I found this article by Cato Institute, of all places, interesting as it criticizes the Republican rhetoric about the constitution as possibly…deeply misinformed.
I found this article by Cato Institute, of all places, interesting as it criticizes the Republican rhetoric about the constitution as possibly…deeply misinformed.
I love that throughout this entire piece talking about how the Republican candidates are all either ignorant of, or antagonistic towards certain parts of the constitution, the author never mentions that 6 of them said they’d support Trump as their party’s nominee even if he was convicted of seditious acts.
The entire party is a joke. One long, weird, unfunny joke.
Is there something wrong with not placing unwavering support into every part of the constitution?
This feels like a weird, leading question. What part of my original response prompted you to ask it? Or did you just accidentally reply to the wrong person?
You brought up that candidates are antagonistic to parts of the constitution, clearly as a negative. So why is it a bad thing
Uh, no? I offered no opinions on that whatsoever. I simply summed up the article by saying:
In this sentence, I’m saying that the author of the article said that. For proof, you can read the article.