Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Brian Tyler Cohen"
channel.
-
1500
-
833
-
447
-
390
-
386
-
353
-
330
-
299
-
257
-
251
-
243
-
217
-
215
-
209
-
193
-
191
-
184
-
164
-
149
-
147
-
144
-
125
-
118
-
116
-
115
-
107
-
106
-
105
-
102
-
99
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
94
-
92
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
79
-
79
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
73
-
70
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
63
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
58
-
58
-
52
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
39
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
@fernandoguevara8258 Another history-illiterate heard from.
The French were involved in Vietnam -- think "Michelin Rubber" -- since the late 19th century. During WW II Ho Chi Minh was an ally to the US and other Western countries. After WWI ended, France set about reestablishing its colonialist control over "Indochiina" -- Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. Beginning with President Truman, the US began supporting France's efforts.
In 1954, the French got blown out at Dien Bien Phu, and the first US "advisors" were sent into Vietnam by REPUBLICAN President Eisenhower -- who, if you knew history, lead the allied defeat of Hitler in Europe.
In sum, pro-Putin propagandist, the US was involved in Vietnam during WW II, and indirectly from the end of WW II, until 1954-55, when it began getting involved under REPUBLICAN Eisenhower.
IN FACT before it was popular, I -- while still in high school -- began to speak out against US involvement in Vietnam.
Now let's talk about Russia's massively bloody invasions of, as examples, Afghanistan. And Georgia. And Chetnya. And Ukraine. And Putin's threat to use nuclear weapons in his effort to subjugate Ukraine in his efforts to reestablish the Soviet DICTATORSHIP.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
It isn't questions that don't "suit" him. It is questions based upon the facts -- his own words -- being thrown back at him. Then his response begins with labeling the questions as "gotcha" questions; and if the reporter persists in completing the question/s, while he is attempting to drown out the questioning by RUDELY interrupting and talking over, he labels the question "nasty". And if it REALLY got under his skin, calls the reporter names.
He has been transparently a constant bullshitter all along. His methods are not new, or unknown. I learned to crituqe such in high school, during the 1960s.
Perhaps you remember the aspirin commercials on TV, where the person is dressed in a white coat -- like a doctor -- and begins with, "Many doctors recommend . . ." The white coat, and the use of the word "doctor" subconsiciously associates the two, and it is intended that the viewer believe that the man in the white coat is actually a doctor, therefore that his word can be trusted.
"Many doctors recommend" -- but no doctors who ALLEGEDLY do so are NAMED.
So when Trump begins with, "Lots of people say," and of course not NAMING any, he is actually referring only to himself -- while in other instances he will attack the media for relying on "anonymous sources," which is exaclty what HE is doing, even though he is the source, and not anonymous.
Trump's only skill is self-promotion; and how he does that was called, when I was a kid, "Overwhelm with bullshit". Break down his statements and they are mostly cent three and four word phrase-fragments, repeated again and again, all of them ultimately meaningless -- when he says, "lots of people," as example, there are no "lots of people".
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@dhellis19498 Did you miss the results of the Intelligence Community and Mueller Report? I'll spell it out for you:
___
"No Collusion"?
Trump's July 27, 2016 Solicitation of Crime with Russia.
This is Webster's definition of "collusion":
"Secret agreement or cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose".
How many Trumpeters lied about their contacts with Russians during the Trump-Putin COLLUSION?
THIS IS THE LAW:
The Model Penal Code defines solicitation as commanding, encouraging, or requesting another person to engage in conduct that constitutes a crime or an attempt to commit a crime (with the intent that the crime be committed). Model Penal Code S. 5.02(1) (1962). Generally the code provides that solicitation be as punishable as the crime solicited. Id. at S. 5.05(1). Law Dictionary, Giffis, at 446.
THIS IS THE EVIDENCE:
We have Trump on video, in broad daylight, soliciting Russia:
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."
To "find" those emails required computer hacking. Computer hacking is a felony.
In fact, he solicited a series of felonies, beginning with computer hacking and stealing private property, through to receiving and possessing that stolen property.
And we know that on the same day as Trump's solicitation, within hours thereafter, Russia hacked computers and stole the emails. That made Trump a co-conspirator with Russia.
That conspiracy is an additional felony.
