the question becomes, were these congresspeople trying to overthrow a legitimate election in order to curry favor with el presidente, or were these Republican "lawmakers" sincerely so blatantly ignorant of... you know, the law, to think this suit had a snowball's chance in Hades of being heard, let alone being won?

Interesting: I've heard of "legally insane," and "legally drunk" -- seems that a lot of GOP Representatives need to be considered "legally ignorant" in order to escape consequences...

...and what could be more important than escaping consequences?

 

[disciple Clint]

So the question becomes, were these congresspeople trying to overthrow a legitimate election in order to curry favor with el presidente, or were these Republican "lawmakers" sincerely so blatantly ignorant of... you know, the law, to think this suit had a snowball's chance in Hades of being heard, let alone being won?

Interesting: I've heard of "legally insane," and "legally drunk" -- seems that a lot of GOP Representatives need to be considered "legally ignorant" in order to escape consequences...

...and what could be more important than escaping consequences?

I think they just know that the liberals are willing to do anything to get what they want, so nothing is out of the question regardless of how unlikely it might sound.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think they just know that the liberals are willing to do anything to get what they want, so nothing is out of the question regardless of how unlikely it might sound.

That makes no sense -- this wasn't a liberal lawsuit; it was (ill-) conceived by the Texas AG...

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the law and/or the US Constitution knew this suit was going nowhere. Why jump on to the sinking ship?

 

[cow451]

I think they just know that the liberals are willing to do anything to get what they want, so nothing is out of the question regardless of how unlikely it might sound.

Those liberals resorted to winning the election. Deal with it.