8 months for attacking the capital....

@Notanymore people on the left prefer attacking innocent individuals and small businesses. Want a socialist state? Destroy the ability for individuals to function, problem reaction solution.

@pianoplayingsteve true. I'd rather see the people who allowed rioting and protest that damged public and private property over the course of months of terror be charged with dereliction of duty and in the worst cases (portland) high treason!

@Notanymore they won’t, there is no way out, and i mean that globally. You loook carefully enough you’ll find that most things negative in society were created by governments and big corporations. Then they will tell the gullible far left ‘look at this problem’ (which they created), and tell them to fix it they need to attack the very things that could stop the problem. Things get worse, so the elite say ‘that’s because the far right/‘other boogeyman’ still has the freedom to do so and so’ and then they mess that up to. It’s frustrating even just to type out. I have left leaning friends who literally openly lie to push the division their political tribe pushes for.A few years ago I might have put it down to well intentioned ignorance. But now, no. They’ve had access to the same original video clips, speeches etc that I’ve had, they would have had to consciously make the decision to continually lie

@Notanymore Treason is a crime against the federal government in trying to overthrow it. Not even close to what happened in Portland or anywhere else except the Trump Cult in DC on January 6. Anyone who damages public or private property should be arrested and charged, but that's not treason.

@windinhishair high treason is a crime undermining the constitution which could include aiding criminals who harm American citizens and American sovereignty. Which is exactly what those leaders of cities that were tirn apart by the riots did. Especially refusing Federal aid to protect the peaceful population.

@pianoplayingsteve stock beans and rice. This will be a wild ride.

@Notanymore Not even close. Those who committed crimes should be charged, but it certainly isn't treason, nor would any competent attorney even assert that or he/she would be laughed out of court.

@windinhishair of course.....because courts, like politicians like to ignore laws that don't sit with their beliefs and we refuse to hold them accountable.

@Notanymore That's what courts are for, to hold people accountable according to the law. Politicians are subject to the law as well, as incredible as that may seem.

@windinhishair in text they are. But they have often decided to skirt the law and change it as they see fit. Either to accommodate themselves or to benefit an entity that they "owe"

@Notanymore Courts don't make law or change law, except for the Supreme Court that interprets the law as provided in the Constitution. You must not be very familiar with our court system.

@windinhishair I'm very familiar with our system. I'm also familiar with how interpretations are swayed by political bias all of the time. From the federal supreme court, all of the way to local courts.

@Notanymore The court system is apolitical. And if per chance a decision is made that appears to be political, it will be appealed to the appropriate appellete court, and ultimately to the Supreme Court if there is a question of interpretation.

@windinhishair and.....you're convinced that the system isn't corrupt?

@Notanymore Since you are convinced the courts are political, give me an example of a recent state or local political court decision.

@windinhishair just one?

@Notanymore You said they happen all the time. So give me an example of a recent state or local court decision that was political.

@windinhishair when the supreme court decided that states and localities have the right to say if and what firearms a person can own or carry there. That was a political stance which stands against the second ammendment of the constitution's wording the "the RIGHT of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms shall NOT be infringed."

@Notanymore That's not a political decision by the Court. That is an interpretation of law by the Justices on the Court. You do know that current law in the Heller v. DC decision a little over ten years ago gave individuals the right to own a firearm for protection, right? That issue had never been decided before. In the majority opinion by Justice Scalia, he affirmed that right to private ownership, but cautioned that it was not absolute, and jurisdictions could pass reasonable gun control laws. The Supreme Court having decided, it is now the law of the land. And that's a Supreme Court decision. I asked for just one of the many state and local court political decisions you alleged.

@windinhishair deciding that a right is not absolute is a political mive when the constitution is pretty clearly worded.

How about the courts decision to prosecute those lawers who used guns.....without firing to defend their house from rioters making threats over the summer?

@Notanymore The Supreme Court decides what the Constitution says, not you. The Second Amendment is poorly worded and references a militia for gun ownership, as you are well aware and conveniently left out of your discourse. The Court extended that right to individuals in 2008 in the Heller v. DC decision. I love how you've just accused Scalia of a political move restricting gun rights when he was one of the driving forces behind the extension of gun rights.

Do you know how courts work? Courts adjudicate. They don't make prosecutorial decisions. Prosecutors aren't the courts, and are the ones who decide whether to prosecute and on which grounds. The court had nothing to do with any decision to prosecute the right-wing nuts who were threatening peaceful protesters. That would have been the decision of local prosecutors.

Do you have an example of state or local political court decisions, since you have alleged several times that the courts are political and make these decisions all the time? Or not?

@windinhishair it's obvious that you and I won't agree on much. And you will defend your brand loyalty til death