I wouldn’t call it an exception (although there are always exceptions), the problem here lies in the word “sympathizers”, it’s too ambiguous. The answer is technically no, they’re just conservatives who are technically not insurrectionist sympathizers. But they are.
I applaud the effort. But either they are or they aren’t.
Thomas is married to an insurrectionist, allito is flying symbols used by the insurrectionists.
And the other conservatives on the court are all ardently supporting Trump with half baked rulings buying increasing amounts of time to- they hope- delay the trial long enough for it to not matter.
I wouldn’t actually call them sympathizers- I’d just call them insurrectionists.
Isn’t there a journalism rule about not having a headline be a question with a yes or no answer? Seems like there should be.
You’re likely thinking of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge’s_law_of_headlines
Guess there’s always an exception, huh?
I wouldn’t call it an exception (although there are always exceptions), the problem here lies in the word “sympathizers”, it’s too ambiguous. The answer is technically no, they’re just conservatives who are technically not insurrectionist sympathizers. But they are.
That’s some pretty convoluted reasoning, there.
I applaud the effort. But either they are or they aren’t.
Thomas is married to an insurrectionist, allito is flying symbols used by the insurrectionists.
And the other conservatives on the court are all ardently supporting Trump with half baked rulings buying increasing amounts of time to- they hope- delay the trial long enough for it to not matter.
I wouldn’t actually call them sympathizers- I’d just call them insurrectionists.
I’d say - the term enablers would be more apt.
…and why?