I predict that Trump's lawyers will not even try that defense you just mentioned -- the John Eastman plan that Pence was allowed to make decisions regarding electoral counts and certificates -- at Trump's trial. It's that bogus and uninformed (like yourself).
In the unlikely event that you actually want to gain a real understanding of just how bogus (and illegal) it is, read the January 6th Committee transcripts of Pat Cipollone, Eric Herschmann, Justin Clark, Matt Morgan. amongst others. You can also learn about the illegality of the John Eastman plan here:
Three things for you to note. (1) John Eastman even conceded privately that his plan regarding Pence and electoral votes violated the Electoral Count Act (i.e., it was illegal) and would likely be unanimously rejected by the SCOTUS, (2) you won't gain much from reading the transcript of John Eastman, because Eastman pled the FIFTH when asked about his plan and (3) the Eastman plan was what prompted Herschmann to call him up on January 7th and say: "Now I’m going to give you the best free legal advice you’re ever getting in your life. Get a great F’ing criminal defense lawyer, you’re going to need it.”
You're confusing unconstitutionality with illegality.
No. No, I am not. And I doubt you even know the difference if I were.
AITR wrote:
You're not informed you're programmed.
I gave you a long list of sources where you could educate yourself on your unsupported legal assertion/theory that "Trump didn't ask Pence to do anything the Constitution doesn't allow." You won't ever read any of them because you rely on self-ignorance for your trolls, but they are there for you and they are not "programmed."
I also predicted that Trump won't even try that defense at trial (one reason being that the architect of the defense pled the Fifth). We shall see if I am correct, but I'd note for now that Trump and his lawyers have been absolutely silent on that defense. They even try out this idiotic First Amendment stuff over the "Constitution says VP decides" defense. AGAIN, for your education, consider that Trump lawyer Eric Herschman actually said to John Eastman:
"Now I’m going to give you the best free legal advice you’re ever getting in your life. Get a great F’ing criminal defense lawyer, you’re going to need it.”
Do you think Biden's unconstitutional student loan forgiveness was a crime as well?
HAHAHA!!!! On a message board with hundreds of whatabboudyou deflections every day, that has to be the most whatabboudyouist of all time.
You defend him because he hates who you hate? That's worse.
By the way you've used self-awareness incorrectly about 100 times on this thread. Time to pick a different phrase, to abuse.
I'm using it correctly. All lefties suffer from a lack of self-awareness.
That's why you're incapable of recognizing the double standards you have.
I think what Trump did even if you declare it was illegal is less egregious and less harmful to the country than what Democrats and the media did with their Russian hoax hysteria and weaponization of government.
That's the thing about not understanding things. You don't know what you don't know.
Also, you've shifted again. You've moved from "He did it, but it isn't illegal" to "Even if it's illegal, so what"
However, making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure was a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements.
That law made it pretty clear that what they tried to do with false electors was illegal.
Too bad too, because Kamala could stop certification of any electors selecting Trump in 2024. Biden could threaten and fire anyone who gets in the way of his illegal attempts to hold on to office in 2024. It seems most Republicans would be okay with those methods.
They thought the election was fraudulent. The electors on January 6th were the fraudulent ones in their view.
All Kamala could do is return the certification to the states which is what Pence was told to do.
I can't imagine being bed wetting mad about something and having no idea what actually happened.
You really need to get some information that doesn't come directly from the DNC.
You're like someone who knows all you know about a guy by hearing it from his ex-wife. Most of what you're told is total BS designed to manipulate you into favoring one side.
You're confusing unconstitutionality with illegality.
No. No, I am not. And I doubt you even know the difference if I were.
AITR wrote:
You're not informed you're programmed.
I gave you a long list of sources where you could educate yourself on your unsupported legal assertion/theory that "Trump didn't ask Pence to do anything the Constitution doesn't allow." You won't ever read any of them because you rely on self-ignorance for your trolls, but they are there for you and they are not "programmed."