____________
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" rebellion was suppressed by the state's Militia, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
And under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" rebellion was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
2. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns. Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's "Heller" decision is an outlier. In "Heller" he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The subject of the Amendment is well regulated Militia, and its purpose to establish a National Defense, relying on that Militia. The Militia is not an individual, and is a public institution, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws; thus the Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" Congress debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously dropped from the proposed Amendment before it was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn "Heller".
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@timcomer3513 No one said anything of the kind: you might try responding to the actual comment.
Taxation -- paid by "WE THE PEOPLE" -- supports gov't, and the gov't programs that meet the needs of "WE THE PEOPLE". Got it, chump? "We the people" pay our own way.
The problem is those who are wealthy and pay no taxes, and those who are ignorant of the actual history of the United States and its founding. The first Act of the first Congress was establishing oaths. The second was a tax bill. In other words, history-illiterate, the Founders were not opposed to taxation. Nor were they anti-gov't. So where do those facts put you as a purported US citizen? It puts you on the wrong sides of law, history, facts, and REASON.
NONE of that has anything to do with "Marx," about which you are also totally ignorant.
These four countries are staunch allies of the United States:
Britain, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.
ALL of which have gov'ts that consist of --
Monarchy, democratically-elected parliaments, and socialist economies.
NONE of them is a "tyranny".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The various colonies established on "freedom of religion" tended to mean only THEIR "religion"; Massachusetts-Bay was especially tyrannical on this point. But this is how the Founders put them in their place:
___
From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776:
"XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function.
. . . .
"XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment."
___
From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777:
"Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession."
"Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature."
___
From New York constitution adopted on April 20. 1777:
XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State.
___
Those provisions, and their equivalents in the other state constitutions, eventuated in the First Amendment separation of "religion" and gov't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DR-vp8zh He gets defensive regardless the sex of the questioner. That's when he RUDELY interrupts and attempts to talk over the reporter so others won't hear the question. And typically if the reporter persists he ends by name-calling the reporter. His dumb-ass MAGAots, mired in the muck of dumbnitude, believe that is how one "wins". How one "wins" a debate or argument: shit on the living room rug and demand PRAISE for having done so.
Trump is a consummate asshole, and professional moron -- and his MAGAots are trying to learn how to be that "sophisticated" -- after all, if one must have an education in order to make money, but one rejects education, then one must go the line of least resistance: learn how to criminally rip off others and get away with it.
Part of their self-delusion is the underlying false belief that that is the morally superior approach.
We see the same self-justifying rationales from gun nuts who are ignorant of law, yet distort the Constitution and laws in order to fake justifications of their position. Their stupidty works among themselves; and they expect others to fall for it. When one doesn't, they smear -- or they avoid any engagement because they do know, even if only at the backs of their minds, that they are wrong.
Same goes also for Sanders "fans": detail his ACTUAL history as a LOSER, and they refuse to engage, because they are intellectually dishonest and want to pretend they DON'T KNOW the negative facts about him..
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He's attacking the jury, and the jury isn't saying anything about him. He's attacking the witnesses, and only Cohen is continuing to be an asshole. He is attacking the judge, and the judge will be determining the sentence.
What Trump has always done and been is a cry for help -- bullies pretend to be tough as a defense against abuse, such as that Trump suffered as a child from his extremely abusive fascist father. None of that is an excuse, but it explains his attitude and behavior: he can't understand why he can't just ignore the rules, as his father did.
And Mary Trump, a psychologist, doesn't have that depth analysis -- and it isn't all that deep: according to social satirists Art Buchwald and Irma Bombech, the source of all humor is anger (I'm not at all saying that Trump is doing "humor"). And early in his career, Mark Twain wrote that the source of all humor is anger -- but late in his career he wrote that the source of all humor is pain. And psychiatrists say that behind anger is pain.
I would say that behind anger is not only pain -- and the experience of it -- but the fear of pain. Anger is a response to threatened pain (and a defense against feeling the internalized pain); it is a way to push away the threat, or attempt to overwhelm and subdue it.
None of that is, of course, a defense of Trump. But understanding what drives him is the best means to work out strategies to neutralize him. The courts are the ultimate, the last resort, and a blunt instrument -- and in Trump's case earned. But there needs also to be an intelligent disempowering of him -- force against force only perpetuates and potentially escalates the conflict.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DannaMcAllister Redo your math.
And, yes: that's the idea: each state administers all the elections that occur in their state. They have the authority in law, beginning with the US Constitution, and their state constitution and laws, to determine who is eligible to be on their ballot.
