http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42954829/trump-calls-democrats-treasonous-and-un-american

His followers see him as he sees himself. as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in a physical form,, move over Uncle Sam (your Fired )

WDMSO, a compelling case can be made that the Democrats (in the Obama administration, at the Justice Dept, and in the Clinton campaign) conspired to use the FBI in an attempt to help ensure a Hilary victory.

Trey Gowdy said exactly that, and you were the one who brought him up and suggested that his opinions on the dossier were valid.

So if there's evidence of that kind of collusion, how do you expect Trump to react, exactly? If it's true, it's a big deal.

We know that Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton privately on a jet while his wife was under investigation.

We know that shortly after that meeting, Hilary was exonerated.

We know that immediately after that exoneration, Hilary said that if she won, she might keep Lynch on as AG. if that's not quid pro quo, nothing is.

We know that the FBI deemed the Steele dossier to be salacious and unverified, yet they used it as support for the FISA warrant.

We know that Trey Gowdy says that the warrant would not have been issued without the dossier. And since Gowdy also conceded that the Mueller investigation would have proceeded without the dossier, it's not like Gowdy will say anything to get Trump off the hook.

We know that the deputy attorney general has a wife that works at Fusion, the company hired by team Clinton to prepare the dossier. He never disclosed this and did not recuse himself.

We know that the deputy director of the FBI (McCabe) had a wife who ran for the senate and took a ton of money from Clinton pals. He did not disclose this and he did not recuse himself.

We know there were 2 FBI agents involved in the Clinton email investigation who were desperate for Clinton to win. They did not disclose this and they did not recuse themselves.

We also have the DNC conspiring to rig the primary for Clinton, and CNN giving her debate questions ahead of time.

Is any of that not true? Is there one syllable I typed that's not true?

During the campaign, Trump alleged that his team was being wiretapped, and everyone said he was insane and everyone mocked him. Turns out he was right.

I'm not sure I'd say they are treasonous. But they certainly aren't huge fans of democracy, which is precisely why your side engages in mob violence every single time they don't get their way, and conservatives never do that.

Your side may re-take the house in November. Or they may pay dearly for their shenanigans. I'm not sure how much lower they can sink than where they are at this moment (losers who lost despite the fact that they didn't play by the rules). We'll see.

In any event, Trump, for all his many faults, certainly has a legitimate gripe here. I cannot believe anyone is so unwilling to criticize their own side, that they would refuse to concede that there were some shady dealings. You and Spence and Paul S, you have no problem with any of this? Seriously?

As I said, the democrats actually have put Trump in a place where he can accurately portray himself as a sympathetic victim. Well done, kudos to them.

Jim, if the FBI was conspiring to help Clinton she would have won.

Jim, if the FBI was conspiring to help Clinton she would have won.

I heard for weeks that the Refs were in the Patriots pocket....but yet...........................

Jim, if the FBI was conspiring to help Clinton she would have won.

I'm sorry, where does it say that cheating has a 100% success rate?

That's the best you got? She didn't win, therefore you conclude that there could not possibly have been cheating?

Do you hear yourself?

That's the best you got? She didn't win, therefore you conclude that there could not possibly have been cheating?
If they were trying to help Clinton why would they reopen the investigation 11 days before the election? They could have easily buried this for weeks.

I heard for weeks that the Refs were in the Patriots pocket....but yet...........................
So you're a hater on the FBI as well?

If they were trying to help Clinton why would they reopen the investigation 11 days before the election? They could have easily buried this for weeks.

That's a good question, worth asking (see? it is actually possible to admit the other side has a point.) It doesn't negate all the irrefutable facts I listed. You just ignore them because you have no justifiable response. Amazing. The magnitude of indoctrination is amazing.

If the public is convinced that there was collusion, that, combined with larger paychecks and larger IRA balances, isn't going to help your side in November. How much more marginalized does the DNC want to be? How many more seats are they trying to lose?

So you're a hater on the FBI as well?

Not on "the FBI". On a very small number of people, who apparently have much to answer for.

Jim, if the FBI was conspiring to help Clinton she would have won.
The DNC’s shenanigans sure didn’t help. In fact I firmly place the blame of trump winning on them. Bernie would have won if given a fair deal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WDMSO, a compelling case can be made that the Democrats (in the Obama administration, at the Justice Dept, and in the Clinton campaign) conspired to use the FBI in an attempt to help ensure a Hilary victory.

Trey Gowdy said exactly that, and you were the one who brought him up and suggested that his opinions on the dossier were valid.

So if there's evidence of that kind of collusion, how do you expect Trump to react, exactly? If it's true, it's a big deal.

We know that Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton privately on a jet while his wife was under investigation.

We know that shortly after that meeting, Hilary was exonerated.

We know that immediately after that exoneration, Hilary said that if she won, she might keep Lynch on as AG. if that's not quid pro quo, nothing is.

We know that the FBI deemed the Steele dossier to be salacious and unverified, yet they used it as support for the FISA warrant.

We know that Trey Gowdy says that the warrant would not have been issued without the dossier. And since Gowdy also conceded that the Mueller investigation would have proceeded without the dossier, it's not like Gowdy will say anything to get Trump off the hook.

We know that the deputy attorney general has a wife that works at Fusion, the company hired by team Clinton to prepare the dossier. He never disclosed this and did not recuse himself.

We know that the deputy director of the FBI (McCabe) had a wife who ran for the senate and took a ton of money from Clinton pals. He did not disclose this and he did not recuse himself.

We know there were 2 FBI agents involved in the Clinton email investigation who were desperate for Clinton to win. They did not disclose this and they did not recuse themselves.

We also have the DNC conspiring to rig the primary for Clinton, and CNN giving her debate questions ahead of time.

Is any of that not true? Is there one syllable I typed that's not true?

During the campaign, Trump alleged that his team was being wiretapped, and everyone said he was insane and everyone mocked him. Turns out he was right.

I'm not sure I'd say they are treasonous. But they certainly aren't huge fans of democracy, which is precisely why your side engages in mob violence every single time they don't get their way, and conservatives never do that.

Your side may re-take the house in November. Or they may pay dearly for their shenanigans. I'm not sure how much lower they can sink than where they are at this moment (losers who lost despite the fact that they didn't play by the rules). We'll see.

In any event, Trump, for all his many faults, certainly has a legitimate gripe here. I cannot believe anyone is so unwilling to criticize their own side, that they would refuse to concede that there were some shady dealings. You and Spence and Paul S, you have no problem with any of this? Seriously?

As I said, the democrats actually have put Trump in a place where he can accurately portray himself as a sympathetic victim. Well done, kudos to them.

I thought you would have said Obama was thinned skinned also ..
but you went old school you went Clinton .. and completely off topic

This fits what I have said for some time its all about him !!!! and when not properly stroked he Goes off ....

you want us to Admit shady dealings !!! 1st for things that are not under Investigation that are conjecture at best

and it the democrats fault that actually have put Trump in a place where he can accurately portray himself as a sympathetic victim..

If Trump would only say and do the things he has done while wearing an Obama Mask... I could only imagine how your Tune would change

The DNC’s shenanigans sure didn’t help. In fact I firmly place the blame of trump winning on them. Bernie would have won if given a fair deal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agree.. but I dont understand the Rights willingness to to do a 180 on anything to do with the word Russian or obstruction of justice .. as sour Grapes :confused:

I thought you would have said Obama was thinned skinned also ..
but you went old school you went Clinton .. and completely off topic

This fits what I have said for some time its all about him !!!! and when not properly stroked he Goes off ....

you want us to Admit shady dealings !!! " that are conjecture at best

and it the democrats fault that actually have put Trump in a place where he can accurately portray himself as a sympathetic victim..

If Trump would only say and do the things he has done while wearing an Obama Mask... I could only imagine how your Tune would change

"you went old school you went Clinton .. and completely off topic "

Clinton paid for the dossier. So it's current and on topic.

"its all about him"

He was the one that was colluded against. So if the victim speaks out, you accuse them of being self-centered.

"you want us to Admit shady dealings "

If appropriate, yes
.
"1st for things that are not under Investigation"

Not yet.


"conjecture at best"

Funny, you were the one who brought up Trey Gowdy, who agrees with me.

"If Trump would only say and do the things he has done while wearing an Obama Mask... I could only imagine how your Tune would change"

I have said many, many times I don't like Trump. That doesn't mean he's not correct when he cries foul here.

Clinton paid for the dossier. So it's current and on topic.
Both Republicans and Democrats funded the Dossier. If it contains relevant information why does it even matter?

He was the one that was colluded against. So if the victim speaks out, you accuse them of being self-centered.
This just doesn't even make sense unless you're a Trump strategist trying to manipulate a news cycle.

Both Republicans and Democrats funded the Dossier. If it contains relevant information why does it even matter?




Steele was the author of the memos(17) June - December 2016 that resulted in the dossier and we know how and when the Clinton Campaign and DNC funded him...we even know how much....when and how exactly was Steel paid by which "republicans"?...and how much did they pay him?

Both Republicans and Democrats funded the Dossier. If it contains relevant information why does it even matter?


This just doesn't even make sense unless you're a Trump strategist trying to manipulate a news cycle.

I'm not sure I need a lecture about what "makes sense", from a guy who believes that since Hilary lost, that's proof that nothing underhanded was done in her favor during the election.

How about this Spence. When you can explain why it makes any sense at all, to believe that failure to win necessarily means one played by the rules, I will listen to what you have to say. You are humiliating yourself.

The Japanese lost WWII, correct? Using your logic, does that mean they committed no war crimes? After all, they lost! If they were cheating, according to you, they would have been victorious!

US President Donald Trump has asked the Pentagon to organise a large military parade in the nation's capital.

Nationalism being masked in patriotism

US President Donald Trump has asked the Pentagon to organise a large military parade in the nation's capital.

Nationalism being masked in patriotism

Well North Korea, China and Russia do seem to have nicer military parades than us. It prob. should be a requirement that everyone claps straight through the parade.

I'm not sure I need a lecture about what "makes sense", from a guy who believes that since Hilary lost, that's proof that nothing underhanded was done in her favor during the election.
Clinton lost by a razor thin margin and likely would have won if the investigation had been put to bed. You're just swimming in conspiracy theories now which is exactly what Trump wants.

