Published response to "reconfiguration of LDS politics"

[Stargazer]

I amazed that this thread has survived as long as it has, as political as it has gotten.  Perhaps the Mods are off having their annual Retreat in The Hamptons.

And we're all disagreeing so civilly!  It is very Kumbaya!

[Darren10]

46 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Basic inalienable rights should not be subject to democratic review. Blaming the battle with Jim Crow laws as the cause for legal gay marriage is an insult to the people suffering under those unjust and barbaric laws.

I disagree with the gay marriage ruling but I would rather have gay marriage and legal protections for racial equality rather then neither.

Due process I not an inalienable right. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are. How you go about doing that is a matter of policy. While these three rights are not the only inalienable rights, due processes is not among them. The very people who framed the Constitution upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence clearly took the view that it is better to ensure the federal or "central" government does NOT act upon the people to ensure liberty than for government to guarantee liberty upon its people. The latter requires the government to act upon dissenters. It naturally leads to oppression by government. The founders were not opposed to government action to guarantee rights; just keep it at a state level. Their view was that the states are free from the federal government and the voice of the people are far more potent at the state level than they are on the federal level.

"I disagree with the gay marriage ruling but I would rather have gay marriage and legal protections for racial equality rather then neither."

My way would give you the latter without than the former.

[Darren10]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I amazed that this thread has survived as long as it has, as political as it has gotten.  Perhaps the Mods are off having their annual Retreat in The Hamptons.

And we're all disagreeing so civilly!  It is very Kumbaya!

[The Nehor]

55 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

All that being said, and unintelligible to boot, I have some hope that his administration will prove effective in the end.

Some people on the right were convinced Obama was going to (and even wanted to) destroy the country -- but he didn't, not by a long shot.  Trump is conceivably less capable than Obama, so the fear that he will mess everything up (surely the left's biggest fear) is not well-founded.  The country's resilient enough, I think.

And as for unscripted musings, Obama was perfectly capable of being unintelligible, too.

The destruction of political norms does not require abilities. It just requires everyone to watch from the sidelines while you do it.

The people on the Right who thought Obama was trying to destroy the country were morons, blinded by race and hate. Trump does not want to destroy the nation. He might do it by accident. Trump is the equivalent of giving the Three Stooges chainsaws. Funny from a distance but if you are close enough to get hit....

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Due process I not an inalienable right. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are. How you go about doing that is a matter of policy. While these three rights are not the only inalienable rights, due processes is not among them. The very people who framed the Constitution upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence clearly took the view that it is better to ensure the federal or "central" government does NOT act upon the people to ensure liberty than for government to guarantee liberty upon its people. The latter requires the government to act upon dissenters. It naturally leads to oppression by government. The founders were not opposed to government action to guarantee rights; just keep it at a state level. Their view was that the states are free from the federal government and the voice of the people are far more potent at the state level than they are on the federal level.

"I disagree with the gay marriage ruling but I would rather have gay marriage and legal protections for racial equality rather then neither."

My way would give you the latter without than the former.

Due process is not a basic right the federal government should guarantee? What is wrong with you?

While States and local governments are closer to the people that is not always a good thing. The smaller the government the fewer the people you have to corrupt to make it oppressive. If the oppressors are the majority (see that recently removed insane sheriff in Arizona) they can get away with it. At that point you need someone more detached from the fray to step in and slap that government around. LDS should be all for that. Governor Boggs did not need more independence from federal oversight.

Also you cannot be sure your way would have provided both. Even if it did it would have been much slower to create racial equality.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Which was its main purpose.

The League was hobbled from the start. The Japanese demanded racial equality be listed as a principle of the League but the American South and Australia (aborigine problem) would not accept that. Ironic considering Japanese treatment of Koreans. In any case Japan never joined for that reason. Senate Republicans refused to allow the United States to join. Without an enforcer the League could cajole with trade restrictions but could not stop naked aggression. The only nations at the time that could realistically give the League teeth were the US, Britain, and France. The US never joined and Britain and France did not want the job and were too busy vying with each other to back the League.

The structure of the League was fine. No one was willing to support it. The UN is still relevant mostly because the US has acted as an enforcer.