None of that is rocket science.
And if a state determines that a potential candidate -- regardless the office for which the candidate aims -- is ineligible to be on the ballot in that state, that's how it goes.
It is not a rare occurrence. And not all legitimate presidential candidates always get on the ballot in all states for reasons other than being a criminal insurrectionist. Typically its because they didn't get enough signatures, as state law may require, to meet the minimum threshold to qualify to be on the ballot.
It isn't actually that big a deal -- except that multi--multi-billionaire, constantly drunk on whine, falsely claims to be a "victim". Most people in the US can't afford lawyers to vindicate their rights; but Trump, who has stadiums full of lawyers, is a "victim"!?
Stop listening to MAGA -- they are as uneducated and clueless about everything -- especially how elections actually work. And they lie about everything because that's how they live their lives. And that's why they are suckers for constant lying con-man and career felon Trump.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DavidWolfer I doubt you're able to predict the future as to what will happen if Trump continues to violate the gag order. There is a cell in the courthouse for housing the contemptuous.
AGAIN -- in this is part of PUBLIC EDUCATION, for those WILLING to LEARN -- the first two gag orders, one of which included significant fines, were showing the PUBLIC that law applies even to bloviating criminals. Marchan's gag order, modeled on the first two, which were upheld on appeal, is -- based on that PUBLIC EDUCATION -- incremental, as they always are. But Marchan BEGAN by pointing to the possible penalties, INCLUDING INCARCERATION. When asked if he understood, Trump said, "Yes."
This also includes the threat of incarceration, but in such a way that it has Trump's attention -- after that decision was given him, and the court broke for lunch, Trump SAID NOTHING to the media.
He may do it again -- he's probably contemplating that which has always been his campaign: name-calling, smears, and attacking others and inciting threats against them -- but THIS time it got through to him.
As for jail: the judge can decide that Trump, regardless the verdict in the trial, be jailed for contempt AFTER the trial is concluded.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AwkwardPain What RESEARCH have you done on WHY the Founders established the Electoral College, AND their reasoning?
You've done NONE. You don't know, You're just another law-illiterate who jumped on the "easy solution" bandwagon. Adult legal reality, in dealing with actual reality is complex. See the Founder's response to "Shays's" and "Whiskey" insurrections -- those were PROHIBITED "direct democracy".
"What you are asking for is a giant report. Something that you don't write in a youtube comment section."
I frequently post lengthy substantive comments that not only state a premise but also present the law addressing the premise -- so your cop-out -- your inability -- to present any sort of factual "argument" for your position is exactly my point: you don't know why there is an Electoral College; and you have no idea the consequences of abolishing it.
"There have been papers written about this, and the USA is the ONLY democracy to use one."
Really? Then why do you not cite to any? Why do YOU not take the responsibility to back up YOUR afactual comment with SUBSTANCE?
"So unless you feel every other country is lacking democracy, you should start there and see what you find."
I said nothing of the find. But you are apparently unaware that not all democracies are the same. A readily-observable difference is the reality in the Scandinavian countries: monarchy -- which the US does not have, democratically-elected parliament, and socialist economies -- which the US does not have. And yet none of them is a tyranny; and they don't have the lunatic beliefs that "freedom" means "freedom from rule of law," an overwhelming amount of guns, and the false belief that there is a "right of the people" to destroy the Constitution -- the rule of law.
In short: not all democracies are the same.
I have an education in law, and constitutions -- including world (see above re. Scandinavian countries for an example) -- have been my focus for more than 30 years. Now, either put up your understanding, based on actually doing the research, of WHY the Founders established the Electoral College -- not, it was not "racism" -- as part of the hierarchy of law with a single supreme Federal gov't -- UNION of the disparate now-50 states; and why the Electoral College can be dispensed with without consequences, without repercussions. Either that, or sit down and STFU with your law-illiterate PROPAGANDA against that about which you have no interest in informing yourself.
We are in an era where there are broad ongoing dangerous attacks on checks and balances -- see January 6th as a vivid example; listen to Trump's intents -- and you want to eliminate a central CHECK AGAINST those attacks. Stupidity is your profession.
We don't give ground to criminality.
Yes: youtube is also a place where substantive comments can be posted. But those who know nothing are limited to agglutinations of one-liners, none of which have any basis in reason or established legal history and law.
