Trump indicted... But, we've seen this movie before. Will he finally be held to account?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Check Out This Thread

@jack
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/8790/will-trump-die-in-prison/p2

John_C_87

@jack

No jack Executive officer Trump will never be a President the people who vote for others to have those powers do not understand the power of President / Presadera. And the so many people held as political figure means Trump is not the only political figure to be entangled in their own creation, as creator of vast fortune and misfortune to be won and lost. This event hosting former Executive Officer Trump is by chance one of the many to be prosecuted for a crime and not the first or only crime to ever be tested by trial or court, Is the convicted ever the last conviction? The last person to face punishment on criminal allegations? Please keep in mind that the political agenda has been made and discrimination had been set way before Trump had taken office, it was the “quicksand” he openly ran into as part of what history had called the best connection to be made on, with, fact known as established justice by the very people who now face the risk of cost with him.

As said before many times. It is All Americans who are republican it is one of the many American Untied States of Constitutional right a President / Presadera must hold. In a race of endurance that bears the names such as Presidential / Presaderial the point of honor set by conditions beyond individual controls are to simply crossing the line drawn by the people. When opportunity allows us, to pass the many obstacles placed before the man or women who is to be created equal by creator in respect to all other men or women, they may have been born by law of nature equal too in the first place.

Bogan

If the USA is not to become a One Party State with the corrupt Democrats in alliance with the corrupt and powerful professional administration class, then Trump must be re elected.     I think that Governor de Santis would make a fine President.   So too, Nicky Haley is extremely impressive.     But in this election, Trump has to win so that the Republicans can clean out the corrupt Justice and law enforcement officials who have become the Biden families protection racket.     I would love to see that Adam Schiff in jail where he belongs, as well as FBI director Christopher Wray who has violated his oath of office to become the protector of the corrupt instead of the enemy of the corrupt.     So too, Attorney General Merrick Garland should be end up in the clink just like Nixon's corrupt Attorney General John Mitchell.    It is incredible that the USA's most senior law officer has allowed himself to become so politically partisan that he will stop at nothing to destroy Donald Trump.

You would have to have the IQ of a flea is you can not recognize that corruption, the weaponization of the powerful instruments of state, and election interference is turning the USA into the very sort of country it once claimed that it was the enemy of.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Moving Forward

@Bogan

I disagree with the statement that Trump must be re-elected to prevent the USA from becoming a one-party state. The USA is a democracy, and the people have the right to choose their leaders. If the people choose to elect a Democrat, then that is their right. The idea that the Democrats are corrupt is a dangerous and unfounded generalization. There are corrupt individuals in both parties, but to say that all Democrats are corrupt is simply not true. The same is true of the professional administration class. There are some corrupt individuals in this group, but to say that they are all corrupt is also not true.

I believe that the best way to prevent the USA from becoming a one-party state is to encourage healthy debate and discussion about the issues. We need to be able to disagree with each other respectfully and without resorting to name-calling or insults. We also need to be willing to compromise and find common ground. If we can do these things, then we can ensure that the USA remains a democracy where the people have a say in their government.

As for the specific individuals mentioned in your statement, I believe that they should be held accountable for any wrongdoing. However, I do not believe that they should be jailed simply for being political opponents. We need to have a system of justice that is fair and impartial, and that does not discriminate based on political affiliation.

I believe that the USA is a great country, and that we can overcome the challenges we face if we work together. We need to reject the idea that the only way to win is to destroy the other side. We need to be willing to listen to each other and find common ground. If we can do these things, then we can build a better future for our country.

jack

JulesKorngold said:

I believe that the USA is a great country, and that we can overcome the challenges we face if we work together. We need to reject the idea that the only way to win is to destroy the other side. We need to be willing to listen to each other and find common ground. If we can do these things, then we can build a better future for our country.

Hello Jules:

That's nice.. But, I don't think the people who believe Hillary drank the blood of the babies she just murdered, are gonna come around..  So, there's a TIME to ask for reason, and there' a TIME to start thumping heads.