The League was also built for the last war. In the First World War the problem was not enough negotiation. It probably could have been avoided if a few sane people from both sides have talked to each other. The nations of Europe learned that lesson and negotiated before going to war....way too much. The international community sold out China, Ethiopia, Austria, and Czechoslovakia to maintain the peace and then were surprised when there was not enough left to defend themselves afterwards.

[Stargazer]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The destruction of political norms does not require abilities. It just requires everyone to watch from the sidelines while you do it.

The people on the Right who thought Obama was trying to destroy the country were morons, blinded by race and hate. Trump does not want to destroy the nation. He might do it by accident. Trump is the equivalent of giving the Three Stooges chainsaws. Funny from a distance but if you are close enough to get hit....

The general accusation of racism and hatred is a cop-out.  Essentially, Obama gets a free pass for all his policies that people didn't like by using the race card.  I opposed him, and his policies, so therefore I am a racist bigot?  I don't buy it.  Not to say that there weren't at least a few racist bigots who opposed Obama on that basis (and most of them would have been Democrats), but they were and are in a tiny minority.  If you feel otherwise, I suggest you prove it other than by innuendo and calumny.

What most of the right feared was that Obama's policies would destroy the country, not that he wanted to do so and so acted upon his desires.  That a few actually believed that Obama wanted to destroy the country -- well, that inescapable, given that there is always a small proportion of any political persuasion who believe that the other guys are evil and are hell-bent on destroying everything they hold dear.

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Due process is not a basic right the federal government should guarantee? What is wrong with you?

While States and local governments are closer to the people that is not always a good thing. The smaller the government the fewer the people you have to corrupt to make it oppressive. If the oppressors are the majority (see that recently removed insane sheriff in Arizona) they can get away with it. At that point you need someone more detached from the fray to step in and slap that government around. LDS should be all for that. Governor Boggs did not need more independence from federal oversight.

Also you cannot be sure your way would have provided both. Even if it did it would have been much slower to create racial equality.

What's wrong is you're not showing you understand my argument. Due process is not a right that should be guaranteed by the *federal* government. That's how we got gay marriage without the American voters getting their own "due process. And if you think due process should be fedrally guaranteed, it should be done by legislation, by law, not by a Constitutional Amendment. Even then it should apply only to the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution such as when actvities cross state lines, not when something happens within a state's borders. You are free to guarantee due process for all within your state. When a state is corrupt then work to uncorrupt it. Don't forget that people within Missouri stood up to Governor Bogg's immoral Extermination Order. No federal intervention was needed to stop its action. Although Bogg's order it was used to expel the Mormons, no Mormon was executed by it. 

Also,

Quote

A military order signed by Missouri Governor Lilburn W. Boggs on October 27, 1838, directed that the Mormons be driven from the state or exterminated (see Missouri Conflict). Boggs's action was based on information brought to him that day by two citizens of Richmond, Missouri, concerning the Mormon-Missourian conflicts in northwest Missouri and on reports of the Battle of Crooked River, in which armed Mormons had clashed with a company of state militia on October 25.

Boggs, acting in his capacity as commander-in-chief of the Missouri militia, ordered General John B. Clark to March to Ray County with a division of militia to carry out operations against armed Mormons. The order described the Mormons as being in "open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made war upon the people of this State." It stated that "the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace-their outrages are beyond all description."

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Extermination_Order

Quote

The order was issued in the aftermath of the Battle of Crooked River, a clash between Latter-day Saints and a unit of the Missouri State Militia in northern Ray County, Missouri, during the 1838 Mormon War. Claiming that Latter-day Saints had committed open and avowed defiance of the law and had made war upon the people of Missouri, Governor Boggs directed that "the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44

And if I recall correctly, you support just going in and killing people in perceived armed insurrection, even when they never point their arms at anyone, nor make any explicit threat to kill anyone. You're a prime example of why the federal government must stay in check from absolute piwer. State's rights is a masterful way of doing that. 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The destruction of political norms does not require abilities. It just requires everyone to watch from the sidelines while you do it.