1
-
@martinconnelly1473 I'll ask AGAIN:
WHY have you NOT DONE THE RESEARCH on WHY the Founders established the Electoral College? -- and no, it was not to "control the slaves". Is that perhaps because you have no _foundation in law_, don't know either where to find that information, and don't know anything of the historical context? Analogously: where are the origins for the separation of "religion" and gov't?
AND:
"You tell me it's the Constitution/Well, we'd all love to see the PLAN." -- "Revolution," "The Beatles" (John Lennon).
"Ninety-nice per cent of the information on the Internet is garbage." -- Abraham Lincoln.
You are not qualified in law, and yet you are attacking a Constitutional fundamental -- along with the far-right fascists. And just within the last two days I heard on of you young people -- who have no idea -- complain that the Constitution is "too hard to change". "Too hard" ALSO for those who want to repeal all the Amendments except the first 10.
You are so focused on your own shit, your own fantasy, that you are oblivious of the alternative views of others who want to UNDO -- DESTROY -- the Constitution. Did you MISS what January 6th was about!?
When Trump, as example, is given "breaks" in court that no one else would get, that is the law BACKING DOWN to his attacks on it. And YOU TOO attack a Constitutional fundamental. Tell us who is benefitted by attacks on the rule of law by the LAW-ILLITERATE!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thomasbraeking6225 You don't understand either document because you've never read them.
Neither document was law when written, and have never been law. And their purposes are not understood by those who haven't bothered to READ them:
The "Emancipation Proclamation" applied ONLY to the states that refused to law down their arms. The LATER Civil War Amendments are not the "Proclamation".
The "Declaration of Independence" applied EXCLSIVELY to ENGLAND -- its authors were not declaring independence from themselves, or their gov'ts -- the colonists all along controlled the colonial gov'ts. And they were not calling for or asserting a "right" to revolution". Instead, contrary to the false assumptions about it, it is an assertion of the RULE OF LAW as being paramount. Examples from the "GREIVANCES" at its end, against by name King George III, are these:
"He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures."
Legislatures MAKE LAWS; LAWS REGULATE.
"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
The entire legal tradition that eventuated in the Constitution and "Bill of Rights" PROHIBITED, as does the Constitution, any form of "independent" or "private" military force, because such are a threat to GOV'T, which gov't is by definition RULE OF LAW.
AGAIN: neither the "Emancipation Proclamation" nor the "Declaration of Independence" have ever been LAW. LAWS are made by LEGISLATURES, with the concurrence of the Executive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The majoirty of Virginia citizens voted for increased gun contriol. Only liars deny that the public brandishing of ASSAULT weapons is intended as a threat to PUBLIC SAFETY. The "Shayss" and "Whiskey" rebels were convicted and sentenced to DEATH by the Founders for doing as Trump encourages. The FOUNDERS engaged in EVERY form of gun control INCLUDING confiscation. This is from VIRGINIA:
____________
Virginia Statute, October 21st, 1782
Chap. XII. An act for the recovery of arms and accoutrements belonging to the state.
Whereas sundry arms and accoutrements belonging to the public are in the hands of individuals, who have neglected to return them to the proper officers; and it is necessary that such arms and accoutrements should be recovered as speedily as possible: _Be it enacted_, that the Governor do, on the passing of this act, issue his proclamation, enjoining all persons having in their possession any arms or accoutrments whatsoever, belonging to the state, to deliver them without delay to the Lieutenant or commanding officer of the county for the time being; and the sheriff of each county within this commonwealth, shall cause copies of the said proclamation, which shall be transmitted to him by the Executive, to be fixed up in the most public places in his county, and if after one month from such public notice having been given, any person possessing any such public arms or accoutrements, shall be convicted of having failed to deliver them up as aforesaid, such person shall, upon every such conviction, be liable to the penalty of twenty pounds, to be recovered by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any court of record within this commonwealth, one half of which penalty shall go to the informer, on conviction of the offender, and the other half shall be applied in aid of the county levy where such offender shall reside. And the Lieutenant, or commanding officer of each county, shall make returns from time to time, to the Executive, of all arms and accoutrements so delivered to him, and also deliver them to the order of the Executive, under the penalty, if he fail in all or any part of his duty, of fifty pounds, to be recovered as aforesaid, and applied in diminution of the county levy. _Provided always_, that where muskets and bayonets have been by order of government placed in any county on eastern or western frontier for defence against incursions of the enemy, it shall be lawful for the Lieutenant or commanding officer to return such muskets and bayonets to the militia, taking a receipt from each person for what shall be so returned.
First Laws of the State of Virginia, The (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazer, Inc., 1982), Compiled by John D. Cushing, at 176.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" rebellion was suppressed by the state's Militia, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
And under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" rebellion was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
2. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns. Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's "Heller" decision is an outlier. In "Heller" he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The subject of the Amendment is well regulated Militia, and its purpose to establish a National Defense, relying on that Militia. The Militia is not an individual, and is a public institution, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws; thus the Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" Congress debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously dropped from the proposed Amendment before it was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn "Heller".
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
The Founders and Gun Control --
___
Refuting the NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's Heller decision is an outlier. In Heller he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The purpose of the Amendment was to establish a National Defense, relying on the well-regulated Militia. That fact is underscored by the Militia Act enacted on May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
The Militia is not an individual; it is a public institution, an arm OF gov't, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws. The Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from the beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously voted down before the proposed Amendment was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS".
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" insurrection was suppressed by the state's well-regulated Militia, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
Under the Constitution, more than two years AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" insurrection was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn Heller and its progeny.
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hlee-w9u
US Con., Art. 3., S. 3., C. 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
C. 2. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of statutes, as stipulated in C. 2: "The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason". The Congress enacts statutes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joehalliday6081 I was graduated from high school in the 1967. Not everyone was drafted -- including at least some of those who called me "Communist" and "draft-dodger" for speaking out against US involvement in Vietnam. (It is interesting that my grandparent's generation mostly agreed with my generation on that involvement, but my parent's generation mostly did not. My grandparent's generation were veterans of WW I. My parent's generation were young adults during WW II.)
The reason I recommend reading Mark Twain's "Following the Equator" is because he was an anti-imperialist (and a vice-president of the "Anti-Imperialist League"). In fact, he was a lifelong Republican -- until 70, when he publicly resigned from the party over the "Spanish-American War" and its conduct of that war. In that he wrote of his world tour, including stops in such as South Africa and Australia (Europe and British Empire). The 1990s Oxford Edition includes photographs of atrocities.
Which war, again, was initiated by a REPUBLICAN president, egged on by the Yellow Journalism of William Randolph Hearst. That war included the United States Marines hunting down Aguinaldo, the Philippine hero who lead the fight against Spain, and killed him.
Or see if you can find copy of the book of essays "Mark Twain On the Damned Human Race". I read that in September of my Junior year in high school. No, it was not assigned reading. It was from reading Twain that I understood the underlying "purpose" of US involvement in Vietnam: NATURAL RESOURCES.
Ho Chih Minh was not a problem; he was a nationalist attempting to unite a country that was divided by civil war -- that being interfered with by US involvement. Sure, a prominent "defense" of that involvement was that a people "Have a right to determine their own future/gov't." In reality that choice had to be approved by the United States, which had no business making such a decision for another sovereign nation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@glock22357 Then you should be able to refute my alleged "diatribe" with evidence. But you don't because you can't.
And you can't because you're of the cult that rejects FACTS and EVIDENCE.
There are two forms of lying: commission is telling known falsehoods. Omission is withholding known truths. So you engage in the usal Republican tradition of the Politics of Smear.
But tell us how "Liberal" Clint Eastwood is. Or how "Liberal" draft-dodger John Wayne was. Or how "Liberal" Reagan was when it came to union -- organized labor -- busting, which destruction favors organized wealth.
As for your troller's fake screen name:
___
Refuting the NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's Heller decision is an outlier. In Heller he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The purpose of the Amendment was to establish a National Defense, relying on the well-regulated Militia. That fact is underscored by the Militia Act enacted on May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
The Militia is not an individual; it is a public institution, an arm OF gov't, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws. The Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from the beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously voted down before the proposed Amendment was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS".
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" insurrection was suppressed by the state's well-regulated Militia, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
Under the Constitution, more than two years AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" insurrection was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn Heller and its progeny.
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"No Collusion"?
Trump's July 27, 2016 Solicitation of Crime with Russia.
This is Webster's definition of "collusion":
"Secret agreement or cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose".
How many Trumpeters lied about their contacts with Russians during the Trump-Putin COLLUSION?
