TRUMP DECLARES HIMSELF ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES

[RVonse]

I hope this means the 2nd Amendment is out now.

No, no. Remember, you only get rid of the parts you don’t like. The parts you do are obviously good.

A lot of people seem to be missing this point. Trump said that certain parts of the Constitution should be suspended, not the whole thing. As president, he should have the authority to decide which parts, not legislatures or the courts.

But to be perfectly fair, isn't that what all the politicians have been doing over many years? Killing US citizens without trial in the name of terrorism for example? Or in the name of federal income tax for (what was then only rich people) back during Woodrow Wilson days? If the excuse is valid enough, the Constitution has been shredded in the past many times. Even on the local level....men are locked out of their private property without due process if their girl friend claims they are an immediate danger. If the excuse justifies the means we shred the Constitution without any second thought without anyones head blowing up.....unless Trump talks about it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I hope this means the 2nd Amendment is out now.

No, no. Remember, you only get rid of the parts you don’t like. The parts you do are obviously good.

A lot of people seem to be missing this point. Trump said that certain parts of the Constitution should be suspended, not the whole thing. As president, he should have the authority to decide which parts, not legislatures or the courts.

But to be perfectly fair, isn't that what all the politicians have been doing over many years? Killing US citizens without trial in the name of terrorism for example? Or in the name of federal income tax for (what was then only rich people) back during Woodrow Wilson days? If the excuse is valid enough, the Constitution has been shredded in the past many times. Even on the local level....men are locked out of their private property without due process if their girl friend claims they are an immediate danger. If the excuse justifies the means we shred the Constitution without any second thought without anyones head blowing up.....unless Trump talks about it.

So we went from...

To hell with knowing what actually was said.

to

Who cares? They all do it.

...pretty quick there.

 

[RVonse]

I hope this means the 2nd Amendment is out now.

No, no. Remember, you only get rid of the parts you don’t like. The parts you do are obviously good.

A lot of people seem to be missing this point. Trump said that certain parts of the Constitution should be suspended, not the whole thing. As president, he should have the authority to decide which parts, not legislatures or the courts.

But to be perfectly fair, isn't that what all the politicians have been doing over many years? Killing US citizens without trial in the name of terrorism for example? Or in the name of federal income tax for (what was then only rich people) back during Woodrow Wilson days? If the excuse is valid enough, the Constitution has been shredded in the past many times. Even on the local level....men are locked out of their private property without due process if their girl friend claims they are an immediate danger. If the excuse justifies the means we shred the Constitution without any second thought without anyones head blowing up.....unless Trump talks about it.

So we went from...

To hell with knowing what actually was said.

to

Who cares? They all do it.

...pretty quick there.

A very good point. He only said it. He is a private citizen at this point with no power to do anything. Yes, he is still popular but it was just what he said. Your head should not be exploding.

 

[laughing dog]

I hope this means the 2nd Amendment is out now.

No, no. Remember, you only get rid of the parts you don’t like. The parts you do are obviously good.

A lot of people seem to be missing this point. Trump said that certain parts of the Constitution should be suspended, not the whole thing. As president, he should have the authority to decide which parts, not legislatures or the courts.

But to be perfectly fair, isn't that what all the politicians have been doing over many years? Killing US citizens without trial in the name of terrorism for example? Or in the name of federal income tax for (what was then only rich people) back during Woodrow Wilson days? If the excuse is valid enough, the Constitution has been shredded in the past many times. Even on the local level....men are locked out of their private property without due process if their girl friend claims they are an immediate danger. If the excuse justifies the means we shred the Constitution without any second thought without anyones head blowing up.....unless Trump talks about it.

So we went from...

To hell with knowing what actually was said.

to

Who cares? They all do it.

...pretty quick there.

Not only that, but "they all do it" is pretty much false since most of the examples are not direct and overt violations of the Constitution. There is a significant difference between disagreement over what is constitutional and knowingly violating it.

 

[RVonse]

I hope this means the 2nd Amendment is out now.

No, no. Remember, you only get rid of the parts you don’t like. The parts you do are obviously good.

A lot of people seem to be missing this point. Trump said that certain parts of the Constitution should be suspended, not the whole thing. As president, he should have the authority to decide which parts, not legislatures or the courts.

But to be perfectly fair, isn't that what all the politicians have been doing over many years? Killing US citizens without trial in the name of terrorism for example? Or in the name of federal income tax for (what was then only rich people) back during Woodrow Wilson days? If the excuse is valid enough, the Constitution has been shredded in the past many times. Even on the local level....men are locked out of their private property without due process if their girl friend claims they are an immediate danger. If the excuse justifies the means we shred the Constitution without any second thought without anyones head blowing up.....unless Trump talks about it.

So we went from...

To hell with knowing what actually was said.

to

Who cares? They all do it.

...pretty quick there.

Not only that, but "they all do it" is pretty much false since most of the examples are not direct and overt violations of the Constitution. There is a significant difference between disagreement over what is constitutional and knowingly violating it.

You can not violate the Constitution any worse than the taking of someones life without due process. Living or dying is about as important as it gets.

 

[laughing dog]

I hope this means the 2nd Amendment is out now.

No, no. Remember, you only get rid of the parts you don’t like. The parts you do are obviously good.

A lot of people seem to be missing this point. Trump said that certain parts of the Constitution should be suspended, not the whole thing. As president, he should have the authority to decide which parts, not legislatures or the courts.

But to be perfectly fair, isn't that what all the politicians have been doing over many years? Killing US citizens without trial in the name of terrorism for example? Or in the name of federal income tax for (what was then only rich people) back during Woodrow Wilson days? If the excuse is valid enough, the Constitution has been shredded in the past many times. Even on the local level....men are locked out of their private property without due process if their girl friend claims they are an immediate danger. If the excuse justifies the means we shred the Constitution without any second thought without anyones head blowing up.....unless Trump talks about it.

So we went from...

To hell with knowing what actually was said.

to

Who cares? They all do it.

...pretty quick there.

Not only that, but "they all do it" is pretty much false since most of the examples are not direct and overt violations of the Constitution. There is a significant difference between disagreement over what is constitutional and knowingly violating it.

You can not violate the Constitution any worse than the taking of someones life without due process. Living or dying is about as important as it gets.

I understand your point but you don't understand my point. Mr. Trump said, in essence, "Violate the Constitution". You are arguing that killing US citizens without a trial is an unequivocal and obvious violation of the Constitution, but there is legal disagreement over your position.

 

[RVonse]

I hope this means the 2nd Amendment is out now.

No, no. Remember, you only get rid of the parts you don’t like. The parts you do are obviously good.

A lot of people seem to be missing this point. Trump said that certain parts of the Constitution should be suspended, not the whole thing. As president, he should have the authority to decide which parts, not legislatures or the courts.

But to be perfectly fair, isn't that what all the politicians have been doing over many years? Killing US citizens without trial in the name of terrorism for example? Or in the name of federal income tax for (what was then only rich people) back during Woodrow Wilson days? If the excuse is valid enough, the Constitution has been shredded in the past many times. Even on the local level....men are locked out of their private property without due process if their girl friend claims they are an immediate danger. If the excuse justifies the means we shred the Constitution without any second thought without anyones head blowing up.....unless Trump talks about it.

So we went from...

To hell with knowing what actually was said.

to

Who cares? They all do it.

...pretty quick there.

Not only that, but "they all do it" is pretty much false since most of the examples are not direct and overt violations of the Constitution. There is a significant difference between disagreement over what is constitutional and knowingly violating it.

You can not violate the Constitution any worse than the taking of someones life without due process. Living or dying is about as important as it gets.

I understand your point but you don't understand my point. Mr. Trump said, in essence, "Violate the Constitution". You are arguing that killing US citizens without a trial is an unequivocal and obvious violation of the Constitution, but there is legal disagreement over your position.

So the lawyers get to tell us its ok because they said so? Sorry but I don't buy this because I know how to read. Obama (possibly Bush too) killed US citizens without trial. The lawyers can argue about what happened to make Obama feel easier, but in my mind the Constitution was violated no matter what legal arguments there are. The Constitution does matter to me too, because as a US citizen I know I don't like what Obama did because I know next time I could be next. Its a low probability but if it happened once they can do it again to someone else.

And when a guy gets thrown out of his own private property (house) without due process, that is also violating the Constitution in my reasonable mind no matter what the lawyers say about it. We can argue that the means justify the ends and that the girl deserves physical protection, but the Constitution clearly gets violated when this happens.

 

[laughing dog]

I hope this means the 2nd Amendment is out now.

No, no. Remember, you only get rid of the parts you don’t like. The parts you do are obviously good.

A lot of people seem to be missing this point. Trump said that certain parts of the Constitution should be suspended, not the whole thing. As president, he should have the authority to decide which parts, not legislatures or the courts.

