The Democrat Party Hates America

[Alexiev]

Point them out, then.

They'll occur today. We'll see how well behaved the protesters are.

Oh. So you don't know of any such real "protesters" these days, but just hope that today's will turn out to be the good, non-violent kind?

I could hardly blame them if they object vocifrously to their basic rights being threatened and the separation of governmental powers bring dismantled.

"Vociferously" has never been a problem. But "violently, " that absolutely is. So is "criminally," as when looting, burning, beating and pillaging are reframed as forms of "protest."

So yeah, I guess we'll see what this lot is: we've already seen what the last lots have been like recently.

Of course there are some forms of political repression that justify violent revolution. When laws are unjust, criminal behavior is often morally sound..

[Immanuel Can]

They'll occur today. We'll see how well behaved the protesters are.

Oh. So you don't know of any such real "protesters" these days, but just hope that today's will turn out to be the good, non-violent kind?

I could hardly blame them if they object vocifrously to their basic rights being threatened and the separation of governmental powers bring dismantled.

"Vociferously" has never been a problem. But "violently, " that absolutely is. So is "criminally," as when looting, burning, beating and pillaging are reframed as forms of "protest."

So yeah, I guess we'll see what this lot is: we've already seen what the last lots have been like recently.

Of course there are some forms of political repression that justify violent revolution.

You'll have to be more specific. Are you suggesting there's "repression" in the present case, and of such a nature that it excuses criminality and warrants violence?

It can't be in reference to this little Leftist hissy fit, can it? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V8YSgWu3e9o

[Alexiev]

[

You'll have to be more specific. Are you suggesting there's "repression" in the present case, and of such a nature that it excuses criminality and warrants violence?

It can't be in reference to this little Leftist hissy fit, can it? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V8YSgWu3e9o

I don't "have to be" anything. The notion that "criminality" is inevitably horrid is ridiculous. I couldn't quite stomach your nauseating video. Wasn't Jesus crucified in accordance with the law? I suppose that was necessary to salvation, but surely you don't approve. Trump's attempts to overrule the judiciary threaten justice far more than a few broken windows.

[Immanuel Can]

You'll have to be more specific. Are you suggesting there's "repression" in the present case, and of such a nature that it excuses criminality and warrants violence?

It can't be in reference to this little Leftist hissy fit, can it? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V8YSgWu3e9o

I don't "have to be" anything.

Well, you will if you want anybody to be able to know what you're referring to.

I couldn't quite stomach your nauseating video.

It was a guy just talking, and making a very simple and good point: unless you're in favour of graft and corruption in government, there's no basis for complaint.

Trump's attempts to overrule the judiciary...

Well, in America, the "judiciary" is not supposed to make laws; only to interpret and then pronounce the applications of those laws that already exist. Enforcement of that falls on the police and the penal system. They also don't make laws.

The president, on the other hand, and the congress, have the right to make laws. So when the judiciary tries to make a law, or to prevent the actions of a democratically elected government, then the judiciary is behaving in an anti-democratic way. They should not be allowed to do that: they're not elected, not democratic, and not the government body appointed for that purpose.

Unless you're a fan of arbitrary judicial tyranny, I think you should have no problem with that.

...threaten justice far more than a few broken windows.

Then perhaps you should explain just how "broken windows" constitute "protest." It's certainly not obvious that they do. They constitute vandalism, for sure, and often breaking-and-entering, as well. They certainly constitute violence. But it's not at all clear how breaking windows amounts to a political statement. Maybe you can clear that up.

[Alexiev]

By the way,, if anyone is concerned with criminal behavior, it is Donald Trump who was found guilty of it on 30-somethung counts. A few broken windows or illegal tags are small potatoes.

[Alexiev]

It was a guy just talking, and making a very simple and good point: unless you're in favour of graft and corruption in government, there's no basis for

Well, in America, the "judiciary" is not supposed to make laws; only to interpret and then pronounce the applications of those laws that already exist. Enforcement of that falls on the police and the penal system. They also don't make laws.

I'll agree the guy in the video was a simpleton. Good point!

The President doesn't make laws here either, although Trump seems to think he does. Why don't you worry about your own country (whatever that is)? I'll join the protests about mine. I probably won't break any windows, but if I see you I'll call ICE and have you incarcerated.

