John Boehner on 'Trump party': 'The Republican Party is kind of taking a nap somewhere'

They certainly not very conservative once they are elected.

Here is what you can expect from dems in 2020.

1. Massive tax increases
2. Open borders with amnesty and citizenship as fast as they possibly can.
3. Stacking the supreme court with 15 justices with all the new ones put in place by them.


All of this so they can grab as much power as they possibly can. They have to do this because their ideas are bankrupt.

 

There certainly is no fiscally conservative Republican party anymore!!!

 

Hate speech laws are Constitutional. If you think not, why haven't you taken them to the S.C.?

 

Trump puts himself first. If you can't see this you aren't looking.

 

Funny that's exactly how we see every democrat.

 

Pssssttt... there are no hate speech laws in the USA. They are always thrown out as unconstitutional.

 

So you admit you lied as your metrics were “Since Obama”

So you admit you lied as your metrics were “Since Obama”

I would love a source that shows the CDC saying that 80.1% of gun crime is “drug related”. Care to post it? No, because it’s another lie.

So I take it you are unable to answer the question then?

 

Damn liberals are blind.. of wait they aren't liberals they are leftists.

You are wrong and you are a liar are extraordinarily bad arguments.

 

Asking for a source is “blind”.
Well that’s a great argument!

This is almost unintelligible minus calling me a liar for directly quoting you and asking for a source.

Your grammar and formatting is absolutely atrocious, you should work on that. Or did you go into a rage fit because someone made you realize you can’t just make up data on the fly without being called out on it?

Btw — calling others liars is against the ToS, I’m not reporting you because your post is such a wonderful example of your narrative.

 

Good cause you called me a liar first.

 

Please quote me where I called you a liar.
I said your data was a lie but never called you a liar.

One is an attack on a persons character, the other is pointing out false information.

Still waiting on your source from the CDC stating that 80% of gun violence is in relation to drugs. (We both know it isn’t true, just man up and admit it)

 

Would be awesome if that regressive political party of gutless Neanderthals would just disappear, Kode…

 

Yes, it is true if you look at what the republican platform is/was and their actions under this President.

 

If they have a choice, they'd make the choice.
They don't. Party 100% of the time. That is not making a choice. That is following preconceived notions.
If they could make a choice, they'd not vote 1 party every time.

 

In 1952 in Beauharnais v. Illinois, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state of Illinois's hate speech laws, which punished expression that was offensive to racial ethnic and religious groups. The defendant was charged for distributing a leaflet that rallied white people in Chicago “to halt the further encroachment, harassment and invasion of white people, their property, neighborhoods and persons, by the Negro."

In Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 the S.C. created the "imminent danger" test. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished.

In 1992, in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the S.C. upheld the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence.

In 2003, the Supreme Court decided Virginia v. Black. In a 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice O'Connor, the court decided that a law which criminalized public cross-burning was unconstitutional. The court noted that the law would be constitutional if the law included an element of specific intent to inspire fear of bodily harm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States

 

Yes, I'm sure all democrats are self-centered and put themselves first. That's why we advocate for women, for minorities, for the poor, and for the working class. Riiiiiiiiight.

 

Whatever.

I will give you this i misspoke 80% are grang related not drug related. Though the two are pretty much the same..

 

I disagree with your assessment but commend you on your honesty here.

 

Democrats are so self-centered they argue we should all make sacrifices so that future generations can have cleaner air and water. Such selfishness! You should be ashamed!

 

Thank you for proving my point. Unless you are intending to incite people to illegal actions hate speech is constitutionally protected. That is NOT what the common leftist definition of hate speech.
The common definition is anything they percieve as negative towards any minority.

 

By attacking white straight men.

Also the politicians promise those groups free stuff and special rights in exchange for votes then pass laws that hurt everyone.

 

Well since nearly all gun violence is the result of gangs and that guns used in gang crimes are almost never acquired legally. Fir the discussion of gun control laws 80% of the gun crime data can be thrown out because no gun laws are going to keep gangs from getting guns.
Also the places where this vast majority of gang related violence takes place are places that already have strickt gun control laws it proves that gun control laws do not prevent gun related crime.

Gun control laws aside from being attacks on the bill of rights have no impact on gun related crimes. You have to be stupid ,literally, to think gin gun control laws are a good way to prevent gun crime.. most Democrats are not stupid. So what we are left with is that Democrats simply don't like guns and want to impose their preferences on the rest of us.

 

Most gun control advocates want sensible reforms such as reducing clip size, limiting ammo stock piling, background checks for resale and person to person sales.

I will have to disagree that can control does not work, you can see such examples of it working in Australia — “In the two decades following the reforms, the annual rate of gun deaths fell from 2.9 per 100,000 in 1996 to 0.9 per 100,000 in 2016. In the 15 years prior to the first gun buyback in 1996, there had been 13 mass shootings in Australia.” “In the 21 years since more restrictive firearm policies came into effect, there has not been a single mass shooting in the country.”

 

How else do you describe the lefts vilification of white men?
A lazy unsupportable analysis which happens to be true.

Oh wait, it's fully supported, by history. Leftist policies hurt everyone.
Leftists brought us Stalin,Hitler,Mao, Pot, the list goes on.

 

You guys do not advocate for anyone. Lefties use groups of made up victims for political gain.