How is understanding the constitution apologizing for anyone?
how is answering questions with more questions that do nothing to answer the original questions count as a response?
Because you have nothing else. Your premise is weak, your assertions specious, your entire argument is a disgrace to debating, so your only means of response is “not me, you!”
You ask a leading question and I rightfully dismissed it with a question that exposed what a joke it is. The reality is that you can’t explain how understanding the constitution is apologizing for anyone, so you have to whine about the rhetorical device used to expose the glaring logical flaw in your “argument.”
You could have just said “well understanding the cotus is not apologizing for anyone” and this would have been a much shorter and reasonable conversation.
You harp on and on about understanding the constitution but only illustrate ignorance. Also, you’re getting your threads mixed up idiot.
Are you just perpetually lost, that’s why we all get the same “BUT BUT COTUS” argument that doesn’t actually refer to any parts of the constitution or cite any relevant passages?
BUT BUT COTUS
Get fucked gaslighter. It was insurrection, stop crying and move on.
Just because I think people did something wrong doesn’t mean I have to believe every little thing bad said about them. I know, this is a very hard concept for you to grasp and makes being constantly outraged and angry much more difficult, but I highly recommend trying to remain rational.
how is answering questions with more questions that do nothing to answer the original questions count as a response?
Because you have nothing else. Your premise is weak, your assertions specious, your entire argument is a disgrace to debating, so your only means of response is “not me, you!”
go to bed, child.
You ask a leading question and I rightfully dismissed it with a question that exposed what a joke it is. The reality is that you can’t explain how understanding the constitution is apologizing for anyone, so you have to whine about the rhetorical device used to expose the glaring logical flaw in your “argument.”
GOP traitors one and all
You could have just said “well understanding the cotus is not apologizing for anyone” and this would have been a much shorter and reasonable conversation.
You harp on and on about understanding the constitution but only illustrate ignorance. Also, you’re getting your threads mixed up idiot.
Are you just perpetually lost, that’s why we all get the same “BUT BUT COTUS” argument that doesn’t actually refer to any parts of the constitution or cite any relevant passages?
BUT BUT COTUS
Get fucked gaslighter. It was insurrection, stop crying and move on.
I agree it was an insurrection. Lol
Just because I think people did something wrong doesn’t mean I have to believe every little thing bad said about them. I know, this is a very hard concept for you to grasp and makes being constantly outraged and angry much more difficult, but I highly recommend trying to remain rational.