Was 2020 election stolen or not?

[evince]

If he's this much of a misogynist on JPP to someone he thinks is a woman, can you imagine how much of a prick he is to the actual, real women in his life?

He has been showing sign after sign that his head and heart are in the wrong place


One type of Russo bot hole is one that pretends to be left and then begins undermining the left when they do have control


Trashing the left candidate


Undermining the Democratic party and democratic unity

[LV426]

He has been showing sign after sign that his head and heart are in the wrong place
One type of Russo bot hole is one that pretends to be left and then begins undermining the left when they do have control
Trashing the left candidate
Undermining the Democratic party and democratic unity

He thinks he's entitled to things but the problem is that he did nothing to earn that entitlement.

He couldn't even do the bare minimum in 2020 and vote for Biden to prevent Trump.

He was performative with his vote because he knew that there would be more responsible people who would do the right thing and vote for Biden.

Then he condescends to those people who did the work to get Trump out of office FOR HIM.

So yeah...I'm pretty resentful over that.

[Flash]

Ah, so the flag represents something, then?

You've been saying it doesn't. That it's "just a flag."

Now you seem to be changing your argument again.

So, this woman was ordered by five judges to remove her racist flag because it puts the child's welfare into danger/question.

But how could a flag do that if it's just a flag, like you had been saying for years?

Remember? You and I got into a long argument about how the flag doesn't represent anything, doesn't cause harm, doesn't mean anything other than being a flag.

You threw that whole argument away for this new one that tries to make a distinction between a judge ordering someone to remove a flag, and a judge ordering someone to remove a flag.

I didn't change the argument, you just have a hard time understanding legal principles. They said she had every right to display the flag, but she does not have the right to the custody of her child if the home conditions are hostile, unsafe, etc. If the kid was white there was no problem.

She has the constitutional right to display the flag which seems to be a point you refuse to acknowledge. The condition of her home for child custody purposes is a different matter. She has the right to own a TV but if she constantly forced the child to watch KKK videos that could affect her custody.

You refuse to admit she (everybody) has the right to display whatever flag and symbol they choose.

[evince]

He thinks he's entitled to things but the problem is that he did nothing to earn that entitlement.

He couldn't even do the bare minimum in 2020 and vote for Biden to prevent Trump.

He was performative with his vote because he knew that there would be more responsible people who would do the right thing and vote for Biden.

Then he condescends to those people who did the work to get Trump out of office FOR HIM.

So yeah...I'm pretty resentful over that.

Who did he say he voted for ?

[evince]

I didn't change the argument, you just have a hard time understanding legal principles. They said she had every right to display the flag, but she does not have the right to the custody of her child if the home conditions are hostile, unsafe, etc. If the kid was white there was no problem.

She has the constitutional right to display the flag which seems to be a point you refuse to acknowledge. The condition of her home for child custody purposes is a different matter. She has the right to own a TV but if she constantly forced the child to watch KKK videos that could affect her custody.

You refuse to admit she (everybody) has the right to display whatever flag and symbol they choose.

The court determined THAT FLAG would harm her foster child


So a court said that flag can harm people

[LV426]

I didn't change the argument, you just have a hard time understanding legal principles.

No, you said for years that the Confederate Flag could cause no harm because it's just a flag.

Then you completely flip-flopped on that principle to argue that a judge removing a Confederate Flag was done, not because of the 1A, but because the flag causes harm.

So now we have to go all the way back to 2019 to re-litigate your insistence THEN that a Confederate Flag could not be removed just because someone is negatively affected by it.

This has nothing to do with legal principles...this has to do with YOUR PERSONAL PRINCIPLES that are now in conflict with themselves.

but she does not have the right to the custody of her child if the home conditions are hostile, unsafe, etc.

So you're saying the Confederate Flag does cause harm.

You should tell the Flash from 2019 that, because he didn't believe me when I said it at the time and tried to gaslight me into thinking there's nothing harmful about the Confederate Flag.

Turns out there's quite a lot that is hurtful about it, so much that 5 judges agreed it should be removed in order to prevent harm.

She has the constitutional right to display the flag which seems to be a point you refuse to acknowledge.

I did acknowledge it, but in doing so, YOU ACKNOWLEDGED that the Confederate Flag causes harm, after arguing for years that it couldn't.

I would just like a little consistency in your arguments...is that too much to ask?

You refuse to admit she (everybody) has the right to display whatever flag and symbol they choose.

NO! You don't have that right, clearly, since these judges are saying that flying that flag will cause someone harm.

You said two years ago that a flag couldn't do that, and now you're arguing the opposite position purely out of spite.

[Flash]

The 1A doesn't go away simply because it's inconvenient for your argument.

The 1A doesn't go away because of something unrelated.

Now, the problem you face is that you can't pretend that the Confederate Flag doesn't pose harm or a threat because you're arguing that it does for the sake of your 1A/not-1A-but-1A argument.

You said before that a flag could never harm anyone.

Now you're saying it can.

So you completely flip-flopped on your position just to try and spite me.

My position, and that of the court in her case, is that the first amendment protects our right to display any flag we choose. That is not my position but that established by courts throughout our history.

If 300 million Americans choose to display the Confederate flag they are all within their constitutional rights.

If 1,000 families have child custody disputes their 1st Amendment views are not relevant to the child's welfare. If she wants to teach the kid to dislike others because of their skin color she is free to do so unless it creates conflict with the child's father and creates negative conditions in the home.

If I want to display a Confederate flag in a neighborhood of black people I am free do to so as long as I exhibit no actions threatening those neighbors. And no, the Confederate flag is not an "inherent threat."

[Flash]

The court determined THAT FLAG would harm her foster child

So a court said that flag can harm people

The court said she has the constitutional right to display that flag. A child she has custody does not apply to all other U. S. residents.

[LV426]

You refuse to admit she (everybody) has the right to display whatever flag and symbol they choose.

Not if that symbol or flag causes harm, which the 5 judges in this case determined it did.

So if it causes harm to a kid, it also causes harm to adults.

[LV426]

My position, and that of the court in her case, is that the first amendment protects our right to display any flag we choose."

NO!

That is not the position in the case.

The position is that flag causes harm, therefore it must be removed.

So if 5 judges agree that the Confederate Flag causes harm, then that means you do not have an absolute Constitutional Right to fly that flag.

Remember, YOU SAID THE FLAG DIDN'T CAUSE HARM.

NOW YOU'RE SAYING IT DOES.

[evince]

The court said she has the constitutional right to display that flag. A child she has custody does not apply to all other U. S. residents.

And they did that to protect a human child from harm



In so doing


Saying clearly that flag can cause harm

[LV426]

If 300 million Americans choose to display the Confederate flag they are all within their constitutional rights.

Apparently not, because 5 judges just ruled that flag causes harm to people, therefore it poses a threat, therefore it is not Constitutionally protected speech.

So you have a right to wave that dumb flag so long as you're not causing anyone harm when you do it, but the thing is that the flag is inherently harmful, so you will always be causing someone harm when you wave it.

If 1,000 families have child custody disputes their 1st Amendment views are not relevant to the child's welfare.

Right, but their actions are.

And waving that dumb flag around is an action, is it not?

So if that action causes someone harm, then shouldn't it be ordered down because it's harmful?

[Truth Detector]

Trump was such a flaming asshole I would say "anyone but trump" was a pretty good campaign plan.

No; it was lame and stupid and intended for dumb fucks like you.

[Flash]

Not if that symbol or flag causes harm, which the 5 judges in this case determined it did.

So if it causes harm to a kid, it also causes harm to adults.

The court did not say that. Kids are different than adults and are subject to more protection. You are making a huge jump in logic that is completely contrary to the court's opinion.

The father only appealed when the child's attorney wanted the mother's home to be the primary residence. If they had joint custody and her home was not the primary residence the flag is not an issue.

[evince]

The court said she has the constitutional right to display that flag. A child she has custody does not apply to all other U. S. residents.

That flag was deemed harmful to a human


Face what happened


It established in the law the precedence that is by now in the law