I also predicted that Trump won't even try that defense at trial (one reason being that the architect of the defense pled the Fifth). We shall see if I am correct, but I'd note for now that Trump and his lawyers have been absolutely silent on that defense. They even try out this idiotic First Amendment stuff over the "Constitution says VP decides" defense. AGAIN, for your education, consider that Trump lawyer Eric Herschman actually said to John Eastman:
"Now I’m going to give you the best free legal advice you’re ever getting in your life. Get a great F’ing criminal defense lawyer, you’re going to need it.”
Do you think Biden's unconstitutional student loan forgiveness was a crime as well?
HAHAHA!!!! On a message board with hundreds of whatabboudyou deflections every day, that has to be the most whatabboudyouist of all time.
It's not a whatabout it's a demonstration of your inability to recognize your own double standard.
Trump asks someone to do something unconstitutional and you declare the ask to be a crime.
Biden unilaterally did something unconstitutional by executive order. That's a crime using your own logic.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
I'm using it correctly. All lefties suffer from a lack of self-awareness.
That's why you're incapable of recognizing the double standards you have.
I think what Trump did even if you declare it was illegal is less egregious and less harmful to the country than what Democrats and the media did with their Russian hoax hysteria and weaponization of government.
That's the thing about not understanding things. You don't know what you don't know.
Also, you've shifted again. You've moved from "He did it, but it isn't illegal" to "Even if it's illegal, so what"
You're almost there.
The fact that the first 50 slam dunk "we got him this time" situations fell through on you should give you pause here.
But nope... you're like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
No. No, I am not. And I doubt you even know the difference if I were.
I gave you a long list of sources where you could educate yourself on your unsupported legal assertion/theory that "Trump didn't ask Pence to do anything the Constitution doesn't allow." You won't ever read any of them because you rely on self-ignorance for your trolls, but they are there for you and they are not "programmed."
I also predicted that Trump won't even try that defense at trial (one reason being that the architect of the defense pled the Fifth). We shall see if I am correct, but I'd note for now that Trump and his lawyers have been absolutely silent on that defense. They even try out this idiotic First Amendment stuff over the "Constitution says VP decides" defense. AGAIN, for your education, consider that Trump lawyer Eric Herschman actually said to John Eastman:
"Now I’m going to give you the best free legal advice you’re ever getting in your life. Get a great F’ing criminal defense lawyer, you’re going to need it.”
HAHAHA!!!! On a message board with hundreds of whatabboudyou deflections every day, that has to be the most whatabboudyouist of all time.
It's not a whatabout it's a demonstration of your inability to recognize your own double standard.
Trump asks someone to do something unconstitutional and you declare the ask to be a crime.
Biden unilaterally did something unconstitutional by executive order. That's a crime using your own logic.
Trump didn't just ask someone to do something unconstitutional. Trump also conspired to commit a crime.
It's outlined in the 1887 act. "However, making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure was a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements"
You've been presented with this information multiple times. Ignoring it doesn't make it untrue.
It's not a whatabout it's a demonstration of your inability to recognize your own double standard.
Trump asks someone to do something unconstitutional and you declare the ask to be a crime.
Biden unilaterally did something unconstitutional by executive order. That's a crime using your own logic.
Trump didn't just ask someone to do something unconstitutional. Trump also conspired to commit a crime.
It's outlined in the 1887 act. "However, making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure was a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements"
You've been presented with this information multiple times. Ignoring it doesn't make it untrue.
Trump didn't just ask someone to do something unconstitutional. Trump also conspired to commit a crime.
It's outlined in the 1887 act. "However, making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure was a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements"
You've been presented with this information multiple times. Ignoring it doesn't make it untrue.
What crime?
It's right there. You need a translation?
To submit false electors is a felony punishable by 5 years.
Before you get all stupid and respond with - he didn't believe...
No. No, I am not. And I doubt you even know the difference if I were.
I gave you a long list of sources where you could educate yourself on your unsupported legal assertion/theory that "Trump didn't ask Pence to do anything the Constitution doesn't allow." You won't ever read any of them because you rely on self-ignorance for your trolls, but they are there for you and they are not "programmed."
