Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "Supreme Revenge (full documentary) | FRONTLINE" video.

I agree that not all Democrats are evil. But once elected it's hard to understand why anyone would stay with the party once they see how it actually operates. Maybe in some States (certainly not in California) I can understand. All Democrats in DC are evil. Some are evil equivocators and the others are straight up, blatantly "liberal" evildoers who "liberate the demos" from phantasms of the party's creation. They still blame Republicans for losing their slaves and "labor struggles". And so called "Oligarchy" which means any powerful organization that goes against their zero-sum economics schemes (otherwise read "Critical Theory Marxism" for those that know the issues). Republicans are "monsters" and "Nazis" because these pathetic ignoramuses think that Capitalism is wage slavery and the "root cause" of all "Disparity" aka "Inequity". They dance around the specifics because Marx's labor value theory is a joke, disproven by all of history, and his "land reform" expectations only made sense in monarchies that did not allow equal access to own land. "Inheritance" was "wrong" because the material wealth had originally been granted by the monarch, in all of his examples. How does any of that apply to the USA? It doesn't. Even Stalin admitted that the US would never revolt as Marx had expected of "International Workers". But they still play with this BS in every academy from K-12 and every college they can coerce and take over. Critical Theory is not critical thinking. Changing labels and playing word game doesn't mean you're not relying on Marxist dogmas for the implied "value system" that underlies it all.
1
@elik.webber7630 I don't think any of you know what "politicized" means in the context of the US Constitution and what is called separations of powers. The short version of the story is that under English common law and every legal system that carries those traditions there is something called "case precedent". this goes back as far as Henry II and we assume before that since he is merely the first known king to acknowledge and support it for ordinary locals to use. These case precedents are supposed to be a guide for the other judges and records are kept to make sure things are consistent. The British monarch was never subjected to this kind of system. The British have never had a written Constitution that is used to justify it's "political" power. Never. In any case, in the US we still use "case precedents" but these can always be appealed in various ways. Further, judges are sworn to defend the Constitution which means that they can't explicitly or implicitly violate it. If they simply follow "case precedent" traditions and imagine that they're merely "interpreting" the Constitution to "find" new implicit rights they are also violating the US Constitution by going beyond the judicial powers granted by it. They are to interpret the law as written, not find workarounds for favor ideas promoted by any political party or any other faction. That's what legislatures are for. There is only one major party that has made it its agenda to "reimagine" how this all works. They first appealed to "Social Darwinism" and "new understanding" as code to convey that ordinary "demos" aka ordinary petitioners can't possibly understand the law the way that the Social Darwinist cult can understand humanity. They now try to cite case precedents inappropriately (through language wars and other mendacity) to get what they want. They describe their constituents in a manner that should be familiar to those that have read Orwell's Animal Farm. But so many Social Justice warriors don't even realize how much they worship and depend on Orwell's Pigs. In US legal parlance, a judge will deem something a "political controversy" under "political question doctrine" (nobody seems to know what that means anymore) meaning that it's supposed to be answered by legislatures (and sometimes the Executive Branches), rather than the courts. And in many cases it's additionally deemed unconstitutional for the Federal government to interfere at all. A "political" judge is one that follows English common law traditions while ignoring established US jurisprudence that has been radically tainted since FDR's "struggle" for Social Justice or whatever you want to call it.
1
"Leftist" politics is all about destroying Separations of Powers. It was invented by the Jacobins before and during the French Revolution. And turned in to pseudosciences once Darwin, Marx and Freud's philosophies were integrated. Today it's usually propagated culturally through "media" and through Critical Theory academics. These "critiques" have their time and place. Defense attorneys must be familiar with these theories to defend their clients. Over the decades Critical Theory Marxists (under "explaining/solving disparity") have been trying to silence all disagreement so that only their constituents may shout their whinges to "the court of public opinion" in order to have their way in every hall of power. Exactly like the Jacobins did. There should be no leftist judges. Anyone that supports leftist politicians is an ignorant fool. "The right" is also a construct of the Jacobins. The original "opposition" was the Ancien Regime. We have no Ancien Regime in the USA. Political Identity Politics is all about filling out a cast of collectivist tropes to align with traditional Jacobin and Marxist "class war" tropes. Patriarchy yada yada, systemic racism here, banksters on Wall Street over there, it's a massive cast of Hollywood tropes all aligned with doctrinaire Marxism and Critical Theory "democratic" Marxism. Leftists get more and more obstinate and ignorant thanks to new thought leaders that make them even more confident that only they are "woke" enough to understand why things are the way that they are and yet they can't explain any of it properly. They can't even explain why they have to much faith in BS like the Green New Deal and endless wealth transfer schemes. For me what this all means is that the promises of "socialized education" have more than merely failed. It's become part of the "revolution" or "resistance" to "disparity" AKA "Capitalism". Nobody can admit today that they simply failed and doubled down year after year, generation after generation.
1
@DejaVuSept11 What bullshit. The Constitution is fine. The problem is Demon Rat Progressives could not tolerate it at any point in the party's history. They sought to change it through Amendments and "judicial activism". Anyone that has any idea on how to research the topic can see when this happened both before and after the Civil War. Oligarchs? LOL. You have no idea how "nefarious power" is destroying the Federal government. It's not "oligarchs". It's nihilistic Marxists that regard themselves as "Realists" working on Brain Trust Democracy. Just research SCOTUS during FDR's reign.
1