The TREASONOUS Behavior by DEMOCRATS In The Nation Is Getting WAY OUT OF HAND.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I have no problem with civility. Compromise has become a dirty word because compromising with the left just means giving it what it wants or they act exactly as they are acting. It has been that way in this country from the beginning. It's how the progressive left, regardless title/party name, destroys everything it touches. When you're done compromising with the left you have nothing left (you can decide on the pun or no )

I am 100% against a war IF one can be avoided WITHOUT giving away everything one believes in. The words in the constitution mean things. One side -- at least what I support -- understands them. The left views them as obstacles to their carnal pleasures. There is a point where you have to call BS and draw a line in the sand or forget whatever little freedom you have left because the left wants that too.

The right listens to its own echo because its collective head is empty as well as its scrotum. The right has had every opportunity in booth 2000 and 2016 to flatten the left and squandered away both opportunities trying to compromise with people that won't compromise. THAT is "the war" we're in and we're losing for the aforementioned reason. Republican't's get into power and immediately start squabbling with each other instead of undoing the damage from the left.

So I don't know what war it is you speak of. When anyone on the right finally gets a clue and decides they have lost or are losing everything they believe in, like this Nation and it's Constitution, the left will have already legislated them into insignificance and will use the government as a weapon against them. They will be vilified and outlawed and the full force of the US Government (ie US military) brought against them and they will lose.

I don't want a war. I also don't like watching my grandchildren grow up in this prison of a society we live in because of the left. The freedoms we had as kids is gone. I'd like for my kids and grandkids to at least get a hint of it,

Damn it... A FUCKING MEN brother...

[Kathianne]

I have no problem with civility. Compromise has become a dirty word because compromising with the left just means giving it what it wants or they act exactly as they are acting. It has been that way in this country from the beginning. It's how the progressive left, regardless title/party name, destroys everything it touches. When you're done compromising with the left you have nothing left (you can decide on the pun or no )

I am 100% against a war IF one can be avoided WITHOUT giving away everything one believes in. The words in the constitution mean things. One side -- at least what I support -- understands them. The left views them as obstacles to their carnal pleasures. There is a point where you have to call BS and draw a line in the sand or forget whatever little freedom you have left because the left wants that too.

The right listens to its own echo because its collective head is empty as well as its scrotum. The right has had every opportunity in booth 2000 and 2016 to flatten the left and squandered away both opportunities trying to compromise with people that won't compromise. THAT is "the war" we're in and we're losing for the aforementioned reason. Republican't's get into power and immediately start squabbling with each other instead of undoing the damage from the left.

So I don't know what war it is you speak of. When anyone on the right finally gets a clue and decides they have lost or are losing everything they believe in, like this Nation and it's Constitution, the left will have already legislated them into insignificance and will use the government as a weapon against them. They will be vilified and outlawed and the full force of the US Government (ie US military) brought against them and they will lose.

I don't want a war. I also don't like watching my grandchildren grow up in this prison of a society we live in because of the left. The freedoms we had as kids is gone. I'd like for my kids and grandkids to at least get a hint of it,

Seems to me that the 'right' has spent this past weekend and a day now, arguing WHY the laws are not to be followed, because they don't agree with them. How is this different than OWS or its ilk? In each case, it's not civil disobedience being bandied about, but actually saying the laws are worthless and wrong and choosing not to obey them is the only choice.

[Elessar]

Art.III Sec. III



Contrary to public sentiments here, I don't think 'Democrats' have been declared enemies of the United States? Levying war? Really? Not agreeing with the President and using any tricks to mess with him? I would say it's detrimental, as have been nearly all the partisan BS in Congress for most of our lifetimes. Treason? I'm not seeing it, never have.

The Dems being a declared enemy of the US depends on who you listen to. I firmly believe the left has declared war against the US Constitution and/or any law they just don't like. Is there a formal declaration of war by either side? No. Is the left giving aid and comfort to a force intent on invading the US? Yes.

Has the left's personal problem with an individual based on who he is not what he has done and is doing aiding and abetting the enemy? That too depends on who you ask. As far as I am concerned if you have brought the health and well-being of a Nation and its citizens to a standstill due to petty, Unamerican and unconstitutional beliefs, you're the enemy.

