The Democrat Party Hates America

[accelafine]

However, based on the simple fact that you support and defend Donald J. Trump, who clearly exhibits white nationalist and racist tendencies,...

Could you post a link to where he is 'exhibiting' this? You won't (of course) but I would just like it to be out there that you didn't back up this claim with any evidence.

Trump is usually very careful not to say anything overtly racist, and if he does, he just either denies saying it, or tries to convince you that he didn't mean what it sounded like, or finds some other way of lying and weaseling his way out of the problem.

If you are unfortunate (or dumb) enough to have listened to hundreds (if not thousands) of his comments over the years, his racism becomes apparent through the cumulative effect of constantly hearing him berate Mexicans and other brown skinned people, or through an accumulation of varied ditties such as the following taken from Wikipedia...

n his 1991 book Trumped! John O'Donnell quoted Trump as allegedly saying:

• I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes.... Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else... Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy's lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.

(Here is a link to the Wiki page that that quote was taken from -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_vi ... f%20Donald)

Again, my claim of him having racist tendencies is derived from a cumulative effect of years of witnessing him involved in sometimes subtle and not so subtle racist-ish comments and actions that have imbued him with a racist "air" or "vibe," so to speak, that exudes from his very being like some kind of disgusting body odor.

I mean, what do you expect coming from a person that you yourself have deemed to be an "ignoramus"? - (of which I whole-heartedly agree with you in that assessment.)
_______

I believe that's known as a 'straw man' fallacy. 'Trump's immigration policies target a lot of Mexicans and Mexicans often have brown skin; therefore Trump is a 'racist white supremacist' '.

This is the thing about misusing, overusing, and abusing words--they end up losing any meaning. Perhaps in that particular case it's a good thing. It was never a particularly useful word anyway. What purpose did it ever serve except to throw at someone as a subjective insult? The word is actually a fairly recent American 'invention'. It deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
As those darling wokies have taught us, 'racism' can mean anything you want it to mean--the more absurd the better. Apparently reading to your children is 'racist' because it gives white children an advantage over black children. And yes, someone actually said that (an American, of course).

[Alexis Jacobi]

Hard Rain

[Alexiev]

Donald Trump is now calling for the execution of the Democrat traitors who encourage soldiers to honor their pledge to uphold the U.S. Constitution. This would include refusing to follow illegal orders. Here's the story:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... video-post

Who is it that "hates America"? I forget.

[Impenitent]

I can't wait until the soldiers that have been ordered to protect these politicians disobey their orders...

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

I can't wait until the soldiers that have been ordered to protect these politicians disobey their orders...

-Imp

What part of ILLEGAL orders do you not understand? Soldiers are supposed to obey LEGAL orders and disobey ILLEGAL orders. There can, of course, be differences of opinion whether an order legal or not << Thus when MacArther was ordered by Hoover to use troops to disperse the "Bonus Marchers" his aide Eisenhower urged him to disobey (*). Subsequent history of their careers interesting. The very politically ambitious MacArthur never became president but the not politically ambitious Eisenhower got "drafted" for the role. Karma?

* That using troops in a police action against peaceful protesters a violation of Posse Comitatus. The counter argument, of course, well peaceful now but might not remain so (they were, after all, WWI veterans so a POTENTIAL threat if it came to fighting)

[Impenitent]

I can't wait until the soldiers that have been ordered to protect these politicians disobey their orders...

-Imp

What part of ILLEGAL orders do you not understand? Soldiers are supposed to obey LEGAL orders and disobey ILLEGAL orders. There can, of course, be differences of opinion whether an order legal or not << Thus when MacArther was ordered by Hoover to use troops to disperse the "Bonus Marchers" his aide Eisenhower urged him to disobey (*). Subsequent history of their careers interesting. The very politically ambitious MacArthur never became president but the not politically ambitious Eisenhower got "drafted" for the role. Karma?

* That using troops in a police action against peaceful protesters a violation of Posse Comitatus. The counter argument, of course, well peaceful now but might not remain so (they were, after all, WWI veterans so a POTENTIAL threat if it came to fighting)

so soldiers will have to pass the bar as part of basic now?

I see dead leftists

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

so soldiers will have to pass the bar as part of basic now?

I see dead leftists

That's CIVIL criminal and civil law. Do you know what the acronyms JAG and UCMJ stand for? Enlisted rank soldiers might not get trained (not part of basic) but it is officers who issue orders and they have at least some training. Remember, an officer might be called up to take part in an UCMJ proceeding.

