POLITICAL THREAD

[bigblueinsanity]

As a registered republican who voted for Kasich, here's a tip: if you are on the same side of an argument as literal Nazis, you are probably on the wrong side.

Id imagine nazis are against north korea nuking us. Or isis cutting off heads. Paying too much for gas. Getting food poisoned. On and on.

I get the point youre trying to make. But for a self professed extemely educated high browed intellectual - you sure had a dumb way of trying to make it.

Learn logic, mr genius.

Actually, he is a republican and I have a feeling I'm probably much better versed in history (judging by your debate skills, probably just better educated in general) than you.

 

[Global Havok]

"Playing identity politics" is precisely why your side lost to Trump- and I'm not talking about Trump as the player; I'm talking about the near-entirety of your party. And it's going to happen again if it doesn't stop.

My side won, you idiot. I'm a republican. I'm just an actual conservative, which Trump is NOT. He's a straight up populist.

 

[Bill Derington]

It has absolutely been answered. Secession can only be legal if the government you are trying to secede from recognizes your right to leave. The US Government has made it pretty clear that they do not recognize that right.

The Constitution is the founding document, it is the document that binds our country together.
It is essentially a contract, laying out the rules the states will follow. In that contract it clearly lays out that a state can leave the Union.

 

[moe_schmoe]

Wait? What? Trump accused of playing identity politics? Diving into phase 3 stupefaction.

 

[Global Havok]

Id imagine nazis are against north korea nuking us. Or isis cutting off heads. Paying too much for gas. Getting food poisoned. On and on.

I get the point youre trying to make. But for a self professed extemely educated high browed intellectual - you sure had a dumb way of trying to make it.

Learn logic, mr genius.

None of those things have anything to do with the Nazi ideology, aside from ISIS. And they'd probably be all for ISIS beheading people who aren't part of the master race. These guys were walking around chanting blood and soil. Any one who remotely associates with those people are disgusting. THAT is not conservatism.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

I hear they've moved on from the Confederate flag to demanding that the American flag no longer be flown on government and/or public property. Several colleges have already caved and met their demands, banning American flags from campus.

Anybody got any cool quotes to explain what's going on? Or excuses about how the American flag is a treasonous hate symbol?

This is the real issue: the slippery slope.

Its not about removing confederate stuff, which i care less about. Its about the constant appeasement of a group that wont stop until america is disasembled.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

None of those things have anything to do with the Nazi ideology

Oh i agree. But i wasnt the one who made the stupid post. You were. Quickly followed by your self professed intellectual stature.

 

[Global Havok]

This is the real issue: the slippery slope.

Its not about removing confederate stuff, which i care less about. Its about the constant appeasement of a group that wont stop until america is disasembled.

Finally a reasonable argument that I can somewhat relate to. Erosion of rights is definitely something to keep an eye on (and has happened at an alarming rate over the last 2 presidents, particularly Obama). But local governments deciding to remove their own statues is not an erosion of rights, its them exercising their own rights.

 

[WildcatofNati]

My side won, you idiot. I'm a republican. I'm just an actual conservative, which Trump is NOT. He's a straight up populist.

Now who's getting personal? This coming from you, after you were triggered by personal attacks from another poster, and actually showed that you were quite triggered by it. I'll give you this much; you are at least original, and bold, to boot. Most of the other liberals here insist that they are actually libertarian. You have the creativity and audacity to actually claim to be a conservative. At best, you are conservative like Kristol, Will, and McCain.

 

[Global Havok]

Oh i agree. But i wasnt the one who made the stupid post. You were. Quickly followed by your self professed intellectual stature.

Aren't you' cute trying to argue semantics when you knew exactly what I meant. This wasn't a rally about Nazi's views on gas prices or global warming. They were marching and chanting blood and soil. Keep stretching.

 

[Global Havok]

Now who's getting personal? This coming from you, after you were triggered by personal attacks from another poster, and actually showed that you were quite triggered by it. I'll give you this much; you are at least original, and bold, to boot. Most of the other liberals here insist that they are actually libertarian. You have the creativity and audacity to actually claim to be a conservative. At best, you are conservative like Kristol, Will, and McCain.

When someone can't get it through their head that I can disagree with them and still be a conservative, they are a close minded idiot. Period. I'm used to it from both sides though. Democrats hate me too. I actually am a libertarian (which is why i vote republican most of the time). I want to smoke legal weed at my gay friends wedding while shooting off machine guns. I also didnt vote for Trump or Hillary (which is why it doesn't phase me if you attack Hillary, shes a POS too).

 

[WildcatofNati]

When someone can't get it through their head that I can disagree with them and still be a conservative, they are a close minded idiot. Period. I'm used to it from both sides though. Democrats hate me too. I'm a libertarian. I want to smoke legal weed at my gay friends best wedding while shooting off machine guns.

