The king of fake news

[Bill the Cat]

Mirror, mirror on the wall whose the biggest projectionest of them all?

JimL

[JimL]

Using "storm troopers" is a way for you to feel better about the bad orange man, I understand.

They are violating the 1st amendment rights of the people. If they were there to protect federal buildings, that's one thing, and they could easily do that without violently engaging the citizens, but it is clear that that is not why they are there. Trump, 3 months before the election Trump is sending federal troops around the country to engage in law enforement of the people. That should tell you the purpose of the troops he sent into Portland aren't there to protect federal buildings. Lafayette Plaza was the testing ground.

Real storm troopers exist in the fervent minds of leftist graspers, you grasp for a term that is satisfying, right?

No, I grasp for the term that is apropo.

FYI: Storm Troopers wear white, they have weapons called blasters, they work diligently against the rebel forces.

I don't know what you're refering to, but I'm refering to Hitlers sturmabteilung, aka "the Brown shirts."

And if you have not seen cops beaten and attacked by "peaceful protestors", then you have very selective news gathering.

Show it then. I've seen them fighting back, throwing bottles or whatever, but they are not the instigators.

[Bill the Cat]

They are violating the 1st amendment rights of the people. If they were there to protect federal buildings, that's one thing, and they could easily do that without violently engaging the citizens, but it is clear that that is not why they are there. ...

Sorry, Jim, I know this goes against your delusion, but when they are there to protect, if they are attacked, they are allowed to defend themselves.

[Sparko]

They are violating the 1st amendment rights of the people. If they were there to protect federal buildings, that's one thing, and they could easily do that without violently engaging the citizens, but it is clear that that is not why they are there. Trump, 3 months before the election Trump is sending federal troops around the country to engage in law enforement of the people. That should tell you the purpose of the troops he sent into Portland aren't there to protect federal buildings. Lafayette Plaza was the testing ground.

No, I grasp for the term that is apropo.

I don't know what you're refering to, but I'm refering to Hitlers sturmabteilung, aka "the Brown shirts."

Show it then. I've seen them fighting back, throwing bottles or whatever, but they are not the instigators.

Nobody has any first amendment right to violently protest, JimL. Or destroy property, or attack police, or burn cars, or throw frozen water bottles, or blind police with lasers.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

"peaceably assemble" and "petition" not "riot and attack"

And if you are so concerned with the first amendment why do you support the government telling people they can't peaceably assemble in Church? Or anywhere else they are limiting gatherings? You only seem to support the first amendment in regards to rioting, and it doesn't even support that.

[Maranatha]

They are violating the 1st amendment rights of the people. If they were there to protect federal buildings, that's one thing, and they could easily do that without violently engaging the citizens, but it is clear that that is not why they are there. Trump, 3 months before the election Trump is sending federal troops around the country to engage in law enforement of the people. That should tell you the purpose of the troops he sent into Portland aren't there to protect federal buildings. Lafayette Plaza was the testing ground.

No, I grasp for the term that is apropo.

I don't know what you're refering to, but I'm refering to Hitlers sturmabteilung, aka "the Brown shirts."

Show it then. I've seen them fighting back, throwing bottles or whatever, but they are not the instigators.

Surely you are not this obtuse. I will assume you are not.

In case you are, if you walk up to a government facility with armed soldiers-officers-police-whatever guarding the building, it is best not to get violent. You'll totally dismiss your 1st amendment rights, and you will be unceremoniously arrested.

I personally have a pristine record on this account. I've never been arrested by the Feds for becoming violent while they are actively guarding their building.

I am cool like that.

I have no interest showing you anything because.....orange man bad.

[Unitarian101]

You don't care that the Trump campaign is using fake news to make people re-elect him?

I do not fully understand (though I have an inkling) why most Bible Belt Trinitarians gravitate towards Donald Trump,-- a P. T. Barnum type confidence trickster and prolific liar.

Here is Trump's "Christian minister" and "spiritual advisor. " Birds of a feather flock together.