There is a better term that can apply. It is called Sedition:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Seems to me that the 'right' has spent this past weekend and a day now, arguing WHY the laws are not to be followed, because they don't agree with them.

Example?

I think there was disagreement with the law, but not arguing the law shouldn't be followed.

How is this different than OWS or its ilk? In each case, it's not civil disobedience being bandied about, but actually saying the laws are worthless and wrong and choosing not to obey them is the only choice.

Again, example where someone said the law shouldn't be followed?

[Gunny]

Seems to me that the 'right' has spent this past weekend and a day now, arguing WHY the laws are not to be followed, because they don't agree with them. How is this different than OWS or its ilk? In each case, it's not civil disobedience being bandied about, but actually saying the laws are worthless and wrong and choosing not to obey them is the only choice.

It's a very complicated issue when the very law that gives you your Rights and freedom is being used to destroy itself. The best answer I can come up with is the one I came up with in the First Gulf War to "What makes us the good guys if we're acting like them?"

The only difference I can tell you is this: If I can't fight by your rules and your rules exploit mine (Vietnam is a prime example), then I am not going to win. To win, I will use any and every means to destroy the enemy's ability to fight, regardless who thinks what is civilized. What makes me right and "better" than the enemy is I know when to stop and can do so without losing who I am and what I am fighting for. Otherwise, there is no difference.

If one does not believe enough in his/her ideals to fight and/or die for them, then one does not believe enough in one's ideals.

Anyone who doesn't already feel like a sheep on the US Government's short leash needs to run down to the Dollar General and purchase some clarity of vision. In my opinion

Another thought: If all these people are so dissatisfied here and other places exist that suit their political beliefs why don't they just move? Solve everyone's problem.

[jimnyc]

I'm for a return to civility, not appeasement. There's much to be said for compromise, something that's become a derogatory term in the past few decades. I'm not keen on civil war, though quite a few here are.

I'm not saying that I think both sides are contributing substance equally, I don't. However I do know that neither side is listening at all to anything but their own echo. That's not a good reason for war, IMO.

Both sides are undoubtedly guilty of lack of compromise and other things for years and years. But I believe, in this instance, that there have been many efforts to compromise, from Trump on down. The left, before Trump took office, stated that they would obstruct him at every turn - and they have done just that, and more. For example, with the illegals, many efforts were made to compromise from all kinds of funding down to a wall, to fencing, more agents and pretty much ever last detail. The democrats mostly refuse to budge & have also spoken against it no less, and even many claim that there is no "crisis" at the border no matter how many people report back on just that.

Ad it's been on more than just the border though, they have followed through on their word and want to obstruct on almost everything. It's a shame, as I think it was and still is a great time to work together, to do those compromises and take advantage of everything.

Neither side is perfect nor innocent though, that I admit. But one has spoken their intent and has followed through and it's easy to see why so many things haven't went all the way through because of them. The sheer amount of democrats alone out there having plenty of time to spend bashing the president, involved in investigations or pushing for them - but little to no time to accomplish anything in congress because they are awol from their duties.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It's a very complicated issue when the very law that gives you your Rights and freedom is being used to destroy itself. The best answer I can come up with is the one I came up with in the First Gulf War to "What makes us the good guys if we're acting like them?"

The only difference I can tell you is this: If I can't fight by your rules and your rules exploit mine (Vietnam is a prime example), then I am not going to win. To win, I will use any and every means to destroy the enemy's ability to fight, regardless who thinks what is civilized. What makes me right and "better" than the enemy is I know when to stop and can do so without losing who I am and what I am fighting for. Otherwise, there is no difference.

If one does not believe enough in his/her ideals to fight and/or die for them, then one does not believe enough in one's ideals.

Anyone who doesn't already feel like a sheep on the US Government's short leash needs to run down to the Dollar General and purchase some clarity of vision. In my opinion

Another thought: If all these people are so dissatisfied here and other places exist that suit their political beliefs why don't they just move? Solve everyone's problem.

Well, we see what leftists ideals are, and they're cities where people SHIT in the streets and shoot up drugs with needles provided them by the city democrat governing body.

