Rabby
Silver Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
LEGACY MEMBER
MEMBER
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
That might have been what he meant to say, but that's certainly not what he said.
He said: "If they are opposing the DoJ because they are opposed to the Trump admin, then there is no reason to believe such constitutional assaults won't be undertaken by the Biden administration in the very near future."
What you said is that opposing Trump and caring about the Constitution are uncorrelated. (I agree with this.)
What he said is that opposing Trump is indication ("no reason to believe...won't...") that they may assault on the Constitution later. In other words, that there's a positive correlation.
Those are very different things.
Btw, if he agreed with you that there was no correlation, then his original argument wouldn't have made sense.
I'm not very smart when it comes to most things, but logic is one thing I'm pretty good at...
Well I'm not even good at logic, so you have me at a terrible disadvantage. I'm passable at conjecture, sometimes, on days that start with the letter "T." But even that is unreliable.
I was talking about this:
You asked "who cares why they oppose it?" My only point was that "why" they oppose it is indeed relevant. If they opposed "it" because they're nice people who like federalism and liberty, and felt that "it" went against the spirit of federalism and liberty as documented in the Constitution, then we have nothing to worry about down the line. If they take executive power, they will not use it to restrict liberty.
But if they're not opposing "it" because of their alignment with the nation's documented values, but are instead opposing it just to be contrary to another faction's wishes and popularity, then the risk still exists that when their faction gains greater power they will stop opposing "it" and other things that theoretically restrict liberty, and instead take their own crack at redefining the rights of citizens.
So we care why someone opposes "it" because that tells us whether or not we can conjecture that the same someone will oppose, or propose, similar "its" later on.
Edit: I think we're reading the spirit of the same comment a different way. For all I know I'm interpreting it wrong, but I don't read it as meaning "Trump is the embodiment of Constitutional defense." I just read it as "there's no reason to believe that someone who is contrary to Trump won't later try to do the same thing they're being contrary about today."
Dislike ads? Become a Fastlane member:
Subscribe today and surround yourself with winners and millionaire mentors, not those broke friends who only want to drink beer and play video games. :-)
Last edited:
Access Restricted: Unlock 1,000,000+ Posts
Stop Peeking Through the Keyhole.
Open the Door.
You hit a wall because the best advice isn't free—it's earned. Since 2007, MJ DeMarco has been active here daily (99.9% active rate), building a war room for entrepreneurs who refuse to settle for mediocrity.
- Active Daily: Life-changing content posted dozens of times every day. No dead threads.
- MJ's Inner Circle: Direct access to the author of The Millionaire Fastlane.
- Vetted Network: Connect with founders scaling to 7 and 8 figures.
- Proven Roadmaps: Strategy over motivation. Execution over "hustle porn."
"SCALED TO 6-FIGURE MONTHS"
"Tips and advice here saved me from huge mistakes, others allowed me to scale my business to 6-figure months."— User MitchC
"INSANE QUALITY OF PEOPLE"
"The number of high quality people I've met from this forum has been insane. All of it predicated on building real value."— User Richard Peck
"You are the average of the five people you surround yourself with."
Are you surrounding yourself with success?
Nadj moli o jewi sief op uvjis duapvsoit - penimz gummuxoph vji tovaevoup op vji A.T op xjodj vjot ot e hsiev situasdi, vjepl zua emm.