THIS IS THE LAW:
The Model Penal Code defines solicitation as commanding, encouraging, or requesting another person to engage in conduct that constitutes a crime or an attempt to commit a crime (with the intent that the crime be committed). Model Penal Code S. 5.02(1) (1962). Generally the code provides that solicitation be as punishable as the crime solicited. Id. at S. 5.05(1). Law Dictionary, Giffis, at 446.
THIS IS THE EVIDENCE:
We have Trump on video, in broad daylight, soliciting Russia:
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."
To "find" those emails required computer hacking. Computer hacking is a felony.
In fact, he solicited a series of felonies, beginning with computer hacking and stealing private property, through to receiving and possessing that stolen property.
And we know that on the same day as Trump's solicitation, within hours thereafter, Russia hacked computers and stole the emails. That made Trump a co-conspirator with Russia.
That conspiracy is an additional felony.
____________
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Eric-vr8mc The first thing you do is engage in personal attacks against the messenger in effort to discredit the FACTS he states. That is bias against the facts, and an effort to distract from them.
Facts are facts: "stubborn things," as said John Adams. There aren't alternatives to them.
You are, therefore, overtly biased against the person stating the facts, and using that deceit to object to the facts.
Name one fact? Watch the video again, but this time stop the lying.
Let's be clear, overtly dishonest punk: you are attacking truth based on the lie that you are concerned with morality. You are a liar. Lying is immoral.
You are going to be shocked to the core when you discover how tariffs actually work, and that those destructive impacts will fall also on YOU.
This is characteristic of your confident ignorance:
1. Trumpers voted for Trump.
2. The day AFTER the election this Trumper question spiked on "Google": --
"How do tariffs work?"
Should that question have been asked BEFORE you voted for tariffs?
And here's another: Trumpers voted for Trump because they wanted "Obamacare" repealed, but they at the same time loved the "Affordable Care Acct".
AFTER the election they learned that both are the same thing -- but instead of waking up to the fact that they fucked up, they asked, "Why does it have two different names?" Where were they when the Republicans smeared that "Affordable Care Act" as being "Obamacare"?
Where were they when the Republicans and Trump repeatedly attempted to repeal it, when it was repeatedly reported that "Obamacare" was the "Affordable Care act"?
Stupidity is your program and profession. And it begins with the irresponsible fantasy that you and your ilk will escape the consequences of your views and beliefs. Trump himself told you to your face when he said to his supporters --
"I don't care about you, I just want your vote."
Latins are discovering that: he told them to their faces that he would deport them. They avoided the issue by falsely believing, He doesn't mean ME." But Trump's "Border Czar" Homan is absolutely clear -- that they'll deport "the bad guys" FIRST.
And as legal and illegal are irrelevant to them -- it is all about skin color -- their assertion of "illegal" and "bad guy" have no legal or factual basis. When asked how they would avoid "splitting families" -- many Latino, and other, families, have both legal and "illegal" members -- he said it is easy: by deporting the ENTIRE family, both legal and "illegal".
That's the anti-Americanism you are defending, which puts you on the wrong side of both history and the Constitution. You voted for and are defending and adjudicated rapist -- because you support rape -- and a convicted criminal -- a felon. Because you support the commission of crime against others.
And you want us to pretend that you are "moral" and "in the right" simply because you love your baseless and immoral hatred.
In sum: you fool no one, lying bullshitter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fourteenth Amendment
. . . .
S. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. . . .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is also a national urging to prohibit guns at polling places.
My state already did that.
There is already precedent --
____
Delaware Constitution, begun August 27, 1776; adopted September 21, 1776.
Art. 28. To prevent any violence or force being used at the said elections, no persons shall come armed to any of them, and no muster of the militia shall be made on that day; nor shall any battalion or company give in their votes immediately succeeding each other, if any other voter, who offers to vote, objects thereto; nor shall any battalion or company, in the pay of the continent, or of this or any other State, be suffered to remain at the time and place of holding the said elections, nor within one mile of the said places respectively, for twenty-four hours before the opening said elections, nor within twenty-four hours after the same are closed, so as in any manner to impede the freely and conveniently carrying on the said election: _Provided always_, That every elector may, in a peaceable and orderly manner, give in his vote on the said day of election.
___
Georgia Constitution, begun October 1, 1776; finished February 5, 1777.