We see that every big city in America run by democrats is pretty much a toilet of degenerate behavior and indoctrination, and they want to run the rest of the country in the same fashion. They want to do away with our electoral college so that middle America no longer has a say in who runs this nation. They've even floated the idea that we should allow TERRORISTS FROM PRISON vote. What are we all to do then? When rural America no longer has a say in our president? When people are shittin' in the streets in small town America, our guns have been taken away, and we have no recourse left what so ever... what then?

I'll tell what then... civil war... because middle rural America isn't ready for that kind of radical degenerate democrat garbage.

What we have today is democrats fighting to radically change America into one giant SHIT HOLE, and patriotic Americans that are fighting to SAVE IT FROM THEM.

[jimnyc]

There is a better term that can apply. It is called Sedition:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

You're correct, it does fit better, and actually DOES apply in this case, IMO (regarding democrats):

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

[Drummond]

That is your right. Personally I see little difference between the majority of venom thrown at Trump, than what was delivered to Obama-MEDIA excluded. Control the media, especially the humongously growing impact of social media and there is a problem. Interestingly enough though, the right tends to control many of the most influential, moneyed blogs. While the platforms of Twitter, FB, YT, IG are not to be ignored, truth is that the right has some influence on all those, the biggest problem is the right will be kicked off for what is allowed to the left. Easy to fix, don't be like them. I've never been banned from any of them.

OK. Taken on its own merits, your argument appears sound.

Still ... there's a wider issue. Who's right, who's wrong ? Who is fighting FOR America, her values, her identity ... and, who is working to subvert, tear it all apart ?

On the matter of democratic process, I'm reminded of my own country, and Brexit. In the Referendum of 23rd June 2016, the vote returned the decision that we leave the EU.

Three years later, the Left is calling for a 2nd Referendum (.. they say, to break Parliament's deadlock, and for an 'updated' vote).

Now -- arguably, a 2nd Referendum is the way to go, democratically.

But the reality is different. The only possible authority a 2nd Referendum would have is to crush the authority of the first one. Because, if not, the original decision must stand ... and not be threatened with being overridden.

The Left SAY they hold true to democratic principles and practices, but only as a means to an end, only as a means to achieve THEIR preferred victory. They've zero respect for it, otherwise. Democracy, to crush democracy ... ostensibly a nonsense, yet ... if achieved, also a reality.

I submit to you that our Left's methodology, and your Left's methodology, are the same. When the Left can 'play the system' and win, that's OK. Where all the vitriol and violence against Trump is concerned, they'll subvert democratic process to win out. And, if Trump electorally wins, do they accept it ? Do they cease their vitriol, do they respect the electorate's decision ? No, they do NOT.

The 'quality' of venom you refer to is different from one side to the other. One respects values. The other wants to tear them down. The Left's proven philosophy is 'the end justifies the means'. The Right's countering philosophy is to hold dear to tried and tested values.

Your argument of equivalence, therefore, doesn't reflect the reality involved ... and that's my point.

[Kathianne]

I'm not going to defend the 'left.' It would be impossible since I disagree with nearly every position they take on any issue. Hopeless to have me defend them. OTOH, I'm really not defending the right either, though I agree with most of their stated goals. I no longer can agree that they are 'more correct or more principled,' they are not. Just my opinion, based on lots of observations and interactions. Quotes aren't direct and more of a compilation of what I've been reading and hearing:


IF there's a way to circumvent that law, good. If not, well something needs to be done.

The Constitution is the most important, until it's not working for us.
"They are trying to destroy Trump." "No willing to work with him, just obstruct."

"F'ing mud illegal birth Obama bin Laden! F'him. He's a traitor that should not be sharing air."

Conservatives are more logical, not all 'feelings...' like the liberals.'

"The left does X, well we're going to F them up after all these years-wait! Y and Z are going to annihilate those f'ers, it's past time."

"We are better, we follow the law." "Actually not, we're f'ing pansy losers..."

Yeah, not going to defend either.

[Kathianne]

OK. Taken on its own merits, your argument appears sound.

Still ... there's a wider issue. Who's right, who's wrong ? Who is fighting FOR America, her values, her identity ... and, who is working to subvert, tear it all apart ?