excon

John_C_87

@jack

Part of the problem and why legal malpractice is singled out. Mrs. Clinton is a woman who is representing herself in a discrimination allegation set before the American Constitution and voters. A noncommissioned officer preserving American Constitution is and has addressed her representation, holding her as created equal to all women where her licensed status in negated and she is simply just a plain woman acting as Presadera, she then attempting to be an executive officer of America by vote. Why the grievance is to be moves into an Armed Service tribunal, as Mrs. Clinton and other women have made it an international issue and not an exclusive American issue of the courts. She too with other women are lawyers and have a second issue of what was to be appropriate legislation to be made prior as constitutional right to be held accountable for by several Amendments. A point of grievance she will be facing with executive officer Trump, not across form they will be held together as he was a running mate during the potential, crime, perjury. She will be facing a tribunal, doing so having already been created in what is arguably the more perfect state of the union of constitutional equality with Kamala Harris made to an equality as establish justice before the trial / tribunal has even begun. The point being either she or I would by trial end be discharged relieved of command from service held on American Constitutional right by the end of the tribunal.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Clarification Request

@John_C_87 said:  "...either she or I would by trial end be discharged relieved of command from service held on American Constitutional right by the end of the tribunal."

Could you please clarify what you mean by that?

John_C_87

@JulesKorngold ;
Could you please clarify what you mean by that?

What specifically do you not understand? 

jack

John_C_87 said:

What specifically do you not understand?

Hello John:

I can't speak for Jules, but from my own experience, I have NEVER, and that would be NEVER, understood a single thing you've EVER said, and that would be EVER.

In my youth, there was a stand up comedian named Dr. Irwin Corey, The foremost expert on everything..  In his act, he would spew gobbledygook similar to the way you do, and the people ate it up.   

I think you KNOW about him and have been punking us all along.

excon

John_C_87

I can't speak for Jules, but from my own experience, I have NEVER, and that would be NEVER, understood a single thing you've EVER said, and that would be EVER.
lol... I remember him......He was much funnier when I was really drunk.......
Not making the connection to context of what is said to you is not the same issue as not understanding. Not everyone need, wishes, or can be brought up to a speed.

We already know why there is never understanding between us, you have no prior knowledge of a logistical state of the union made between the 1st Amendment and the Preamble, Articles, Sections, and Amendments of American United States Constitution. When asked you do not give any at least in these topics about a former Executive Officer. Your belief is, correct me if I am wrong, please, in the phrase the term United State of America is referring States like New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Texas, Colorado, California, New Mexico, Washington, and the other places that are to be represented as stars on the America Flag. The United States of America are states of law which are held together by the three-appeal process in the system of established justice.

We have seen this before it is JulesKorngold talking to Jack without improtant need to know information this same type of conversation takes place in media all the time.

But, we've seen this movie before. Will he finally be held to account

Bogan

@JulesKorngold ;

JulesKorngold quote     The USA is a democracy, and the people have the right to choose their leaders. 

What sort of a democracy is the USA, when an obviously corrupt and compromised sitting President can have his officials bring serious charges against his leading political opponent?    What sort of democracy is the USA, when it self evidently has a two tiered justice system where political elites who have obviously committed serious crimes are never prosecuted, but their main political opponent is prosecuted for charges which result in creative legal thinking?     What sort of democracy is the USA, when the FBI tells the media to quash the story about Hunter Biden's laptop as "Russian disinformation" when they knew full well that it wasn't?     And they did this in the full knowledge that suppressing a true Biden scandal this would affect election results?

Juleskorngold quote   The idea that the Democrats are corrupt is a dangerous and unfounded generalization. 

Wrong, it is a dangerous and well founded fact.     The evidence of Joe and Hunter's bribery, money laundering, racketeering, tax evasion, corruption, and possibly treason, is coming to light every day through the Congressional Oversight Committees investigation.     For you to make such an obviously obtuse statement makes me wonder if you live in a cave without recourse to modern media?

Juleskorngold quote     The same is true of the professional administration class. There are some corrupt individuals in this group, but to say that they are all corrupt is also not true.

The lower ranking members of the administrative class may not be corrupt, but the evidence is right in front of your eyes that the elitists at the top of the tree, and their picked cronies who know that promotion comes with kissing ar-se,  are extremely corrupt. 
   

Fact 1.    As secretary of State Hillary Clinton had 33,000 classified documents she was not authorized to have, stored on a public sever.     That is a very serious crime.    When discovered, she destroyed the evidence and perverted the course of justice, two more serious crimes.     Yet her powerful friends in the top of the FBI chose not to prosecute her.    She got a free pass.

Fact 2.     Joe Biden as a Senator and a VP had no right at all to take home classified documents yet he did so, and he left them all over China town and in his garage.     Yet despite his picked Justice Department Attorney General picking a "special prosecutor" to look into the case, nothing has been heard of it since.    Meanwhile, they go after Trump at light speed for supposedly mishandling 37 classified documents, which a parade of Constitutional lawyers, former US Attorney Generals, Defence lawyers, and even former federal prosecutors who have been interviewed on FOX, claims is a nonsense.

Fact 3.    The lawyer who sorted through the Twitter emails at the behest of Elon Musk was told by a IRS official on the night before Christmas that his taxes were going to be audited, which they did.     The only thing the IRS found was that they owed the lawyer money, not the other way around.     This looks very clearly like the Deep State misusing their power to intimidate an innocent person who may discover information detrimental to the Deep State.

Fact 4.   The FBI is stonewalling the Congressional Oversight committees investigation into the Biden crime families corruption.      It was only because some honest FBI and tax officials destroyed their careers by coming forward and releasing information to the oversight committee, that high government officials were shutting down investigations into Joe and Hunter Biden that we know anything about the scale and audacity of the Biden family corruption, and the lengths that the Deep State will go to in order to protect them.    If you really were a liberal, social progressive, you would be admiring those whistleblowers.    But you don't.  Because you have been conditioned to think that smart liberals like your good self don't even need to seek out what is right or wrong.    All you need to do is to toe the liberal party line that Trump is evil and your peers will admire you, and tell you how "smart" you are.

If you really do think of yourself as a far seeing liberal progressive, could I respectfully point out that you are supporting the wrong side?     I still remember a time when left leaning social progressives never stopped complaining about the abuse of power by the Deep State, now they want to join them and protect them.

Juleskorngold wrote     I believe that the best way to prevent the USA from becoming a one-party state is to encourage healthy debate and discussion about the issues. 

That is hard to do when the left side of politics demands that their opponents be shut down on the grounds of "hate speech", and organizations like the FBI collude with giant media organizations run by powerful elites to take down opposing view, or any scandal which casts aspersions on the left..

Juleskorngold quote    We need to be able to disagree with each other respectfully and without resorting to name-calling or insults.

I seem to remember you tossing a few insults at me, so I don't know how you reconcile two diametrically opposed concepts in your head,     However, you are correct on one level.    Just tossing insults instead of debating is not debating at all.    On the other hand, a few choice and clever insults at the right time can be very entertaining for our audience.    It keeps them reading and giggling.

Juleskorngold      We also need to be willing to compromise and find common ground. If we can do these things, then we can ensure that the USA remains a democracy where the people have a say in their government.

The Democrats and the corrupt officials they are protecting don't think like that at all.    They admire the Putin style of democracy.    If you have a political opponent who you know is going to beat you in the next election, just dream up a charge, appoint a Stalinesque prosecutor, and try to either intimidate him into stepping down, or stick him in jail.

Juleskorngold quote     As for the specific individuals mentioned in your statement, I believe that they should be held accountable for any wrongdoing. However, I do not believe that they should be jailed simply for being political opponents. We need to have a system of justice that is fair and impartial, and that does not discriminate based on political affiliation.

You have finally written something that I agree with, Jules.     But how do you reconcile that thinking with the very obvious differences in legal investigations involving Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Waste of Time

@Bogan
You spend too much time defending someone who will die in prison in 2039.

Bogan

Another well researched argument possessing stunning logic by Juleskornygold.      I keep hoping I will come upon an opponent on this site who has at least triple digit IQ, but it looks like a forlorn hope.   MInd you, if people with your pathetic inability to present a logical  argument are the sort of people who oppose Trump and support the Biden Crime Family, then there is hope yet.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Focus Please

@Bogan

I understand that you disagree with me, but there's no need to resort to personal attacks. I'm happy to discuss this issue with you, but I'd appreciate it if you could keep the conversation civil.

jack

John_C_87 said:

We already know why there is never understanding between us, you have no prior knowledge of a logistical state of the union made between the 1st Amendment and the Preamble, Articles, Sections, and Amendments of American United States Constitution.

Hello again, John:

I've always thought that you were either wicked smart, or loony as hell....  And, I still don't know..  Truly, in English, I have NO idea what you said above..

excon

John_C_87

@jack
Calling any man who is elected to Exsecutive office a President without proof other the political pole, the poeples opinion  is not a right covered under the united state 1st Amendment. If the 1st Amendment united state had even been held together as a solid state of the union in the first place.

jack

John_C_87 said:

@jack

Calling any man who is elected to Exsecutive office a President without proof other the political pole, the poeples opinion  is not a right covered under the united state 1st Amendment. If the 1st Amendment united state had even been held together as a solid state of the union in the first place.

Hello again, John:

Well then...  That cleared it up.

excon

John_C_87

John_C_87 said:

@jack

Calling any man who is elected to Exsecutive office a President without proof other the political pole, the poeples opinion  is not a right covered under the united state 1st Amendment. If the 1st Amendment united state had even been held together as a solid state of the union in the first place.

Hello again, John:

Well then...  That cleared it up.

excon

@jack

You are making personal attacks where I am still addressing the overall conspiracy.... What conspiracy is the question you have no clue to. The attack on the United States Constitution which has been under way for cecades and still describes how a women can not be a President in a legal sense of the word. Smarter criminals mean more complex deceiving crimes by scale Jack…You do see this possibility? That is the only fact you need to know currently. You do see this basic principle as potential or not the Smarter a criminals meant a larger and more complex crime? Yes, or no?

Point noted you are questioning my mental stability, where I believe you are working as damage control for a public relations firm. It is a understanding that once voters are removed from the voting pool politically a larger number of higher self or publicly educated will understand the issue much clearer as they are removed for fixed perionds ot time from the voting process.

Jack, just to make it clear I do not think you are attacking me personal it is just the argument is in general personal my demeanor is different than yours in many ways. You say a name, I give an officer’s number. You say president I say executive officer. It is a legal fallacy to say the Democracy can hold a political vote assigning position to executive office and argue that there is a state of the constitutional union between the two. Again, the reason is inappropriate legislation in Article II that requires clarification and ratification.

John_C_87

@jack

You do not follow anything I say because for you it is all new. The more perfect connection to be formed on established justice changes with a level of priority by importance to what is real time justice. That a crime stops as quickly as it can be regulated to end safety is a reason to rush and prioritize judicial events. The higher threat to our national security is the crimes that people comit they do not understand they commit is the crime of a big problem. Do you agree? Yes, no?

Going off topic a little as a united state consitutional union meaning something held as a single united state, or several states, there is Artificial intelligence ( A.I)  and there is Original Inteligence ( O.I.).

Bogan

@JulesKorngold

So, I respond to your post directed at me with a 700 word reply which is well thought out and reasonable, and you respond with a sneery one liner of 14 words, and then you then expect me to be civil?

Look ma-a-a-ate, just for your edification, I have read 'The Art of Persuasion" and I am well aware that a person who seeks to debate with another must never attack his opponents self esteem, because the opponent will link his self esteem to his opinions and he will defend them to the death.     To attack their opinions is to attack their self esteem.     But you see I operate on two different levels.    The first is, I that I am debating against an individual, and most of those individuals I debate with have not the least intention of engaging in fair debate, or of allowing their opinions to be altered by opposing arguments, no ,atter how valid, convincing, or logical they are.    The second is, that I presume that there are contributors on this site who either support my view, or who are intelligent enough to listen to both sides of an argument, and figure out which side is either telling the truth. Or, who can be swayed by a better argument.

So, when dealing with an incorrigible opponent who's opinions are demonstrably wrong, and who's attitudes are off the planet, the the "Art of Persuasion" does not apply.     For one thing, I understand that most of my opponents with kooky views have developed them because of peer pressure.     They live within a bubble of like minded individuals who's primary motivation is to present themselves to the world as being intelligent and morally superior.     That is all they care about.   They link their self esteem to their opinions and beliefs and regardless of how wacky or illogical those beliefs may be, they can not by pass the mental barrier they themselves have installed within their own brains.     The only way to get through to them is to keep attacking their self esteem by pointing out that what they believe in is just id-iotic, and that they are self evident fools for thinking the way they do

The second level is, that those audience members who are smart and who, although they may oppose my opinions on one level, are mature enough to be swayed by the weight of logical argument which is directed at my incorrigible opponent.     Quite frankly, if you can get your audience to laugh at your opponent, you have your opponent beat..   In addition, some of the audience may themselves link liberal and so called "socially progressive" views to their own self esteem.    If I can make my incorrigible opponent look like a fool, them these impartial audience members may stop conflating liberal progressive views with high intelligence.     This seems to be already happening in the western world.     Social progressives coined the word "woke" to describe themselves, meaning that they are the sort of super intelligent and morally superior people who are 'awake" to how to fix the world.     Now they are distancing themselves from the very word they created because for most of the population, the word "woke" has become a substitute for "id-iot".     

jack

John_C_87 said:

@jack

You do not follow anything I say because for you it is all new. The higher threat to our national security is the undertaking of a crime that people do not understand they are commiting in large scale. Do you agree? Yes, no?

