Democratic field boils down to four-jackasses race

Biden will be rendered speechless when Trump brays that climate change is a Chinese hoax, boasts how he made Mexico pay for his "big, beautiful wall!", and replaced 'ObamaCare' with "something terrific!" that covers "everybody!" at "less cost!"

Bragging about his "easy to win!" trade war and bloated national debt should then underscore the reality of Trumpery like an imaginatively-wielded Sharpie!

A new ABC/Washington Post poll found that non-college educated voters — a strength of Trump’s in 2016 — favor Biden by 6 points.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/15/joe-biden-elizabeth-warren-massachusetts-electable-1494580

 

The Hillary Clinton landslide lol.

 

Absolutely, NB my friend.

I really think that the Trumpies are living inside this Echo Chamber/Bubble (where they are in abject denial of the FACT that Trump was only "elected" by the votes of 27% of Eligible Voters).

Go figure.

 

Will reverting to Fake Don being gobsmacked by his electoral college victory in 2016 afford solace in 2020?

Since then, most Americans have consistently agreed that the P-Grabber stinks.

​

 

They are driven by emotion, not reason.

 

The RW seems to have adopted a very Dangerous Position.:smh:

 

Americans hate the democrats now, because they are nothing, but divisive spoiled brats who are promoting dangerous policies that will hurt the american workers and decriminalize illegal immigrants. I would rather vote for satan himself than for a democrat in 2020.

 

The democrats have also made our country worse in the last 30 years, not better. When Reagan signed that horrendous immigration bill in the 80s, the dems never kept their end of the bargain. The promise of securing the border for amnesty never came through. Tip O' Neill backtracked on his word. He was a traitor.

 

Both the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act(1807), prohibit the Federal government from deploying the military anywhere in the US, to enforce domestic policies. This means the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force, can't be used to fight civil rebellions, insurrections, or civil disorders, anywhere within the US borders. However, these Federal forces can protect our sovereign nation against any invasion by any foreign nation. I seriously doubt if the most powerful military force on the planet can't prevent our country being invaded, that any unregulated, unorganized, and unmanaged civil militia, would have a better chance at succeeding. If every nation on the planet joined together to fight against America, they would still lose. This is because we have enough Nukes to destroy the entire planet many times over. So, invasion by a few countries, or all countries would be suicidal madness. Most countries have their own internal problems to worry about. Why would they create external problems for themselves?

It is the National Guard(state militia), and Law Enforcement Agencies(local/state), that the Governor, and Mayor, can summon to address civil disorders, or to enforce Federal and State Laws. Also, anyone with any credible knowledge would know, that in the modern theatre of war, guerilla warfare is obsolete. In an era of modern weaponry, satellites, surveillance, Intelligence collecting, and unmanned drone technologies, any guerilla insurgency would be woefully ineffective. Except on television, or in the movies.

Firstly, no one with more than a few working brain cells, would think that anything is invincible. Secondly, no one is advocating that Law Enforcement, the National Guard, and the military reserve, to begin to disarm themselves. However, calling for someone to be prosecuted for treason for advocating disarmament, would be violating his/her Constitutional right to free speech. Only Fascists are against democracy. Their aim is to prepare the nation for armed conflict, social rebellion, and to respond to economic difficulties. The individual's right to free speech is denied and also prosecuted. Are you a Fascist or an Anarchist?

Why is "sovereignty" so difficult for you to understand. It is the authority to govern a state or a state that is self governing. The sovereignty of our government to rule, was described in our Declaration of Independence. It is based on,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.". Nothing about "owning themselves", or their lives, or being "masters of their government". It is about human and equal rights. Also, if we continue reading,

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . .". This means that the sovereign power of the government to govern, is derived from the consent of the governed(people). Do you think that Women, Black Americans, and Native Americans, in the 17th and 18th century were considered sovereign individuals? No, they were considered property.

