twitter politic'n, 8.25.20

i retweeted vernon jones speech. today, john replied ‘how much did they pay him to leave his dignity behind the curtains?’ i don’t understand why when it is a miniority supporting conservative values they have to be paid. people who think like that, to me, show how low they think of us minorities. they think we depend on someone to pay us to be conservative. i’ve known john for years, i love john man, even when things happened to him in high school, i ran the 5k in support of him. i still don’t have any bad things to say about him. our conversation on twitter went back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. he kept sending me articles, and even a factchecking of the rnc. i pointed out how the very second point was misleading, then john said it’s purely facts and if i had a problem with reality, that’s my problem. that’s the thing about politics, ego gets in the way of a lot. i point out the very second point of a  'fact checking’ website and all of a sudden i have a problem with reality? that’s another issue of bring up sources, sources provided (no matter by what side) have a bias that fits the narrative presented. i begin with logic and move from there. john went on to say michigan protestors threatened the governor. his exact words were:

'they threatened the governor. what do you call that? your gun rights end with my right to life. threatening someone means taking the law away from someone else.’

my ego wanted me to respond, but i told him i would dm him my number and we could talk. so that’s what i did. i told him much love. buuuuuuuuuuuuut since this is my blog, ima respond here lol. what do i call that? i call it a threat. it’s not murder, it’s not robbery, it’s not rape, etc., it is a threat. if the threat is serious, charge whoever was a part of the threat, give them due process, and let the legal system deal with it. john said my gun rights end with his right to life. that statement makes an assumption that one’s right to own a firearm is their right to kill, which is false as homicide is on the books for all 50 states. his statement also assumes gun owners have firearms to strictly murder, which is also false. if that was the case, the protests with heavily armed protesters in michigan would have been a blood bath, but there were no murders. many gun owners are so for protection. furthermore, my right to own a gun is his right to own a gun, therefore it’s our right. his last sentence about threatening someone means taking the law away from someone else is false. threats are threats. although a threat is an action, it is not the action being threatened. again, if a threat is egregious, let the legal system deal with it. unfortunately, people get threatened every day. it happens inside of politics on both sides and outside of politics. my question to him would be, what law is a threat taking away from someone else? but hey, he has his own view, and i have mine. my only claim is my view is logical. whether or not people judge me, disagree, or agree with me, much love. there’s no hate in my heart. i will respect everybody although many times i am not afforded the same in return.

that’s all.

-ratha, 8:19pm, 8.25.20