Hello John:

Again, my friend..  That's pure gobbeldy gook..  I'm sure you're very bright, nonetheless I can't decipher even a sliver of what you're trying to say..

excon

John_C_87

This might help you understand jack or not. We have several long-term conspiracies where all those who organized and who have started the conspiracy have since died. The crime took that long to happen, over a century, everyone who planned the crime originally died. What a long stakeout..... LOL… the irony is they had felt it was the perfect state of the union to established justice and on their deaths left it in operation, the alibi is to be dead before the crime they plan takes place in real time. Lifes a ....The criminal conspiracy however in all this elapsed time has taken on a life of its own, we might compare it to a form of A.I trapped in the judicial civil litigation by the court system appeal process. Leaving only a list of the American voter as the criminal activist operating the plot.

jack

John_C_87 said:

This might help you understand jack or not.

We have several long-term conspiracies where all those who organized and who have started the conspiracy have since died. The crime took that long to happen, over a century, everyone who planned the crime originally died. What a long stakeout..... LOL… the irony is they had felt it was the perfect state of the union to established justice and on their deaths left it in operation, the alibi is to be dead before the crime they plan takes place in real time.  The criminal conspiracy however in all this elapsed time has taken on a life of its own, we might compare it to a form of A.I trapped in the judicial civil litigation by the court system appeal process. Leaving only a list of the American voter as the criminal activist operating the plot.

Hello again, John:

Sorry.  Couldn't catch it..  Not a word..

excon

John_C_87

High Con.......

A women President of the United States of America is a constitution conspiracy...The obstacle of law is not discrimination it is perjury... a voting ballot is an official document it not normal paper or litrature. A female Executive officer is constitutionally held in united state as Presadera. A formal declaration of objection is needed that can be proven in court to uphold a more perfect connection to preamble fact. Uncontested is unchallenged it is like someone running for a political office against no one else in an election. @ Jack I admited to the crime of perjury I am not accusing anyone else other then me of the crime of perjury. 

Pregnancy Abortion is a United States of America conspiracy...

 Abortion is a United States of America constitutional conspiracy...

I do not care you do not understand ow the cime takes place it is to my advantage as I have admited publicly to the crime of perjury, describing the connection to American Preamble and the clock is ticking on the limitations of criminal conviction. The argument can be made it is even over now at least for me...

John_C_87

Mrs. Clintons documents issue is an argument of competence.

Even claiming an Executive officer is President because a voter cast ballot saying so is a criminal conspiracy. I do not balance the claim of crimes with law enforcement only show it is not in balance. There are several conspiracies taking place in American politics, Armed services, and government.

: the act of conspiring together.

 First off, if he wins the presidency, all this goes away.  And he very well might win.   You?

He cannot win the Presidency, no canidate can simply win and the media needs some better fact checkers. The fact is it is  Presidentcy or performing as Presadera is an ability that must be displayed and agreed upon ...American Constitution  Article II in several Section requires correction and needs to be submitted for re-ratification.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: Also would needs to have been changed and ratified again. If what is written by news media is to be fact, checked and verified as true. 

–I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Oath of Office for the Presidency | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

jack

John_C_87 said:

The fact is it is  Presidentcy or performing as Presadera is an ability that must be displayed and agreed upon ...

Hello John:

Please forgive me..   I'm not prone to tease someone over something they have no control over, and I won't do it again. 

excon

John_C_87

The unknowing do not call then suicide missions for nothing…

I didn't get the job for being smart, I got it because I didn't have the sense to stay down.........

MayCaesar

JulesKorngold said:

I believe that the USA is a great country, and that we can overcome the challenges we face if we work together. We need to reject the idea that the only way to win is to destroy the other side. We need to be willing to listen to each other and find common ground. If we can do these things, then we can build a better future for our country.

Who is "we" though, and what does it mean for "us" to work together? There are many people in the US that I am not willing to work on anything together with and would like to not associate with in any way. Why would I listen to someone whose ideology I believe to be destructive and unacceptable? Would you be interested in finding the common ground with the leader of the American Nazi Party, for instance?

The idea of a liberal society is not that you are supposed to listen to everyone who has something to say and to look for points of contact with them. The idea is exactly the opposite: that you decide for yourself who to listen to and interact with, and nobody can force you to listen to and interact with anyone. It is this "be and let be" principle that should be promoted, not the hippie "let us be friends with everyone" stuff. The hippie stuff, being incoherent and unsustainable, inevitably results in some form of "since we have to be friends with everyone, let us force everyone to be like us", and that is exactly the mindset that dominates politics nowadays.