I would suggest that you bring more to the argument, than empty assertions, insults, cynicism, and just more ignorance. It is becoming tedious and boring, to keep providing facts as evidence, for you to keep dismissing or denying. If you don't want to hear the truth, then just say so. I'm really not interested in you asserting your own truths. I'm more interested in you asserting real facts.

 

Ironic that you falsely accuse others of being ignorant when the content of your own posts establishes that to be PROJECTION on your part.

With so many fallacies above I am only going to address a handful of them.

Let's begin with JURIES which we INHERITED from the English legal system.

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/criminal-law/the-jury-system.php

Swearing an oath has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the sovereignity of the people. I seriously recommend that you research the term before going any further because making that statement indicates that it is not well understood.

There is NO defense against incoming ballistic missiles so that is no reason to have a military. Furthermore having missiles pointed at other nations just makes us a TARGET for their missiles. How many ballistic missiles are pointed at Ghana or Brazil or Bolivia or the Seychelles? They don't need to spend half their budget on the military because they are not a threat to any other nation. We don't need to be a threat to any other nation either. No other nation is going to invade the USA with military force so we do not need to waste money on defending ourselves from a nonexistent threat.

Your asinine strawman about disarming citizens is ignored for obvious reasons.

 

LOL! You should read my posts. I have denounced the DP for rigging its nomination process including its primary elections to black ball first Bernie Sanders and now Tulsi Gabbard.

"We the people" are not the government or corporations. Corporations have a slightly stronger connection to the people than any government - people actually own corporations, and corporations are usually at least a bit less corrupt and dangerous than government.

This is the truth about government:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise."
COMMON SENSE, By Thomas Paine, 1776.
USHistory.org, Common Sense The American Crisis The Rights of Man Age of Reason
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

Was Tom Paine an "anarchist"?

 

All I see are jackasses out there.

The DNC doesn't plan to run Chelsea Manning for President until 2024.

 

I'm glad we are not talking about semantics. I'm also glad that you see how the DNC can rig their own nominee selection process. Wonder who is pulling the strings, and what their motivation might be?

If "We the people..." do not represent the government, then who does? Does the power of the government NOT come directly from, "We the people.."? Then I am confused, and our Declaration of Independence to the English Monarchs make no sense. Also, a government is not a corporation like Microsoft, Coca Cola, JP Morgan, amazon, etc. Since I understand that there are also "government corporations"(NASA, UPS, TVA, the Smithsonian Institution, and 13 others), let me explain the difference. Public Corporations have a legal mandate to provide the maximum profits to its shareholders. This means that all public corporations are profit-driven. Government's independent corporations are service-driven, with the Government as its major shareholder. I agree in a commercial sense, that millions of people have a closer relationship with the "Big Mac", than with "Big Government". Not sure of the point you are trying to raise.

Thomas Paine was a revolutionist like Che Guevara, Paine believed in republicanism, hated the Monarchy in England, and wanted a more Democratic type of government. Guevara hated a capitalist types of governments, and wanted a more Communist type of government. Paine left England to be a part of the American Revolution, Guevara left Argentina to be a part of the Cuban Revolution. Both were avid writers. Paine also went to France to be part of the French Revolution, to bring down another Monarchy. When the French were ready to execute him, Washington had to intervene to save him, and bring him back to America.

Paine is truly an interesting character. But his opinions of the late 18th century, are not really germane today. We do not have a monarchy, or a federalist form of government. Our government's architecture is defined by our Constitution, and its authority by our Declaration of Independence. Paine was an author, an activist, a philosopher, and an atheist. He was NOT an Anarchist, because he believed in a new(at the time) form or government, a republic form of Democracy. Not in no government at all.


Again, are you an Anarchist? I ask because of your clear distain for our government.

 

I have to take exception with much of what you have written, but I will focus on the underlined sentences as they are the foundations of your erroneous argument.