I also predicted that Trump won't even try that defense at trial (one reason being that the architect of the defense pled the Fifth). We shall see if I am correct, but I'd note for now that Trump and his lawyers have been absolutely silent on that defense. They even try out this idiotic First Amendment stuff over the "Constitution says VP decides" defense. AGAIN, for your education, consider that Trump lawyer Eric Herschman actually said to John Eastman:
"Now I’m going to give you the best free legal advice you’re ever getting in your life. Get a great F’ing criminal defense lawyer, you’re going to need it.”
HAHAHA!!!! On a message board with hundreds of whatabboudyou deflections every day, that has to be the most whatabboudyouist of all time.
It's not a whatabout it's a demonstration of your inability to recognize your own double standard.
Trump asks someone to do something unconstitutional and you declare the ask to be a crime.
Biden unilaterally did something unconstitutional by executive order. That's a crime using your own logic.
Strawman arguments, your own personal confusion about illegality and Constitutionality (you are contradicting yourself), and a double down on whadabboudyou. Ineffective.
Trump didn't just ask someone to do something unconstitutional. Trump also conspired to commit a crime.
It's outlined in the 1887 act. "However, making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure was a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements"
You've been presented with this information multiple times. Ignoring it doesn't make it untrue.
What crime?
If you ever read the Indictment, you will understand what crime is alleged. You've been told this. You've been told where to find the answer to your stupid question many times. There's something wrong with your mind.
The fact that the first 50 slam dunk "we got him this time" situations fell through on you should give you pause here.
But nope... you're like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football.
Has he not been indicted on 75 felony counts?
Was Trump Org. not found guilty of Tax Fraud?
Was he not found liable in the sex assault case?
Was he not ordered to shut down his fraudulent charity?
Did he not lose 60 plus cases, challenging the election results?
Was he not impeached twice?
You don't live in reality.
Politically motivated indictments and politically minded DAs and juries in hopelessly corrupt blue districts aren't very convincing to normal people.
No rational human being believes E. Jean Carroll's story.
The election lawsuits were thrown out for lack of standing not lack of evidence.
Regardless, you forget that the alternatives to Trump were Hillary and Biden who are both worse than Trump.
Trump was impeached for asking questions about what Biden did in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the Biden crime family has something like 170+ suspicious activity reports at the US treasury for their numerous shell companies which launder the money.
All of your outrage over Trump needs to be kept in context. You chose the most corrupt politician in American history to replace him.
Really Sherlock? No one has ever denied what he was trying to do. He thinks the election was fraudulent and wanted to delay certifying the results until it could more properly looked in to. He did the only thing he could do which was contest the results. He failed. He left office.
If Pence does what he asked him to do it would have ended up in the court and the issue would have been resolved in the courts. The notion that he was just going to declare victory outside the law is leftist nonsense.
You've either been terribly misled by the people you rely on to form your opinions, or you are lying. Probably lying.
Pence was asked (told) to refuse to count electoral votes and to reject electoral votes from 7 specific states, and then to declare Trump the winner because Trump had more electoral votes. Pence was also asked to do this unilaterally SPECIFICALLY to avoid any involvement by Courts.
Just a few days ago Pence said with regard to the Trump lawyer claim that Pence was asked to "pause" the electoral certification process that the Trump claim was "completely false." Pence said he was asked “to literally reject votes.” Pence also said he was asked to "overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes." Those are Pence's exact words delivered in public interview a few days ago.
Pence's statements from just a few days ago are consistent with (1) his contemporaneous notes from conversation with Trump and Eastman, (2) emails between Pence's lawyer Greg Jacobs and Eastman (3) Trump's own public words on January 6th and days prior about what he wanted Pence to do, (5) the Eastman and Chesebro memos which were sent to Pence and expressly stated that Pence could reject votes and declare the election winner, and (6) sworn testimony of Cipollone, Herschmann, Jacobs (Pence's lawyer), and many others.
THAT will be the evidence at trial. NO one will be able to refute it. Eastman will AGAIN plead the Fifth Amendment when called. Chesebro will AGAIN plead the Fifth Amendment when called. And there is no way under heaven and earth that Trump is going to take the stand at trial to discuss any of this stuff. Trump can call Pence a liar publicly every day from now until trial, but there is NO WAY Trump has the guts to take the stand and tell his side of the story under oath.