Art. X. No officer whatever shall serve any process, or give any other hinderance to any person entitled to vote, either in going to the place of election, or during the time of the said election, or on their returning home from such election; nor shall any military office, or soldier, appear at any election in a military character, to the intent that all elections may be free or open.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@luzguia2040 Not when the "witnesses" are spouting hearsay.
Where, again, is the EVIDENCE?
Pay attention, and ask yourself:
Why are the lawyers alleging "election fraud" OUTSIDE court -- but IN COURT, when asked by the judge if they are alleging "election fraud, they answer:
"NO!"
Because, law-illiterate, IN COURT they are UNDER OATH, facing PERJURY charges, and worse, if they LIE.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's "Heller" decision is an outlier. In "Heller" he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The subject of the Amendment is well regulated Militia, and its purpose to establish a National Defense, relying on that Militia. The Militia is not an individual, and is a public institution, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws; thus the Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" Congress debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously dropped from the proposed Amendment before it was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" rebellion was suppressed by the state's legitimate well-regulated Militia, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
And under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" rebellion was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn "Heller".
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cathywethington5913 You really miss the point -- perhaps deliberately.
Republicans are currently on a rampage accusing others of pedophilia -- without a shred of EVIDENCE for it. Then we learn about the long list of PROVEN pedophiles who are REPUBLICANS.
Republicans, including Mark Meadows, have been pushing Trump's big lie about election fraud for more than a year. And now we learn that Mark Meadows engaged in voter fraud.
Other WHITE MALE REPUBLICANS who knowingly committed voter fraud got at worst probation, but a Black woman who submitted a provisional ballot, which WAS NOT COUNTED, after her probation department informed her, in writing, that she could vote, was sentenced to FIVE YEARS IN JAIL.
Republicans have for many decades been bellicose in their pro-military stance. But then when one compares Congressmen as to who actually SERVED in the military, the majority of DEMOCRATS did, and next to zero Republicans did so.
Certainly you don't actually miss the point I am making: Republicans have a long, long, long history of accusing others of the very things Republicans are doing. Currently they are accusing all sorts of other people -- not, of course, Republicans -- of being pedophiles. That's why I dispense with the complicated psychological phenomenon of "projection," which is usually not conscious, and cut to the chase of calling it "confession":
When a Republican accuses others of something heinous, WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE, I focus on why they -- out of nowhere -- have such heinous things on THEIR minds.
That's why I wonder how many pedophiles are hiding behind the Republican OBSESSION with pedophilia. Yeah, I know: they present that OBSESSION as being "OPPOSITION" to pedophilia. But we also have them vocally "opposing" "voter fraud" while at the same time COMMITTING voter fraud.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anthonygranziol7957 It is aimed at the Court overturning the 1960s Court decision prohibiting prayer in public schools, which had been the norm.
The problem is that the prayers were "Christian," but not all students are "Christian".
Add in that that prayer is not a substitute for education; the purpose of schools is education, and that includes the Constitution, which in the First Amendment is SEPARATION of "religion" and gov't.
Public schools are funded by the taxpayers, through the gov't. The more fundamental prohibition is against taxpayers funding someone else's "religion". It is not a new idea -- these were established by the Founders during the "revolutionary " era:
___
From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776:
"XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function.
. . . .
"XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment."
___
From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777:
"Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession."
"Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature."
___
From New York constitution adopted on April 20. 1777:
XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State.
___
Those provisions, and their equivalents in the other state constitutions, eventuated in the First Amendment separation of "religion" and gov't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's "Heller" decision is an outlier. In "Heller" he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The subject of the Amendment is well regulated Militia, and its purpose to establish a National Defense, relying on that Militia. The Militia is not an individual, and is a public institution, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws; thus the Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" Congress debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously dropped from the proposed Amendment before it was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" rebellion was suppressed by the state's legitimate well-regulated Militia, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
And under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" rebellion was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn "Heller".
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LRCW1 How many times must these facts be explained to you until you STOP REFUSING to LEARN:
Contempt sanctions are INCREMENTAL -- they steadily INCREASE to the point that the defendant CEASES the contempt.
Trump was fined several times until he STOPPED being an asshole.
But this CRIMINAL trial in chief has begun, and he has already established a voluminous track record, including prior gag orders, on which the court can rely to short-circuit his contempt. This judge will therefore come down hard on him because he has already had sufficient warning and instruction, and has already flouted the courts' gag orders, so this court, this judge, needn't give him as many opportunities as happened prior.