The people on the Right who thought Obama was trying to destroy the country were morons, blinded by race and hate. Trump does not want to destroy the nation. He might do it by accident. Trump is the equivalent of giving the Three Stooges chainsaws. Funny from a distance but if you are close enough to get hit....

The few people I knew first hand who thought Obama intentionally wanted to destroy this country thought so along his liberal ideologies, nothing to do with his race. What people do you hang out with? 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The general accusation of racism and hatred is a cop-out.  Essentially, Obama gets a free pass for all his policies that people didn't like by using the race card.  I opposed him, and his policies, so therefore I am a racist bigot?  I don't buy it.  Not to say that there weren't at least a few racist bigots who opposed Obama on that basis (and most of them would have been Democrats), but they were and are in a tiny minority.  If you feel otherwise, I suggest you prove it other than by innuendo and calumny.

What most of the right feared was that Obama's policies would destroy the country, not that he wanted to do so and so acted upon his desires.  That a few actually believed that Obama wanted to destroy the country -- well, that inescapable, given that there is always a small proportion of any political persuasion who believe that the other guys are evil and are hell-bent on destroying everything they hold dear.

Racism is the norm of humanity. It is built into us. It has survival value. Suspicion of the other is vital to an extent. People who suggest that America has overcome it and only a minority suffer from it in America means we are either saints (unlikely) or dangerously deluded.

I have a gut reaction tribal instinct and it manifests as racism. I try to control it.

The Left has shot themselves in the foot on this point. They have made even innocent and accidental racism into a cardinal sin. Now it is difficult to discuss in ourselves without being thought a monster. It is used to vilify and the Right liked the idea so much they created reverse racism to add to the arsenal. Now no one thinks they are racist when virtually everyone is to some extent. Hence the Right's knee-jerk reaction to the obvious statement that race played a role.

The other problem is that it is not such a small proportion that believe the enemy is out to destroy the nation. The propagandists on both sides are screaming it. Michael Moore thinks the Right wants to kill everyone in his insane way. The Talk Radio Right howls socialism and conspiracy like the boy who cried wolf and has many of their listeners convinced they are not just saying it for shock value.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

The few people I knew first hand who thought Obama intentionally wanted to destroy this country thought so along his liberal ideologies, nothing to do with his race. What people do you hang out with? 

Anonymous people on the internet who do not have to pretend they are not blatantly racist to protect their reputation.

[Darren10]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Anonymous people on the internet who do not have to pretend they are not blatantly racist to protect their reputation.

Go out and meet people. Your internet usage is seriously obscuring your perception of reality.  

[Darren10]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Racism is the norm of humanity. It is built into us. It has survival value. Suspicion of the other is vital to an extent. People who suggest that America has overcome it and only a minority suffer from it in America means we are either saints (unlikely) or dangerously deluded.

I have a gut reaction tribal instinct and it manifests as racism. I try to control it.

The Left has shot themselves in the foot on this point. They have made even innocent and accidental racism into a cardinal sin. Now it is difficult to discuss in ourselves without being thought a monster. It is used to vilify and the Right liked the idea so much they created reverse racism to add to the arsenal. Now no one thinks they are racist when virtually everyone is to some extent. Hence the Right's knee-jerk reaction to the obvious statement that race played a role.

The other problem is that it is not such a small proportion that believe the enemy is out to destroy the nation. The propagandists on both sides are screaming it. Michael Moore thinks the Right wants to kill everyone in his insane way. The Talk Radio Right howls socialism and conspiracy like the boy who cried wolf and has many of their listeners convinced they are not just saying it for shock value.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

What's wrong is you're not showing you understand my argument. Due process is not a right that should be guaranteed by the *federal* government. That's how we got gay marriage without the American voters getting their own "due process. And if you think due process should be fedrally guaranteed, it should be done by legislation, by law, not by a Constitutional Amendment. Even then it should apply only to the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution such as when actvities cross state lines, not when something happens within a state's borders. You are free to guarantee due process for all within your state. When a state is corrupt then work to uncorrupt it. Don't forget that people within Missouri stood up to Governor Bogg's immoral Extermination Order. No federal intervention was needed to stop its action. Although Bogg's order it was used to expel the Mormons, no Mormon was executed by it. 

Also,

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Extermination_Order

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44

And if I recall correctly, you support just going in and killing people in perceived armed insurrection, even when they never point their arms at anyone, nor make any explicit threat to kill anyone. You're a prime example of why the federal government must stay in check from absolute piwer. State's rights is a masterful way of doing that. 

 

 

Well, if they were only kicked out of the state by Boggs then no harm done.

So the right to a fair trial should not be a federal requirement? If Michigan wants to require a trial by ordeal or Oregon wants to test for witches by throwing them into water to see if they drown then the federal government should stand back and watch?

So if, say, Florida is run by the mob what would you suggest? The elections are unfair. The governor and the state legislature are all crooks. Their representatives to Congress are all crooks. Voter intimidation, protection rackets, and the like are the norm. Election results are fraudulent. Honest judges have been threatened or removed from office. Dissenters are imprisoned in kangaroo courts. Prisoner labor is sold to private interests as defacto slaves. Your stance is that the whole thing is Florida's problem and the federal government should not intervene? You want a federal government so weak it will watch this go on?

We had such a weak government under the Articles of Confederation. Most of the founders agreed it was too weak. I agree with them.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Go out and meet people. Your internet usage is seriously obscuring your perception of reality.  

I do. Most people screen their bile in public. If you want to know what people really think you do not go by what they say in public.

There is a large mass of people (the idea that it is a loud minority is facile) spewing racist rhetoric on the internet compared to those who share it publicly (where it can cost them their job or invite social scorn). Which do you think represents how people really feel? What they say when they can be held to account or when they cannot?

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

 My genius has that effect on people.  

[Darren10]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Well, if they were only kicked out of the state by Boggs then no harm done.

So the right to a fair trial should not be a federal requirement? If Michigan wants to require a trial by ordeal or Oregon wants to test for witches by throwing them into water to see if they drown then the federal government should stand back and watch?

So if, say, Florida is run by the mob what would you suggest? The elections are unfair. The governor and the state legislature are all crooks. Their representatives to Congress are all crooks. Voter intimidation, protection rackets, and the like are the norm. Election results are fraudulent. Honest judges have been threatened or removed from office. Dissenters are imprisoned in kangaroo courts. Prisoner labor is sold to private interests as defacto slaves. Your stance is that the whole thing is Florida's problem and the federal government should not intervene? You want a federal government so weak it will watch this go on?

We had such a weak government under the Articles of Confederation. Most of the founders agreed it was too weak. I agree with them.

 

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I do. Most people screen their bile in public. If you want to know what people really think you do not go by what they say in public.

There is a large mass of people (the idea that it is a loud minority is facile) spewing racist rhetoric on the internet compared to those who share it publicly (where it can cost them their job or invite social scorn). Which do you think represents how people really feel? What they say when they can be held to account or when they cannot?

 

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 My genius has that effect on people.  

I think we've about run this back and forth course. It's been good and here's my final reply.

1) While states may do things that are bad. Don't let it escape you that you are 100% free to oppose states who do bad things and 100% free to work towards the ideal state government. All states have their own constitutions and the vast majority of them are extremely similar to that of the US Constitution. There are rights in place already. 

The real threat to Americans are not individual state governments but the federal government which cannot be corrected as efficiently as state governments can. What if the federal government decided to eradicate specific Indian tribes? Round up Japanese Americans? Spy on Americans? Take their lands without just compensation? To what extent are you OK with the federal government imprisoning Americans who commit crimes within a state? (These are rhetorical questions so if you care to reply I most likely will not continue this thread of conversation). There are already mob-controlled areas of the country. No doubt Florida has some but I know Chicago has them as well. Mobs most likely commit crimes that cross state lines and thus the federal government may go after those crimes. They may also commit tax fraud which also falls under federal jurisdiction. If you are talking about a majority of people becoming bad then I say no amount of federal control will correct that. Change of hearts will. If you are talking about corrupt politicians than wherever they commit federal crimes within the constitutional purview of their power, which is a lot already, then get the feds on them. If not *you* are 100% free to support measures within your state to make sure corruption is uprooted.

You seem to frame your arguments in the manner of since you are only one person and therefore cannot affect the laws of another state that the only recourse you have is to get the feds on other states for being bad. Just remember that there are millions of "yous" in the country. They all take interest in the well being of their respective states. They can and will step up. Bad things have happened in the past and unfortunately will happen in the future. The responsibility of We the People in a free society is to get involved. Getting the feds to crack down on bad things everywhere is ineffective and expanding the federal role in individual lives is volatile. This isn't about accepting certain levels of bad ("if they were only kicked out of the state by Boggs then no harm done") but about people stepping in and opposing the bad, as Missourians did regarding Bogg's Executive Order 44.

2) If you want to know how people feel and react, then hang out with them. Make them part of your life. The scenario you described seems to include a lot of pseudonyms used online. If that's the case, how do you know if they are sincere or not? People do not hide their vile with you if you know them. You'll always find out what kind of people people are simply by interacting with them. Your statements about majorities being racist, especially based on their opposition to Obama is absolutely baseless. It is a factual nothing unless you can back up your claims with reliable statistics. If you think that the majority of Obama "opposers" did so because they are racist, I think your view is way off of reality. If you are basing your assessment on people who will not even divulge their own names online then that merely supports your unfounded view of society. By no means do we live in a post racial society. If anything, I'd say that racial tensions have worsened under Obama's 8 years as President but saying tat those who accused him of deliberately destroying America as "blinded by hate and racism" is absurd and based on nothing but hyperbole.

3) You are a smart man no doubt; you post on psychoanalytical summary of America was just bizarre. 

 

[Gray]

19 hours ago, longview said:

 

Absolutely.  It proves how completely CORRUPT Obama, Hillary and their cronies were (and continue to be).

The email uproar turned out to be a big fat nothing. And as it turns out fueled by Russian disinformation (the Russians hated Clinton because she was tough on them following their invasion of the Ukraine - hence their interference in the election against her). 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-a-dubious-russian-document-influenced-the-fbis-handling-of-the-clinton-probe/2017/05/24/f375c07c-3a95-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.57aefc0b8cbe 

Edited May 25, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

22 hours ago, longview said:

Talk about a bald-faced denial of "controversies" that raged throughout 8 years of the Obama trainwreck.  The following is a mere sampling of what went on:

"Scandal after scandal, coupled with an ongoing contempt for the law and the Constitution, demonstrated by high-level officials and the president himself, point to one deeply troubling conclusion: the Obama administration may be the most corrupt administration ever inflicted on the American public. And while the mainstream media have done a remarkable job deflecting much of that reality, even they cannot keep up with the avalanche of disturbing revelations that arise, seemingly on a daily basis.

We begin with yet another report about the Fast and Furious gunrunning operation, courtesy of Sharyl Attkisson, one of the few remaining reporters who follows a story wherever it goes. Last Wednesday, three more F&F weapons turned up at crime scenes in Mexico. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and as many as 300 Mexican nationals, including teens at a birthday party, were slaughtered by those weapons. Yet the ensuing investigation was first thwarted by Eric Holder's refusal to turn over critical documents to congressional investigators, earning him a contempt of Congress citation. It was followed by President Obama invoking executive privilege to prevent the same.

Holder's duplicity regarding Fast and Furious is hardly an anomaly. On March 1, 2011, Holder told Congress that "decisions made in the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) case were made by career attorneys in the department." It was subsequently revealed that an Obama appointee, Associate A.G. Thomas Perrelli, overruled a unanimous decision by DOJ attorneys who favored prosecuting NBPP members seen on videotape attempting to intimidate voters outside a Philadelphia polling station during the 2008 election.

Obama's IRS targeted conservative “social welfare” nonprofits seeking tax-exempt status under section 501c4 of the Internal Revenue Code. Evidence establishes that hundreds of groups affiliated with the Tea Party movement were bullied and intimidated from engaging in constitutionally protected political activism.

With Benghazi, "[a] deliberate effort to mislead the voters was launched," Barone writes. "Clinton, White House press secretary Jay Carney, and the president himself talked about a spontaneous protest of an anti-Muslim video — even though no evidence of that came from Benghazi."