Why is this country called "United States of America"? The idea of states is a part of the bigger idea of decentralization and voluntary fragmentation. "We work together" when implemented as a political system results in a completely different entity called "unitary republic", a top-down system in which people legally are not free individuals, but servants of the ruling class. In a decentralized system it is perfectly fine for some regions to push some political sides away from them. I want nationalists and socialists in my area to be "destroyed", as that is the only way to protect it from their poisonous influence. I am okay coexisting with people disagreeing with me on many things, but not with letting them have a say in the rules by which I have to live. Nationalists and socialists here are free to preach their nonsense in private conversations, but I absolutely do not want to see this nonsense put on paper and ratified.

An obvious solution to this is to privatize everything. Let nationalists and socialists build their utopias on their territory, and leave my territory alone. But the reality is such that the system does not allow for segmentation on that level, and in this reality, indeed, it is prudent to "destroy" certain sides. And what those sides are depends on who you are.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: "Destroy"?

@MayCaesar

Correct me if I am mistaken...You believe that the United States should be a decentralized system in which states have more autonomy and can "push" political sides away from them. You also believe that nationalists and socialists are a "poisonous influence" and that they should be "destroyed".

The United States was never intended to be a completely decentralized system. The Founding Fathers were aware of the dangers of decentralization, and they deliberately created a federal system of government with a strong central government. This was done to prevent the country from falling apart, and it has served us well for over 200 years.

Second, it is not possible to "destroy" political sides. Even if you were able to suppress their views, they would still exist. In fact, suppressing their views would only make them more extreme. The best way to deal with political views that you disagree with is to engage in open and honest debate. This is the only way to find common ground and build a better society for everyone.

It is dangerous to talk about "destroying" political sides. This kind of language can lead to violence and extremism, like Giuliani's call for "trial by combat" on Jan 6.  We should all strive to live in a society where everyone is free to express their views, even if we disagree with them.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar
Why is this country called "United States of America"? The idea of states is a part of the bigger idea of decentralization and voluntary fragmentation. "We work together" when implemented as a political system results in a completely different entity called "unitary republic", a top-down system in which people legally are not free individuals, but servants of the ruling class. In a decentralized system it is perfectly fine for some regions to push some political sides away from them. I want nationalists and socialists in my area to be "destroyed", as that is the only way to protect it from their poisonous influence. I am okay coexisting with people disagreeing with me on many things, but not with letting them have a say in the rules by which I have to live. Nationalists and socialists here are free to preach their nonsense in private conversations, but I absolutely do not want to see this nonsense put on paper and ratified.

Or, to summarize. The United State was created by the American Courts system appeals process....We are not the United States of America anymore it is that simple. The state of the union has been broken by an act of international conspiracy made against Constitutional Right by use of legal malpractice. What does not take place is sharing of a common defense to a more perfect union for none had been made as part of a conspiracy against American Constitution. For the official record the conspiracy was to ensure women could assume a title which in whole truth has little or no legal connection to Constitutional Right when and while they seek executive office. To be clear an American United States Constitutional Right is a woman held as self-evident truth in a state of the union with all women in the world as Presadera. Though every woman in the world can only ever be Presadera while in American and nowhere else under democratic law. All international women are held equal without legal prejudice.

It is this simple MayCaesar there had been two choices voters in America could have taken one connect all women to a American Constitutional right to without using legal prejudice or legal malpractice of law assume by relief of command a chair in the executive office. Choice two was to take command by way of force and though the use of the court system was used to exsert force it was not legal as the constant executive orders become necessary to slow and obstruct justice by the democracy in the American Republic. At this point the obstruction of justice is so bad the legal argument of Trump is used to confuse voters to believe that the malpractice and obstruction of justice cannot be fixed until whatever litigation to take ex-Executive officer Trump have been concluded. This is not necessary and in fact it is the Executive officers’ actions in Roe vs Wade which are also to be addressed as an obstruction of justice as international conspiracy. Female specific amputation is an issue of Federal immigration as basic principle.

Would you be interested in finding the common ground with the leader of the American Nazi Party, for instance? Yes, if they can in a common defense towards the general welfare share a more perfect state of the union with established justice and preamble requirements. If they cannot do so, then no finding a common principle is not a goal of President, Presadera or Executive officer. No MayCaesar you are not giving a good alibi as to why voting Americans should obstruct justice before the courts of law, using a covert means of civil warfare by aiding in accumulating pools of rising national debt. LOL…the funny thing here is we are going to need to have jury classes so that people who vote in jury and poles can be educated in understanding all the legal implications, danger, and risk which take place because of voting in politics and in courts. Much like we have warnings printed on cigarette packs, liquor bottles, and other things which pose human health risk, or classes in training for jobswe are hired for..