I seriously doubt if the most powerful military force on the planet can't prevent our country being invaded

Really? Well you will understand if the rest of us do not want to risk our freedom and continued existence on your over confidence. There are many scenarios in which our military could have operational capability reduced to the point where defense of the homeland would be compromised regardless of your personal uneducated opinion.
So far as the effectiveness of guerilla war, perhaps you would like to tell the Vietnamese that it does not work after defeating 2 major military forces to regain their sovereignty. You may also want to tell the 60K + vets who are now missing limbs or other life changing injuries that guerilla warfare is obsolete and that it was no match for their modern warfare.

Why is "sovereignty" so difficult for you to understand. It is the authority to govern a state or a state that is self governing

This has to be about as wrong as any explanation I have ever seen. So you think our government is a sovereign?

Let me explain this from the beginning, this whole issue is based on property law. Lets begin with the individual. There are only 2 states possible in the area of individual sovereignty, either you own yourself or someone else owns you. If you own yourself, you are free and have liberty. If the State owns you, you are a subject and have only whatever privileges are given you by the State.

Self-ownership, also known as sovereignty of the individual or individual sovereignty, is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity and be the exclusive controller of one's own body and life. From Wikipedia

Now countries are sovereign in relation to other countries, but that does not explain their relationship to their people. A country may be ruled by a dictator, and still be a sovereign country, just the same as a country which practices self determination.

As sovereign individuals in the US, we collectively own our government and the government is our servant. Our government was created by us and derives its powers from us. What ever powers not given to the government by the Constitution which created the government, remains with the people from which all power is derived. 9th Amendment

As free and sovereign citizens who own our lives and bodies, and collectively own our country and government, we have the right to protect ourselves, and the obligation to protect our country. To that means we have the 2nd Amendment to explain that obligation.

 

Paine was an advocate for for small limited government - not anarchy.
I agree with Paine. Government is at best a ***necessary*** evil.

Human beings own corporations. Human beings do not own any government.
Corporations operate to serve the interests of the shareholders. Governments always operate primarily to serve the interests of a ruling political class.

All governments are petri dishes for the growth of a ruling political class which will inevitably have a bias toward corruption and abuse of power. A ruling political class will always try to place itself above the law. Hence the need for checks and balances.

Anarchism is Utopian nonsense. Communism is not anarchism, but it is another failed political theory.

The state will never whither away. That worried Jefferson, but the other Founders assumed that a nation of people who had specialized in crafting constitutions and limited governments would never retire from the kind of political action they had engaged in for centuries since the founding of the Plymouth corporation.

"Jefferson, however, refused to be consoled. He feared an 'elective despotism* as bad as, or worse than, the tyranny they had risen against : 'If once [our people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves.* 37

And while it is true that historical developments in the United
States have hardly borne out this fear, it is also true that
this is almost exclusively due to the founders' 'political science'
in establishing a government in which the "divisions of powers
have constituted through checks and balances their own control.
What eventually saved the United States from the dangers which
Jefferson feared was the machinery of government; but this machinery
could not save the people from lethargy and inattention to public
business, since the Constitution itself provided a public space only
for the representatives of the people, and not for the people themselves.

It may seem strange that only Jefferson among the men of
the American Revolution ever asked himself the obvious ques-
tion of how to preserve the revolutionary spirit once the revolu-
tion had come to an end, but the explanation for this lack of
awareness does not lie in that they themselves were no revolu-
tionaries. On the contrary, the trouble was that they took this
spirit for granted, because it was a spirit which had been formed
and nourished throughout the colonial period."
ON REVOLUTION, Hannnah Arendt, Penguin Classics, NY, NY, 2006. p. 230
https://archive.org/stream/OnRevolution/ArendtOn-revolution_djvu.txt

 

I sincerely believe that none of the Democrat field actually think they'll win against and incumbent during good economic times, I think they are just throwing as much socialist and Anti-American BS on the wall to see what sticks, then next time they'll "move to the center".

 

And campaigns and fund raising can be a very lucrative hobby.

 

This is going to be fun...
So tell me, in order for the Monarch to govern with the consent of of the governed, there would need to be elections to certify that consent. Can you please provide the date of the last election for Monarch?

