GOP Secretary of State Melts Down When Asked To Explain Bid to Throw Biden Off Ballot
GOP Secretary of State Melts Down When Asked To Explain Bid to Throw Biden Off Ballot
Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft couldn’t justify why Biden should be removed from state ballots during a contentious interview on CNN.
Jay Ashcroft flopped when faced with the most dreaded predicament amongst grandstanding blowhards: a follow-up question
Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s attempt to justify his ludicrous threat to have President Joe Biden removed from the state’s electoral ballot spiraled into chaos over the most basic of questions: “How so?”
During a Monday interview with CNN’s Boris Sanchez, the Republican was asked how he justified his threats to have Biden removed from the state’s ballot in retaliation for recent attempts to remove Trump from state ballots on grounds that his actions in the aftermath of the 2020 election constitute insurrection. The constitutionality of such a removal will soon be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
“What would then be your justification for removing Joe Biden from the ballot in Missouri. Has he engaged in your mind in some kind of insurrection?” Sanchez asked.
“There have been allegations that he’s engaged in insurrection,” Ashcroft replied. He was then met with the most dreaded predicament amongst grandstanding blowhards: a follow-up question.
“How so?” Sanchez asked, prompting Ashcroft to demand that Sanchez stop interrupting him. “You can’t say something like that and not back it up,” Sanchez countered.
“You interrupted me before I could back it up,” a flustered Ashcroft complained. “Are you scared of the truth?”
You're viewing part of a thread.
What speech and ideas do you feel are being banned?
They're not being banned technically, they're being run off campus which amounts to the same. The congressional hearings covered some of this, it's not like I'm putting forward a new idea here. There's testimony of student groups having their spaces taken away.
So they aren’t banned or illegal?
I am curious to see some of your sources instead of your vague statements.
.
This is one example of a few that have been in the news lately. Do you think that targeted group is going to continue to meet on campus?
They're being discouraged with extraordinary levels of animosity and as we're seeing before Congress and in various law suits, the institutions are not really doing anything to stop it. If you can't see that as tacitly approving the behaviour, then I guess you're one of those where the context is dependent.
Your link was twenty protesters making people feel unsafe and police attending and didn’t charge anyone.
Are the cops in on it too?
What are these things you’re vaguely mentioning about congress and lawsuits?
Vague?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/mcmaster-lawsuit-1.7074537
There's been a handful of similar ones filled recently. You're ignorance clearly extends beyond the news though.
Your attempts to belittle the violence faced by those kids is precisely the problem. Using violence in an attempt to mute voices you're scared of is pretty damn scary to be advocating for.
It doesn’t state the political affiliations of the Canadians in this article so how does this fit what you are saying?
They are being "ran off" because they no longer hold muster and they refuse to provide any new ideas. This is how the marketplace of ideas work. Their ideas failed and are being rejected because they are unserious. Now they are demanding these ideas which have failed to be inserted back into the academic space by force.
If only there were other opinions and ideas we could discuss implementing other than "liberalism" and "conservatism" but academics won't let other ideas replace those in the marketplace because the failures are refusing the leave the square and are threatening violence if they don't get their way.
Don't both sides this. They weren't banned. They weren't mobbed. They lost and refused to leave.
Are you serious? The marketplace of ideas is violently chasing people out of their designated meeting places?
That's censorship by violence. You're justifying this.
This is literally the problem I'm talking about and you're acting like it's the civilized way to engage in disparate ideas. That's fucked up. They're going to be inserted back into the academic space legally because it's unquestionably bigoted to target a protected class, even if you're claiming it's because you disagree with their ideas. That's just fucking wild.
You're literally defending a political camp whose supporters raided the capitol. They don't deserve to have their ideas on the marketplace because not only did they lose, their reaction to losing was to attempt the overthrow of the government. Blocking and reporting you, you dimwitted fascist.