Clinton lost by a razor thin margin and likely would have won if the investigation had been put to bed. You're just swimming in conspiracy theories now which is exactly what Trump wants.

What, are you shaving with a bowling ball?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/2016_Presidential_Election_by_County.svg/990px-2016_Presidential_Election_by_County.svg.png

What, are you shaving with a bowling ball?
Clinton crushed Trump in the popular vote and narrowly missed three critical swing states by just 80,000 votes. The election was very close.

The map is pretty though.

US President Donald Trump has asked the Pentagon to organise a large military parade in the nation's capital.

Nationalism being masked in patriotism

military parades are bad? Is the Memorial Day parade in my town, now just a dog whistle for totalitarianism?

You people have come completely, and I mean completely, unglued.

We have people in harm's way. Honoring them with a parade, is an ominous sign of nationalism? I have a better idea, let's have another liberal march on The Mall where bitter losers scream the f word into megaphones and then leave the place littered with trash and cigarette butts. That's what we really need, not a parade.

Clinton lost by a razor thin margin and likely would have won if the investigation had been put to bed. You're just swimming in conspiracy theories now which is exactly what Trump wants.

The only thing I'm swimming in, is the absurdity of someone who thinks that having lost a contest, is irrefutable evidence that said loser played by the rules.

Conspiracy theories? I listed the facts. I asked you if any of them was wrong, and you didn't claim a single one was wrong. Hmm, I wonder why?

What, are you shaving with a bowling ball?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/2016_Presidential_Election_by_County.svg/990px-2016_Presidential_Election_by_County.svg.png

I demand a re-count.

Clinton crushed Trump in the popular vote .

And if the popular vote mattered worth a frog's fat ass, Trump (like your wet dream Hilary) would have skipped flyover country and campaigned harder on the coasts. He chose to speak to people in Wisconsin and Ohio. She chose not to. Oh well.

Clinton crushed Trump in the popular vote and narrowly missed three critical swing states by just 80,000 votes. The election was very close.

The map is pretty though.

Without California's popular vote totals, Trump popular vote crushes Clinton in the rest of the country.

Thank God for those highly educated folks in Calif. who help fund all those red areas.

Without California's popular vote totals, Trump popular vote crushes Clinton in the rest of the country.
You could say that about several states, or the reverse for Trump's electoral votes.

military parades are bad? Is the Memorial Day parade in my town, now just a dog whistle for totalitarianism?

You people have come completely, and I mean completely, unglued.

We have people in harm's way. Honoring them with a parade, is an ominous sign of nationalism? I have a better idea, let's have another liberal march on The Mall where bitter losers scream the f word into megaphones and then leave the place littered with trash and cigarette butts. That's what we really need, not a parade.
How about we celebrate the military by funding veterans benefits.

It's a fantastic waste of money.

How about we celebrate the military by funding veterans benefits.

It's a fantastic waste of money.

"How about we celebrate the military by funding veterans benefits."

A rare point of agreement.

"It's a fantastic waste of money"

A parade? You're a deficit hawk now? Or only when a Republican is spending money?

A parade? You're a deficit hawk now? Or only when a Republican is spending money?
I'm guessing Trump's parade will cost a wee bit more than your town's Memorial Day parade.

That and it's just a stunt anyway.

It's all about ratings, you know

A military parade showing off weapons is a dumb idea.

Trump feels the need to prove, not only is his button bigger, his parade is bigger too. Perfect ego trip for the Donald and boy you can just imagine the tweets after now, it was the biggest parade viewed by the largest crowd in history.

Neither his motivation for the parade (I don't know, exactly, what that is--he may actually want to do it for pride of country or something like that), nor his ego disturb me.

I don't like it strictly on traditional constitutional values. A powerful standing federal army, exerting or displaying its military might on American soil has always been considered a threat to American citizens.

The USA has never shown off it's military might on its own soil and for good reason. Perhaps a little background.........


The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12

For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty. In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England. In the first case, Julius Caesar marched his provincial army into Rome, overthrowing the power of the Senate, destroying the republic, and laying the foundation of empire. In the second, Cromwell used the army to abolish Parliament and to rule as dictator. In addition, in the period leading up to the Revolution, the British Crown had forced the American colonists to quarter and otherwise support its troops, which the colonists saw as nothing more than an army of occupation. Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces. The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive.

Many of the men who met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, however, had the experience of serving with the Continental Line, the army that ultimately bested the British for our independence. Founders like George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were also acutely aware of the dangers external enemies posed to the new republic. The British and Spanish were not only on the frontiers of the new nation. In many cases they were within the frontiers, allying with the Indians and attempting to induce frontier settlements to split off from the country. The recent Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts had also impelled the Framers to consider the possibility of local rebellion.

The "raise and support Armies" clause was the Framers' solution to the dilemma. The Constitutional Convention accepted the need for a standing army but sought to maintain control by the appropriations power of Congress, which the Founders viewed as the branch of government closest to the people.

The compromise, however, did not satisfy the Anti-Federalists. They largely shared the perspective of James Burgh, who, in his Political Disquisitions (1774), called a "standing army in times of peace, one of the most hurtful, and most dangerous of abuses." The Anti-Federalist paper A Democratic Federalist called a standing army "that great support of tyrants." And Brutus, the most influential series of essays opposing ratification, argued that standing armies "are dangerous to the liberties of a people...not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpation of powers, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is a great hazard, that any army will subvert the forms of government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader." During the Virginia ratifying convention, George Mason exclaimed, "What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies!" The Anti-Federalists would have preferred that the defense of the nation remain entirely with the state militias.

The Federalists disagreed. For them, the power of a government to raise an army was a dictate of prudence. Thus, during the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, James Wilson argued that "the power of raising and keeping up an army, in time of peace, is essential to every government. No government can secure its citizens against dangers, internal and external, without possessing it, and sometimes carrying it into execution." In The Federalist No. 23, Hamilton argued, "These powers [of the federal government to provide for the common defense] ought to exist without limitation: because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent or variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent & variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them."

Nonetheless, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike expressed concerns about a standing army, as opposed to a navy or the militia. Accordingly, this is the only clause related to military affairs that includes a time limit on appropriations. The appropriations power of Congress is a very powerful tool, and one that the Framers saw as particularly necessary in the case of a standing army. Indeed, some individuals argued that army appropriations should be made on a yearly basis. During the Constitutional Convention, Elbridge Gerry raised precisely this point. Roger Sherman replied that the appropriations were permitted, not required, for two years. The problem, he said, was that in a time of emergency, Congress might not be in session when an annual army appropriation was needed.

Since the time of the Constitution, legal developments based on the clause have been legislatively driven, and barely the subject of judicial interpretation. With the establishment of a Department of Defense in 1947, Army appropriations have been subsumed by a single department-wide appropriation that includes the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force (established in 1947), as well as other agencies of the department. Despite periodic congressional efforts to move to a two-year appropriations cycle, the annual appropriations for the military are the rule, although not for the reasons that animated Elbridge Gerry during the Constitutional Convention. In addition, the Armed Services Committees of Congress have taken on the responsibility of authorizing almost all aspects of the defense budget as well as appropriating the funds for the services.

The character of the United States Army has changed significantly since the constitutional period in two fundamental ways. The first was its way of mobilizing. The second was its orientation and purpose.

With respect to wartime mobilization, Hamilton and later John C. Calhoun envisioned the United States Army as an "expansible" force. A small peacetime establishment would serve as the foundation for a greatly expanded force in times of emergency. The emergency ended, the citizen-soldiers would demobilize and return to their civilian occupations. With modifications, this was essentially the model for mobilization from the Mexican War through World War II. During the Cold War, the United States for the first time in its history maintained a large military establishment during peacetime. Even so, the fact that soldiers were drafted meant that citizen-soldiers continued to be the foundation of the Army. But with the end of the draft in 1973, the citizen-soldier was superseded by the long-term professional.

The draft, of course, has been a controversial issue. Although compulsory military service can be traced to the colonial and revolutionary period in America, it usually involved the states obligating service in the militia. The United States did not have a national draft until the Civil War, and did not resort to a peacetime draft until 1940. Opponents of a draft have used a number of constitutional arguments in support of their position. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that a draft is constitutional. This includes a draft during peacetime and the power to dispatch draftees overseas. Nor does a draft intrude on the state's right to maintain a militia. Selective Draft Law Cases (1918). An example of the Court's reasoning is found in Holmes v. United States (1968): "the power of Congress to raise armies and to take effective measures to preserve their efficiencies, is not limited by the Thirteenth Amendment or the absence of a military emergency." Nonetheless, the Court has, for some time now, been broadening exemptions to the draft, such as those with conscientious objections to war.

The purpose of the United States Army has not always been primarily to win the nation's wars, but to act as a constabulary. Soldiers were often used during the antebellum period to enforce the fugitive slave laws and suppress domestic violence. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 permitted federal marshals to call on the posse comitatus to aid in returning a slave to his owner, and Attorney General Caleb Cushing issued an opinion that included the Army in the posse comitatus.

In response, Congress enacted the Posse Comitatus Act (1878), which prohibited the use of the military to aid civil authorities in enforcing the law or suppressing civil disturbances unless expressly ordered to do so by the President. The Army welcomed the legislation. The use of soldiers as a posse removed them from their own chain of command and placed them in the uncomfortable position of taking orders from local authorities who had an interest in the disputes that provoked the unrest in the first place. As a result, many officers came to believe that the involvement of the Army in domestic policing was corrupting the institution.

In 1904, Secretary of War Elihu Root reoriented the Army away from constabulary duties to a mission focused on defeating the conventional forces of other states. This view has shaped United States military culture since at least World War II and continues to this day. Whether the exigencies of a modern war against terrorism once again changes the military's mission towards domestic order is yet to be seen.

Mackubin Owens

military parades are bad? Is the Memorial Day parade in my town, now just a dog whistle for totalitarianism?

You people have come completely, and I mean completely, unglued.

We have people in harm's way. Honoring them with a parade, is an ominous sign of nationalism? I have a better idea, let's have another liberal march on The Mall where bitter losers scream the f word into megaphones and then leave the place littered with trash and cigarette butts. That's what we really need, not a parade.