.

John_C_87

@JulesKorngold

It is dangerous to talk about "destroying" political sides. This kind of language can lead to violence and extremism, like Giuliani's call for "trial by combat" on Jan 6.  We should all strive to live in a society where everyone is free to express their views, even if we disagree with them.

Here is the point JulesKorngold America must have a ratified principle held in self-evident truth that allows the people to hold in a state of the union with established justice what free means in writing. Otherwise, it does not exist in pre legal terms it is made into a interpretation of law...without a primary constitutional right set in self-evident truth the first state if the union seporated in the word free is broken away at the connection to cost. We can have free things that have a cost someone else is to pay. Sound familiar, it should, and it is not ever describing freedom.

MayCaesar

JulesKorngold said:

@MayCaesar

Correct me if I am mistaken...You believe that the United States should be a decentralized system in which states have more autonomy and can "push" political sides away from them. You also believe that nationalists and socialists are a "poisonous influence" and that they should be "destroyed".

The United States was never intended to be a completely decentralized system. The Founding Fathers were aware of the dangers of decentralization, and they deliberately created a federal system of government with a strong central government. This was done to prevent the country from falling apart, and it has served us well for over 200 years.

Second, it is not possible to "destroy" political sides. Even if you were able to suppress their views, they would still exist. In fact, suppressing their views would only make them more extreme. The best way to deal with political views that you disagree with is to engage in open and honest debate. This is the only way to find common ground and build a better society for everyone.

It is dangerous to talk about "destroying" political sides. This kind of language can lead to violence and extremism, like Giuliani's call for "trial by combat" on Jan 6.  We should all strive to live in a society where everyone is free to express their views, even if we disagree with them.

I believe that the United States should not exist at all - not as a government-run enterprise, at any rate. What I was describing though is the design put forth by the Founding Fathers, and, as far as government-run enterprises go, this design is as good as it gets. The federal government was supposed to be fairly weak, and over the years countless functions of state governments have been usurped by the federal government. As an example, state governments used to run their education systems, while now the Department of Education runs everything, with state governments mostly being its hands in implementing the central policies. I object to this trend, not the least because I do not see what I have in common with the 320 million Americans who all are controlled by the same entity. There is no "we" as far as I am concerned, and while I am a friendly and compassionate guy who genuinely wishes well for all Americans (and everyone in general), there are no goals that I share with every single of them. There is no "we", there is "me", "you", "he", "she" and so on.

I have never said anything about suppressing someone's views. I was talking about destroying, obliterating them; casting them down to the hole they crawled out of centuries ago. Not in a physical sense, but in the sense of their influence being completely removed from my life. They are free to do whatever they want elsewhere, but where I live, they should not have a say in anything. Just like I do not tell you how to make your coffee in the morning on your kitchen, I do not want them telling me who I should let or not let on my property, or who I should or should not trade with. It is no one's business what business deals I have with other people and people from what countries I hang out with.

Extremism, you say? Good. A solid position can and should be taken to the extreme. If you are not taking your position to the extreme, then your position is weak and needs to be revised.
And I have never said that someone should not be free to express their views. Read my comment carefully: I very explicitly said the exact opposite. People are free to say whatever they want to whoever they want. They should not be free to decide how I live my life though. You are not my family, and me and you are not "we".

JulesKorngold

@MayCaesar

I understand that you believe that the United States should not exist as a government-run enterprise. You argue that the federal government has become too powerful and that it is no longer in line with the vision of the Founding Fathers. You also believe that there is no "we" as far as the American people are concerned and that each individual should be free to live their own life without interference from the government.

I respectfully disagree with your position. I believe that the United States is a great country with a lot to offer its citizens. We have a strong economy, a vibrant democracy, and a rich culture. I also believe that the federal government plays an important role in protecting our rights and liberties.

I understand that you are concerned about the power of the federal government. However, I believe that the system of checks and balances that were put in place by the Founding Fathers is effective in preventing the government from becoming too powerful. I also believe that the government can be a force for good. For example, the government can provide essential services such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

I agree that the government should not interfere in our personal lives. However, I believe that there are some areas where the government does have a legitimate role to play. For example, the government can regulate businesses to protect consumers and the environment. The government can also provide social safety nets to help those who are less fortunate.