But to be perfectly fair, isn't that what all the politicians have been doing over many years? Killing US citizens without trial in the name of terrorism for example? Or in the name of federal income tax for (what was then only rich people) back during Woodrow Wilson days? If the excuse is valid enough, the Constitution has been shredded in the past many times. Even on the local level....men are locked out of their private property without due process if their girl friend claims they are an immediate danger. If the excuse justifies the means we shred the Constitution without any second thought without anyones head blowing up.....unless Trump talks about it.

So we went from...

To hell with knowing what actually was said.

to

Who cares? They all do it.

...pretty quick there.

Not only that, but "they all do it" is pretty much false since most of the examples are not direct and overt violations of the Constitution. There is a significant difference between disagreement over what is constitutional and knowingly violating it.

You can not violate the Constitution any worse than the taking of someones life without due process. Living or dying is about as important as it gets.

I understand your point but you don't understand my point. Mr. Trump said, in essence, "Violate the Constitution". You are arguing that killing US citizens without a trial is an unequivocal and obvious violation of the Constitution, but there is legal disagreement over your position.

So the lawyers get to tell us its ok because they said so? Sorry but I don't buy this because I know how to read. Obama (possibly Bush too) killed US citizens without trial. The lawyers can argue about what happened to make Obama feel easier, but in my mind the Constitution was violated no matter what legal arguments there are. The Constitution does matter to me too, because as a US citizen I know I don't like what Obama did because I know next time I could be next. Its a low probability but if it happened once they can do it again to someone else.

And when a guy gets thrown out of his own private property (house) without due process, that is also violating the Constitution in my reasonable mind no matter what the lawyers say about it. We can argue that the means justify the ends and that the girl deserves physical protection, but the Constitution clearly gets violated when this happens.

You are shifting the goalposts. Disagreement of the constitutionality of an act is not the same as knowingly and willingly advocating violating the Constitution.

Mr. Trump's call to violate the US constitution should disturb anyone who claims to care about the US constitution. The fact that it does not seem to disturb many so-called "patriots" is truly worrisome for the future of this country. Mr. Trump has led an insurrection against the government. He thinks the Constitution should be suspended so that he can become POTUS. What does he have to do in order to get people who feel like you to stop supporting him and actively rebuke him?

 

[Elixir]

He is a private citizen at this point with no power to do anything...

... except to incite another violent attempt to overthrow the government of the United States of America.
I see you've been perusing the right wing cesspools for that piece of shit comment, which is their running narrative. Ignore the fact that he's talking about doing what he tried to do on 1/6/20.

It's like a known serial bank robber out on bail, walking into another bank, brandishing a weapon and declaring that he should be given all the money. Sure - he didn't rob any banks today, he's innocent until proven guilty, he didn't actually demand the money, just said he should have it, and blah blah blah.
Your buddies are real fucking geniuses, just like you RV.

The traitor should be locked up. Period.

What does he have to do in order to get people who feel like you to stop supporting him and actively rebuke him?

Maybe they'd come to their senses if we just let them burn Hunter Biden at the stake or something...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the lawyers get to tell us its ok because they said so? Sorry but I don't buy this because I know how to read. Obama (possibly Bush too) killed US citizens without trial. The lawyers can argue about what happened to make Obama feel easier, but in my mind the Constitution was violated no matter what legal arguments there are. The Constitution does matter to me too, because as a US citizen I know I don't like what Obama did because I know next time I could be next. Its a low probability but if it happened once they can do it again to someone else.

Yes, if you take up arms against the US and join a terror cell, you could be next. Otherwise, you are taking two unbelievably dissimilar situations are trying to juxtaposition them together. The Obama case is complicated and yes, there are concerns. The entire drone program is problematic! But Obama made decisions based on balancing risks to American assets and Constitutional protections. Obama didn't say "Fuck the Constitution, I won the election!" Obama would likely talk circles around you if you had a discussion about that situation, leaving you dizzy.

And when a guy gets thrown out of his own private property (house) without due process...

Weren't you just advocating for that?

...that is also violating the Constitution in my reasonable mind no matter what the lawyers say about it.

There is due process, there must be compensation. The Government can't just take the land. But they can take the land.

We can argue that the means justify the ends and that the girl deserves physical protection, but the Constitution clearly gets violated when this happens.

What the fuck does this have to do with Trump's call of:
"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution."

He was crying on about "the steal" at the voting polls and boxes of votes, etc... and he is down the election was stolen because of Twitter moderation policy... burn it down to the floor?! And you are defending this monster. He is Emperor Palpetine'ing it here (well technically he was provided that power) and Trump is demanding being reinstated as the leader of this country your response is, "But... *obfuscation*".

