ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

1453R wrote:

This country's needed a second Constitutional Convention for years, now. Probably decades. We need a bloody reset, a MURICA 2.0 that accounts for the fact that this isn't the 1700s. Fuck conservativism. If radical upheaval is the only way to actually get something DONE? Go for it. After all, these days? Raging psychopath or no, Senator Armstrong is sounding more and more like he had a point.

And THIS is exactly why a Constitutional convention would be such a perilous undertaking at this point in US history. The Left would stop at NOTHING to "reset" our country's identity into oblivion. You can't simply open up the hood of the car without those "Progressives" reaching in with their monkey wrenches. =9[.]9=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

And THIS is exactly why a Constitutional convention would be such a perilous undertaking at this point in US history. The Left would stop at NOTHING to "reset" our country's identity into oblivion. You can't simply open up the hood of the car without those "Progressives" reaching in with their monkey wrenches. =9[.]9=

Explain to me why "The Country's Identity" is bound up in those three Trumpist words, if you would?

"Hatred"

"Intolerance"

"Regressivism"

I mean, so far as I knew, the identity of the United States was a cosmopolitan melting-pot country where all walks of life are welcome, knowledge and progress is favored over blind traditionalism, and the People choose their own way of life.

Hatred has never been part of the American identity. Intolerance is something we've spent the last hundred and fifty-odd years trying to put an end to - right up until conservatives started trying to murder all the gays and Mexicans and Muslims and such. And never once has regressivism been part of the American identity. This was one of the most forward-looking, forward-thinking countries in the world at one point, one of the ones least mired in centuries of its own bullshit. There was a time when the United States could legitimately claim to be a leading light on the world stage.

Those days are long past. If you want them back? You're going to have to admit that you can't have them back so long as you keep trying to force the country to be exactly the same as it was in the fifties. Nobody can rewind the clock.

"

1453R wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

And THIS is exactly why a Constitutional convention would be such a perilous undertaking at this point in US history. The Left would stop at NOTHING to "reset" our country's identity into oblivion. You can't simply open up the hood of the car without those "Progressives" reaching in with their monkey wrenches. =9[.]9=

Explain to me why "The Country's Identity" is bound up in those three Trumpist words, if you would?

"Hatred"

"Intolerance"

"Regressivism"

So far as I'm aware, none of those "Trumpist" words are included in the US Constitution. =9[.]9=

Just as I SAID...! Leftists will start a CIVIL WAR to bring in their UTOPIA...! TRUTH

"

Raycheetah wrote:

So far as I'm aware, none of those "Trumpist" words are included in the US Constitution. =9[.]9=

Plenty of people trying to put them there.

Travel bans targeting Muslim-majority countries, because Muslims aren't Christians and therefore they are terrorists.

Attempts to shut down legal immigration on the trumped-up (Trump'd up?) notion that we need to close our borders and Iron Curtain ourselves to Protect Ourselves. Protect ourselves from what? People willing to work?

Withdrawals from every single major international accord, deal, treaty or agreement the United States has ever been a part of, sacrificing every last bit of our ability to influence global decisions.

Massive setbacks to civil rights across the board for anyone who isn't a white Christian male.

And plenty of support for shoving those laws all the way through to the top.

Hatred. Intolerance. Regressivism. Trumpist bullshit. That sure as hell isn't my identity, and it's no identity I want any part of for this country.

"

1453R wrote:

Explain to me why "The Country's Identity" is bound up in those three Trumpist words, if you would?

"Hatred"

"Intolerance"

"Regressivism"

That's so far behond a strawman that it's like a strawman of a strawman. Where do you get this shit from?

I hope you know that I'm laughing at how stupid what you said is. I'm not hating you, I'm not planning any action in any way. I'm not taking this seriously, I'm taking it hilariously. But here's some food for thought: if my life dependended on fomenting hatred for some weird Jigsawesque reason, the way I'd do it is I'd go to one group and try to convince them another group secretly hates them. It's a lot easier to hate someone you think hates you than it is to hate someone you suspect doesn't.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Your ideas about reverence for the military is priming the population to accept military rule and a form of fascism or protofascism.