Specific responses to your points:

• You say that you do not see what you have in common with the 320 million Americans who are all controlled by the same entity. I believe that we have a lot in common, such as our shared values of freedom, democracy, and equality. We also share a common history and culture.
• You say that you do not want the government telling you who you should let or not let on your property, or who you should or should not trade with. I agree that the government should not interfere in our personal lives to this extent. Again, I believe that the government does have a legitimate role to play in regulating businesses to protect consumers and the environment.
• You say that you want to take your position to the extreme. I believe that this is a dangerous approach. Extreme positions are often based on fear and anger, and they can lead to violence and conflict. I believe that it is important to be open-minded and to consider other perspectives.

MayCaesar

JulesKorngold said:

I respectfully disagree with your position. I believe that the United States is a great country with a lot to offer its citizens. We have a strong economy, a vibrant democracy, and a rich culture.

That is not a point of our disagreement. My claim that the US should not exist as a government-run enterprise comes not from the failures of the US itself (in my opinion, it is the best country to live in the world in right now), but from a more general principle of opposition to violence and coercion. As far as violence and coercion-based systems go, the US has done phenomenally well, yet the fundamental flaws built into the system had to manifest dramatically at some point. Looking at the state of the US politics right now, you are looking exactly at that.

JulesKorngold said:

I also believe that the federal government plays an important role in protecting our rights and liberties.

This is a contradiction in terms. A government is the only organization in any country legally empowered to violate human rights. It is by its very design the most voracious abuser of human rights and liberties, and the fact that it sometimes chooses to abstain from the most outrageous violations of them does not betray the nature of the organization.


All the other disagreements we have derive from that. However, regardless of what you agree or disagree with, metaphysically every individual has the ability to accept or reject any group membership. I reject membership in a group which you call "we". Me and you do not have any shared experiences, and your impact on my life is no bigger than that of a random bloke from Iran or Kenya whose comments I happened to come across on the Internet. I am not interested in "working together" with you.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: "We"

@MayCaesar said:  I reject membership in a group which you call "we". Me and you do not have any shared experiences, and your impact on my life is no bigger than that of a random bloke from Iran or Kenya whose comments I happened to come across on the Internet. I am not interested in "working together" with you.

We are all human beings, and we all live in the world. We all experience joy, sadness, love, loss, and everything in between. We all have hopes and dreams for the future.

As for working together, we are sharing our opinions here and responding.

jack

@MayCaesar said: 

I am not interested in "working together" with you.

@Juleskorngold said:

As for working together, we are sharing our opinions here and responding.

Hello Jules:

The problem libs have is that we believe right wingers think like we do.  They DON'T.  It's not even close..  When he says he's not interested in "working together" with you, BELIEVE HIM!  He'd just as soon SQUASH you like a bug.

excon

JulesKorngold

Hello Jules:

The problem libs have is that we believe right wingers think like we do.  They DON'T.  It's not even close..  When he says he's not interested in "working together" with you, BELIEVE HIM!  He'd just as soon SQUASH you like a bug.

excon

Hi,

Don't worry.  I'm a Vietnam War vet.  I don't squash easily.  

jack

JulesKorngold said:

Hi,

Don't worry.  I'm a Vietnam War vet.  I don't squash easily.  

Hello again, Jules:

Thank you for your service..  My ship, USS Robert K Huntington, DD-781 participated in the Bloc-aid of Cuba..

Do you think that having sworn an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemy's, domestic and foreign, has something to do supporting Democracy today??

Just sayin...

excon

MayCaesar

JulesKorngold said:

@MayCaesar said:  I reject membership in a group which you call "we". Me and you do not have any shared experiences, and your impact on my life is no bigger than that of a random bloke from Iran or Kenya whose comments I happened to come across on the Internet. I am not interested in "working together" with you.

We are all human beings, and we all live in the world. We all experience joy, sadness, love, loss, and everything in between. We all have hopes and dreams for the future.

As for working together, we are sharing our opinions here and responding.

What causes us to experience these feelings and have these thoughts differs, however. There are people who derive pleasure from taking care of others, and there are people who derive pleasure from dominating others. There are those who believe that they would be the happiest if people like me were silenced, or even outright killed. Those people share the general biological structure with me, but as far as their humanity goes, they are nothing like me - same as a car's electric motor and an iPhone's charge port both have the same types of electric circuits in them, but serve completely different purposes.

The idea that I should work together with someone solely because they happen to inhabit the same half of the same gigantic continent as me is pretty bizarre.