On the matter of democratic process, I'm reminded of my own country, and Brexit. In the Referendum of 23rd June 2016, the vote returned the decision that we leave the EU.

Three years later, the Left is calling for a 2nd Referendum (.. they say, to break Parliament's deadlock, and for an 'updated' vote).

Now -- arguably, a 2nd Referendum is the way to go, democratically.

But the reality is different. The only possible authority a 2nd Referendum would have is to crush the authority of the first one. Because, if not, the original decision must stand ... and not be threatened with being overridden.

The Left SAY they hold true to democratic principles and practices, but only as a means to an end, only as a means to achieve THEIR preferred victory. They've zero respect for it, otherwise. Democracy, to crush democracy ... ostensibly a nonsense, yet ... if achieved, also a reality.

I submit to you that our Left's methodology, and your Left's methodology, are the same. When the Left can 'play the system' and win, that's OK. Where all the vitriol and violence against Trump is concerned, they'll subvert democratic process to win out. And, if Trump electorally wins, do they accept it ? Do they cease their vitriol, do they respect the electorate's decision ? No, they do NOT.

The 'quality' of venom you refer to is different from one side to the other. One respects values. The other wants to tear them down. The Left's proven philosophy is 'the end justifies the means'. The Right's countering philosophy is to hold dear to tried and tested values.

Your argument of equivalence, therefore, doesn't reflect the reality involved ... and that's my point.

I agree that one side's stated values are certainly closer to my own thinking, a lot closer. However, stating one's values and principles, then saying that 'in this case' it's alright to abandon/twist whatever to make it come out alright, well that not quite within my thinking of values/standards/principles. But, it does seem to be the working definition of what was once my party.

[Drummond]

Well, we see what leftists ideals are, and they're cities where people SHIT in the streets and shoot up drugs with needles provided them by the city democrat governing body.

We see that every big city in America run by democrats is pretty much a toilet of degenerate behavior and indoctrination, and they want to run the rest of the country in the same fashion. They want to do away with our electoral college so that middle America no longer has a say in who runs this nation. They've even floated the idea that we should allow TERRORISTS FROM PRISON vote. What are we all to do then? When rural America no longer has a say in our president? When people are shittin' in the streets in small town America, our guns have been taken away, and we have no recourse left what so ever... what then?

I'll tell what then... civil war... because middle rural America isn't ready for that kind of radical degenerate democrat garbage.

What we have today is democrats fighting to radically change America into one giant SHIT HOLE, and patriotic Americans that are fighting to SAVE IT FROM THEM.

Terrorists in prison being given the right to vote. Recognisably a Left ploy.

The same basic struggle has been going on in the UK for several years. Not in favour of terrorists, so much as all of our prisoners.

Our Conservatives are totally against it ... David Cameron gave a speech once where he basically said 'Over my dead body'.

Labour, our mainstream Socialists, say the opposite. Here, it's an EU wish that the UK conforms to their wish ... Labour agree, the Conservatives have been defying them. So, this is another case of YOUR Left, and OUR Left, being in lockstep.

See ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...t-to-vote.html

Jeremy Corbyn will consider campaigning to give prisoners the right to vote if he becomes Labour leader.

The Labour leadership candidate said he would follow demands by the European Court of Human Rights to allow convicted criminals the right to vote in British elections.

The court has ruled four times that Britain should lift its ban on prisoner votes but Parliament has refused to give way over the issue.

The 66-year-old left-wing politician supports the principle of overturning the historic ban on jailed convicts voting because he thinks it will help rehabilitate them.

MPs voted in 2011 to keep the ban on prisoner voting, despite the tough stance adopted by the European judges since 2005.

A spokesman for Mr Corbyn said: "On the issue of prisoner voting, we are guided by the European Court of Human Rights."

His comments come as he also unveiled plans to consider introducing women-only train carriages in a bid to cut the number of sexual assaults on public transport.

Like that proposal, Mr Corbyn's comments about prisoner votes are likely to come under fierce criticism.

Politicians argued during a debate in 2011 that prisoners had forfeited their voting rights by breaking the law and going to jail.

Two years ago, Prime Minister David Cameron vowed to "clip the wings" of the European Court of Human Rights and said prisoners "damn well shouldn't" be given the vote.