The CIA's talking points on Benghazi were manipulated by the White House and the Department of State and Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice was wheeled out to peddle the lies on television.

"This attempt to mislead the electorate worked," Barone concludes. "It seems a stretch to say that it determined the outcome of the election. But it certainly helped the Obama campaign."

Former IRS mandarin Lois Lerner orchestrated an unprecedented crackdown on Tea Party and conservative groups and then attempted to scapegoat those nonprofits, blaming them for the harsh treatment they received at her instigation, according to a damning report released yesterday by congressional investigators.

The report came out six days after Lerner appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee under subpoena and for a second time refused to testify about IRS targeting of right-of-center 501c4 nonprofit advocacy groups during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. (The full report is available in PDF form at the committee's website.) At the March 5 hearing, which was a continuation of a hearing started last year, Lerner again opted to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

For an army of ethically compromised defenders in politics and the media, Hillary Clinton’s email scandal is being framed as little more than a political attack aimed solely at derailing her presidential candidacy. Yet while each new revelation makes it harder to dismiss Hillary and Bill's seemingly endless effort to monetize the Clinton Foundation by virtually any means possible, most of it is beside the point. What’s not beside the point is the reality that Hillary Clinton is a walking, talking national security disaster.

At least four of those emails contain subject lines with the word “Sid,” presumably referring to Clinton hatchet man Sidney Blumenthal, whose own AOL account was breached in 2013 by the Romanian hacker known as Guccifer. That hack also revealed Clinton’s @clintonemail.com email address. The website’s source warns that if the 32,000 emails enter the public domain, "not only is Hillary finished as a potential Presidential nominee, she could put our country’s national security at risk.”

She already has, and the National Review's Stanley Kurtz reveals the unassailable logic behind that assertion. Even if Clinton was extraordinarily lucky, and the Russians and Chinese haven’t accessed some or all of her emails, it is nonetheless incumbent on the nation’s entire security community to behave as if they did. "Doesn’t that mean that we are now making massive changes to the sources and methods of our intelligence?” Kurtz asks. "Are we now withdrawing valuable agents? Are we trying to replace methods that cannot be easily replicated? Are we now forced to rebuild a good deal of our intelligence capabilities from the ground up? Are we not suffering tremendous intelligence damage right now, regardless of what foreign intelligence services did or did not manage to snatch from Hillary’s server—simply because we are forced to assume that they got it all?”

Yet arrogant as ever, Hillary completely dismisses the possibility her emails were hacked, insisting in March her private system "was set up for President Clinton's office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.” 

Not only do we have the most lawless administration (Obama's) in American history at this moment in time, but we have the most gutless opposition a party (establishment elites of GOP) in power has ever had. The only way we can get to the bottom of these scandals is if the next midterms replace the current Republican leadership with those who understand what’s at stake and who are willing to fight the bastards in both parties, tooth and nail. No more phony leadership."

 

Let's see some legitimate sources. I'm not interested in propaganda. The anti-Obama train runs on disinformation and conspiracy theories. 

 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

...but saying tat those who accused [Obama] of deliberately destroying America as "blinded by hate and racism" is absurd and based on nothing but hyperbole.

Have you ever read the comment section of any article about Obama on an alt-right leaning website? Give it a try, here's one just posted on Brietbart.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/25/obama-berlin-cant-hide-behind-wall/

See how far you get before finding several that demonstrate Nehor's argument:

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Have you ever read the comment section of any article about Obama on an alt-right leaning website? Give it a try, here's one just posted on Brietbart.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/25/obama-berlin-cant-hide-behind-wall/

See how far you get before finding several that demonstrate Nehor's argument:

I just read 30 posts and failed to find any that, while vile, used race to justify their opposition towards Obama. How about, instead, you show me an anti-Obama comment post in the comments section of your link that is based on race and the person used his or her actual name? Failure to do so would corroborate my reply to Nehor.

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, Darren10 said:

"The Supremacy Clause and 14th Amendment make them binding on all the States."

Exactly. That makes it anti-democratic. If one's concern is that Democracy, the rule of the majority, is in jeopardy, then making a federal law binding on all no matter what is not democratic. It does follow a Republic but not federalism which is the type of Republic the United States was founded.