A libertarian who tacitly defends Antifa?

I don't defend Nazis. They're filth. Why is that none of the "libertarians" on this board, most of whom never appeared until this weekend, can say the same of the Communists? Why is that, on actual libertarian boards, libertarians able to do that, but not here?

 

[Global Havok]

A libertarian who tacitly defends Antifa?

I don't defend Nazis. They're filth. Why is that none of the "libertarians" on this board, most of whom never appeared until this weekend, can say the same of the Communists? Why is that, on actual libertarian boards, libertarians able to do that, but not here?

I NEVER defended anti-fa. I drew parallels between them and the nazi's. They are two sides of the same coin. Extremism is dangerous my friend. I have a post several pages back stating as much I'm pretty sure.

FYI, I'm anti SJW too. They are 1 step below the nazi's and anti-fa on my dislike list.

 

[bkingUK]

The difference is the initial guy I was talking to specifically brought up college campuses banning the flag which is what got this whole conversation started in the first place. And I rightfully called BS. Then it was "Schools everywhere are banning the flag". So far I've seen one instance of a single district in California. Thats hardly "schools everywhere". I'm not the one playing mental gymnastics and moving the goal posts here.

Yeah the problem is that they don't need facts. You're probably not goi g to get anywhere

 

[Bill Derington]

When someone can't get it through their head that I can disagree with them and still be a conservative, they are a close minded idiot. Period. I'm used to it from both sides though. Democrats hate me too. I actually am a libertarian (which is why i vote republican most of the time). I want to smoke legal weed at my gay friends wedding while shooting off machine guns. I also didnt vote for Trump or Hillary (which is why it doesn't phase me if you attack Hillary, shes a POS too).

We don't hate you global, we just happen to disagree with you on this.
In all honesty I don't even think we disagree, all we're saying is that there is a bigger threat out there, they were in Charlottesville too.

 

[warrior-cat]

It has absolutely been answered. Secession can only be legal if the government you are trying to secede from recognizes your right to leave. The US Government has made it pretty clear that they do not recognize that right.

So what you are saying is that if the Federal government says some thing is illegal for the state then, the state cannot do it?

 

[Global Havok]

So what you are saying is that if the Federal government says some thing is illegal for the state then, the state cannot do it?

Yes. In my ideal world, that is the exact opposite of how our government would work. But in the world we live in, that is exactly how our government works. The Federal Government has a habit of consolidating more and more power and then never giving it up. Apparently most Americans are okay with that.

 

[warrior-cat]

Yes. In my ideal world, that is the exact opposite of how our government would work. But in the world we live in, that is exactly how our government works. The Federal Government has a habit of consolidating more and more power and then never giving it up. Apparently most Americans are okay with that.

So legalized pot and sanctuary cites should not be allowed right? Among other things.

 

[Global Havok]

So legalized pot and sanctuary cites should not be allowed right? Among other things.

I think sanctuary cities should be allowed. Immigration isnt within local police departments jurisdiction and it should be up to them as to whether or not they assist the feds.

Legal marijuana could definitely be shut down by the feds if they chose. I would disagree with the choice but it would be legal, yes. Id even say it was the right legal choice.

I'm very states rights as long as the state is respecting civil rights. Thats just not how our government opperates though.

 

[JohnKBA]

So legalized pot and sanctuary cites should not be allowed right? Among other things.

They've got more important shit do worry about, but if they wanted to, the DEA could storm into Denver and start rounding people up tomorrow.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Finally a reasonable argument that I can somewhat relate to. Erosion of rights is definitely something to keep an eye on (and has happened at an alarming rate over the last 2 presidents, particularly Obama). But local governments deciding to remove their own statues is not an erosion of rights, its them exercising their own rights.

Yes theyre making the decision, but with a gun to their head. The mob wont stop there.

Aren't you' cute trying to argue semantics when you knew exactly what I meant. This wasn't a rally about Nazi's views on gas prices or global warming. They were marching and chanting blood and soil. Keep stretching.

I knew exactly what you meant, but it wasnt what you said.

I wouldve never said a word had you not been incresibly condescending and professed your intelligence shortly thereafter.

 

[Global Havok]

They've got more important shit do worry about, but if they wanted to, the DEA could storm into Denver and start rounding people up tomorrow.

Yep, this. "Legal weed" is already still federally illegal.

 

[Global Havok]

Yes theyre making the decision, but with a gun to their head. The mob wont stop there.



I knew exactly what you meant, but it wasnt what you said.

I wouldve never said a word had you not been incresibly condescending and professed your intelligence shortly thereafter.