[Immanuel Can]

It was a guy just talking, and making a very simple and good point: unless you're in favour of graft and corruption in government, there's no basis for

Well, in America, the "judiciary" is not supposed to make laws; only to interpret and then pronounce the applications of those laws that already exist. Enforcement of that falls on the police and the penal system. They also don't make laws.

The President doesn't make laws here either, although Trump seems to think he does.

Technically, that's so; but pratically, he makes "executive orders" that determine the policy and actual practices of the government. Obama was big on using those.

Why don't you worry about your own country (whatever that is)?

I don't "worry" at all. But practically, the world is affected by what is allowed to go on in America, of course, so everybody has some stake in being interested in what goes on there. However, that's not even relevant: the only question is, what's a real "protest," and what's merely violence, looting, silencing, assaulting, and such? That question has no borders.

[promethean75]

"By the way,, if anyone is concerned with criminal behavior, it is Donald Trump who was found guilty of it on 30-somethung counts. A few broken windows or illegal tags are small potatoes."

That would fall on deaf ears, of course. Even though the financial losses caused by Trump (his trials alone probably cost more than all the shattered store front windows and burnt cars combined... forget about his tax evasion and stealing from the government) are much higher and longer lasting, they ignore that part.

A Trumpster can only be a buffoon in too many ways to count, dude. At every turn, there is some nugget waiting to be picked up and pointed out. You just have to wait. Usually, it's not long.

[promethean75]

Btw that was an exercise in sophistry, specifically the employment of a form of pathos in presuading you.

I have no idea what the costs were and if they compare to the costs of the looters damage... but i still had you. If only for a second. You thought, "Holy shit he's prolly right" and it didn't even cross your mind to want to check those numbers. I totally had you bro and you were ready to hate the Don just like that. It was that easy. It was how i said it. So fast, so certainly.

Now remember pathos as a rhetorical device is everywhere in the world of disseminating information. Always be weary of this and learn to identify it.

[Walker]

So, do you believe that current protests are led by or full of "evil people"?

Don't you? If not, then maybe you can explain why looting, pillaging, burning, assaulting and trashing cities are not examples of doing evil.

Democrat reasoning:

- Because freedom of speech includes freedom of expression, incendiary rhetoric and incendiary actions both get first amendment protection. Exceptions to the protection become wordy topics for legal debate. This is why flag burning, without a word spoken, is constitutionally protected free speech.

- Democrats figure that realistically, the peacefulness required for assembly, as required by the first amendment of the US constitution, actually means “mostly peaceful,” because complete peace is merely an ill-defined, subjective and relative conceptual ideal.

- Pockets of violence such as an active arson backdrop to a live news report get excused as “mostly peaceful,” because freedom of expression such as arson is as necessary as broken eggs.

- Of course, there is that murky gray conflict with law and morality, but any-means-necessary is a big, self-forgiving umbrella that facilitates the robust and vigorous ignoring of inconvenient rules, regulations and laws.

[Alexiev]

Why don't you worry about your own country (whatever that is)?

I don't "worry" at all. But practically, the world is affected by what is allowed to go on in America, of course, so everybody has some stake in being interested in what goes on there. However, that's not even relevant: the only question is, what's a real "protest," and what's merely violence, looting, silencing, assaulting, and such? That question has no borders.

You are right. Trump is destroying the global economy. Foreigners might not have the right to despise him as much as we Americans, but they are correct in thinking he is a horrible president.

[Walker]

And everything was moving along so smoothly until he came along.
Here’s another reason why the Swamp shall rise again.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” -- Ben Franklin

[Impenitent]

destroying the global economy by bringing manufacturing back to America...

-Imp

[Walker]

destroying the global economy by bringing manufacturing back to America...

-Imp

What could be more hideous than equitable tariffs for economies geared towards social engineering projects and dependent on ripping off Uncle Sam? Oh, the humanity.

[Alexiev]

And everything was moving along so smoothly until he came along.
Here’s another reason why the Swamp shall rise again.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” -- Ben Franklin

What did Dr. Franklin say about dismantling the balance of powers he helped desigb?