Your out of touch with reality ... this has noting to do Honoring those in harms way .. 22years I served and a combat tour in Iraq I need no Honoring ,, if you don't know or can't see the difference between patriotism and Nationalism and how it works ..

let me show you

1st you attack a group

2nd you attack the
media

3rd you attack the CIA

4th you attack the DOJ

5th you attack the FBI

6 you attack the other party Un American and treasonous

7 now you use the military as a poltical prop

8 sell it to the faithful as Patriotism ....

9.. to isolate him from any criticism

10 he has 3 more years to do who knows what next

Your out of touch with reality ... this has noting to do Honoring those in harms way .. 22years I served and a combat tour in Iraq I need no Honoring ,, if you don't know or can't see the difference between patriotism and Nationalism and how it works ..

let me show you

1st you attack a group - like H

2nd you attack the
media

3rd you attack the CIA

4th you attack the DOJ

5th you attack the FBI

6 you attack the other party Un American and treasonous

7 now you use the military as a poltical prop

8 sell it to the faithful as Patriotism ....

9.. to isolate him from any criticism

10 he has 3 more years to do who knows what next

"1st you attack a group "

Hmmm...lik Obama saying that Republicans "gotta stop just hatin' all the time? Or Hilary calling Republicans deplorable and irredeemable?

"2nd you attack the
media"

Hmmm..did Obama ever stop whining about Foxnews?

"3rd you attack the CIA, 4th you attack the DOJ, 5th you attack the FBI"

Are we attacking everyone in those institutions? Or a small number of people? I itemized a fairly long list of known, irrefutable facts about what some of those people did. I asked what items on my list were not true. Didn't hear a peep from you. In fact, you sure implied that Trey Gowdy knows what he's talking about with regards to the FISA memo.

"9.. to isolate him from any criticism"

Right, Trump doesn't get any direct criticism.

"10 he has 3 more years to do who knows what next"

More like 7 unless there's a democrat running that I'm not aware of. Neither Bernie nor Lie-awatha is likely going to beat him.

Take this how you will, I think it applies to both sides
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

— George Washington in his farewell address, Sept. 17, 1796

You could say that about several states, or the reverse for Trump's electoral votes.

No you cannot. The margin of victory for Clinton in California alone is way, way, way more than she needed to get the majority of the popular vote. In fact, she would have lost the popular vote by 1.4 million votes without California. And it very clearly demonstrates why Democrats do not want, at least for a few more election cycles, to restrict immigration from south of the border.

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/

Thank God for those highly educated folks in Calif. who help fund all those red areas.

Actually, states like California and New York have had their massive overspending and high taxes, especially high property taxes, subsidized by a lot of red states who could not lower their federal taxes as much as the high tax states because their itemized property taxes were so much lower.

But, I wonder if you believe that gerrymandering is a threat to democracy, do you believe that states like California are also a danger to democracy: "There were two Democrats — and zero Republicans — running to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer. There were no Republicans on the ballot for House seats in nine of California's congressional districts.

At the state level, six districts had no Republicans running for the state senate, and 16 districts had no Republicans running for state assembly seats."

Take this how you will, I think it applies to both sides
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

— George Washington in his farewell address, Sept. 17, 1796

And that becomes possible by parties transforming our system of government from a Constitutional Republic to an administrative state.

So very, very much, if not all, of the discussions on this political forum are about, not restricting the federal government to its constitutional limitations, but about how the federal government can solve our "problems" by asserting powers not given to it in our Constitution.

We have been led to this administrative form of government by Progressives in both parties, but mostly led by the Democrat Party.
So now, late into the transformation, Progressives are afraid that Trump will somehow be the tyrant that Washington warned us of.

That is not funny, but it is laughable. The Progressives have been tyrannically destroying and transforming our system of government for a century. Anyone who is honest and objective should be able to see that we are on the brink of the Progressive dream of making the Constitution totally irrelevant.

And most Americans have unconsciously come to accept that our government, as it is, is how it's supposed to be.

Fear of Trump is a fear of the very thing that Progressivism has created.

Ironically, Trump actually, so far, is more constitutionally oriented than the Progressives.

No you cannot. The margin of victory for Clinton in California alone is way, way, way more than she needed to get the majority of the popular vote. In fact, she would have lost the popular vote by 1.4 million votes without California. And it very clearly demonstrates why Democrats do not want, at least for a few more election cycles, to restrict immigration from south of the border.

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/
She won by nearly 2m votes in NY as well.

So flip it around and say had she won just Texas she'd be POTUS. It was close...3 swing states and 80,000 votes.

She won by nearly 2m votes in NY as well.

So flip it around and say had she won just Texas she'd be POTUS. It was close...3 swing states and 80,000 votes.

If only she was clever enough to know that electoral math means she didn't need to spend any time in NY or CA, and she had spent some meaningful time in places like NC and WI, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

She won by nearly 2m votes in NY as well.

So flip it around and say had she won just Texas she'd be POTUS. It was close...3 swing states and 80,000 votes.

Even if you eliminate the Texas vote along with the California vote, Trump would still have won the popular vote. The California difference is too huge to compare it with anything else.

And, the Democrats are definitely gunning for Texas. And they can depend on the California method to take Texas. California is now a majority Latino State in population. Texas is steadily moving in that direction. Perhaps, Texas has staved off being overcome by leftists because so many from the right side have moved there (from California, e.g.). But birth rate demographics will probably overcome that edge. Which means that the Republican Party will continually have to keep moving left to stay in power.

Kiss the Republic goodbye. Unless somehow Latinos, all of a sudden, realize that the Constitution is more important than cultural dominance.

I wonder how small trumps #^&#^&#^&#^& really is? 4” ? 5”? Maybe his military parade will make his #^&#^&#^&#^& seem bigger ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wonder how small trumps #^&#^&#^&#^& really is? 4” ? 5”?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I always appreciated the fact that you are a deep thinker

I always appreciated the fact that you are a deep thinker

I don’t think he can get it that deep. That’s the problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wonder how small trumps #^&#^&#^&#^& really is? 4” ? 5”? Maybe his military parade will make his #^&#^&#^&#^& seem bigger ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like what you did there, not capitalizing Trump's name and Capitalizing #^&#^&#^&#^&. A fine grammatical touch. :kewl:

Hey, how about solving the NK problem--publically de-pants Trump and Kim mung ungry or whatever his name his, and the biggest #^&#^&#^&#^& wins!!

I like what you did there, not capitalizing Trump's name and Capitalizing #^&#^&#^&#^&. A fine grammatical touch. :kewl:

Hey, how about solving the NK problem--publically de-pants Trump and Kim mung ungry or whatever his name his, and the biggest #^&#^&#^&#^& wins!!

Kim not hung is probably lacking in the inter-#^&#^&#^&#^&inental ballistic missle department as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clinton crushed Trump in the popular vote and narrowly missed three critical swing states by just 80,000 votes. The election was very close.

The map is pretty though.

Ahhhh...the old "Popular Vote" argument.

The popular vote means nothing, zip, zilch, nada, bupkis.

It has absolutely no bearing on who gets elected in a presidential election. It's created by the media to give people something to bitch about.

Who wins the World Series? The team who scores the most runs or the team who wins the most games?

This simple concept is completely lost on the Butt hurt brigade......and Hillarys campaign managers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some of our looney lefty contributors are letting the cheese slide off of their crackers. Not sure any saw the memo about Trump WINNING the election. Let's call a truce; one side takes off their vagina hat and the other stop wondering when Hillary gets prosecuted. This time loop thing is getting tiresome. Jeff, it wasn't close at all. I understand you coming unglued initially but it's time to put on your best big boy pants and stop petting puppies in a safe space.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But her emails!!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He won.. I accept that 1 vote or the 1 electoral vote .. water under the Bridge..

its his current actions From the press to the FBI to Immigrants to the DOJ EPA energy Dept the list is endless and the icing holding the Military up as a scared Cow(that can not be touched ) all intended actions to Burn the place down.. are what Disturb me. and the support from his fringe right base and others willing to bring the gas and matches to help.. who cant see today.. but are all ready predicting re election

I just picture him throwing out this idea to his Cabinet lets have a Military Parade .. and they all responded Dilly !!! Dilly !!!

:laugha:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.

President Trump has a stronger approval rating today than media darling Barack Obama did back in 2010 on this same day.

Back on February 7, 2010 Barack Obama had an approval rating of 44% while 56% of likely voters disapproved of the far left president.

I just picture him throwing out this idea to his Cabinet lets have a Military Parade .. and they all responded Dilly !!! Dilly !!!

You have been critical of Trump calling his opponents treasonous. Can I ask, is it only wrong when Trump does it? Corey Booker said those who called for the release of the Nunes memo were treasonous. Howard Dean said Senator Tom Cotton was acting treasonous for criticizing the Iran nuclear deal.

So is it only a problem for you, when Republicans do it? Is it too much to ask that we have one set of rules and standards, which apply equally to all of us?

:laugha:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.

President Trump has a stronger approval rating today than media darling Barack Obama did back in 2010 on this same day.

Back on February 7, 2010 Barack Obama had an approval rating of 44% while 56% of likely voters disapproved of the far left president.

Turns out, people actually like it when their paychecks get bigger. Shocking but true.

You have been critical of Trump calling his opponents treasonous. Can I ask, is it only wrong when Trump does it? Corey Booker said those who called for the release of the Nunes memo were treasonous. Howard Dean said Senator Tom Cotton was acting treasonous for criticizing the Iran nuclear deal.

So is it only a problem for you, when Republicans do it? Is it too much to ask that we have one set of rules and standards, which apply equally to all of us?

Are those 2 former Presidents? You continue to compare what 1 or 2 Dems. say or compare what Pres. Obama said 1 or 2 times to what our current President says hundreds of times and somehow you think that is the same. How is that having a set of rules when you compare what someone did one time with what someone does mulitple times?

Pres. Trump is a vile, petty, sad man. There is no comparing him to any other politician of any party.

Another Trumper will be leaving the WH today - beating his wives. I got a good laugh yesterday reading Kelly's statements about him. Kelly was supposed to be the "grownup" in the room and he is no better than the rest of this admin.

Pres. Trump is a vile, petty, sad man. There is no comparing him to any other politician of any party.



pretty snarky :bl:

Are those 2 former Presidents? You continue to compare what 1 or 2 Dems. say or compare what Pres. Obama said 1 or 2 times to what our current President says hundreds of times and somehow you think that is the same. How is that having a set of rules when you compare what someone did one time with what someone does mulitple times?