I've never touted my own intelligence. I know way too many people smarter than me to do that. I just doubted the other guys intelligence.

 

[warrior-cat]

I think sanctuary cities should be allowed. Immigration isnt within local police departments jurisdiction and it should be up to them as to whether or not they assist the feds.

Legal marijuana could definitely be shut down by the feds if they chose. I would disagree with the choice but it would be legal, yes. Id even say it was the right legal choice.

If illegals are illegal how can they be allowed? If the feds say it is legal then they should (local law) enforce it by your own admission. If you can pick and choose what to enforce and not enforce, you can certainly succeed (which by the way is still not settled).

 

[Global Havok]

If illegals are illegal how can they be allowed? If the feds say it is legal then they should (local law) enforce it by your own admission. If you can pick and chose what to enforce and not enforce, you can certainly succeed (which by the way is still not settled).

I didn't say illegals should be allowed. I just said its not local polices job to round them up. I'm all for immigration control. Immigration is soley the federal government's responsibility. In general, if you break a federal crime it is the Fed's that investigate/arrest you. Not the local sheriff's office. I have no problem with ICE doing their jobs (which they are still free to do in sanctuary cities).

 

[90'scats]

My side won, you idiot. I'm a republican. I'm just an actual conservative, which Trump is NOT. He's a straight up populist.

What views does Trump hold that aren't conservative, versus views that John Kasich holds that are conservative?

 

[Global Havok]

What views does Trump hold that aren't conservative, versus views that John Kasich holds that are conservative?

Well the biggest difference is Kasich didn't campaign against free trade. He also didn't campaign on banning 24% of the worlds population based solely on their religion in a country that has built itself on the immigration of the best from around the world and freedom of religion.

 

[G-PIP]

The Confederates did not commit treason. They legally withdrew from the Union as the Constitution allowed. In fact , Virginia was one of the States that seceded because the Union was forming an Army to force the seceded states back in.

Now, as for your BS reason of treason as a way to remove confederate statues. When most of these monuments were erected there were hundreds of thousands of Union veterans still alive, they didn't seem to mind, so who are you to use that as an excuse?

You are wrong on your facts and understanding of the law. The Confederates absolutely did commit treason. The Constitution does not allow unilateral succession; and states do not, and have never had, a right to succeed from the Union. This is settled law (see the 1868 Supreme Court case of Texas v. White).

The Confederates were racist traitors fighting for a despicable and illicit cause. Any statute glorifying a Confederate is an affront to this Country and its true soldiers. It is an affront, not only because they were traitors to this Country, but also because their cause was abhorrent and contrary to what America purports to, and in fact does, stand for.

These Confederate statues were mostly erected in the 20th Century; and despite all the “preserving our culture” dog-whistle nonsense, the people in power erecting the statues largely did so for the purpose of sending a message to blacks that “we” (the white supremacists) are still here and in charge. But, whatever the professed reasons for these statues, it doesn’t matter. Statues paying homage to the Confederacy have no more reason to be part of a public display than a statue put up by a state or local government to celebrate Nazis who fought against this Country in WWII. The causes of both groups were despicable, and both were traitors.

 

[warrior-cat]

I didn't say illegals should be allowed. I just said its not local polices job to round them up. I'm all for immigration control. Immigration is soley the federal government's responsibility. In general, if you break a federal crime it is the Fed's that investigate/arrest you. Not the local sheriff's office. I have no problem with ICE doing their jobs (which they are still free to do in sanctuary cities).

It is their job to enforce all laws or none.

Putting a ban on people from countries without centralized governments capable of properly vetting them especially if they are hot beds for terrorism is not a bad thing. It is not a perma ban and these are proving to be more of a drain than a help to us. Common sense is needed when dealing with situations that can and probably will affect national security. A presidents first best concern should be to the safety and security of his people.

 

[JBHolmesfan]

My side won, you idiot. I'm a republican. I'm just an actual conservative, which Trump is NOT. He's a straight up populist.

I agree that Trump is not a conservative, which would mean your side lost unless party over conservatism is what you value.

 

[Global Havok]

It is their job to enforce all laws or none.

Putting a ban on people from countries without centralized governments capable of properly vetting them especially if they are hot beds for terrorism is not a bad thing. It is not a perma ban and these are proving to be more of a drain than a help to us. Common sense is needed when dealing with situations that can and probably will affect national security. A presidents first best concern should be to the safety and security of his people.

No, their job is NOT to enforce federal laws. That is why we have federal law enforcement.

 

[moe_schmoe]

It is their job to enforce all laws or none.