"With Nixon committing treason against the US by convincing South Vietnam to walk away from the peace conference."

Treasonous was the united States not backing its promises made to South Vietnam.

https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Antiwar-Movement-End-the-Vietnam-War

"Carter tried unsuccessfully to rescue our hostages, all the while Reagan promised Iran arms to keep them. "

Debatable on Reagan negotiating the deal. My recollection is that he knew little to nothing of the Iran-Contra arms deal. Oliver North took the primary fall for it.

As for Carter, his was an overall appeasement approach. That never works with tyrants.

"Eisenhower created so called "Radical Islam" with the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953. It is amazing how our oil got under their sand."

 

We're not a Democracy, we're a Republic if we can keep it. SEE http://www.ourrepubliconline.com/Author/21

We have specific limits on majority rule. You can't vote to take someone's Constitutional rights away.

Nixon's Treason on Vietnam SEE https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/opinion/sunday/nixons-vietnam-treachery.html

The anti-war movement finally ended the conflict, but it took millions of lives to do it.

By the time of the Iran-a-scam investigation Reagan was so senile an impeachment was unlikely. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Contra_affair

Carter tried to forcibly remove our hostages, albeit unsuccessfully.

You didn't know our history with Iran? 

[Darren10]

41 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

We're not a Democracy, we're a Republic if we can keep it. SEE http://www.ourrepubliconline.com/Author/21

We have specific limits on majority rule. You can't vote to take someone's Constitutional rights away.

Nixon's Treason on Vietnam SEE https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/opinion/sunday/nixons-vietnam-treachery.html

The anti-war movement finally ended the conflict, but it took millions of lives to do it.

By the time of the Iran-a-scam investigation Reagan was so senile an impeachment was unlikely. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Contra_affair

Carter tried to forcibly remove our hostages, albeit unsuccessfully.

You didn't know our history with Iran? 

"We're not a Democracy, we're a Republic if we can keep it. SEE http://www.ourrepubliconline.com/Author/21"

Precisely but The Nehor expressed worry (profound worry) at longview for being a danger to democracies throughout the world. If The Nehor agrees with the supremacy clause than he does not believe in Democracy, at least not in its pure form. If he does not believe in Democracy than why the worry?

"We have specific limits on majority rule. You can't vote to take someone's Constitutional rights away." - Correct, that's be cause, as I noted, we are a Republic and of a federalist nature. that means we elect people to represent us instead of voting directly on issues and we provide certain rights. The manner of the way we grant rights is by guaranteeing that the federal government does NOT do things ('negative liberties"), not by actively guaranteeing freedom. The former impedes and prevents government intrusion in people's lives whereas the latter pushes the government to get involved in people's lives.

"You didn't know our history with Iran? " - Huh?

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

I just read 30 posts and failed to find any that, while vile, used race to justify their opposition towards Obama. How about, instead, you show me an anti-Obama comment post in the comments section of your link that is based on race and the person used his or her actual name? Failure to do so would corroborate my reply to Nehor.

Does "Muslim Ba*****" in reference to Obama qualify as racist? Because that was 4 comments in when I looked at the article earlier. And this one just rolled through "Massa Nigroll Obama, Show us what you did whiff duh $10 Trillion dollars........ At Least President Trump will build a Wall with only $20 Billion." That was 5 minutes ago.

The Breitbart comment section is full of this stuff. I don't need to provide examples when I'm sure you've seen it yourself. Its easy to tune it out, but it exists.

[thesometimesaint]

The ancient Greeks invented Democracy. Even then it wasn't a  "pure Democracy" voting was limited to a few rich men. They were also well aware of the dangers of a Demagogue. A Greek word for a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument. Nehor of course can answer for himself. We're not a pure Republic either we vote for our representatives. So in that sense we are part of the Liberal Democracies of the world.

We have the Constitution that limits the powers of the government. OTOH do away with the Constitution and what guarantees your rights? Does your right to not have government involved in your life mean you can break the laws with impunity? Who do you appeal to if a cop beats the heck out of you? Who do you appeal to if your state government removes your right to vote?