Stings doesn't it. Knowing you have no morals. You've been driven to defending every crime Trump commits. That's why you're here every day. You have to convince others that he did nothing wrong, in order to soothe your troubled mind.
Time to face facts. Trump is a grade A turd and you're a turd for defending him.
By the way, did you notice the other Republican candidates started to sprout testicles over the weekend? Pence says he'll testify if called upon. DeSantis isn't buying the stolen election lie anymore. Negative voices on the right are going to start getting louder. Donny's done.
Yeah, but they're just RINOs, commies, and groomers.
People tend to be motivated by loss more than gain so the difference isn't "smart/realistic" vs "stupid/deluded" as it is a difference between what individuals value and are in fear of losing.
Rather than using a "left/right" model, consider Daniel Kahan's two dimensional "individualist/communitarian + hierarchical/egalitarian" worldview model. In this view persons are on a spectrum between favoring individual rights/liberty vs social welfare on one axis and favoring maintaining the hierarchical social structure (their de facto caste if you will) and an egalitarian (e.g. social justice) worldview.
The shift in recent decades has been largely in the ranks of blue collar workers who post-WW2 held relatively high social status seeing that being eroded by lower wage immigrant labor and industrial globalization. Their concerns are very real but placing the sole blame on government policy exclusive of inevitable market forces seems misguided. In any case it leaves a significant portion of the population susceptible to nationalistic/isolationist messaging if they believe that is the path to retaining class.
This is hardly isolated to the US. There are growing nationalistic tendencies throughout Europe.
This sort of modelling is useful for a meta, social-psychological understanding of political behavior across broad stretches of time and space. But, the actual discourse of politics in particular places and at particular times is what matters. In other words, we need to take seriously the substance of political speech in places like Hungary and the US as much as the potentially deeper psychological reasons this substance resonates with certain groups of people.
And the fact is, only a small percentage of any national population is ever seriously engaged with political questions at any given time. This is certainly true of the US, wherein the largest single political constituency is the "don't vote at all" demographic.
The challenge of understanding contemporary US politics boils down to understanding: 1. Why positions that were once considered well outside the mainstream of US conservatism (think of the failure of, say, the Pat Buchanan campaign in the 90s) have so rapidly become central platforms within the GOP; and 2. Why the liberal establishment and its main political expression, the Democratic Party, has thus far been so hapless at addressing, and thus cutting off, the root causes of this shift.
Today's US far right has always ( or at least since the defeat of radical reconstruction), repeated timeless conservative tropes about "natural hierarchies"-- in particular, gender and racial/civilizational-- that it claims are being disastrously ignored or wished away by weak, self-deluded liberals. The question is why these appeals seem to be resonating with a meaningful percentage of the population today. The answer is not obvious, not least because most Americans are more likely to find themselves closer to the bottom of some kind of hierarchy (class, status, educational) than at the middle or top. What has happened to America's founding egalitarianism (always limited in practice but radical in potential)? How does a political culture born out of the Enlightenment concepts of natural human equality come to embrace opposite concepts? Wouldn't it have made more sense if these radical egalitarian roots had produced an increasingly deeper democratic political culture (e.g. one that finally cured the founding pathologies of anti-black racism and imperialist exceptionalism) rather than an increasingly authoritarian one (one that has reanimated 19C concepts of race, racial hierarchy, and national chauvinism)?
Or, maybe it's the marginalized and turned-off party of "no voting" (typically made up of the poorest among us, white, black, and brown) that harbors America's original radical democratic spirit, waiting to be mobilized (in which case, over to you, party of affluent liberals).
Maybe this authoritarian turn represents merely the last political gasp of an exhausted, desperate, and disappearing minority of people (mainly white patriarchs, actual and would-be) who mistake the toppling of the racial and gender hierarchies from which they used to benefit for the decline of American society writ large.
In any case, this isn't something that can be understood simply by recourse to abstract social-psychological typologies, as interesting as they might be in other respects.
Interesting but over the heads of those you are describing and their braying on this site.
However, making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure was a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements.
That law made it pretty clear that what they tried to do with false electors was illegal.
