Recent content by NotreDame15

Yes, however, there must exist a communicative effect, as opposed to content of the speech, for those statutes to adhere to the Free Speech Clause. For example, burning a cross isn’t necessarily illegal speech. Burning a cross in a yard isn’t alone harassment or “abuse” (unsure what “abuse”...

In addition, hate speech is protected under the Free Speech Clause. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)

Right because your view “she was a good candidate in many ways” is ineluctable and only a “ignorant or thoughtless” person disagrees. Completely devoid from your calculus of how to evaluate a candidate from “no perfect candidates” and “one is always much worse than the alternative” and “not all...

Harris wasn’t the “only candidate opposed to Lucifer.” There was a 3rd party candidate and write in option for many states. What next? Had I voted for them instead of Harris then this would also constitute “tacit equivocation” for Trump?

Emphasis mine. “Mathematically and logically” implausible as each ballot for a candidate is counted and the candidate with the majority of ballots wins (the electoral college elects the president in the U.S.). My not voting did not add to Trump’s vote total. My not voting did not add a vote...

Absolutely, the Constitution “doesn’t exist in a bubble.” Collectively, people created and wrote (a person wrote) the Constitution. Yet, for them they weren’t staring at a blank page utterly unable to make any sense of what the Constitution said in 1787-1789. For much of the Constitution, the...

I did not use any “equivalence.” I didn’t say they equally sucked. They both sucked. Your logic is for me to vote for someone who still sucks on the basis of your estimation they one sucked less. But if I have an aversion to voting for a candidate who sucks, and both suck, then it is rational...

Yes, a philosophy and POV as logically inconsistent as your own here was a CWOT.

Again, it is false “can only be defeated by supporting a democrat.” The statement is can “only be defeated by supporting” Kamala Harris, a poor candidate for office. Some other Democratic candidate that isn’t a poor candidate is logically possible to defeat Trump. You assume fidelity to the...

Oh, if only being alive longer made you correct! It doesn’t! By that bizarre logic Trump cannot be wrong at his age of 78! And the length of time you’ve devoted to pondering “the matter” hasn’t proven beneficial for your myopic, incongruous, ostensibly not years of devoted thought...

Ah yes, a familiar refrain to obscure that their freedom and liberty depriving propsoal is kosher in a democracy. Now, you might not constitute as a fascist, in fact never said you did or were, but your knee jerk reaction of taking away a freedom and liberty to not vote for President because the...

Not really. Ostensibly this is let’s blame others for a candidate I liked but many more disliked and didn’t vote at all. This is on Harris and her inability to arouse more to vote for her. Essentially, she simply wasn’t a good product to many voting consumers, which is on her.

No, no, no, there’s only one on that list and I know it, you’re not a good mind reader. “I know. You know I know. I know you know I know.” Geoffrey in, “The Lion in Winter.”

Oh a duty? According to whom? You? No such duty exists and you cannot show such a duty to exist. Yes, hypocritically deride “fascists” while you fascistically take away the freedom not to vote and will REQUIRE people to vote . Like any good fascist trampling upon liberty, your myopic view has...

No, re-read what I wrote! I already knew that you’d have a inundation of enlightened expletives strung together that violate “terms of use.”