Do All Republican Candidates Favor Insurrection?

[Twilight Hue]

According to the confederates, sure.

Had they won your Civil War, odds are that that country would have been recognized as real and valid.

They did not, and it is not.

He's acknowledged as a president and is interred at Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond Virginia along with two other National presidents buried there.

Maybe if you have lived here in the states instead of Brazil you would have known that.

Hollywood Cemetery (Richmond, Virginia) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[LuisDantas]

He's acknowledged as a president and is interred at Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond Virginia along with two other National presidents buried there.

Maybe if you have lived here in the states instead of Brazil you would have known that.

Hollywood Cemetery (Richmond, Virginia) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Maybe. Fortunately, that is irrelevant. There is no dispute that he was the President of the Confederate States.

That title has no relevance whatsoever when listing the Presidents of the USA.

In all honesty, I don't know why you brought up this cemetery trivia.

Maybe you mean to say that the cemetery's management does not want to distinguish between him and the Presidents of the USA? That may well be, but that is hardly relevant either.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Maybe. Fortunately, that is irrelevant. There is no dispute that he was the President of the Confederate States.

That title has no relevance whatsoever when listing the Presidents of the USA.

In all honesty, I don't know why you brought up this cemetery trivia.

I just want to make sure the records straight on it, but I do get what you're trying to say here.

 

[Shaul]

There is no evidence that any Republican candidates support insurrection. Republican haters should stop spouting such nonsense.

 

[Revoltingest]

That was just an example, but your claim could still be countered without bringing up Davis. As I said, there's nothing in the law or the Constitution which says a President or a former President is above the law. The political reality that he might not face any time behind bars does not mean he's above the law. If anything, it means that the law is not above politics.

That has been an ongoing problem.

Meh...

There is no evidence that any Republican candidates support insurrection. Republican haters should stop spouting such nonsense.

Republican sycophants should stop denying it.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no evidence that any Republican candidates support insurrection. Republican haters should stop spouting such nonsense.

It might be nonsense, were it not true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no evidence that any Republican candidates support insurrection. Republican haters should stop spouting such nonsense.

Anyone that supports the acts of the mob on January 6 is supporting insurrectionists.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Forgive" might be more appropriate.

What's to forgive in their eyes?

 

[Stevicus]

What's to forgive in their eyes?

I can't say what's in their eyes. I was just pointing out that a pardon doesn't automatically imply approval of someone's criminal acts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't say what's in their eyes. I was just pointing out that a pardon doesn't automatically imply approval of someone's criminal acts.

I will grant that. If you read the 14th Amendment there is an out there written into it. The Congress can overturn anyone individuals ban from running for office. Or in the case of the South, almost everyone was given amnesty and allowed to run for office, One of the reasons that there are only a handful of court cases that deal with this is because the ban on southerners that we engaged in some means, they did not even have to be in the army, in insurrection is because the ban for them lasted slightly less than 6 years. The 14th Amendment was passed in June of 1866 and the amnesty to those involved in the war was granted in May of 1872.

 

[Laniakea]

Anyone that supports the acts of the mob on January 6 is supporting insurrectionists.

Then what's the hesitation with actually going ahead with legally charging anyone with insurrection? If it's so true, then why focus on lies?

 

[Laniakea]

It might be nonsense, were it not true.

If it were true, you'd be able to provide evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then what's the hesitation with actually going ahead with legally charging anyone with insurrection? If it's so true, then why focus on lies?

Because in the law the crimes that he has been charged with are more specific. Once again, you will not find "insurrection" on the law books. One cannot charge a crime that is not on the books. But people can still properly describe what he did as starting an insurrection. Are you not following the indictments at all?

 

[Laniakea]

Because in the law the crimes that he has been charged with are more specific. Once again, you will not find "insurrection" on the law books. One cannot charge a crime that is not on the books. But people can still properly describe what he did as starting an insurrection. Are you not following the indictments at all?

Ah, so they just make up terms to accuse someone of, consider them to be "guilty" of that charge (even though they've only been "charged" in politically-biased media groups), and then deny The People of the country the right to vote or not vote for that person (even though they are the clear front-runner in an upcoming election), and then claim that such action is to protect democracy?

I'd be willing bet that the youngsters of today are being taught such things in the big universities. It would explain much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, so they just make up terms to accuse someone of, consider them to be "guilty" of that charge (even though they've only been "charged" in politically-biased media groups), and then deny The People of the country the right to vote or not vote for that person (even though they are the clear front-runner in an upcoming election), and then claim that such action is to protect democracy?

I'd be willing bet that the youngsters of today are being taught such things in the big universities. It would explain much.

No, they are following the laws. What part of that did you not understand?

 

[Laniakea]

No, they are following the laws. What part of that did you not understand?

you will not find "insurrection" on the law books. One cannot charge a crime that is not on the books. But people can still properly describe what he did as starting an insurrection.

Following the laws based on things not on the law books. Charging someone with something not on the books, but still claiming that charges can be brought if "people" describe it as what what some people wish was on the law books.
Your gaslighting not very effective.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Following the laws based on things not on the law books. Charging someone with something not on the books, but still claiming that charges can be brought if "people" describe it as what what some people wish was on the law books.
Your gaslighting not very effective.

Wow! You are not listening. No, they are following the laws on the lawbooks. Where do you think that they are not doing that?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Then what's the hesitation with actually going ahead with legally charging anyone with insurrection? If it's so true, then why focus on lies?

It's because Democrats have accepted and have employed the art of lawfare to remove by any means possible, their political opponents.

This just happened to be very convenient and good timing and they took advantage of it to the fullest means possible.

 

[Revoltingest]

Following the laws based on things not on the law books. Charging someone with something not on the books, but still claiming that charges can be brought if "people" describe it as what what some people wish was on the law books.
Your gaslighting not very effective.

"Gaslighting" is a word that's endured so much corruption.
Feminists embraced it to describe any difference of opinion
with them. This way they can feel like victims of some plot.
That's bogus.
Your belief that Trump didn't foment insurrection, or stage
a failed coup is merely an opinion...& not a cromulent one.
So you should expect reasoned disagreement without your
being Mr Manningham's victim.

 

[LuisDantas]

If it were true, you'd be able to provide evidence.

If you have not yet noticed that, I fail to see what difference evidence can possibly make. You post in this forum, so I know that you have sensorial capability and know how to read.