That’s not what that means. See [1] - “States will define as political crimes any behaviour perceived as a threat, real or imagined, to the state's survival, including both violent and non-violent oppositional crimes”
As in it’s political not because of party politics, but because it’s threatened the power of politically powerful people and agencies in the US establishment.
Very combative statement. But when you’ve got a very conservative republican teaming up with a very liberal democrat on this legislation, combative may be the only option you have.
Oh, come on. Anytime a politician of any party uses that line it's a load of crap. If they supported the policy they'd find the legal authority perfectly acceptable.
The message of the article is _we are not enemies_ not "don't fight."
Fellow Americans should be able to disagree and settle the conflict with elections. Enemies wish for each other's destruction, and while it may be how you feel, it is not the right frame of mind to take when attempting exchange of ideas on policy.
Well, that's a fair point and I'll ask for clarification when I see something in quotes next time. When a disqualifying statement (not "the enemy") is flipped like that and directly applied to something, it carries more weight, especially when a loaded term like "enemy" is used. Politicians get in trouble for "with us or against us" rhetoric all the time. Not everything is so black and white, unless you make a compelling case that it is.
The thing I find amusing/terrifying is that people are now claiming the moral high ground over how it was handled originally (context be damned), while still using it as a political stick to beat people with - one key point here is the distinction between political and partisan disputes.
You may disagree with them, you might even consider them your political enemies, but their lawsuit still deserves to be evaluated on its merits, not partisanship.
>Texas GOP chair says 'law-abiding states' should 'form a union' after SCOTUS rejects election suit
I feel there may be a real point to that. Is he being a bit emotional with his post? Sure. Should that be enough to write off a possible threat to democracy? No. I mean if that alienates you, I expect what the TX GOP chair did will REALLY make you passionate
It isn't. The person above is trying to browbeat you for holding an opinion which is not advantageous to the election prospects of their preferred politician.
I didn't make a partisan distinction, only described the thought process for how someone justifies the use of political violence instead of the legal and democratic process.
I'm not sure how saying your opponents are frothing at the mouth or calling them a fringe base of extreme voters who hold their reps at their mercy is any more cooperative.
The intent to marginalize the opposition and justify ignoring their concerns remains the same.
reply