Too bad too, because Kamala could stop certification of any electors selecting Trump in 2024. Biden could threaten and fire anyone who gets in the way of his illegal attempts to hold on to office in 2024. It seems most Republicans would be okay with those methods.
They thought the election was fraudulent. The electors on January 6th were the fraudulent ones in their view.
All Kamala could do is return the certification to the states which is what Pence was told to do.
I can't imagine being bed wetting mad about something and having no idea what actually happened.
You really need to get some information that doesn't come directly from the DNC.
You're like someone who knows all you know about a guy by hearing it from his ex-wife. Most of what you're told is total BS designed to manipulate you into favoring one side.
Wake up.
The guy who LOVES to say that other people "lack self-awareness" is claiming that he believes that Trump believed that he really won.
It just does NOT get more stupid than that. Just jaw-droppingly embarrassing.
"Trump thought he won."
Wow.
....and that's even BEFORE you get to the lengthy list of people whom we already know clearly told him otherwise (AND, if we're lucky, who we will watch swear on a bible and tell that to the world).
But there you are, furiously typing away, defending the guy who laughs at you.
The fact that the first 50 slam dunk "we got him this time" situations fell through on you should give you pause here.
But nope... you're like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football.
Has he not been indicted on 75 felony counts?
Was Trump Org. not found guilty of Tax Fraud?
Was he not found liable in the sex assault case?
Was he not ordered to shut down his fraudulent charity?
Did he not lose 60 plus cases, challenging the election results?
Was he not impeached twice?
You don't live in reality.
I block the adultandhisdoom because, as I've said elsewhere, I think he may well be an open, card-carrying fascist in real life. But I see his post frequently in others' replies to them. Instead of dismissing him as stupid or deluded (he is clearly neither, though he is hypercompetitive and a sophist) you should learn from/through him about the mentality of today's US far right and its views of partisan politics.
He says he is not a Trump supporter, and I believe him. As is true for all of the actual far right, Trumpism is a vehicle to be deployed as long as its useful. I'm sure he experiences the same libidinal frisson that all reactionaries do when they see and hear Trump attacking liberals and immigrants, but that's never been the point. He will defend Trump as if he were a diehard supporter, because that's what the movement demands.
Instead of simply recognizing the susceptibility of liberal democrats, and the Democratic Party itself, to hypocrisy, corruption, and cognitive dissonance in exactly the same way that all partisans and most people in general are he understands these qualities as the special preserve of "the left". And "the left" is made up of 100s of millions of people-- zombie-like subjects, all defined by their lack of awareness of a reality that only the far right has discerned. You, in speaking against his version of reality, represent the zombies in his demonology.
In his view "the left" in any form can't be reasoned with. Like a zombie, it has no capacity for "self-awareness" unless and until it repudiates its "leftism" entirely and embraces the far right version of reality, or simply Reality. He's here to confront us with Reality.
Here's the problem he exemplifies: The far right that increasingly dominates US conservative politics cannot, by definition, live as just another minority in a liberal, plural, multicultural social and political milieu, the way everyone else does. It MUST see itself, its values, its religion, etc, represented at the official and defining features of US society and its institutions, or else the US ceases to exist as such. It thinks and says that its actually the liberal left that's trying to enshrine its values, etc, as the official and defining ones, and thus that conservatives are only acting as an endangered minority, not as a reactionary insurgency. But liberal, plural, egalitarian values and culture are simply what happens when different kinds of people attempt to live together. And they can be instantiated in many different ways per culture and history. Civil peace is simply not possible in a context of difference without these values becoming the dominant ones in some general way. And no one in particular loses when they shape social intercourse! Everyone but the far right understands this on some level, but the far right will not go down without a fight nonetheless.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
This thread shows the depth of the flaw in American democracy. Debate and certainly discussion isn't possible because the right hold absolutely rigidly to positions that only the right can accept. Threads like these reflect their bullhorn approach to political discussion. Methodology aside, it is little different from trying to achieve a consensus with either the Taliban or Isis. With the Republican love of guns, the end will probably be much the same - a shoot-out of one form or another. A second civil war is on the cards.
You've either been terribly misled by the people you rely on to form your opinions, or you are lying. Probably lying.