No one is asking the local police to "round them up", anyways. It's such a misinformed claim. What they're asking is simple. If you arrest an illegal and ICE issues a detainer for him/her or if a judge's removal order already exist, then honor the detainer/removal order and hold him/her for the 48 hour duration, so that ICE can come pick him/her up.

Instead, they're usurping a judge's order/federal law, refusing to honor the detainer/removal order, releasing wanted criminals, who are in the country illegally, back onto the streets, and, in some cases, have already been ordered removed by an immigration judge.

Some judges have even went out of their way, violating the law, aiding and abetting, helping wanted criminals escape ICE when ICE was at the courthouse to arrest them.

 

[warrior-cat]

No, their job is NOT to enforce federal laws. That is why we have federal law enforcement.

It is their job to comply therefore enforcement through compliance

 

[bkingUK]

I'm seriously considering going to Lexington in opposition of the redneck rampage if they show. Will wear all blue and follow their march with a "Redneck racists are not welcome in Kentucky sign."

Looking for better idea.

 

[Global Havok]

I agree that Trump is not a conservative, which would mean your side lost unless party over conservatism is what you value.

If that's actually what you meant, I apologize for the unwarranted hostility. And you are unfortunately correct. I don't think its a long term loss hopefully.

 

[warrior-cat]

You are wrong on your facts and understanding of the law. The Confederates absolutely did commit treason. The Constitution does not allow unilateral succession; and states do not, and have never had, a right to succeed from the Union. This is settled law (see the 1868 Supreme Court case of Texas v. White).

The Confederates were racist traitors fighting for a despicable and illicit cause. Any statute glorifying a Confederate is an affront to this Country and its true soldiers. It is an affront, not only because they were traitors to this Country, but also because their cause was abhorrent and contrary to what America purports to, and in fact does, stand for.

These Confederate statues were mostly erected in the 20th Century; and despite all the “preserving our culture” dog-whistle nonsense, the people in power erecting the statues largely did so for the purpose of sending a message to blacks that “we” (the white supremacists) are still here and in charge. But, whatever the professed reasons for these statues, it doesn’t matter. Statues paying homage to the Confederacy have no more reason to be part of a public display than a statue put up by a state or local government to celebrate Nazis who fought against this Country in WWII. The causes of both groups were despicable, and both were traitors.

It is not settled. Only from a position of ignorance would one say that. The law is vague and open to question and legal recourse.
Secession, as accomplished by the Southern states in 1860 and 1861 and as discussed by the North at the Hartford Convention in 1815, is an independent act by the people of the states, and accomplished in the same fashion as the several conventions that occurred throughout early American history. The United States would never be a party to a lawsuit on the issue because secession, both de facto and de jure, is an extra-legal act of self-determination, and once the States have seceded from the Union, the Constitution is no longer in force in regard to the seceded political body. This same rule applies to the Article I, Section 10 argument against secession. If the Constitution is no longer in force—the States have separated and resumed their independent status—then the Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction and therefore could not determine the “legality” of the move.

 

[WayneDougan]

Well the biggest difference is Kasich didn't campaign against free trade. He also didn't campaign on banning 24% of the worlds population based solely on their religion in a country that has built itself on the immigration of the best from around the world and freedom of religion.

I voted for Trump because I think Free Trade, the way it is currently implemented, is a trainwreck for Americans. I also don't think we should continue to increase immigration from most of the World. That's why I hate Kasich.

 

[Global Havok]

It is their job to comply therefore enforcement through compliance

You can keep saying how you feel it should be, but they are under absolutely no legal obligation to enforce any federal laws. Once again, that is what federal law enforcement is for. Local police departments are free to budget their resources however they like, as it should be.

 

[~Keyser Soze~]

Oh stfu. You trying to minimize it. You were on here for half a week spouting off how Hillary was going to wipe the floor. How we would all be in tears because she was going to win BIGLY. I guarantee you voted for her.

LOL, I guarantee you're a moron. If I did vote for her, I wouldn't be afraid to admit it to a group of goons I don't respect. I thought Kevin Knox was going to Duke and was vocal about it, does that mean I cheer for Duke? Only in your moronic world.

 

[Global Havok]

I voted for Trump because I think Free Trade, the way it is currently implemented, is a trainwreck for Americans. I also don't think we should continue to increase immigration from most of the World. That's why I hate Kasich.

Okay. I was asked why Trump is not a conservative and answered.

Also, I never said anything about increasing immigration. But completely closing immigration to 24% of the world's population is a good way to ensure that some of the smartest people in the world do not come to this country and make it better. Not every Muslim is a farmer living an uneducated life in rural Pakistan or something. This country was built on bringing the best and brightest to continue to innovate, stopping that is not making America "Great Again". I'm all for stopping illegal immigration, but legal immigration has been an absolute massive success for our country throughout history.