Or are you upholding the validity of the "Nuremberg Defense" ("I was just following orders"). Or to show not being one sided, remember My Lai and the resulting trial?

[Walker]

I like that part of the video where those six credentialed retirees speaking to the grunts, said, "We will have your back."

That's laughable.

It's a PSYOP's, undoubtedly put together by the CIA analyst retiree, to imply that Trump's direction for the military is illegal.

Textbook implicit propaganda. Folks are too sophisticated these days for explicit propaganda. Well, lots of folks.

It's the Left, once again f***ing around with the heads of young people, with unstated consequences.

Trannies, put your dresses back on. You took them off under illegal orders.

[Impenitent]

so soldiers will have to pass the bar as part of basic now?

I see dead leftists

That's CIVIL criminal and civil law. Do you know what the acronyms JAG and UCMJ stand for? Enlisted rank soldiers might not get trained (not part of basic) but it is officers who issue orders and they have at least some training. Remember, an officer might be called up to take part in an UCMJ proceeding.

Or are you upholding the validity of the "Nuremberg Defense" ("I was just following orders"). Or to show not being one sided, remember My Lai and the resulting trial?

CIVIL criminal law? tell me about that...

-Imp

[Impenitent]

I like that part of the video where those six credentialed retirees speaking to the grunts, said, "We will have your back."

That's laughable.

It's a PSYOP's, undoubtedly put together by the CIA analyst retiree, to imply that Trump's direction for the military is illegal.

Textbook implicit propaganda. Folks are too sophisticated these days for explicit propaganda. Well, lots of folks.

It's the Left, once again f***ing around with the heads of young people, with unstated consequences.

Trannies, put your dresses back on. You took them off under illegal orders.

sergeant, take your squad and capture that building on top of that hill

sorry Lieutenant, we have to have a democratically organized committee discussion about the legality of killing whatever resistance we encounter

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

CIVIL criminal law? tell me about that...

-Imp

As opposed to MILITARY criminal law. They are not the same.

And stop being silly. We are NOT talking about the the Lt ordering "take that hill" and the squad arguing they want a democratic discussion. I gave a concrete example, didn't I, My Lai. So we are talking about an order "attack that village and kill every man, woman, child, and every animal there". with the initial order being different (from the colonel being something like ""go in there aggressively, close with the enemy and wipe them out for good"). It wasn't the grunts who were put on trial but the officers (particularly Lt Calley.) for morphing the orders (and the result). If you are too young to remember, look it up.

And was reference to the "Nuremberg Defense" beyond your understanding?

[Impenitent]

CIVIL criminal law? tell me about that...

-Imp

As opposed to MILITARY criminal law. They are not the same.

And stop being silly. We are NOT talking about the the Lt ordering "take that hill" and the squad arguing they want a democratic discussion. I gave a concrete example, didn't I, My Lai. So we are talking about an order "attack that village and kill every man, woman, child, and every animal there". with the initial order being different (from the colonel being something like ""go in there aggressively, close with the enemy and wipe them out for good"). It wasn't the grunts who were put on trial but the officers (particularly Lt Calley.) for morphing the orders (and the result). If you are too young to remember, look it up.

And was reference to the "Nuremberg Defense" beyond your understanding?

I understand your distinction, thank you for the clarification- it did look confusing

an order to "attack that village and kill every man, woman, child, and every animal there" is far too messy anymore

we'll just drop a bomb on it

and the liberal democrats can whine and cry and scream that "evil Nazi fascist" Trump is a baby killer...

and no, my father served in the Vietnam theater, not me

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

and the liberal democrats can whine and cry and scream that "evil Nazi fascist" Trump is a baby killer...

Well THEN the chant was "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today"
<< in other words, NOT a Democrat vs Republican thing >>

I guess I'm about one generation older than you. I remember when the Republicans,m though fiscal conservatives, were social liberals (the "Dixiecrats"were still in the Democrat Party). You would expect a Republican mayor of NYC or Republican governor of NY to be to the left of the average Democrat politician. I remember Vermont of those days as Republican. No, Vermonters haven't changed their politics, the parties dis.

[Walker]

Word of Honor by Nelson DeMille explores the moral nuances of orders, authority, responsibility and honor, in depth.

[Impenitent]

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pent ... ers-video/

Captain Kelly may havv stepped in it...

-Imp