FBI raid on Trump's home

[Shaps]

I'm pretty curious why the label used to describe the structure of our democracy is such an important hill to die on for you? Whether we're a Constitutional Federal Republic as your link from the Argentinian embassy states, or a Constitutional Representative Democracy, what impact does it have on our laws or the owners manual of the Constitution itself? We have a Republic, every two or six years, we elect members of Congress, our representatives in democratic elections and every four years elect a term limited President? All of this is prescribed by the Constitution and yet you're quibbling over what "some people" say versus what "other people" call our government. Neither changes what it is.

Because words and definitions matter. That's why.

For some reason, people think they don't.

I'm not dying on any hill... I'm posting clarifications and facts when people misrepresent fundamental concepts. Others are trying to change what a word means, which in and of itself, is an attempt to change what it is.

What I think you and T4F don't get... is I want the same thing for you all, as I do for myself. A majority of those concepts are enshrined in the Constitution. A majority of those concepts are to limit government involvement in our day to day lives. A majority of those concepts are to treat all people equally. A majority of those concepts are to allow all of us to have freedom of expression without persecution.

I just can't for the life of me understand how over all these years, you and others like you, think that is a bad thing - and think, even when presented with factual information, disregard it.

I don't care if a politician is right, left, middle, whatever... so long as they adhere to certain core principles, that should be applied evenly - not based upon ones political bent. Government should manage the "borders" of a society... not overtly interfere in the freedoms of all peoples within that "border".

As it stands currently... those in opposition to those principles are the "far left" and communication companies (ie. Twitter)... in the 80s it was the church folks "bible belt"... in the 40s it was the Communists... in the 10s and 20s it was the manufacturing oligarchs...

I can dislike different concepts that rears it's head during certain eras - without being beholden to a political party.

Socially - I'm as liberal as it gets. Do drugs, drink, have sex and marry who you want, transition/don't transition, do whatever - I don't care one way or the other. My only caveat is 1. Don't push your personal ideals in an attempt to get me to do it (ie. "c'mon smoke some this weed or you're evil" type stuff) and 2. Don't harm others. Otherwise - government should stay out of the way and let us ALL live.

Fiscally - I'm pretty conservative. I dislike the Government taking money that people earn to an exorbitant extent and acting maliciously towards those that may disagree with them. I simply think their main responsibility is to guard the land upon which we live, and ensure that laws - when enacted - are applied equally to all.

Does that sound extreme to you? I don't think so personally. /shrug

[Shaps]

Actually the point I made was about people who make the decision to drop the word democracy in favor of republic. It's actually something we've been seeing happen a lot in hard right circles, and it corresponds with their embrace of people like Orban and dictator-loving Trump. I don't understand why you felt the need to distort my point? Or did you just genuinely not catch that part? (Which is fine- it happens when we're multitasking)

And if we want to talk about denialism, I could bring up the fact that even after finally reading a nonpartisan article about what happened (which is great- I don't want to discourage that) and after me a few others pointing this out repeatedly, you were maintaining that we didn't have any proof that Trump wash holding on to material that represents a grave danger our national security. But they literally found TS and TS/SCI marked documents- which are exactly that, by definition.

If we want to talk about ignoring things that are inconsistent with our previously held beliefs, I could also mention that you cited the fact that NARA and the DoJ had come to Mar-a-Lago as evidence that Trump wasn't holding on to anything he wasn't supposed to (or maybe that they were giving him their blessing?). But you completely left out the part where it took 7 months and finally a threat from NARA before Trump allowed them to collect records. And you 100% left out the fact that DoJ only had to come again *because* Trump was still holding on to things he wasn't supposed to (including classified information) And that they came with a court subpoena- which aren't requested unless someone is refusing to hand something over.

And that's just a small piece of the cognitive dissonance you've been building.

I'll also point out that you've still avoided simply telling us what the DoJ should have done instead or backed up that you're okay with what Trump did by giving us one other example of a private citizen doing exactly what Trump did and you also being okay with it. And at that point you really have to start asking yourself some big questions. Why can't you come up with any answers?

Maybe it's because your brain is refusing to let go of its own bias and doesn't want to engage in a thought process of self-reflection.

No.. I just haven't claimed to know something that hasn't been verified. There is a distinction.

1. Stating the US is a "republic" is not wrong. So, using that term is not some dog whistle that you think it is.

2. From that article.. I pointed out what was fact, and what has only been "reported" or where they used "probable, possible, potential"... those are not facts... those are conjectures.

3. I don't know what was going on between Trump and NARA over that time period. That's why I checked the archives to see their posted correspondence. Again, I'm going off what is currently, factually, available... not "reports" or conjecture.

4. I'm not saying the DOJ should have done one thing or the other... I'm stating the way in which they did it, is not consistent with the guidelines established in their SOPs or historical precedent... that's why I linked their regulations.

You keep projecting. When something factually is verified - I adjust my perspective on the situation. I do not, as you seem to like to do, project the medias conjectures and suppositions onto the situation.

[~Rocktar~]

Haha, yet you're ripping on someone else whose liberal who also watches Fox News. Fuckin hypocrite.

Really? How, in your little fevered brain do you get that? You watch and post more Fox that I do since I don't watch anything more than a few clips here and there among other things. Stop being retarded. I am ripping on her because she is an arrogant, condescending cunt who supports criminals, slavery and communism, much like you.

[Neveragain]

Maybe it's because your brain is refusing to let go.

Classic Time4malebreastfeeding gaslighting.

You use it in nearly all your posts. I'll bet you're a whole bag of fruit loops to deal with in a personal relationship.

[Parkbandit]

You read the headlines and the articles (which are generally better than their headlines) and then compare to major non-partisan outlets

What major non-partisan outlets would that be, exactly?

[Methais]

Do you really exist in a mindspace where you believe people are only allowed to watch or read information from media outlets that match their political ideology perfectly? In a less partisan world, the idea of listening to multiple points of view prior to forming an opinion would be considered helpful.

It’s because you cry nonstop about people “staying glued to Fox News” while you’re the only one here who watches it.

We’ve been over this several times. Are you so dumb and self unaware that you still haven’t realized any of this?

Retard.

[Seran]

Because words and definitions matter. That's why.

For some reason, people think they don't.

I'm not dying on any hill... I'm posting clarifications and facts when people misrepresent fundamental concepts. Others are trying to change what a word means, which in and of itself, is an attempt to change what it is.

What I think you and T4F don't get... is I want the same thing for you all, as I do for myself. A majority of those concepts are enshrined in the Constitution. A majority of those concepts are to limit government involvement in our day to day lives. A majority of those concepts are to treat all people equally. A majority of those concepts are to allow all of us to have freedom of expression without persecution.

I just can't for the life of me understand how over all these years, you and others like you, think that is a bad thing - and think, even when presented with factual information, disregard it.

I don't care if a politician is right, left, middle, whatever... so long as they adhere to certain core principles, that should be applied evenly - not based upon ones political bent. Government should manage the "borders" of a society... not overtly interfere in the freedoms of all peoples within that "border".

As it stands currently... those in opposition to those principles are the "far left" and communication companies (ie. Twitter)... in the 80s it was the church folks "bible belt"... in the 40s it was the Communists... in the 10s and 20s it was the manufacturing oligarchs...

I can dislike different concepts that rears it's head during certain eras - without being beholden to a political party.

Socially - I'm as liberal as it gets. Do drugs, drink, have sex and marry who you want, transition/don't transition, do whatever - I don't care one way or the other. My only caveat is 1. Don't push your personal ideals in an attempt to get me to do it (ie. "c'mon smoke some this weed or you're evil" type stuff) and 2. Don't harm others. Otherwise - government should stay out of the way and let us ALL live.

Fiscally - I'm pretty conservative. I dislike the Government taking money that people earn to an exorbitant extent and acting maliciously towards those that may disagree with them. I simply think their main responsibility is to guard the land upon which we live, and ensure that laws - when enacted - are applied equally to all.

Does that sound extreme to you? I don't think so personally. /shrug

It's not extreme in the sense that no one wants to be 'maliciously' prosecuted, but it is extreme for the far Right to label a violent insurrection, an attempt to overturn an election by a coordinated elector scheme, and mow top secret and confidential information misappropriation as 'malicious' when all of those acts are codified as illegal. Merrick Garland said it perfectly, no one is above the law, an illegal act will be investigated and potential prosecuted no matter your position, social status or background. What better way to explain a fair system of justice than by equality?

[Methais]

I also watch Fox on occasion, and I check foxnews.com almost every day.

It's important.

But it's also depressing. You read the headlines and the articles (which are generally better than their headlines) and then compare to major non-partisan outlets and begin to understand that people embedded in conservative news really are living in an alternate world.

What are these non-partisan outlets you speak of? Be specific.

[Methais]

A good sign that you have become radicalized is waking up and realizing that everything that isn't your own extreme point of view feels extreme and political.

I promise you that the problem here isn't the 80% of news outlets that aren't extreme right.

Holy projection.

Your arrogance and lack of self awareness never ceases to amaze.

[Seran]

Really? How, in your little fevered brain do you get that? You watch and post more Fox that I do since I don't watch anything more than a few clips here and there among other things. Stop being retarded. I am ripping on her because she is an arrogant, condescending cunt who supports criminals, slavery and communism, much like you.

If not Faux, just where in the world are you getting your far right zealotry from? You post shit that no joke, appears to be from 4chan conspiracy theories that only get repeated by people like Tucker Carlson and websites with Herald, Beacon, Freedom or Examiner in their name. You've never bothered to reflect on, support or examine your own premise and logically that can only be construed to mean logic doesn't factor into your thinking.