This is a lawyer explaining -- with receipts -- how gag orders work, and the history, and what will happen next: Trump isn't the first to engage in his contemptuous behavior, and there has already been established remedies that work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQdD94evetA
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
_The Federalist" is not law. And the articles comprising it were written by three out of some 54 delegates to the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution. And, as they were written outside Congress, Congress have never declared them as being official documents.
And those articles, published in newspapers, were admitted to be an ADVERTISING campaign designed to SELL the Constitution.
Moreover, there were three other delegates, on the other end of the spectrum, who refused to sign the Constitution because they, as anti-Federalists, rejected it.
The right-wing crackpots have been waving The Federalist as some sort of ideological "bible" since at latest the 1990s. But there are problems, in addition to the above, with that which is illiteracy. Hamilton wrote in "Federalist No. 84":
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. . . ."
I doubt any of those who wave The Federalist as their "argument" have actually bothered to read it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BluehourPhotography We have Trump om video stating that he wants to be a dictator, and answering a question about that statement, "Just on day 1."
And we have this on video:
___
"No Collusion"?
Trump's July 27, 2016 Solicitation of Crime with Russia.
This is Webster's definition of "collusion":
"Secret agreement or cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose".
How many Trump campaign members lied about their contacts with Russians during the Trump-Putin COLLUSION?
THIS IS THE LAW:
The Model Penal Code defines solicitation as commanding, encouraging, or requesting another person to engage in conduct that constitutes a crime or an attempt to commit a crime (with the intent that the crime be committed). Model Penal Code S. 5.02(1) (1962). Generally the code provides that solicitation be as punishable as the crime solicited. Id. at S. 5.05(1). Law Dictionary, Giffis, at 446.
THIS IS THE EVIDENCE:
We have Trump on video, in broad daylight, soliciting Russia:
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."
To "find" those emails required computer hacking. Computer hacking is a felony.
In fact, he solicited a series of felonies, beginning with computer hacking and stealing private property, through to receiving and possessing that stolen property.
And we know that on the same day as Trump's solicitation, within hours thereafter, Russia hacked computers and stole the emails. That made Trump a co-conspirator with Russia.
That conspiracy is an additional felony.
____________
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
1
-
@hypee2007 He was convicted of a crime that in law is bumped to felony if it was committed to advance another crime. One of those crimes was tax evasion. Another was interference in elections. Another was campaign finance laws violation/s.
They were the same charges that put Michael Cohen IN JAIL in a FEDERAL court.
You are a law-illiterate repeating Trump's attack on the rule of law itself. But I'll help you out:
There was a simple and legal way around the gag order -- which order prohibited two violations of law: witness intimidation and jury tampering. And when Trump was asked if he'd do it, he said "Absolutely."
The legal way around it was to testify under oath, which afforded him two options:
Either admit to the crimes, which were PROVEN by the DOCUMENTS in evidence, which documents were generated by and obtained from the TRUMP organization, and some of which were personally signed by Trump on his personal bank account;
Or, commit perjury.
He refused to testify, contrary to his "Absolutely."
But let's step back and look at the case objectively:
1. New York is the financial capitol of the US. It is also, therefore, the site of the greatest percentage of financial fraud.
2. The exact same case as brought against Trump is beyond common to constant: there were more than 9,000 such prosecutions since 2015.
3. Biden didn't protect his son from prosecution by the DOJ. And neither the president nor the DOJ have any jurisdiction in state prosecutions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@khallidxjudah The insurrection, was not merely a coup-attempt against the democratic election and peaceful transfer of power. It was an attempt to overthrow the gov't, against the Constitution, the rule of law, itself.
"INSURRECTION a violent uprising . . . against the government or other authority." Law Dictionary: Second Edition (NY: Barron's Educational Series, Paperback, 1984), Steven H. Gifis, at 239.
It was not a "tour," or "peaceful tour," as tours had been suspended both because of COVID and because of the official proceeding -- the transfer of power. And we further know it was not a "tour" or "peaceful tour" because the videos produced and published by the insurrectionists show them violently attacking the police. And showing the gallows, the intended use of which was the murder of democratically-elected gov't officials against the will of the voters.
I suggest you READ the essay, written by President Biden, with his three proposed Constitutional amendments. He nails it based on both the Constitution, the laws, and the facts.
It is those who smugly, arrogantly, ignorantly march against reason who are the zombies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1