LIBERAL: A person who genuinely believes that there is one set of rules for themself and another for everyone else.

If I were charged with a crime and my lawyer used the defence “but other people broke the law too” how do you think I’d go? Do you think that would fly with the judge?

[quote]Remind me again who is worse?[/quote]the guy who has children locked in cages

Ok Boomer

If every liberal is a GUN HATING TERRORIST LOVING CENSORSHIP SJW CANCEL CULTURE SNOWFLAKE COMMUNIST then every conservative is a XENOPHOBIC -German during world war 2- RED NECK WHO HATES CHANGE AND TECHNOLOGY AND EATS COAL AND DRINKS OIL Sounds stupid, right? That's because the world isn't black and white, gray areas exist, so putting everyone who leans left a little more to the right with alt-rights, or lobbing slightly left leaning people in with full blown SJWs. That isn't how it works, and you should know that.

If you seek attention, you got it. Downvoted to oblivion.

shouldn't any president that doesn't follow the constitution should be removed from office? [confused_emote]

Well, I mean that's kinda half of the oath of office.....

[quote]Remind me again who is worse?[/quote] The mongs who get off on attacking the “other side”.

Oh look, we have another whataboutist.

[quote]Says the liberal who: -doesn’t let republicans speak on campuses -wants to revoke the 2nd because of scary guns -doesn’t want to give Trump the right to defend himself by letting republicans testify in the impeachment trial. Remind me again who is worse?[/quote] Jesus -blam!-ing Christ mate How the hell is it possible to strawman this hard? Lemme break this down real quick “Liberal” Not quite- minarchist really “Doesn’t let Republicans speak on campus” I don’t? Wack I don’t remember doing that “Wants the second amendment revoked” Again not my opinion but even if it was that’s entirely constitutional given that there’s a clause that outlines how to amend[spoiler]Theres even a chart you can make- btw all but the 18th amendment was proposed in congress(fun fact right there) [/spoiler] It’s kinda weird that’s out “rights” arent actually inalienable but rather can be revoked via an act of legislation but that’s an issue that should be taken up with SCOTUS not me “Doesn’t let trump defend himself” Ok this is just false 2 main reasons 1. There’s no impeachment trial yet as the House hasn’t voted on articles of impeachment- if they do then the senate hold the trial which leads to point 2 2. Mitch McConnell has almost full control over a senate trial should it happen so to say “Liberals are stopping republicans” is utter bullshit One last point even if everything you said earlier was true It doesn’t -blam!-ing matter Private citizens opinions don’t have a bearing on the actions of a president that has- Signed legislation restricting the 4th amendment- used executive authority to attempt to coerce a foreign nation into investigating a political rival(whether or not the investigation happened or the The Biden’s wrongdoings don’t actually matter) Used executive orders to restrict the second amendment Waged an undeclared war on “terrorism” by literally funding terrorist groups

[url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-polls-say-about-impeachment-before-the-first-public-hearing/]Well, given that almost half of the US wants Trump impeached at the very least, with a good chunk of independents who also support it too[/url], the "the liberal says this" argument is pretty immature, narrow-minded, and lacks any form of elementary-level critical thinking skills. There are even Republicans who want Trump impeached at the very least, though that is lower than Independents and Democrats. Democrats in general have the highest support for impeaching Trump for obvious reasons, but Independents are also up there with being fine with Trump being impeached. Also, if you're going to strawman liberals for the very select few who do support what you put up in the OP, it should be fine with people who don't identify as conservatives putting up stereotypes that involve the conservative/republican party like republicans in general being: -supports or commits incest (due to states like Alabama, Mississippi, and a few states in the Deep South who are known for incest cases and babies born through incest) -support racism towards anyone not white and supporting white supremacy (due to groups like the -blam!-, the Alt-Right, The Proud Boys, etc. generally being conservative/identifying with the Republican Party) These are two stereotypes that I see online pertaining to conservatives. Are they true stereotypes? From my experience, not wholly, but I have had people who identify as conservative being in support of America being whites only. I've also had someone who identifies hard with the Republican Party saying that if he wasn't related to his aunt, he would screw her brains out (he was an odd case, and the only time I've ever heard someone say that with so much conviction). However, my experiences with conservatives in general do not align with those stereotypes that I listed. In general, if someone who identifies as a Republican has a difference of opinion, they actually listen, try to see the other side, and try to meet in the middle. This is always the kind of debate I would love to see. We need more people like that rather than what I see on these forums. I'm just using the logic presented in the OP when making that list. In my personal experience, I have never heard someone who identifies as liberal say that they don't want conservatives to have 1st Amendment rights, supports the banning of all guns, or saying Trump isn't allowed to defend himself. Rather, I've heard the opposite from many of my colleagues and friends who identify as liberal. Even in Berkeley, the supposed "liberal paradise", I haven't heard any of those students or people there saying what you put up on the OP. It seems more like you just decided to strawman a group of people who don't share your political beliefs, and you're just doing this for the sake of trying to throw bullshit around when there wasn't anything to begin with. This is also coming from someone who is an Independent, both ideologically and at the ballots. This kind of immature bullshit is one I only saw from the Republicans at the university I went to, and they outwardly said that they wanted to make asses of themselves for the sake of being "cool and edgy". Thankfully, that batch of Republican leadership graduated already, and the next in line have been more mature than the previous group. tl;dr: [spoiler]Read the whole post. It only took me about 5 minutes to type it up, it should take you less to read.[/spoiler]

Can we just execute everyone in congress French Revolution-style and start over? I'm sick and tired of hearing "it's the democrats!" or "its the republicans!" ITS -blam!-IN BOTH YAS

Not letting republicans speak on campus somehow a violation?

1. The First Amendment only applies to the Government and its agents. So while Free Speech is a RIGHT (to a limited extent) on the campuses of public universities.....it is a privilege at private ones. I'm old enough to have lived through the effort to attack South African apartheid by trying to get people to not invest (divest) in SA business. My college at the time had extensive holdings in South African mineral wealth. They told protestors to basically sit down and shut up. 2. No one that anyone takes seriously talks about repealing the Second Amendment....and you'd never get 2/3 rds of the States to approve such a move. So talking about "taking away your guns" is nothing but fear-mongering...and trying to keep the NRA (and the gun manufacturers) rich and powerful. 3. Because now is not the time for that. You don't let the TARGET of an investigation "testify" during that process. If you are the target of a grand jury investigation it is TOTALLY at the discretion of the prosecutor whether or not you testify before that grand jury, before he or she decides to indict you for a crime or not. What is going on in the House right now is analogous to a grand jury investigation. Articles of Impeachment are analogous to a grand jury indictment. (An Indictment is where a jurisdiction---city, state, country----issues formal criminal charges against an individual). Houise Democrats have repeatedly tried to DEPOSE White House staff on the matter (the analogue of having them testify before a grand jury). But that staff largely continues to DEFY the subpoenas...and refuse to participate in the investigation. WHILE REPUBLICANS HYPOCRITICALLY CRY THAT THEY ARE LOCKED OUT OF THE PROCESS WHILE THEY TRY TO DEFEND WHAT IS CLEARLY A CRIMINAL COVER UP. Where the defendant gets to testify, call witness and confront/cross-examine his accusers is DURING THEIR TRIAL. That process is public...and in an impreachment proces....that process takes place in the SENATE not the House. So all those on the Right who are -blam!- about this KNOW that this is true. But they are COUNTING on you NOT knowing this. So that they can try to manipulate you into believing that something "bad" is happening. With the goal of DISTRACTING you from the criminality of what Trump---and his aides---have ALREADY ADMITTED to doing. What Mulvaney admitted to during his ill-fated press conference, and what the White House released in that equally ill-avised memo of the call that was the subject of the whistleblower's complaint....is grounds enough for impeachment. They have already ADMITTED to the core elements of the crime. All the House Democrats are doing is just getting corroborating testimony to confirm and flesh out what Trump has already stupidly admitted to doing. Sorry but stamping your feet, Donald, and insisting what you did isn't a crime doesn't make it so . Whose worse? The guy who leverages other people's hatred and bigotry to keep himself in power. The guy who is running a business that has been a money-laundering front for Eastern European organized crime, and is willing to smash up our Govenrment, and smash up the order that has protected the peace for nearly a century.....just to protect his criminal enterprise...and the fortune he's made from human suffering. IOW, out current President. The guy who people who ahve WORKED for him as President describe as "amoral".

-republicans are allowed to speak on campuses if the campus accepts federal money. -most attempts to work on the second amendment are done through legal means. Amendment means it can be changed. It is not illegal to change amendments. -damn near everyone being called to testify were selected by the president for their jobs. Are you implying Trump hired people that wouldn't support him?

People don’t see the big picture: Russia has injected itself in every far right campaign throughout the world by installing their own puppets. Trump is just the advocate for Putin. You can only push democracy so far until dissent turns a rebellion into a full scale revolution. Putin, Trump, Boris Johnson, Jair Bolsonaro, Nerendra Modi, Xi Jinping, Erdogan, Marine Le Pen (loser), Mariano Rajoy, all have the same agenda. They invoke Nationalism to deter Globalism. A nation divided can not stand, but world divided is inevitably going to destroy itself. As resources diminish, and wealth is allocated to the richest 1% the power to vote for your future will be irrelevant.