People in other nations have the same rights as we do? Really? The subjects in England must be licensed to purchase a firearm, (a license being permission from government to do something which is otherwise illegal) and even licensed subjects cannot purchase pistols or semi automatic weapons. So explain how their "rights" are equal...

So far as there not being any credible threat to our country, the the Saudi Arabia oil refinery which was just blown up, was protected by the very best US air defense system the Patriot. When it comes to military security, only an idiot believes in invulnerability...

 

Never heard of the Magna Carta?

Never heard of an English king being beheaded by his "subjects" because he erroneously believed in the "divine right of kings"?

There is no military defense against random terrorist attacks and "only an idiot believes" that military spending to the point national bankruptcy is going to prevent that from happening.

Money spent on intelligence and international policing efforts are far more effective at stopping international terrorism but don't let the FACTS stop you from believing that terrorists are going to invade America if we don't keep pissing our money away on "defense systems" that can't stop terrorists from attacking at will.

 

My argument is not erroneous. It is very sound and rational. So much so, that you must resort to intellectual dishonesty to circumvent my train of reasoning and common sense. Lets start with your blatant "straw man" argument.

The entire sentence that you took out of context to misrepresent my intent was, "I seriously doubt if the most powerful military force on the planet can't prevent our country being invaded, that any unregulated, unorganized, and unmanaged civil militia, would have a better chance at succeeding. Why did you omit the rest of my sentence? Both are dependent on each other, This clearly meant that I was comparing the strength of our US Military, compared to the strength of an unorganized, unmanaged, and unregulated civil militia. That if the former cannot stop an invasion, then the latter certainly won't be anymore effective (except in the movies). Before any country(s) can invade the US, under this madman, we would launch every nuke we have. No more world. But hey, you will still have your right to bear and keep arms, your right to protect yourself, and your right to protect your country. Although, you might be doing all these things underground, while trying to avoid the radioactive fallout outside. But only until all the contaminated water, food, and air runs out.

Please re-fact-check your Viet Nam casualties again. https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics You are a bit off. Obviously, the Vietnam War ended in 1975. That was 44 years ago. Do you think that technology has not changed since '75? We can read licence numbers from space. We have infrared technology, heat-seeking missiles, and laser technology. As I said Guerrilla tactics are obsolete in todays theater of war. All it does is stretch out the war(20 years in Vietnam, 19 years in Afghanistan, 16 years in Iraq), and create more body bags, and keeps the money rolling in for the fossil fuel industry, the military industrial complex, Wall St. and corporate America. Even WWI & II only lasted a total of 10 years.

To be honest with you, I have lost interest in arguing with you on the meaning of the word, "sovereign". If you can't tell the difference between an example of the word, and the definition of the word, then yes, it means the ability of the individual to own himself. I was referring to governmental sovereignty;

"Popular sovereignty is government based on consent of the people. The government's source of authority is the people, and its power is not legitimate if it disregards the will of the people. Government established by free choice of the people is expected to serve the people, who have sovereignty, or supreme power.".

This sovereignty is defined in our Declaration of Independence. It explains where the power to govern comes from. But if your understanding is limited to parroting, that sovereignty is people owning themselves, I'm not going to keep arguing with you. You have the right to your own truths, but not your own facts.

In the future could you stop all the straw man, or quoting me out of context. I'm certain that you are better than this.

 

Not good news for Trump.

 

The Bush's did pretty well.

Obama not so good even with running on a lie that Al Qaeda was being decimated and was on the run.
The low information voters believed Obama's lie and decided to give Obama another four tears and destroy Al Qaeda and turn the Middle East in to Disneyland.

Trump's approval rating with the GOP is 90% and that is the only thing that matters, Trump's base.

 

St Reagan is the only other POTUS in the same place as the BLOTUS at this stage.

The stark difference being that that St Reagan was LIKEABLE as a person and capable of COMMUNICATING with the American people as a whole.

The BLOTUS has NONE of those attributes.

 

The only part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 that was enforced was the Democrats amnesty.

 

I think you're right. People didn't like some of Reagan's policies but he came across as a decent person.