 

[laughing dog]

He is a private citizen at this point with no power to do anything...

... except to incite another violent attempt to overthrow the government of the United States of America.
I see you've been perusing the right wing cesspools for that piece of shit comment, which is their running narrative. Ignore the fact that he's talking about doing what he tried to do on 1/6/20.

It's like a known serial bank robber out on bail, walking into another bank, brandishing a weapon and declaring that he should be given all the money. Sure - he didn't rob any banks today, he's innocent until proven guilty, he didn't actually demand the money, just said he should have it, and blah blah blah.
Your buddies are real fucking geniuses, just like you RV.

The traitor should be locked up. Period.

What does he have to do in order to get people who feel like you to stop supporting him and actively rebuke him?

Maybe they'd come to their senses if we just let them burn Hunter Biden at the stake or something...

I doubt it. At a minimum, I think you'd have to throw Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence into that bonfire as well.

 

[RVonse]

What does he have to do in order to get people who feel like you to stop supporting him and actively rebuke him?

I did not want him to run again anymore than you did. He is far too old, has too many serious charactor flaws, and is far too devisive to accomplish anything useful at this point.

That being said, our government does need fixed badly and it can't ever happen in the existing power structure in place at this point. Not without some kind of political revolution.....not without another Trump or another person willing to take on an entrenched state with corporate backed interests, etc. What would have been really nice is for another Trump like revoltionary figure who was black and female so those distractions could have been taken completely off the table. Kenya West seemed pretty crazy even by Alex Jones standards, but I can actually kind of see where he is going....

 

[Gospel]

What does he have to do in order to get people who feel like you to stop supporting him and actively rebuke him?

I did not want him to run again anymore than you did. He is far too old, has too many serious charactor flaws, and is far too devisive to accomplish anything useful at this point.

That being said, our government does need fixed badly and it can't ever happen in the existing power structure in place at this point. Not without some kind of political revolution.....not without another Trump or another person willing to take on an entrenched state with corporate backed interests, etc. What would have been really nice is for another Trump like revoltionary figure who was black and female so those distractions could have been taken completely off the table. Kenya West seemed pretty crazy even by Alex Jones standards, but I can actually kind of see where he is going....

And that right there is the problem; choice of leadership.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I did not want him to run again anymore than you did. He is far too old, has too many serious charactor flaws, and is far too devisive to accomplish anything useful at this point.

Waits for it...

That being said...,

Ah yes. I completely agree with you, the guy is dangerous and menace and I never want to see him again... but...

our government does need fixed badly and it can't ever happen in the existing power structure in place at this point. Not without some kind of political revolution.....not without another Trump or another person willing to take on an entrenched state with corporate backed interests, etc. What would have been really nice is for another Trump like revoltionary figure who was black and female so those distractions could have been taken completely off the table. Kenya West seemed pretty crazy even by Alex Jones standards, but I can actually kind of see where he is going....

IE, we need a bloody revolution!

Another Trump?! When in the heck are you going to get that Trump was never the person you thought he was. He wasn't a revolutionary. The guy padded his own pockets via his properties during his entire presidency... and used his hotel in DC to get foreign dignitaries to fill in spots and provide him more revenue. He illegally tried to use his status as President to trick the Ukrainian President into faking an announcement about a Biden investigation, in order to get the Congressionally passed military funding support.... all for Trump's personal gain and ambition. And when Trump lost the 2020 election, he conspired to overthrow the result with an insurrection. Presidentially, Trump didn't aim to fix anything. He didn't even pretend to. He had his bromance with Kim Jong Un after threatening nuclear war earlier because Kim Jong Un sent him a nice letter. Anyone remember him declaring the nuclear issue on the peninsula was over... and signed a document North Korea prepared, not understanding the nuance of what was written because he is a fucking idiot?

Trump was one of the most corrupt, lazy, and unaccomplished Presidents ever! And you still think he was fighting for you?!

 

[Elixir]

And wtf is “a massive fraud of this type”?
Does ANY imaginary fraud meet the definition, or only figments of Cheato’s imagination? Do REAL frauds qualify?
For instance -
Does the fraud perpetrated by Trump’s “Stop the Steal” scam qualify? Are we therefore “allowed” to suspend his Constitutional protections and say, burn him at the stake?
Pretty Please?

 

[RVonse]

The guy padded his own pockets via his properties during his entire presidency... and used his hotel in DC to get foreign dignitaries to fill in spots and provide him more revenue.

Trump was one of the most corrupt, lazy, and unaccomplished Presidents ever! And you still think he was fighting for you?!

You are talking about corruption versus the entrenched political establishment which are 2 completely different things (although the political establishment is also corrupt). Yes Trump was corrupt and immoral and all that other stuff which everyone knows is bad......but (and this is important), he did not give one shit about what the entrenched state thought about him or wanted of him. It would have been much better if Trump had been the white knight in shining armor against the bad and evil entrenched state but we voted for what we could get. And who else, other than Trump or another billionaire could or possibly be able to withstand being attacked by the entrenched state? Just that alone wittles the candidates down to a whole lot less....

Kanye West is a also multi millionaire letting us wonder out loud if he could resist the entrenched state. And he is also pretty black which means the left wont be able make anti-black stick either. But Kanye may have gone a little too far and fast with his anti Jewish elite stance on Alex Jones....that could prevent him from moving any further forward.

 

[Elixir]

who else, other than Trump or another billionaire could or possibly be able to withstand being attacked by the entrenched state?

Certainly not Hillary in 2016.
But Sleepy Joe Biden withstood everything the Qball party could throw at him, and there’s still zero evidence of his bad intent.
Stark contrast to the ever-lying self dealing malevolence of Trump and his criminal cohorts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The guy padded his own pockets via his properties during his entire presidency... and used his hotel in DC to get foreign dignitaries to fill in spots and provide him more revenue.

Trump was one of the most corrupt, lazy, and unaccomplished Presidents ever! And you still think he was fighting for you?!

You are talking about corruption versus the entrenched political establishment which are 2 completely different things (although the political establishment is also corrupt). Yes Trump was corrupt and immoral and all that other stuff which everyone knows is bad...

Wait... not even a paragraph return for the "but"?

...but (and this is important), he did not give one shit about what the entrenched state thought about him or wanted of him.

That's nice. He stole US tax dollars and shoved them into his pockets through his properties. And you want to give him important props because he didn't care about the entrenched state?

It would have been much better if Trump had been the white knight in shining armor against the bad and evil entrenched state but we voted for what we could get.

A con-artist. You voted for a con-artist... and you are saying "Well, he was the best we could do." No... Trump was not the best option available. By a long shot.

And who else, other than Trump or another billionaire could or possibly be able to withstand being attacked by the entrenched state?

By hiding at golf courses? Pal'ing around with dictators, when not shoving other state leaders aside to boast of his plummage?

Just that alone wittles the candidates down to a whole lot less....

Kanye West is a also multi millionaire letting us wonder out loud if he could resist the entrenched state. And he is also pretty black which means the left wont be able make anti-black stick either. But Kanye may have gone a little too far and fast with his anti Jewish elite stance on Alex Jones....that could prevent him from moving any further forward.

Too far and fast?

WTF dude?! Kayne West is clearly suffering from a mental breakdown and you apparently think he is competent enough for politics... forget would actually be good at it?

 

[laughing dog]

The guy padded his own pockets via his properties during his entire presidency... and used his hotel in DC to get foreign dignitaries to fill in spots and provide him more revenue.

Trump was one of the most corrupt, lazy, and unaccomplished Presidents ever! And you still think he was fighting for you?!

You are talking about corruption versus the entrenched political establishment which are 2 completely different things (although the political establishment is also corrupt). Yes Trump was corrupt and immoral and all that other stuff which everyone knows is bad......but (and this is important), he did not give one shit about what the entrenched state thought about him or wanted of him. It would have been much better if Trump had been the white knight in shining armor against the bad and evil entrenched state but we voted for what we could get. And who else, other than Trump or another billionaire could or possibly be able to withstand being attacked by the entrenched state? Just that alone wittles the candidates down to a whole lot less....

Let me get this straight - you prefer a corrupt, immoral, POS as a candidate as long as they don't care about the views of the "entrenched state"?

Then you really don't want an election but a revolution. And then you'd have to hope you'd like the new "entrenched state", because there is always an "entrenched state".

Kanye West is a also multi millionaire letting us wonder out loud if he could resist the entrenched state. And he is also pretty black which means the left wont be able make anti-black stick either. But Kanye may have gone a little too far and fast with his anti Jewish elite stance on Alex Jones....that could prevent him from moving any further forward.

Mr. West had already gone too far before he went on Alex Jones. His appearance on Alex Jones was just more evidence of his delusional or sick view of the world.

 

[RVonse]

And you want to give him important props because he didn't care about the entrenched state?

At this point that and that alone is so so much more important than just being corrupt. Changing back to a government that represents the people again is first priority over everthing else. And right now about half the population gets this and the other half does not.