The last of the four rulings by European judges was made in February this year. They argued that the rights of UK prisoners were breached when they were prevented from voting in elections, and called for a change in the law.

The case was brought by inmates who were in prison during various elections between 2009 and 2011.

Both the previous Labour government and Coalition Government failed to legislate -- although various proposals have been debated in an attempt to end the long-running row with the Strasbourg court.

The most recent case concerned 1,015 prisoners, a grouping of long-standing prisoner voting cases, and the court ruled there had been a violation of Article 3 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights -- right to a free election.

The February case was brought by convicted killer John Hirst, who has since been released after serving 25 years in jail.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "The Government has always been clear that it believes prisoner voting is an issue that should ultimately be decided in the UK."

Ironically, this is one notable example of where Parliamentary authority overrules that of a form of Supreme Court. Because, of course, in our system, Parliamentary judicial authority is greater than any emanating from a group of judges. They have been exercising their authority to defy those European judges, and .. winning. Because our Parliament failed to legislate to accommodate those judges, their authority has been proven toothless.

In this case ... isn't it just as well ... ??

[jimnyc]

It's difficult to respond to something if it hasn't been quoted, as no idea who really stated such things if not exact, and perhaps not in context. On sure sounded like mine, and Trump and obstruction from the left, but not really sure. Not really sure why it would be listed if so either. While I stated both sides are guilty, I went on to point out what the lefts own stated goals and agenda were, and that they were succeeding. That's just pointing out facts, nothing lacking in principle and I tried to stick with the facts. Then again, not really sure without actual quotes. Color me confused with that one.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I'm not going to defend the 'left.' It would be impossible since I disagree with nearly every position they take on any issue. Hopeless to have me defend them. OTOH, I'm really not defending the right either, though I agree with most of their stated goals. I no longer can agree that they are 'more correct or more principled,' they are not. Just my opinion, based on lots of observations and interactions. Quotes aren't direct and more of a compilation of what I've been reading and hearing:


IF there's a way to circumvent that law, good. If not, well something needs to be done.

The Constitution is the most important, until it's not working for us.
"They are trying to destroy Trump." "No willing to work with him, just obstruct."

"F'ing mud illegal birth Obama bin Laden! F'him. He's a traitor that should not be sharing air."

Conservatives are more logical, not all 'feelings...' like the liberals.'

"The left does X, well we're going to F them up after all these years-wait! Y and Z are going to annihilate those f'ers, it's past time."

"We are better, we follow the law." "Actually not, we're f'ing pansy losers..."

Yeah, not going to defend either.

Not sure if any of those are mine. Not sure who's any of them are actually. Would help to have links.

But I'll defend any statement I make if it can be quoted.

I know we disagree on what party is more unhinged, Kathy, and I'm actually dismayed that you would think that the way the left acts is no different than the right. When was the last time you saw conservatives have a huge protest? What would you say the comparison is to how many times the left has protested compared to the right? When was the last time you saw a story about an unhinged conservative triggered and PUNCHING a leftist... because they wore a HAT they didn't like? I could go on and on and on, and I think you know that. But yet you DO defend the left as somehow being as rational and reserved as conservatives in America, when nothing could be further from the truth.

[Kathianne]

It's difficult to respond to something if it hasn't been quoted, as no idea who really stated such things if not exact, and perhaps not in context. On sure sounded like mine, and Trump and obstruction from the left, but not really sure. Not really sure why it would be listed if so either. While I stated both sides are guilty, I went on to point out what the lefts own stated goals and agenda were, and that they were succeeding. That's just pointing out facts, nothing lacking in principle and I tried to stick with the facts. Then again, not really sure without actual quotes. Color me confused with that one.

Not sure if you are responding to something I posted or someone else.

As for myself, I wasn't thinking or trying to state one person's responses, much less opinions. Rather, I think many would be a bit chagrined to see what they wrote about their values, opinions on the left, etc., back in early 2000s compared to now. It certainly hasn't been only the left that has changed and become more implacable and even violent in their rhetoric. Civility would be grand, but has gone the way of the dodo bird.

I still enjoy giving explanations of how our system is supposed to work, though I fear that system too will soon be part of dodo land.