Rabby
Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
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:
The implication of this statement is that the democrats are white knights of the constitution, standing up for our rights to the tyrannical Trump administration.
This is obviously contrary to reality, which is what I was pointing out.
Sure, the democrats are going to oppose it. But not because they are pro constitution. It will be because they are anti Trump.
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? Remove them and support the forum:
Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.
Last edited: