If You Were Joyously Anticipating The Demise Of The Democrat Party........

[PoliticalChic]

So you have some validation for your goofy politics. You won't get it from me.

I know who I am, and what I stand for.

I articulate my beliefs, and am more than able to support them.


A pity you need others to support you or you can't stand for anything.

You must be a Democrat.




"While the liberal mob engages in the kind of violence that one expects of a mob, there is also a species of intellectual mob that relies on praise and ridicule to enforce its views: they rely on the axiom that large segments of the population would rather be punched in the face than be sneered at by the elites. We call them liberals.

The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life."
Coulter.

 

[Robert W]

I proved the case in the OP with quotes about the directive.

Fourth lie about me.

I posted the unedited directive. 4th time you lied about me.

 

[Robert W]

You favor investigating Americas who have opposing views to yours.

Disappointing.

Do you side with their views, those you name?

 

[Robert W]

I know who I am, and what I stand for.

I articulate my beliefs, and am more than able to support them.


A pity you need others to support you or you can't stand for anything.

You must be a Democrat.

What antifascist views do you approve or support?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

A pity you need others to support you or you can't stand for anything.

Terrible attempt to twist my words. I don't need others to support my principles or beliefs.

You must be a Democrat.

Nope.

 

[beagle9]

Trump's directive institutes investigation of American citizens for their views.

Do you think that just because we have the word American in front of our name's, that we are somehow perfect and without flaw ??? Are you a liberal Democrat that is looking at this thing through the lens of a Democrat or are you just ignorant to all that the Democrats have done in the past 40+year's ??? Democrats were taking our own constitution and reinterpreting it in order to weaponize it or maybe to destroy the power of the document in order to sew chaos and anarchy in the nation. Are you ok with that, and shouldn't the nation try and put an end to such tyrannical activity that caused a Trump administration to come in and now fight against the tyranny that was going on for the past many year's openly in America ???

 

[PoliticalChic]

I posted the unedited directive. 4th time you lied about me.

I never lie.

Get lost.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you side with their views, those you name?

Be specific.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you think that just because we have the word American in front of our name's, that we are somehow perfect and without flaw ??? Are you a liberal Democrat that is looking at this thing through the lens of a Democrat or are you just ignorant to all that the Democrats have done in the past 40+year's ??? Democrats were taking our own constitution and reinterpreting it in order to weaponize it or maybe to destroy the power of the document in order to sew chaos and anarchy in the nation. Are you ok with that, and shouldn't the nation try and put an end to such tyrannical activity that caused a Trump administration to come in and now fight against the tyranny that was going on for the past many year's openly in America ???

I've found that many Republicans aren't conservatives.

 

[Robert W]

Be specific.

Does this mean those you named you forgot?

 

[HikerGuy83]

I've found that many Republicans aren't conservatives.

This is true.

However, the GOP spans a continum and not all "conservatives" are "conservative" on all the same things.

That's what makes the GOP a little challenging (but highly attractive). True diversity of thought.

 

[task0778]

Let's see if we can have a reasonable debate about this.

4. ....NPSM-7 “directs a new national strategy to ‘disrupt’ any individual or groups ‘that foment political violence,’ including ‘before they result in violent political acts.’”

Starting with this, is it okay to investigate Amercian citizens for something they haven't done yet? That used to be verboten, or so I thought. Leaving a specific president out of the discussion (Trump), do we want any future president to be able to declare somebody to be a domestic terrorist and investigate them for possible evil intent? Hello, 1984. I thought the US Gov't couldn't and shouldn't be allowed to do that. But now it's okay if the president says so? Sorry, I got a problem with that.



5. ....the “indicia” (indicators) of future political violence listed in the report are:

• anti-Americanism,
• anti-capitalism,
• anti-Christianity,
• support for the overthrow of the United States Government,
• extremism on migration,
• extremism on race,
• extremism on gender
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family,
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on religion, and
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on morality."
• Trump Classifies “Anti-Capitalism” as a Political Pre-Crime

I'm not too thrilled with the 'support for overthrowing the gov't' thing, but outside of that the rest of this stuff is the prerogative of every US citizen, like it or not. What are we saying, if a person or group doesn't like capitalism or Christianity, they might be domestic terrorists and subject to investigation ahead of any wrong-doing? I'm not okay with that, I screamed bloody murder when I thought the democrats were doing just that, but now Trump wants to authorize it?

Yeah, I know the directive does not permit abuse of this stuff, but does anyone want to claim that any president might declare certain opposition people to be anti-something or hostile to something and therefore subject to investigation? Which is disruptive in nature, perhaps costly, and without any hearing or ruling by a judge? I'm sorry, but I have a problem with that.

The DOJ has guidelines for starting an investigation into an American citizen or group. They are supposed to have credible evidence of wrong-doing that warrants further investigation. If that is the case with this directive, fine. But I can see the eventual pretest here for abuse against somebody who opposes current political policies. 'If you don't like me and support my policies then you are therefore anti-American and subject to an investigation.' Yeah, that ain't in the directive anywhere but it could be used to limit or deny somebody's rights at some point.

We should understand this, at some point a democrat president will change this directive to his/her political advantage against certain conservatives. What goes around comes around.

 

[beagle9]

I've found that many Republicans aren't conservatives.

Did that answer the question or post ?

 

[beagle9]

Let's see if we can have a reasonable debate about this.




Starting with this, is it okay to investigate Amercian citizens for something they haven't done yet? That used to be verboten, or so I thought. Leaving a specific president out of the discussion (Trump), do we want any future president to be able to declare somebody to be a domestic terrorist and investigate them for possible evil intent? Hello, 1984. I thought the US Gov't couldn't and shouldn't be allowed to do that. But now it's okay if the president says so? Sorry, I got a problem with that.



5. ....the “indicia” (indicators) of future political violence listed in the report are:

• anti-Americanism,
• anti-capitalism,
• anti-Christianity,
• support for the overthrow of the United States Government,
• extremism on migration,
• extremism on race,
• extremism on gender
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family,
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on religion, and
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on morality."
• Trump Classifies “Anti-Capitalism” as a Political Pre-Crime

I'm not too thrilled with the 'support for overthrowing the gov't' thing, but outside of that the rest of this stuff is the prerogative of every US citizen, like it or not. What are we saying, if a person or group doesn't like capitalism or Christianity, they might be domestic terrorists and subject to investigation ahead of any wrong-doing? I'm not okay with that, I screamed bloody murder when I thought the democrats were doing just that, but now Trump wants to authorize it?

Yeah, I know the directive does not permit abuse of this stuff, but does anyone want to claim that any president might declare certain opposition people to be anti-something or hostile to something and therefore subject to investigation? Which is disruptive in nature, perhaps costly, and without any hearing or ruling by a judge? I'm sorry, but I have a problem with that.

The DOJ has guidelines for starting an investigation into an American citizen or group. They are supposed to have credible evidence of wrong-doing that warrants further investigation. If that is the case with this directive, fine. But I can see the eventual pretest here for abuse against somebody who opposes current political policies. 'If you don't like me and support my policies then you are therefore anti-American and subject to an investigation.' Yeah, that ain't in the directive anywhere but it could be used to limit or deny somebody's rights at some point.

We should understand this, at some point a democrat president will change this directive to his/her political advantage against certain conservatives. What goes around comes around.

You said "investigate for something they haven't done yet" ? Violence found in words that suggest that a person is openly threatening someone should be investigated..... Then you say let's try and debate this, well ok but already you come out of the box saying ridiculous thing's that you know won't happen or ain't happening if nothing is there. We should all have a problem with hyperbolic statements like that, otherwise if a good starting point can't be reached to start a good debate, then how does a good debate proceed ??

 

[DonGlock26]

1. ......here is the danger the nation faces.
If we become the only party, watch out for the same from our side that we hated by them.

Online Library of Liberty
Online Library of Liberty › quotes › lord-acton-writes-to...
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.



2. Sometimes what seems like a great idea gets out of hand.


3. "Donald Trump’s designation of “antifa” as a “domestic terrorist organization” last week....Trump signed a national security policy memorandum called “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” known as NSPM-7.


4. ....NPSM-7 “directs a new national strategy to ‘disrupt’ any individual or groups ‘that foment political violence,’ including ‘before they result in violent political acts.’”



5. ....the “indicia” (indicators) of future political violence listed in the report are:

• anti-Americanism,
• anti-capitalism,
• anti-Christianity,
• support for the overthrow of the United States Government,
• extremism on migration,
• extremism on race,
• extremism on gender
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family,
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on religion, and
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on morality."
• Trump Classifies “Anti-Capitalism” as a Political Pre-Crime

IS this really how far we, who voted for Trump, want to go????????????????

This Democrat isn't going to be represented by the Democrat leadership. He might as well vote for Republicans.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I've found that many Republicans aren't conservatives.

Are you new? Today's 'republican' is a populist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Does this mean those you named you forgot?

It means that you can't name any.

Another vapid post;

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is true.

However, the GOP spans a continum and not all "conservatives" are "conservative" on all the same things.

That's what makes the GOP a little challenging (but highly attractive). True diversity of thought.

Let me be specific: I use "conservative" as a compliment, suggesting that said individuals feel as I do about free speech.

Seems some Republicans, don't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's see if we can have a reasonable debate about this.




Starting with this, is it okay to investigate Amercian citizens for something they haven't done yet? That used to be verboten, or so I thought. Leaving a specific president out of the discussion (Trump), do we want any future president to be able to declare somebody to be a domestic terrorist and investigate them for possible evil intent? Hello, 1984. I thought the US Gov't couldn't and shouldn't be allowed to do that. But now it's okay if the president says so? Sorry, I got a problem with that.



5. ....the “indicia” (indicators) of future political violence listed in the report are:

• anti-Americanism,
• anti-capitalism,
• anti-Christianity,
• support for the overthrow of the United States Government,
• extremism on migration,
• extremism on race,
• extremism on gender
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family,
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on religion, and
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on morality."
• Trump Classifies “Anti-Capitalism” as a Political Pre-Crime

I'm not too thrilled with the 'support for overthrowing the gov't' thing, but outside of that the rest of this stuff is the prerogative of every US citizen, like it or not. What are we saying, if a person or group doesn't like capitalism or Christianity, they might be domestic terrorists and subject to investigation ahead of any wrong-doing? I'm not okay with that, I screamed bloody murder when I thought the democrats were doing just that, but now Trump wants to authorize it?

Yeah, I know the directive does not permit abuse of this stuff, but does anyone want to claim that any president might declare certain opposition people to be anti-something or hostile to something and therefore subject to investigation? Which is disruptive in nature, perhaps costly, and without any hearing or ruling by a judge? I'm sorry, but I have a problem with that.

The DOJ has guidelines for starting an investigation into an American citizen or group. They are supposed to have credible evidence of wrong-doing that warrants further investigation. If that is the case with this directive, fine. But I can see the eventual pretest here for abuse against somebody who opposes current political policies. 'If you don't like me and support my policies then you are therefore anti-American and subject to an investigation.' Yeah, that ain't in the directive anywhere but it could be used to limit or deny somebody's rights at some point.

We should understand this, at some point a democrat president will change this directive to his/her political advantage against certain conservatives. What goes around comes around.

More than reasonable, and the import of my OP.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Let me be specific: I use "conservative" as a compliment, suggesting that said individuals feel as I do about free speech.

Seems some Republicans, don't.

Thank you for the clarification.

I am more general in my statements.

There are so-called republicans who are simply statist, power hungry, monsters. Free speech is not part of their agenda.