The meaningless back and forth posts are the threads you drag off topic to argue about things unrelated to the issue.
You play the victim card better than a liberal. Did you not notice who started this topic? The only one dragging it off topic is you.
You know, all the times you said if someone says something insulting to you or says something you disagree with, you're going to respond in kind? That's the meaningless back and forth.
If someone disagrees with me and we engage the points of contention I don't know why you are characterizing that as meaningless. If someone insults me and I insult back perhaps that is meaningless back and forth but that would make you just as guilty (if not more) as me.
As for truthfulness, you started this topic with a comment that plainly says shooting Trump may be justified. No equivocation of qualification other than "if he continues down this path." That could mean tomorrow or never. Yet, you crossed the line into assassinations being justified.
Are you saying that force against a tyrannical leader is never justifiable?
Posting that opinion was how you made this all about you and your interpretation of the second amendment.
Posting an opinion makes it about oneself? By that definition almost everyone who posts in this section is making it about themselves since they are usually giving an opinion.
"I suggest you read my comment about Trump more closer because I didn't say killing him would be justified at this point. I was speaking about the future, farther down the road if/when Trump turns into a tyrannical leader. Remember, that's one of the main reasons we have the 2nd amendment."
That's not fact-based. That's all about you and your interpretation. Show ONE reliable source that follows your reasoning. Otherwise, you and ONLY YOU are promoting assassination whether it's now or in the future -- doesn't matter when. Our government is constructed so no one person is crowned king. If Trump suffered a catastrophic health event tomorrow and dies, the government would not stop. Same result "in the future" if he tried to take control of the entire government. He may have the military at his disposal, but he can't use it to effect a coup d'état. He'd need all the military leaders in his camp to make sure they all supported him before they would obey such actions.
Fact based? I used a logical line of reasoning to undermine your position. There is not some statistic or news story to cite here.
"He may have the military at his disposal, but he can't use it to effect a coup d'état."
Because never in history has a leader used a portion of the military to take control? Not a history buff are you?
Yep, this is you making incendiary comments to become the focus of the issue rather than discussing the issue in the real world.
An incendiary comment? Perhaps, but the rest is wrong and unfounded. I am discussing the issue in the real world, tyrannical leaders don't become so overnight. You are trying to make this about me otherwise you would attack the stance I presented but instead you attack me, like you often, but not always, do.
How would you have taken it if Biden, as president, had suggested Trump be executed for something that was not even a crime?