Pres. Trump is a vile, petty, sad man. There is no comparing him to any other politician of any party.

Another Trumper will be leaving the WH today - beating his wives. I got a good laugh yesterday reading Kelly's statements about him. Kelly was supposed to be the "grownup" in the room and he is no better than the rest of this admin.

Oh, I see. So by some logic, it's ok for US Senators and Governors/presidential candidates to label people as traitors, but that right is forfeited when one becomes president. That makes all kinds of sense. All kinds of sense.

"what 1 or 2 Dems. say "

I didn't pick 1 or 2 obscure names out of democratic registration lists. Obama was a POTUS, and he said "Republicans gotta stop just hatin' all the time". Hilary said we are deplorable and irredeemable. But it's only problematic when a Republican acts in this regard.

"when you compare what someone did one time with what someone does mulitple times?"

You're all over the place. First you said Trump acted inappropriately because he is president, and presidents (unlike everyone else) shouldn't label people as traitors. Now you are saying that it's only unethical to call someone a traitor if they do it multiple times?

So what's the standard? Who can label their opponents as traitors, and who can't? And who can do it how many times before it's unethical?

Anything to protect your side, anything to bash the other side. It's a joke. And it's why Trump won.

"Pres. Trump is a vile, petty, sad man. "

I agree he's vile and petty. So was Hilary. She's not anywhere near as outwardly vulgar or crass or sophomoric as Trump. But I can make a compelling case, based on irrefutable facts, that she's vile and petty. But she has a (D) after her name, so you don't call her out on it.

Anyway, I look forward to your telling us who can use the word traitor, and how many times, so we can clear that up and apply it fairly and consistently.

Oh, I see. So by some logic, it's ok for US Senators and Governors/presidential candidates to label people as traitors, but that right is forfeited when one becomes president. That makes all kinds of sense. All kinds of sense. Did I say that? Please point it out. I've asked you before when you say I did something to point it out and you never do.

"what 1 or 2 Dems. say "

I didn't pick 1 or 2 obscure names out of democratic registration lists. Obama was a POTUS, and he said "Republicans gotta stop just hatin' all the time"Yet somehow that is worse that calling people who don't clap for Trump "unAmerican" or "treasonous". You don't think the Repub. showed hate torwards Obama?. Hilary said we are deplorable and irredeemable. But it's only problematic when a Republican acts in this regard. Right - he said it one time. You made my point - thanks. Hillary appologized the very next day but it doesn't matter to you. You just keep bringing it up again and again. When people in the RNC call Trump a deplorable somehow that is not the same as when Hillary uses that exact same word. Double standard????

"when you compare what someone did one time with what someone does mulitple times?"

You're all over the place. First you said Trump acted inappropriately because he is president, and presidents (unlike everyone else) shouldn't label people as traitors. Now you are saying that it's only unethical to call someone a traitor if they do it multiple times?No, I'm not all over the place. I"m saying I can give somone the benefit of the doubt when they say it 1or 2 times. You continue to try to equate somone saying something1 time with somone saying vulgar things repeatedly.

So what's the standard? Who can label their opponents as traitors, and who can'tI guess you and I have different standards bc I can't recall any Dems. calling Repubs. treasonous for not clapping during a speach. ? And who can do it how many times before it's unethical?about 1/100 of the amount of times Trump does it.

Anything to protect your side, anything to bash the other side. It's a joke. And it's why Trump won.You are the one here who constantly starts threads moaning about what a Dem. said, not me. 1,000 of posts with 99.5% here complaining about Dems. Night, day, weekend, late at night. Your always on here complaining about something. Not me.

"Pres. Trump is a vile, petty, sad man. "

I agree he's vile and petty. So was Hilary. She's not anywhere near as outwardly vulgar or crass or sophomoric as Trump. But I can make a compelling case, based on irrefutable facts, that she's vile and petty. But she has a (D) after her name, so you don't call her out on it.

Anyway, I look forward to your telling us who can use the word traitor, and how many times, so we can clear that up and apply it fairly and consistently.

I just did tell you. So if somone shoots a Dem. and says they did it bc they are a traitor does Trump deserve blame for it?

The USA has never shown off it's military might on its own soil and for good reason. Perhaps a little background.........
This isn't totally true. I believe we have after a few wars and Kennedy might have done a parade with military gear. That being said, these days I think a parade just to chest thump and stroke Trump's ego is pretty offensive to most.

Actually, states like California and New York have had their massive overspending and high taxes, especially high property taxes, subsidized by a lot of red states who could not lower their federal taxes as much as the high tax states because their itemized property taxes were so much lower.
We'll file this under things you just made up.

Jeff, it wasn't close at all. I understand you coming unglued initially but it's time to put on your best big boy pants and stop petting puppies in a safe space.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Look at the electoral map and actual vote counts. Trump managed to flip three critical swing states (that Obama won) by less than a few percent. That cost Clinton the race...it was very close.

Love the comment by one of the Republican's commenting on the parade, stating confidence is silent and insecurity is loud. Very fitting I thought, because this POTUS has shown he is insecure and vain. To bitch about military support and spending issues, only to want to put a very costly parade together is just so wrong. The Russians need to, the North Koreans need to and China possibly might need to, we don't need to strut our stuff to prove to anyone who has the bigger penis.

You pointed out, which means you thought it important, that booker and dean are not presidents like trump. Correct, wrong but not at the level of POTUS. You Said that somehow it’s more egregious for a potus to say that, then you said it’s based on how many times one says it. Kind of hard to follow, you were rambling and all over the place and very inconsistent.I don't think I'm being inconsistent. Wrong on any level but especially egregious for POTUS. I'm willing to give someone a pass for saying something 1 or 2 times but as some point you can't forgive them any more.

Sure the gop hated obama. Like the dems hate trump. But again, obama gets a pass for attacking republicans, but you criticize trump for attacking democrats. no one is giving him a pass but Trump does it hundreds of time more than any politician.

Here’s one for you...how would you describe the democrats refusal to celebrate historically low black unemployment? How would you describe their decision to sit on their hands with scowls on their faces, and refuse to celebrate the drop in black unemployment, just because they hate the guy who pointed it out? BC Trump had practically nothing to do with it. He takes all of the credit for a great economy that he inherited. I've always said Pres. have less impact on the economy than they get credit for. I'm willing to give POTUS credit/blame after a year.

Now you are changing again, saying what bothers you is that trump called them treasonous for not clapping. So it’s ok to call people traitors for the reasons that booker and deanDid Cotton send a letter to Iranian leaders saying ignore any deal Pres. Obama signed because it would be voided. So he (and other Repub) undermined our Pred. did it, but not ok to do it for the reason that trump did it.

So to recap, you say it’s ok that booker and dean did it, but not ok that trump did it, because
Trump is president.

Trump did it more times than they did it ( once or twice is ok, but 3 is the magic number).

Trump said it in response to reaction to his speech.

So the appropriateness of calling someone a traitor depends on your job title, whether or not you have done it twice already, and whether or not it’s a reaction to an audience snubbing your applause line in a speech.

Got it.

And when I criticize those I disagree with, I am complaining. When you do it, well I’m not sure what you claim it to be, but it’s more noble than when I do it. I certainly don't No hypocrisy there, no sir.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it has more to do w/your vile statements.

Look at the electoral map and actual vote counts. Trump managed to flip three critical swing states (that Obama won) by less than a few percent. That cost Clinton the race...it was very close.

And Hilary won NV, CO, MN, NH, and ME by a narrow margin - "less than a few percent".

Spence, if you speculate on what would have happened if Trump lost all the states that were decided by less than a few percent, and assume Hilary kept all the states that she won by less than a few percent, I will concede she would have won. What I don't concede, is that there's any value whatsoever, in considering that hypothetical. "If" my aunt had wheels she'd be a tea cart.

They each took a handful of states by a few percent. Trump didn't win all the close calls.

I think it has more to do w/your vile statements.

"C Trump had practically nothing to do with it. He takes all of the credit for a great economy that he inherited. I've always said Pres. have less impact on the economy than they get credit for"

Then why not just celebrate the fact that unemployment is low for blacks? Why does he have to have anything to do with acknowledging that low black unemployment is a result that regardless of who did what, is worth celebrating and uniting around?

"I'm willing to give POTUS credit/blame after a year.
"

You can start the clock whenever you want on giving him credit/blame. Many business leaders will say there was a boost in confidence that began when he won. Confidence matters. Not saying there was zero confidence in Obama, but Trump injected more business confidence than Hilary would have.

"Did Cotton send a letter to Iranian leaders saying ignore any deal Pres. Obama signed because it would be voided"

Not exactly. He said that any deal was not permanent. But your point is valid, he was clearly undermining the president. And Trump also has a valid point, when he says that certain Democrats at the DOJ, likely allowed their personal biases to influence investigations. They were also undermining our free and fair election process, unless you see nothing concerning about the things we know so far.

"I think it has more to do w/your vile statements."

I don't make unsubstantiated criticisms, and I often concede my side is wrong and the other side is right.

Look at the electoral map and actual vote counts. Trump managed to flip three critical swing states (that Obama won) by less than a few percent. That cost Clinton the race...it was very close.

I sympathize with you Jeff, but the "actual vote counts" part makes it seem as though you lack an understanding of the process. I like to think you are more intelligent than that but you keep trying to prove me wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

US President Donald Trump has asked the Pentagon to organise a large military parade in the nation's capital.

Nationalism being masked in patriotism

Parade is a generally stupid idea. But keep up all this pseudo Nationalism / Fascism stuff and you will have 4 more years to apply it.

Like those people that are looking for volunteers to lie down in front the parade tanks like it is Tienanmen Square (ya know - REAL Oppression).

Yeh! That'll show American who is sane.

Clinton lost by a razor thin margin and likely would have won if the investigation had been put to bed. You're just swimming in conspiracy theories now which is exactly what Trump wants.

Yep - she was a real bastion of Truth. So Trustworthy PresidentSlimeball beat her.

This isn't totally true. I believe we have after a few wars and Kennedy might have done a parade with military gear. That being said, these days I think a parade just to chest thump and stroke Trump's ego is pretty offensive to most.