I would disagree completely. Reverence for those doing a necessary job that involves danger has nothing to do with letting them take over. In addition, a fair portion of people who go through military service come out thinking the very last thing we need is military control or more government control.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

No Thanks. The founders didnt even believe in a standing army for this reason.

This is definitely true. They made the commander in chief a civilian for this very reason. Unfortunately, the world has become too complex and dangerous to not have a standing army that is well trained and prepared. Even worse, we have politicians that think they can use the military like disposable resources, and who have zero concern for the long term implications on the US or the world.

I'm perfectly OK with having the best military in the world and never having to use them.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

1453R wrote:

This country's needed a second Constitutional Convention for years, now. Probably decades. We need a bloody reset, a MURICA 2.0 that accounts for the fact that this isn't the 1700s. Fuck conservativism. If radical upheaval is the only way to actually get something DONE? Go for it. After all, these days? Raging psychopath or no, Senator Armstrong is sounding more and more like he had a point.

And THIS is exactly why a Constitutional convention would be such a perilous undertaking at this point in US history. The Left would stop at NOTHING to "reset" our country's identity into oblivion. You can't simply open up the hood of the car without those "Progressives" reaching in with their monkey wrenches. =9[.]9=

Let's say hypothetically 1453R has his way and there is a constitutional convention. What exactly do you think "progressives" would try to do to "reset our country's identity into oblivion."

"

essemoni wrote:

And as for Humans not evolving you must really be out of your tree. Of course we evolved. From the same primordial goop that every other living thing on this planet evolved from.

More likely from sulfur loving Archaea than any water based goop ancestors. Even with all the science we have, evolution still raises as many questions as it does answers, which is why many people don't fully trust it. It remains the best answer we have at the moment.

"

essemoni wrote:

And for your 'survival of the fittest' mention - thats a horrible misquote and factually incorrect. Darwin said that for each species:

1) More offspring are born than will survive to adulthood.
2) Adults pass on their traits (what we know as genes) to their offspring.
3) Those offspring with the best fitting traits to their environment are more likely to breed, and pass these traits onto their offspring.

Sexual selection is a much higher predictor of gene survival. Those that breed sooner or more often easily outdo the survival characteristics of those better fitted to their environment. Humans are no exception.

"

1453R wrote:

Travel bans targeting Muslim-majority countries,

You know, I know and anyone reading the news knows, the list of countries was the same as that made by the federal government under Obama. If you have proof Obama hated Muslim majority countries and tried to single them out because of his hatred of the religion, please tell us (with sources).

"

1453R wrote:

because Muslims aren't Christians and therefore they are terrorists.

A nice sound byte, but completely untrue. Here is how the nations were selected:

"DHS collected and evaluated data regarding all foreign governments. It identified 16 countries as having deficient information-sharing practices and presenting national security concerns, and another 31 countries as “at risk” of similarly failing to meet the baseline.

The State Department then undertook diplomatic efforts over a 50-day period to encourage all foreign governments to improve their practices. As a result of that effort,numerous countries provided DHS with travel document exemplars and agreed to share information on known or suspected terrorists.

Following the 50-day period, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security concluded that eight countries: Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—remained deficient in terms of their risk profile and willingness to provide requested information. The Acting Secretary recommended that the President impose entry restrictions on certain nationals from all of those countries except Iraq. She also concluded that
although Somalia generally satisfied the information sharing component of the baseline standards, its “identity management deficiencies” and “significant terrorist presence” presented special circumstances justifying additional limitations. She therefore recommended entry limitations for certain nationals of that country.

As for Iraq, the Acting Secretary found that entry limitations on its nationals were not warranted given the close cooperative relationship between the U. S. and Iraqi Governments and Iraq’s commitment to combating ISIS. After consulting with multiple Cabinet members and
other officials, the President adopted the Acting Secretary’s recommendations and issued the Proclamation."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf