Are You Listening DOJ? The Number Of Americans Who Want Trump Criminally Charged Grows To 58% (Page 6): OK well, I didn't know your were just making up new definitions for the word...

straightUp Loc: California

RandyBrian wrote:

You are not quite as sharp as you would like to believe, it appears. You missed the point. You are correct about how and why new laws are created. What I call f*****m is the attitude that it should be made retroactive to punish a supposed criminal who did nothing illegal.

OK well, I didn't know your were just making up new definitions for the word f*****m. In any case, our legal system doesn't give you a "get out of jail for free" card for committing an original crime.

You seem to be confusing this situation with schedule-type laws where you wouldn't convict gramps for having used cocaine back when it was legal. This isn't the same thing. First of all, this is about the presidency at which elevation the laws bend. Presidents have a certain immunity to the law that normal citizens do not have. And we have some idea how far that can be taken because Trump has already pushed the envelope. All those lawsuits against him were put on hold while he held office because of his immunity and since then he has been extended immunity in numerous situations and he is STILL trying to invoke that privilege as a former-president.

But there is a flip-side to that. The Constitution makes a reference to High Crimes and Misdemeanors. It's a vague reference to a blank space in our legal system. The reason why it's blank is that there hasn't been much call for detail. Most presidents, by far, have the good sense and moral conviction to stay true to the Constitution... not just the label either but what the Founders called the "Spirit of the Letter".

But that doesn't mean a president won't come along some day and do something that people KNOW is morally wrong AND threatens the integrity of the republic and that's what that blank page is for.

RandyBrian wrote:

You even suggest h*****g him. Isn't that one of the offenses from J6.....suggesting that Pence be hung?

I'm not physically smashing Trumps windows in with a mob of people beating up security and d**gging in a gallows.

Context makes a difference. ;)

The point I was making there is that the highest office in the land should always be an example. A president's integrity deserves utmost respect and a president's t***sgressions deserve the severest punishment.

RandyBrian wrote:

Retroactive laws are one of the hallmarks of tyrants.

Yes, many tyrants have met their fate in retroactive laws. LOL
I think you're in "throw anything at him" mode.

RandyBrian wrote:

As for the liberals calling conservatives f*****t, it means nothing because there is no t***h in it. N**ism, f*****m, c*******m, dictatorships, all of these are power based authoritarian systems. There are differences, yes, but they all have a man or group dictating the laws as they choose.

You're describing authoritarianism really well but that isn't what f*****m is. You can say f*****m is a type of authoritarianism but they are not synonymous. It's a somewhat ambiguous word but it's generally a reference to methodology. The model for this methodology is of course the Italian F*****t Party during it's ascension to power. They weren't in power for long so it's hard to tell if the party would have eventually matured into a more stable system but as it turns out, the only things we can really learn from the original F*****ts is how to use populism, patriotism and intimidation to t***sition a democracy into a tyranny. The N**is were of course using the same techniques.

So, there IS *some* t***h to calling *some* conservatives f*****ts. The appeal to patriotism, check - white nationalism, check - populism, check - hyped up rallies, check - m*****a, check, r****m - check.

To be clear, I don't think ALL conservatives are f*****ts... But some of them do check off a lot of boxes and Trump just resonates with it.

RandyBrian wrote:

That is what the Democrats and the left are reaching for, and to that degree, the name fits.

No, that's not what the Democrats are reaching for. Democrats are no different than conservatives when it comes to generalizations about authoritarianism and freedom. Which is why people on both sides know that accusing the other side of authoritarianism will be insulting.

RandyBrian wrote:

Conservatives stand for individual freedom.

Well, that's the idea anyway, but good luck trying to convince a gay couple who are not allowed to get married because conservatives have some weird hang up about what other people are allowed to do.

Big Bass

Bad Bob wrote:

https://www.politicususa.com/2022/06/19/doj-trump-poll-crime.html

Politicus shouldn’t even be used for bumwad.

straightUp Loc: California

RandyBrian wrote:

Conservatives stand for individual freedom.

I'm expanding on this because I want to explain something that I don't think many conservatives understand.

First of all, the phrase you used is a concatenation of two different things that together doesn't really equate to anything we see in America. Since we are supposed to be a nation of laws it follows that if one individual has freedom it's because all the other individuals do too, so what's the point of calling it individual? The answer is in less than honest rhetoric... I'll explain.

Individualism has but one antonym... collectivism. As social animals, humans have a tremendous ability to achieve things collectively. But authorities often have a problem with that because collectives can wield a lot of power, so naturally these authorities pursue the theory of "conquest through division."

I think the most relevant example in America are labor rights. Until 1935 American workers were essentially s***es. The companies they worked for made up all the rules and workers had no choice but to follow them. I mean, what's a worker going to do? Stand up the the boss who has ALL the marbles? That boss is going to laugh because the worker is disposable, he can be replaced. But what if ALL the workers stood up the the boss? Now we have a different story. If ALL the workers walk off, production stops and all of a sudden the boss has problems.

This is called collective bargaining. It's one of the advantages of collectivism and it's the basis of the labor union. In 1935 Congress passed a new law that gives individuals the freedom to join collectives like labor unions to achieve what couldn't be done as individuals.

Over the years, Republican interests increasingly took the side of the boss in this picture "The Party of Business" and conservative rhetoric went to work fallaciously equating collectivism to authoritarianism and individualism to freedom.

One of the Republican champions and a h**er of collective bargaining was Ronald Reagan. Always the romantic he would talk about "rugged individualism" a phrase that invokes images of pioneers on homesteads with the freedom to do what they want to do and how they want to do it.

By the time Trump came along it was common for companies in the private sector to force new hires to sign arbitration agreements, which basically cuts them off from collective bargaining AND labor laws that protect them. The arbitration agreement says that if there is any dispute between you and the company, it will be handled privately AND individually through arbitration, instead of the public court system, without the help of collective bargaining.

Trump himself is a huge proponent of arbitration and all his employees were forced to sign such agreements and he was very pleased when his first installation in the Supreme Court, Gorsuch was the decider in the case of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis 2018: where the Supreme Court decided a company has a right to force it's hires to sign arbitration agreements and now almost every company is doing this, which effectively disables the 1935 law.

Some will say that labor unions went too far, became corrupt, outlived their purpose and this may all be true to some extent but it would be better if people understood the conflict enough to balance the pros and cons instead of allowing themselves to be brain-washed into thinking ALL collectivism is bad.

Indeed, when you say "conservatives are for individual freedom", what I hear is "conservatives are being fooled onto giving up their collective power."

1ProudAmerican

We must first remember that all of this gobbledygook posted by the insane left here on OPP, is also the party that believes men can be women and women can be men and both can breast feed if they want to.

They are also the party that believes it is just GREAT to be able to k**l a human being up to the point it is expelled from a woMEN's body, and shortly there after. If you want to k**l someone after that, you must be a democRAT and connect it to a "mostly peaceful protest" burning buildings and l**ting and it will be okay. If a republ-I-CAN even looks cross-eyed at a democRAT at a neighborhood barbeque and said democRAT later dies of a heart attack, that republ-I-CAN WILL be charged with murder.

Enough said....

1ProudAmerican

straightUp wrote:

I'm expanding on this because I want to explain something that I don't think many conservatives understand.

First of all, the phrase you used is a concatenation of two different things that together doesn't really equate to anything we see in America. Since we are supposed to be a nation of laws it follows that if one individual has freedom it's because all the other individuals do too, so what's the point of calling it individual? The answer is in less than honest rhetoric... I'll explain.

Individualism has but one antonym... collectivism. As social animals, humans have a tremendous ability to achieve things collectively. But authorities often have a problem with that because collectives can wield a lot of power, so naturally these authorities pursue the theory of "conquest through division."

I think the most relevant example in America are labor rights. Until 1935 American workers were essentially s***es. The companies they worked for made up all the rules and workers had no choice but to follow them. I mean, what's a worker going to do? Stand up the the boss who has ALL the marbles? That boss is going to laugh because the worker is disposable, he can be replaced. But what if ALL the workers stood up the the boss? Now we have a different story. If ALL the workers walk off, production stops and all of a sudden the boss has problems.

This is called collective bargaining. It's one of the advantages of collectivism and it's the basis of the labor union. In 1935 Congress passed a new law that gives individuals the freedom to join collectives like labor unions to achieve what couldn't be done as individuals.

Over the years, Republican interests increasingly took the side of the boss in this picture "The Party of Business" and conservative rhetoric went to work fallaciously equating collectivism to authoritarianism and individualism to freedom.

One of the Republican champions and a h**er of collective bargaining was Ronald Reagan. Always the romantic he would talk about "rugged individualism" a phrase that invokes images of pioneers on homesteads with the freedom to do what they want to do and how they want to do it.

By the time Trump came along it was common for companies in the private sector to force new hires to sign arbitration agreements, which basically cuts them off from collective bargaining AND labor laws that protect them. The arbitration agreement says that if there is any dispute between you and the company, it will be handled privately AND individually through arbitration, instead of the public court system, without the help of collective bargaining.

Trump himself is a huge proponent of arbitration and all his employees were forced to sign such agreements and he was very pleased when his first installation in the Supreme Court, Gorsuch was the decider in the case of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis 2018: where the Supreme Court decided a company has a right to force it's hires to sign arbitration agreements and now almost every company is doing this, which effectively disables the 1935 law.

Some will say that labor unions went too far, became corrupt, outlived their purpose and this may all be true to some extent but it would be better if people understood the conflict enough to balance the pros and cons instead of allowing themselves to be brain-washed into thinking ALL collectivism is bad.

Indeed, when you say "conservatives are for individual freedom", what I hear is "conservatives are being fooled onto giving up their collective power."

I'm expanding on this because I want to explain so... (show quote)

Z-Z-Z-Z-z-z-z-z. Did you have to take down the interior walls of your house so your "full of yourself head" could enter????

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

1ProudAmerican wrote:

We must first remember that all of this gobbledygo... (show quote)