Using the criteria of previous military parades you must actually win first. So that would exclude Kennedy, and everyone after with the possible exception of Regan/Bush Cold War (that got again screwed up) or Bush the Elder for PG1.

We'll file this under things you just made up.

:rotflmao:

We'll file this under things you just made up.

Didn't make it up. It's a fact.

We'll file this under things you just made up.

He was exactly correct.

I live in a very high tax state. High state taxes, high local taxes, high sales taxes. I deduct that.

People who live, for example, in FL and the Carolinas, can't make that same deduction, because their state/local taxes aren't high enough

The feds need what they need from all of us. So to offset the high SALT deductions in high-tax states (which are liberal states), people in other states have to pay more. They absolutely pay higher federal income taxes, to subsidize the SALT deductions which we enjoy, and which are not available to them.

I would just love to see you try and make that wrong.

Didn't make it up. It's a fact.
I'd love to see a study of that then. Just because you have high deductions doesn't mean you contribute net less...because you also have very high taxable incomes.

And Hilary won NV, CO, MN, NH, and ME by a narrow margin - "less than a few percent".
Clinton won CO by 5 points, that's a decent margin. As for the others, they represent very few electoral votes compared to the super thin margins in PA (.7%), WI (.7%) and MI (.3%).

Simple fact is Clinton could have easily won had she not had the FBI continuing to drag her through the mud just days before the election.

I hate to just hammer one point but i think this discussion is due to the inability of moderates to get thru the primaries and get elected. This is how we ended up with Hillary, Bernie and Trump and the more moderates fell by the wayside.
This is really important to our democracy
Gerrymandering Squeezes out the Political Middle
A major victim of partisan gerrymanders and closed party primaries is the moderate middle – moderate voters and centrist politicians willing to work with the other side. Moderates and centrists get squeezed out by gerrymandering. Southern Republicans manipulated district maps to kill off conservative southern Democrats and northern Democrats did the same to moderate House Republicans in the Northeast.

This system has accelerated the rise to power of extremists. This happens largely because in most gerrymandered districts, primary elections have become more decisive than the general election, and in primaries the de facto power of decision rests with the party faithful.

Typically, primary turnout is low, sometimes extremely low. In the 2014 mid-term elections, Republican primary turnout nationwide was 8.9% of the elctorate; for Democrats, it was 14.5%. In seven state primaries, turnout fell below 4%. Such tiny turnouts give enormous leverage to hardcore partisan voters, well-funded special interest groups and more extreme, ideological candidates



Because primary voters often differ significantly in the views from average voters, there is often a disconnect between the broad electorate and the politicians who win primaries and get elected. In recent years, the widespread victories of partisan extremists fuels gridlock in Washington.

“The combination of closed party primaries, gerrymandering of districts and money – that’s why the system is broken,” says eight-term, former Oklahoma Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards. “This problem is deep, deep. The political system is more and more disconnected from the country. We have a system where what the majority of the voters might prefer doesn’t matter because the parties control the process, the parties limit their choices.”

I hate to just hammer one point but i think this discussion is due to the inability of moderates to get thru the primaries and get elected.



everyone thinks they are a "moderate"....and....Trump wasn't even a politician and he got elected President....:uhuh:

Simple fact is Clinton could have easily won had she not had the FBI continuing to drag her through the mud just days before the election.

you don't know this...and it doesn't matter

I'd love to see a study of that then. Just because you have high deductions doesn't mean you contribute net less...because you also have very high taxable incomes.

SALT deductions are disproportionately available in certain states - liberal, high tax states. Everyone else's tax rates are higher than they would be, if those deductions did not exist.

I hate to just hammer one point but i think this discussion is due to the inability of moderates to get thru the primaries and get elected. .”

Agreed 100%.

everyone thinks they are a "moderate"....and....Trump wasn't even a politician and he got elected President....:uhuh:

Yes, he obviously isn't a politician
Just a populist telling you what you want to hear, it would have been a more interesting race if he had been up against the other populist, the Limbaugh of the Left, Bernie
though Bernie does stay on message

Yes, he obviously isn't a politician
Just a populist telling you what you want to hear, it would have been a more interesting race if he had been up against the other populist, the Limbaugh of the Left, Bernie
though Bernie does stay on message


moderate politicians don't tell you what you want to hear?

Chuck Schumer called for a military parade in 2104. My my, how about that. Now, maybe he’ll be brave enough to lie down in front of a tank since he would have us believe that there no difference between America and China. Oh no, nationalism is coming, tomorrow our kids will be goose-stepping at recess!!

When outrage at mitary parades is this selective, that also means said outrage is fake. They want to draw a straight line from trump to Hitler. The constitution. Is still there. If it survived the last eight years of el deuce, it will survive the next 3.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/26893/watch-chuck-schumer-called-military-parade-2014-michael-j-knowles?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

SALT deductions are disproportionately available in certain states - liberal, high tax states. Everyone else's tax rates are higher than they would be, if those deductions did not exist.
But those high deductions are still paying a disproportionate amount of taxes. This is why the studies show Red states are on average consuming more Federal dollars than they provide. You're tax deduction theory is already factored in...

But those high deductions are still paying a disproportionate amount of taxes. This is why the studies show Red states are on average consuming more Federal dollars than they provide. You're tax deduction theory is already factored in...

But they would be paying even more federal taxes if they didn't have the higher deductions. What is being subsidized, is the high taxes of those who have to pay in liberal spending states. It makes it more palatable to taxpayers in states with the high taxes required to pay for programs if they can deduct high property taxes to defray the federal tax burden. It makes it a little more likely that tax payers in high tax states will complain about excessive state spending if they can't buffer that with federal deductions.

But, even though money is recouped back to the state because of federal deductions, those high tax states still manage to overspend and get into unsustainable debt.

Here is what scares me, and it is nothing new, in fact it predates Trump by quite a bit. An interesting tidbit is that Trump in 2000 when he started his first campaign for President with the Reform Party called Pat Buchanan a "Hitler-lover".
Disturbing Parallels Between America & 1930s Germany
SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 BY BRYAN HYDE
Sharing is caring!
The practice of invoking a comparison between your opponent’s argument and Nazi ideology is such a common occurrence in internet discussions that, years ago, an author and attorney named Mike Godwin coined a tongue-in-cheek adage known as “Godwin’s Law.”

Strictly speaking, this tactic constitutes an informal fallacy in that it relies upon hyperbole in an attempt to derail a person’s arguments via guilt by association.

I’ll be the first to admit that it is overused.

A case in point is how the president of any nation that refuses to submit to the demands of our own national policy makers is invariably labeled as “the next Hitler.”

As the political ramp up to a war with Iran continues, we’ll all have plenty of opportunity to see this practice in action.

The sad thing about Godwin’s Law is that legitimate comparisons can be drawn between 1930’s Germany and the American populace today.

That’s not the same thing as saying that our government is led by Nazis or that our leaders are rounding up the undesirables to be systematically exterminated.

It simply means that the same types of trends that blinded Germans to the potential of Adolf Hitler can be found within our society today.

Too many Americans believe that Germans as a whole were arrogant and evil and knew what Hitler was capable of from the very beginning.

But that’s not the case at all.

We forget that Germany in the 1930’s was a turbulent place economically and politically. With hyper-inflation ravaging the value of the German mark, a wheelbarrow full of money was required to purchase a mere loaf of bread.

On top of the financial unrest was the fear of takeover by the Bolsheviks who had recently succeeded in turning Russia into a giant Soviet prison camp.

In 1933, a terrorist firebombing of the German Reichstag building added another dimension to the panic felt by many German citizens.

On top of all this fear of economic distress, communism and terrorism, were the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which was still punishing the Germans for their part in the First World War.

With their dignity in tatters, encompassed by trouble on every side, it is understandable that a charismatic leader might come forward–especially if that leader offered strong solutions to the problems vexing Germany.

But in order to accomplish the monumental task of fixing the problems and leading Germany to what many Germans considered its proper status among the nations, that leader would require that the German people trust him with absolute power.

By playing upon their fears, Hitler persuaded the German people to grant him unprecedented power and the long downhill slide to their well documented destruction began.

So where are the parallels in our society?

Our economy is–to put it mildly–on shaky ground thanks to a dollar that has lost over 95% of its purchasing power since 1913 and mounting public and private debts have our markets as twitchy as a tightrope walker juggling hornet nests.

The solution pursued by those who make our nation’s monetary policy is to sell more bonds (go further in debt) to the Federal Reserve and have it print more money which will, in turn, further reduce the buying power of the dollar through inflation.

Those industries that have stronger political connections than others (read fascism) are treated to taxpayer-funded bailouts for being “too big to fail.”

Since September 11th of 2001, the American people have lived in an unending cycle of fear and a corresponding expansion of government powers to address terrorism abroad while building a garrison state here at home.

Consider that in 2001, we lost just under 3,000 U.S. citizens in the 9/11 attacks, but during that same year homegrown American criminals murdered FOUR TIMES that number.

Statistically, your likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack is about the same as that of dying of a spider bite.

But when our leaders tell us that they need to spy on our phone calls, e-mails, bank accounts and library transactions, a surprising number of modern Americans fall into line just as their German counterparts did during the ascendancy of the Third Reich.

When our government claims power to kidnap, torture, detain indefinitely or even murder American citizens without due process–in the name of fighting terror–many consider it their patriotic duty to support these actions just as the Germans of the 1930’s did.

Just as Hitler justified his aggression against other nations as acting in Germany’s self defense, too many Americans view any use of military force as automatically righteous and justified without measuring such actions against the standards of Just War.

And just as patriotic Germans shouted down those who questioned Hitler’s aggression, self-styled “great Americans” consider it their patriotic duty to silence those who question our leaders’ actions.

One of the most telling similarities between Nazi Germany and modern America is a growing acceptance of the practice of marginalizing and dehumanizing a targeted group of people who are blamed for the ills of our nation.

In Germany it was the Jews who bore the brunt of this treatment as German society methodically marked them for destruction, first by innuendo, next by legal sanction and finally by the direct action of rounding them up and exterminating them.

Other groups including gypsies, communists, homosexuals and those with permanent disabilities were labeled as being a danger to the Fatherland and likewise targeted for elimination.