Pence was asked (told) to refuse to count electoral votes and to reject electoral votes from 7 specific states, and then to declare Trump the winner because Trump had more electoral votes. Pence was also asked to do this unilaterally SPECIFICALLY to avoid any involvement by Courts.
Just a few days ago Pence said with regard to the Trump lawyer claim that Pence was asked to "pause" the electoral certification process that the Trump claim was "completely false." Pence said he was asked “to literally reject votes.” Pence also said he was asked to "overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes." Those are Pence's exact words delivered in public interview a few days ago.
Pence's statements from just a few days ago are consistent with (1) his contemporaneous notes from conversation with Trump and Eastman, (2) emails between Pence's lawyer Greg Jacobs and Eastman (3) Trump's own public words on January 6th and days prior about what he wanted Pence to do, (5) the Eastman and Chesebro memos which were sent to Pence and expressly stated that Pence could reject votes and declare the election winner, and (6) sworn testimony of Cipollone, Herschmann, Jacobs (Pence's lawyer), and many others.
THAT will be the evidence at trial. NO one will be able to refute it. Eastman will AGAIN plead the Fifth Amendment when called. Chesebro will AGAIN plead the Fifth Amendment when called. And there is no way under heaven and earth that Trump is going to take the stand at trial to discuss any of this stuff. Trump can call Pence a liar publicly every day from now until trial, but there is NO WAY Trump has the guts to take the stand and tell his side of the story under oath.
Great, accurate post.
I would add, when they say that Trump just "asked" Pence to do this or that, it is important that Trump was Pence's superior. He was Pence's "boss."
Every jury member will know that when your boss, particularly the President of the United States, "asks" you to do something, it has to be seen as an order or a directive.
An order that Pence, fortunately, declined to follow.
Was he not ordered to shut down his fraudulent charity?
Did he not lose 60 plus cases, challenging the election results?
Was he not impeached twice?
You don't live in reality.
I block the adultandhisdoom because, as I've said elsewhere, I think he may well be an open, card-carrying fascist in real life. But I see his post frequently in others' replies to them. Instead of dismissing him as stupid or deluded (he is clearly neither, though he is hypercompetitive and a sophist) you should learn from/through him about the mentality of today's US far right and its views of partisan politics.
He says he is not a Trump supporter, and I believe him. As is true for all of the actual far right, Trumpism is a vehicle to be deployed as long as its useful. I'm sure he experiences the same libidinal frisson that all reactionaries do when they see and hear Trump attacking liberals and immigrants, but that's never been the point. He will defend Trump as if he were a diehard supporter, because that's what the movement demands.
Instead of simply recognizing the susceptibility of liberal democrats, and the Democratic Party itself, to hypocrisy, corruption, and cognitive dissonance in exactly the same way that all partisans and most people in general are he understands these qualities as the special preserve of "the left". And "the left" is made up of 100s of millions of people-- zombie-like subjects, all defined by their lack of awareness of a reality that only the far right has discerned. You, in speaking against his version of reality, represent the zombies in his demonology.
In his view "the left" in any form can't be reasoned with. Like a zombie, it has no capacity for "self-awareness" unless and until it repudiates its "leftism" entirely and embraces the far right version of reality, or simply Reality. He's here to confront us with Reality.
Here's the problem he exemplifies: The far right that increasingly dominates US conservative politics cannot, by definition, live as just another minority in a liberal, plural, multicultural social and political milieu, the way everyone else does. It MUST see itself, its values, its religion, etc, represented at the official and defining features of US society and its institutions, or else the US ceases to exist as such. It thinks and says that its actually the liberal left that's trying to enshrine its values, etc, as the official and defining ones, and thus that conservatives are only acting as an endangered minority, not as a reactionary insurgency. But liberal, plural, egalitarian values and culture are simply what happens when different kinds of people attempt to live together. And they can be instantiated in many different ways per culture and history. Civil peace is simply not possible in a context of difference without these values becoming the dominant ones in some general way. And no one in particular loses when they shape social intercourse! Everyone but the far right understands this on some level, but the far right will not go down without a fight nonetheless.
I think I said some of what you did without quite the same eloquence.