[JimL]

Nobody has any first amendment right to violently protest, JimL. Or destroy property, or attack police, or burn cars, or throw frozen water bottles, or blind police with lasers.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

"peaceably assemble" and "petition" not "riot and attack"

That's right, and you can't attack, beat, gas, pepper spray, or shoot at peaceful protesters. If there are troublemaking interlopers then there are ways to go after them without attacking the peaceful protesters.

And if you are so concerned with the first amendment why do you support the government telling people they can't peaceably assemble in Church? Or anywhere else they are limiting gatherings? You only seem to support the first amendment in regards to rioting, and it doesn't even support that.

The one thing has nothing to do with the other, petitioning the government for redress of grievances is a necessary freedom that can't be suspended or you can kiss that right along with democracy itself goodby. The religious, though most of them are smart enough to know better, can protest their temporary suspension of congregating in church as well, but not if they no longer have that right.

[Unitarian101]

That's right, and you can't attack, beat, gas, pepper spray, or shoot at peaceful protesters.

I agree. What is the difference between President Trump when he sends masked federal agents to quell protesters , for example, and a leader of the Chinese Communist when he does the same to protesters in Honk Kong ?

If there are troublemaking interlopers then there are ways to go after them without attacking the peaceful protesters.

Agreed.

The one thing has nothing to do with the other, petitioning the government for redress of grievances is a necessary freedom that can't be suspended or you can kiss that right along with democracy itself goodby. The religious, though most of them are smart enough to know better, can protest their temporary suspension of congregating in church as well, but not if they no longer have that right.

Yep.

[Sparko]

That's right, and you can't attack, beat, gas, pepper spray, or shoot at peaceful protesters. If there are troublemaking interlopers then there are ways to go after them without attacking the peaceful protesters.

This myth you keep advancing as if there were a couple of troublemakers in the middle of a peaceful crowd is belayed by all of the videos of the crowds, rioting and destroying and attacking the police, tearing down statues, burning buildings and cars. The police have no reason to attack peaceful protestors, who usually protest in the light of day, not in the cover of darkness. If peaceful protestors want to hang out in the same crowd as the violent protestors, then it's their own fault if they get caught up in the retaliation by police. Didn't your momma ever tell you not to hang out with the bad crowd?

The one thing has nothing to do with the other, petitioning the government for redress of grievances is a necessary freedom that can't be suspended or you can kiss that right along with democracy itself goodby. The religious, though most of them are smart enough to know better, can protest their temporary suspension of congregating in church as well, but not if they no longer have that right.

How can they no longer have that right? And meeting in church IS a peaceable assembly. Or do you think it only counts for protests? The word protest is not in the first amendment. Peaceably assemble means to associate freely with anyone you want to for any reason, as long as it is peaceful. That means Church.

[Mountain Man]

Liberals don't seem to understand the difference between a protest and a riot.

[Unitarian101]

Liberals don't seem to understand the difference between a protest and a riot.

Is this a protest or a riot ?

[shunyadragon]

And you have always believed every thing he says -- or is it just when it suits you?

I cited Trumps claim, and I do not believe anything Trump saws as with all of Trump's claims, and assertions are all unreliable, and Trump's 'Fake News' dominates. Trump is anhibitual chronic liar, and lacks a moral grounding.

Trump is your 'good old boy' and believe him.

[Bill the Cat]

I do not fully understand (though I have an inkling) why most Bible Belt Trinitarians gravitate towards Donald Trump,-- a P. T. Barnum type confidence trickster and prolific liar.

Here is Trump's "Christian minister" and "spiritual advisor. " Birds of a feather flock together.

Well, Paula White is a moron, so... but to answer your question, it's because he is on the R ticket and we'd rather have a bad R than an apocalyptically awful D in office.

[Whateverman]

Well, Paula White is a moron, so... but to answer your question, it's because he is on the R ticket and we'd rather have a bad R than an apocalyptically awful D in office.

You got an apocalyptically awful R. One worse than every numbered R and D before him.

No, mere political tribalism does not adequately explain this phenomenon...

[Bill the Cat]

You got an apocalyptically awful R. One worse than every numbered R and D before him.

No, mere political tribalism does not adequately explain this phenomenon...

He is not apocalyptically awful. He's done much of what he promised, and tried, but was stonewalled, on several other promises. I've been generally happy with his results where he was allowed to act.