We must remember that the process by which the Final Solution was implemented was as gradual as it was deliberate.

Had Hitler started rounding up the Jews in the spring of 1933 the German people could have quickly discerned what he was doing and withheld their support.

By first carefully sowing seeds of distrust for the Jews and then implementing laws that forbade them to be a legitimate part of German society, the Nazis were able to convince enough Germans that Jews were somehow not really people at all.

It’s easy to picture a majority of German people as possessing a fanatical hatred for the Jews, but in reality it was primarily their calloused indifference that allowed the atrocities of the Third Reich to move forward virtually unopposed.

Too few Germans took the time to give serious thought to the official propaganda they’d been fed regarding the Jews and Hitler’s efforts to “defend” the Fatherland.

By the time some Germans realized what was being done in their names, it was too dangerous to speak out.

The current hysteria in America over Muslims in general is disturbingly familiar to those who have studied the methods used to dehumanize the so-called undesirables in 1930’s Germany.

The propaganda flows daily from various media sources who are vigorously trying to inflame public opinion against Muslims everywhere, not just those in America.

Thus far the propaganda campaign to convince Americans that Muslims are an existential threat to our nation has succeeded in rousing the right wing through its highly contrived tale of a so-called “Victory Mosque to be built at Ground Zero” of the 9/11 attacks.

Given the vast amounts of information that are readily available to most of us in a matter of milliseconds via our computers or even our cell phones, it’s astonishing that so few Americans are willing to challenge the outrageous claims and do even the most rudimentary fact-checking.

Never has information been so easy to come by, and yet the tried and true methods of sowing seeds of distrust, and the urging of legal disenfranchisement are being employed at this moment.

********************

Here is what scares me, and it is nothing new, in fact it predates Trump by quite a bit. An interesting tidbit is that Trump in 2000 when he started his first campaign for President with the Reform Party called Pat Buchanan a "Hitler-lover".
Disturbing Parallels Between America & 1930s Germany
SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 BY BRYAN HYDE
Sharing is caring!
The practice of invoking a comparison between your opponent’s argument and Nazi ideology is such a common occurrence in internet discussions that, years ago, an author and attorney named Mike Godwin coined a tongue-in-cheek adage known as “Godwin’s Law.”

Strictly speaking, this tactic constitutes an informal fallacy in that it relies upon hyperbole in an attempt to derail a person’s arguments via guilt by association.

I’ll be the first to admit that it is overused.

A case in point is how the president of any nation that refuses to submit to the demands of our own national policy makers is invariably labeled as “the next Hitler.”

As the political ramp up to a war with Iran continues, we’ll all have plenty of opportunity to see this practice in action.

The sad thing about Godwin’s Law is that legitimate comparisons can be drawn between 1930’s Germany and the American populace today.

That’s not the same thing as saying that our government is led by Nazis or that our leaders are rounding up the undesirables to be systematically exterminated.

It simply means that the same types of trends that blinded Germans to the potential of Adolf Hitler can be found within our society today.

Too many Americans believe that Germans as a whole were arrogant and evil and knew what Hitler was capable of from the very beginning.

But that’s not the case at all.

We forget that Germany in the 1930’s was a turbulent place economically and politically. With hyper-inflation ravaging the value of the German mark, a wheelbarrow full of money was required to purchase a mere loaf of bread.

On top of the financial unrest was the fear of takeover by the Bolsheviks who had recently succeeded in turning Russia into a giant Soviet prison camp.

In 1933, a terrorist firebombing of the German Reichstag building added another dimension to the panic felt by many German citizens.

On top of all this fear of economic distress, communism and terrorism, were the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which was still punishing the Germans for their part in the First World War.

With their dignity in tatters, encompassed by trouble on every side, it is understandable that a charismatic leader might come forward–especially if that leader offered strong solutions to the problems vexing Germany.

But in order to accomplish the monumental task of fixing the problems and leading Germany to what many Germans considered its proper status among the nations, that leader would require that the German people trust him with absolute power.

By playing upon their fears, Hitler persuaded the German people to grant him unprecedented power and the long downhill slide to their well documented destruction began.

So where are the parallels in our society?

Our economy is–to put it mildly–on shaky ground thanks to a dollar that has lost over 95% of its purchasing power since 1913 and mounting public and private debts have our markets as twitchy as a tightrope walker juggling hornet nests.

The solution pursued by those who make our nation’s monetary policy is to sell more bonds (go further in debt) to the Federal Reserve and have it print more money which will, in turn, further reduce the buying power of the dollar through inflation.

Those industries that have stronger political connections than others (read fascism) are treated to taxpayer-funded bailouts for being “too big to fail.”

Since September 11th of 2001, the American people have lived in an unending cycle of fear and a corresponding expansion of government powers to address terrorism abroad while building a garrison state here at home.

Consider that in 2001, we lost just under 3,000 U.S. citizens in the 9/11 attacks, but during that same year homegrown American criminals murdered FOUR TIMES that number.

Statistically, your likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack is about the same as that of dying of a spider bite.

But when our leaders tell us that they need to spy on our phone calls, e-mails, bank accounts and library transactions, a surprising number of modern Americans fall into line just as their German counterparts did during the ascendancy of the Third Reich.

When our government claims power to kidnap, torture, detain indefinitely or even murder American citizens without due process–in the name of fighting terror–many consider it their patriotic duty to support these actions just as the Germans of the 1930’s did.

Just as Hitler justified his aggression against other nations as acting in Germany’s self defense, too many Americans view any use of military force as automatically righteous and justified without measuring such actions against the standards of Just War.

And just as patriotic Germans shouted down those who questioned Hitler’s aggression, self-styled “great Americans” consider it their patriotic duty to silence those who question our leaders’ actions.

One of the most telling similarities between Nazi Germany and modern America is a growing acceptance of the practice of marginalizing and dehumanizing a targeted group of people who are blamed for the ills of our nation.

In Germany it was the Jews who bore the brunt of this treatment as German society methodically marked them for destruction, first by innuendo, next by legal sanction and finally by the direct action of rounding them up and exterminating them.

Other groups including gypsies, communists, homosexuals and those with permanent disabilities were labeled as being a danger to the Fatherland and likewise targeted for elimination.

We must remember that the process by which the Final Solution was implemented was as gradual as it was deliberate.

Had Hitler started rounding up the Jews in the spring of 1933 the German people could have quickly discerned what he was doing and withheld their support.

By first carefully sowing seeds of distrust for the Jews and then implementing laws that forbade them to be a legitimate part of German society, the Nazis were able to convince enough Germans that Jews were somehow not really people at all.

It’s easy to picture a majority of German people as possessing a fanatical hatred for the Jews, but in reality it was primarily their calloused indifference that allowed the atrocities of the Third Reich to move forward virtually unopposed.

Too few Germans took the time to give serious thought to the official propaganda they’d been fed regarding the Jews and Hitler’s efforts to “defend” the Fatherland.

By the time some Germans realized what was being done in their names, it was too dangerous to speak out.

The current hysteria in America over Muslims in general is disturbingly familiar to those who have studied the methods used to dehumanize the so-called undesirables in 1930’s Germany.

The propaganda flows daily from various media sources who are vigorously trying to inflame public opinion against Muslims everywhere, not just those in America.

Thus far the propaganda campaign to convince Americans that Muslims are an existential threat to our nation has succeeded in rousing the right wing through its highly contrived tale of a so-called “Victory Mosque to be built at Ground Zero” of the 9/11 attacks.

Given the vast amounts of information that are readily available to most of us in a matter of milliseconds via our computers or even our cell phones, it’s astonishing that so few Americans are willing to challenge the outrageous claims and do even the most rudimentary fact-checking.

Never has information been so easy to come by, and yet the tried and true methods of sowing seeds of distrust, and the urging of legal disenfranchisement are being employed at this moment.

********************

Right...it's good to know that people should not be marginalized by calling them Nazis. Calling Trump a Nazi is a Hitlerian fear tactic. Labeling someone a Communist is fear mongering. Referring to a group as Progressive is Hitleresque fear mongering. Marginalizing half of Americans by depicting them to be heartless capitalist pig Conservatives will lead us down the path of Hitler's Germany. Pointing out Christians as some tyrannical liberty destroying cult drives us into a hysteria which will wind up with concentration camps. Pointing out that Islam is not compatible with our Consitution, though, THAT is the really big and ultimate dehumanization. THAT is the "tried and true method of sowing seeds of distrust, and the urging of legal disenfranchisement being employed at this moment." After all, as you say, "Given the vast amounts of information that are readily available to most of us in a matter of milliseconds via our computers or even our cell phones, it’s astonishing that so few Americans are willing to challenge the outrageous claims and do even the most rudimentary fact-checking."

Actually, using the internet it is easy to determine that Islam actually is not compatible with our Constitution. Just as Nazism and Communism and Socialism are also not compatible with our Constitution. But that's neither here nor there. We must not fear monger. Even though the Germans did not have the advantage of seeing how Nazism worked throughout the rest of the world, and even though we do have the advantage of seeing how Islam (as well as Nazism and Communism and Socialism) works throughout the rest of the world, we should not use that readily available information to say something that might "marginalize" someone.

But, in the meantime, let us keep calling Trump Hitler. Let us keep saying Conservatives and Christians are the real existential threat. Let us keep shouting them down and keep them from speaking at Universities.

But they would be paying even more federal taxes if they didn't have the higher deductions. What is being subsidized, is the high taxes of those who have to pay in liberal spending states. It makes it more palatable to taxpayers in states with the high taxes required to pay for programs if they can deduct high property taxes to defray the federal tax burden. It makes it a little more likely that tax payers in high tax states will complain about excessive state spending if they can't buffer that with federal deductions.

But, even though money is recouped back to the state because of federal deductions, those high tax states still manage to overspend and get into unsustainable debt.

"What is being subsidized, is the high taxes of those who have to pay in liberal spending states. "

Obviously true.

"those high tax states still manage to overspend and get into unsustainable debt"

Also true, especially here in CT, which now has unfunded debt to the tune of $35k for every human living in the state.

You have been critical of Trump calling his opponents treasonous. Can I ask, is it only wrong when Trump does it? Corey Booker said those who called for the release of the Nunes memo were treasonous. Howard Dean said Senator Tom Cotton was acting treasonous for criticizing the Iran nuclear deal.

