[meadsjn]

Your interpretation of rights coincides exactly with the communist liberal Democrats.

You don't recognize the rights of others, only your own.

Harassment and threats are not free speech protected by the constitution.

[SSS Two]

Your interpretation of rights coincides exactly with the communist liberal Democrats.

I have a broad interpretation of Free Speech rights. Always have. When Democrats claimed Donald Trump should be tried for treason for saying that he hoped the Russians would release whatever info they had, I supported Free Speech. When Democrats claimed that Donald Trump threatened Mrs. Clinton when he said we ought to see what happens when Mrs. Clinton doesn't have Secret Service protection, I supported Free Speech.

I honestly believe too many Americans support Free Speech only when it is in their political interest to do so. It is my belief that this is what we're seeing on FR.

[ConservativeMind]

SSS Two is somewhat inelegantly stating that the Electoral College electors are the next step coming out of our vote. They have ALWAYS been capable of being swayed, and some have been. Harassment, in a true legal sense, continues to be illegal. Electors know this part of the process can be dicey, but they still agree to do it. Surely, most don't think anything bad will happen toward them.

They know even their votes have to then be accepted by Congress.

This is how our Founders set it all up. Thankfully, Donald has a large margin of electors in his favor.