So is it only a problem for you, when Republicans do it? Is it too much to ask that we have one set of rules and standards, which apply equally to all of us?

Last time I checked they weren’t the POTUS at a rally .. again you see things the same because of the word not surprising
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last time I checked they weren’t the POTUS at a rally .. again you see things the same because of the word not surprising
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

in most of theses things...the democrats have set the very low standard...if you are hoping for or expecting Trump to raise the standard...you may be waiting in vain :hihi:

Chuck Schumer called for a military parade in 2104. My my, how about that. Now, maybe he’ll be brave enough to lie down in front of a tank since he would have us believe that there no difference between America and China. Oh no, nationalism is coming, tomorrow our kids will be goose-stepping at recess!!

When outrage at mitary parades is this selective, that also means said outrage is fake. They want to draw a straight line from trump to Hitler. The constitution. Is still there. If it survived the last eight years of el deuce, it will survive the next 3.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/26893/watch-chuck-schumer-called-military-parade-2014-michael-j-knowles?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again !!! Another false equivalence example .. posted out of context what’s also funny all I heard the past 8 years were if you supported Obama your were a communist or socialist... but those people who used that labeled with vigor... with out proof are upset with people’s response To Trumps actions and Words ...that actually have happened
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

in most of theses things...the democrats have set the very low standard...if you are hoping for or expecting Trump to raise the standard...you may be waiting in vain :hihi:

Can’t argue with that .. seems Congress has set the standards low.. to make themselves look good when the pass something. Regardless if’s it’s a good bill or a bad one .. ps good morning..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

.. seems Congress has set the standards low.. to make themselves look good when the pass something. Regardless if’s it’s a good bill or a bad one .. ps good morning..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

probably why their approval has been in the teens for decades...yet we continue to send the same people back over and over again....and good morning! you must be getting anxious to get the cover off the boat!

Again !!! Another false equivalence example .. posted out of context what’s also funny all I heard the past 8 years were if you supported Obama your were a communist or socialist... but those people who used that labeled with vigor... with out proof are upset with people’s response To Trumps actions and Words ...that actually have happened
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Another false equivalence example .. posted out of context "

In my experience, when someone (1) says I took something out of context, but (2) doesn't tell me what the true context was...that means they have no rebuttal to my point, but they can't bring themselves to admit it.

"are upset with people’s response To Trumps actions and Words ...that actually have happened"

You keep acting as if everyone on the right defends everything Trump says. It could not be less accurate. He gets all kinds of fair criticism from Republicans who despise him. Sure, he has apologists like Sean Hannity, but there are many conservatives who criticize him when he deserves it. Hell, conservatives are upset he's willing to compromise with democrats on the "dreamers".

Very few conservatives refuse to admit he's a jerk.

But they would be paying even more federal taxes if they didn't have the higher deductions. What is being subsidized, is the high taxes of those who have to pay in liberal spending states. It makes it more palatable to taxpayers in states with the high taxes required to pay for programs if they can deduct high property taxes to defray the federal tax burden.
By this logic any deduction by anyone is subsidizing something...that doesn't make a lot of sense. The topic is if blue states contribute more net Federal tax revenue than they consume in Federal funding.

On this point the answer is yes they do.

Chuck Schumer called for a military parade in 2104. My my, how about that. Now, maybe he’ll be brave enough to lie down in front of a tank since he would have us believe that there no difference between America and China. Oh no, nationalism is coming, tomorrow our kids will be goose-stepping at recess!!
Schumer was talking about a ticker-tape style parade in NYC to honor troops coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan similar to what was done after Desert Storm.

Not a let's get out the tanks and mobile ICMB's to parade down Constitution Avenue.

Quite a difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhARosaTfSw

Right...it's good to know that people should not be marginalized by calling them Nazis. Calling Trump a Nazi is a Hitlerian fear tactic. Labeling someone a Communist is fear mongering. Referring to a group as Progressive is Hitleresque fear mongering. Marginalizing half of Americans by depicting them to be heartless capitalist pig Conservatives will lead us down the path of Hitler's Germany. Pointing out Christians as some tyrannical liberty destroying cult drives us into a hysteria which will wind up with concentration camps. Pointing out that Islam is not compatible with our Consitution, though, THAT is the really big and ultimate dehumanization. THAT is the "tried and true method of sowing seeds of distrust, and the urging of legal disenfranchisement being employed at this moment." After all, as you say, "Given the vast amounts of information that are readily available to most of us in a matter of milliseconds via our computers or even our cell phones, it’s astonishing that so few Americans are willing to challenge the outrageous claims and do even the most rudimentary fact-checking."

Actually, using the internet it is easy to determine that Islam actually is not compatible with our Constitution. Just as Nazism and Communism and Socialism are also not compatible with our Constitution. But that's neither here nor there. We must not fear monger. Even though the Germans did not have the advantage of seeing how Nazism worked throughout the rest of the world, and even though we do have the advantage of seeing how Islam (as well as Nazism and Communism and Socialism) works throughout the rest of the world, we should not use that readily available information to say something that might "marginalize" someone.

But, in the meantime, let us keep calling Trump Hitler. Let us keep saying Conservatives and Christians are the real existential threat. Let us keep shouting them down and keep them from speaking at Universities.
Who called Trump Hitler, this was written in 2010.
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about Christianity?
Or anything that would prohibit the practice of any religion?

Conservatives want to look at history with a narrow view and pick the time they liked and try to get back there.
The war on drugs has failed
The war on abortion failed, it only lasted 100 years and did not eliminate abortion.
I'll admit that being a Republican at a liberal arts college can be dangerous and I have a little experience with that.
But i do believe that if you are young being liberal is not bad, but what happened at a local college with a conservative speaker was disappointing.

Who called Trump Hitler, this was written in 2010.
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about Christianity?
Or anything that would prohibit the practice of any religion?

Conservatives want to look at history with a narrow view and pick the time they liked and try to get back there.
The war on drugs has failed
The war on abortion failed, it only lasted 100 years and did not eliminate abortion.
I'll admit that being a Republican at a liberal arts college can be dangerous and I have a little experience with that.
But i do believe that if you are young being liberal is not bad, but what happened at a local college with a conservative speaker was disappointing.

"Or anything that would prohibit the practice of any religion?"

Tell that to Christian bakers who get sued for having the nerve to want to practice their religion.

"Conservatives want to look at history with a narrow view and pick the time they liked and try to get back there."

It's called reacting to empirical evidence, and advocating for what works over what doesn't work. Hooray, 75% of black babies are now born to fatherless households! And if I say we need to re-establish the importance of the black nuclear family, that makes me a regressive who wants to go back in time? Or does it make me a rational person who knows how to identify and address the root cause of a problem?

"Or anything that would prohibit the practice of any religion?"

Tell that to Christian bakers who get sued for having the nerve to want to practice their religion.

"Conservatives want to look at history with a narrow view and pick the time they liked and try to get back there."

It's called reacting to empirical evidence, and advocating for what works over what doesn't work. Hooray, 75% of black babies are now born to fatherless households! And if I say we need to re-establish the importance of the black nuclear family, that makes me a regressive who wants to go back in time? Or does it make me a rational person who knows how to identify and address the root cause of a problem?
First of all, I can't believe someone wanted a cake from someone that didn't want to make them one, or that a Christian would think they are sinning by making a cake. Two fools only make money for lawyers.
It's not just black babies, it's low income households.
But just eliminating the current system won't cure the problem, the system needs to help and not just be the net that keeps you from dying but has no escape for people without the tools to do so.
Whoopi goldberg had a late nite TV show years ago, I watched her interview one of the Wayans Brothers. They both grew up in the same Projects. They had a great discussion about going back and seeing the same people and why and how they got out of there. They both said it was because their parents worked. Sounds simple doesn't it. Just take the net away, we didn't used to have one.

First of all, I can't believe someone wanted a cake from someone that didn't want to make them one, or that a Christian would think they are sinning by making a cake. Two fools only make money for lawyers.
It's not just black babies, it's low income households.
But just eliminating the current system won't cure the problem, the system needs to help and not just be the net that keeps you from dying but has no escape for people without the tools to do so.
Whoopi goldberg had a late nite TV show years ago, I watched her interview one of the Wayans Brothers. They both grew up in the same Projects. They had a great discussion about going back and seeing the same people and why and how they got out of there. They both said it was because their parents worked. Sounds simple doesn't it. Just take the net away, we didn't used to have one.

"I can't believe someone wanted a cake from someone that didn't want to make them one"

I can't either, that's a very good point IMO.

"or that a Christian would think they are sinning by making a cake"

I don't agree with that either. But the First Amendment gives them the right to do it. When Obama was POTUS, a tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company in Michigan fired some Muslim drivers who wouldn't haul alcohol on religious grounds. The Obama administration sued the tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company on behalf of the drivers, saying that one cannot be forced to abandon their religious beliefs at work. Why do Muslim truck drivers get that protection and not Christian bakers? That's my question.

"But just eliminating the current system won't cure the problem"

I Agree with that. too. I guess I thought you were saying it's wrong to look back at what worked, and to advocate for returning to what worked. Not all change is productive change, not all change is "progress".

10 years ago, no one would have believed me if I predicted that soon, it would be considered "old fashioned" for me to say that if a man has to go to the bathroom, he should use the men's room. Is that progress? Not to me.

But you made good points.

Jim they needed better lawyers and unfortunately that is the way this country currently works. The only country in the world where it is illegal for a business to connect two extension cords, thank a lawyer!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who called Trump Hitler, this was written in 2010.

You posted it in 2018. I assumed you were trying to apply the article to current events. Does the Godwin effect no longer apply?

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about Christianity?
Or anything that would prohibit the practice of any religion?

How large do you want the Constitution to be? The Constitution limits the power of government. Any government that is unlimited, all-powerful, would be unconstitutional. Christianity is not a form of government. Even in its religious precepts, it admits no governmental authority over those who choose not to practice it. Islam, Nazism, Communism, Socialism, are forms of government which apply to all within their physical domain, and Islam, in theory, aspires to expand its power to include everyone on earth. They are forms of total government power over individuals. They are not compatible with our constitutional principles of individual freedom. Governmental power in our constitutional system rests on the consent of the people. And can only be wielded within the scope of the powers given to it in those enumerations prescribed by the people.

Conservatives want to look at history with a narrow view and pick the time they liked and try to get back there.
The war on drugs has failed
The war on abortion failed, it only lasted 100 years and did not eliminate abortion.

One of the reasons I usually put quotes around what is politically referred to as "Conservatism" is because it is a catch-all phrase, like "Liberal," which is contradictory and basically void of useful meaning. I prefer to use the term classical liberal to describe the point of view of those who wrote the Constitution. The divide, today, between so-called "Conservatives" and "Liberals" is a bit of a sham that hides a great deal of similarity between the two in their acceptance of our current mode of Progressive government. The difference is more in degree and type than in practice. Though, the "Conservatives" still have some links, or pretenses, to Classical Liberal Constitutionalism.

Classical Liberals (Costitutionalists), contrary to your notion of looking at history with a narrow view and picking a time to get back to, actually use the total, broad, scope of history, as the means to form and practice government. The Constitution was formed by those who inspected the totality of history known to them in order to pick the good things and protect against the bad things that existed in the historical record of governments. They formed a government for "now" not one which returned to some past. And they inserted in their Constitution the means to keep it "up to date."

The Founders, and most Classical Liberals, would not make a war on drugs or on abortion. Those types of "wars" are actually Progressive models of governing. The Early Progressives were the ones who tried to restrict or prohibit human behavior. The war on liquor (the Temperance movement) was a Progressive idea. Eugenics, purification of the race, was a Progressive idea. All the major founders of the Progressive movement were arch racists, including Presidents like Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Abortion today for the Progressive left has become a positive war to implement it in order to make society more efficient and controllable. It has become a pet project to enforce it and fund it for reasons of control. So the "Conservatives" (Progressive Right) want to use government power to restrict abortion for moral reasons (legislating morality), and the "Liberals" (Progressive Left) want to use government power to expand, enforce, and fund it as a tool of population control, and the Classical Liberals want government out of it all-together.

I'll admit that being a Republican at a liberal arts college can be dangerous and I have a little experience with that.
But i do believe that if you are young being liberal is not bad, but what happened at a local college with a conservative speaker was disappointing.

Being an actual liberal is good whether you are young or old or in between. Who we refer to as "Liberals" today are not liberal. They are the leftist Progressives. They subscribe to Progressive ideology which is authoritarian in nature, not liberal.

First of all, I can't believe someone wanted a cake from someone that didn't want to make them one, or that a Christian would think they are sinning by making a cake. Two fools only make money for lawyers.

It's ironic that you can't believe someone believed something. At any rate, Here is a more rational and constitutional summation: www.gopusa.com/?p=38782?omhide=true

the system needs to help and not just be the net that keeps you from dying but has no escape for people without the tools to do so.


What is the system that will do what you want it to do--or believe will do what you want?

By this logic any deduction by anyone is subsidizing something...that doesn't make a lot of sense.

If there is a certain amount of money government says it must collect in taxes in order to operate, and it collects less from someone because of a deduction, it must make up that amount and get it from someone who can't make that deduction.

And, if the deduction makes it more feasible for a state to raise your taxes because they will be defrayed to the extent that you save in federal tax because of the deduction, then the state is subsidized the amount that your deduction saves you and makes it easier to pay your state tax.

The topic is if blue states contribute more net Federal tax revenue than they consume in Federal funding.

On this point the answer is yes they do.

That's your topic, not mine. The subject is obviously more complex and less meaningful than your "topic" makes it out to be--in many ways. Social Security and transfer payments and food stamps, blah, blah, are "entitlements." The states have no say in whether recipients are "entitled." These transfer payments are to people, not to states. And if those people move to other states, they take their entitlements with them. And states switch from red to blue or blue to red from election to election. Having more "entitled" persons living in states is not as economically useful to states as having wage earners. States can't directly collect taxes on the entitlement payments. And wage earners can spend more taxable money as well as be directly taxed on their wages. And, if it were so profitable to have federal transfer entitlement holders, the blue states should make it more attractive to draw them to their states. I don't know of any efforts to attract more federal welfare recipients to blue states.

Who contributes more to the federal coffers has no special relevant meaning. Is it something to boast about? Is it some sort of bragging rights? It seems what is more important is what amount states force their inhabitants to "contribute." I'd rather brag on living in a state that took less of my money than living in one that took more. But if you're proud of paying more state and federal taxes, then by all means, make that your meaningful topic.

Being an actual liberal is good whether you are young or old or in between. Who we refer to as "Liberals" today are not liberal. They are the leftist Progressives. They subscribe to Progressive ideology which is authoritarian in nature, not liberal.
Where do Libertarians fit in this equation?
How is Islam any different from any other religion, or Catholicism for that matter which has it's own state and sole leader on earth. When I was a kid some people were concerned about electing a Papist as president. That was JFK. There are sects in many religions that I have no use for and that most of the practitioners of the more mainstream parts would disavow. People twist the Koran, Bible, Torah to fit their views.
Who fought the Crusades, brought Christianity to the rest of the World, willingly and unwillingly and lots of other things in the name of their God. I think it is a case of let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Where do Libertarians fit in this equation?

They may, as a group, be closest to classical liberals. But there are different kinds of Libertarians. That's why I like the Classical Liberal label. It is more specific and identifiable.

How is Islam any different from any other religion, or Catholicism for that matter which has it's own state and sole leader on earth. When I was a kid some people were concerned about electing a Papist as president. That was JFK. There are sects in many religions that I have no use for and that most of the practitioners of the more mainstream parts would disavow. People twist the Koran, Bible, Torah to fit their views.

Islam is not just a religion. It is a system of government. A form of theocracy. Christianity does not have a secular component. Some actual forms of government may make Christianity its government accepted and controlled religion. But make no mistake, the actual civil government will not be the church. And, as you say, secular leaders may twist or usurp a religion for their own ends. But Christianity, as exemplified by Christ, is not connected to earthly governments. (The current Catholic Pope may be a bit of an exception. He has that South American Liberation theology streak in him). Islam, as exemplified by Mohammad, and by its scriptures in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sunnah, is not only a religion, it is the earthly government. By its own code and teaching and example of its founder, Islam cannot be subservient to a secular constitution other than its own koranic and Mohammadin system. It must rule everybody, Muslim or otherwise. And the "otherwise" is allowed only in limited circumstances. And that is not twisting the Koran to fit a view. It would be twisting the Koran (as some try to do) to make it say otherwise.

Who fought the Crusades, brought Christianity to the rest of the World, willingly and unwillingly and lots of other things in the name of their God. I think it is a case of let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Christ did not fight the Crusades. Early Christianity spread not by power, but by preaching and sacrifice, and was purely voluntary, as well as being a great danger for converts. Islam, in Mohammad's beginning Mecca phase, is where he tried for years the peaceful preaching method, but had managed to convert only about 150 people. In Medina, he changed to his warrior phase. Under conquest, Jihad of the Sword, he imposed Islam on a vast empire of people. And the messages he received from God created a system that was not only religious, but was a code for secular rule as well.

So the foundation and precepts of each religion is different. Christ founded a religion based on voluntary faith, Mohammad founded a theocracy founded on force. That is the fundamental difference and foundation of each. That is why Christianity is not incompatible with our Constitution, and Islam is.

The crusades were not about an establishment of actual Christianity, but of returning the lands which were originally Christian but conquered by Muslims back into the hands of Christians. In that force rather than preaching was used, it was a corruption and not really Christian. But Christianity went through a great period of reformation to restore it back to true Christian roots. And that is, in essence (though corrupted by some) the Christianity of today. And why it is a religion, not a theocracy.

We have, for whatever reasons, been fed the line that Islam is just another religion. It is so very, very, and as you mentioned in an earlier post, easy to verify that it is not. That it is a very strict and harsh theocracy. Very few serious and honest Muslim clerics/scholars would admit to some Islamic compatibility with western democracy, much less to the American Constitution.

Where do Libertarians fit in this equation?
How is Islam any different from any other religion, or Catholicism for that matter which has it's own state and sole leader on earth. When I was a kid some people were concerned about electing a Papist as president. That was JFK. There are sects in many religions that I have no use for and that most of the practitioners of the more mainstream parts would disavow. People twist the Koran, Bible, Torah to fit their views.
Who fought the Crusades, brought Christianity to the rest of the World, willingly and unwillingly and lots of other things in the name of their God. I think it is a case of let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

"How is Islam any different from any other religion, or Catholicism"

Well. let's see. For starters, there aren't large numbers of Catholics who want to slaughter everyone who isn't Catholic, so there's that.

How many Muslim hospitals, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and adoption agencies are you aware of?

Catholicism also doesn't brutalize women, doesn't force them to dress like ninjas and mutilate their genitalia.

Here is what scares me, and it is nothing new, in fact it predates Trump by quite a bit . . .

The sad thing about Godwin’s Law is that legitimate comparisons can be drawn between 1930’s Germany and . . . today.

That’s not the same thing as saying that our government is led by Nazis or that our leaders are rounding up the undesirables to be systematically exterminated.

It simply means that the same types of trends that blinded Germans to the potential of Adolf Hitler can be found within . . . society today.



By playing upon their fears, Hitler persuaded the German people to grant him unprecedented power and the long downhill slide to their well documented destruction began.

So where are the parallels . . . ?

One of the most telling similarities between Nazi Germany and modern [South Africa] . . . is the practice of marginalizing and dehumanizing a targeted group of people who are blamed for the ills of our nation.

In Germany it was the Jews who bore the brunt of this treatment as German society methodically marked them for destruction, first by innuendo, next by legal sanction and finally by the direct action of rounding them up and exterminating them.

Other groups including gypsies, communists, homosexuals and those with permanent disabilities were labeled as being a danger to the Fatherland and likewise targeted for elimination.

We must remember that the process by which the Final Solution was implemented was as gradual as it was deliberate.

Given the vast amounts of information that are readily available to most of us in a matter of milliseconds via our computers or even our cell phones, it’s astonishing that so few Americans are willing to challenge the outrageous claims and do even the most rudimentary fact-checking.

Never has information been so easy to come by, and yet the tried and true methods of sowing seeds of distrust, and the urging of legal disenfranchisement are being employed at this moment.

********************

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TfAq3LrIjg