heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I don't know why you would remove him from the ballot. Can't he qualify as a write in anyway? Wouldn't that just bring out more MAGA voters to write him?

IOW, I think it would backfire.

The real issue is that Trump will most likely be in court and then in prison during the crucial time when he would be campaigning

---

If he is disqualified, the same as if he were unqualified (underage, foreign national), votes for him would not be counted.

Some states need to finish their primary ballot in December. This needs to be resolved before the primaries, delaying until after the conventions could be a disaster for Republicans.

Of course the Trump court could screw the pooch by refusing to hear the cases and letting every state decide for itself.

---

I believe the 14th amendment simply allows states to remove him from the ballot. That does not necessarily mean he is removed from the election in that state. Are you sure that the write in candidate votes aren't counted. I know from my work as a poll worker, that some write in candidates votes are counted and others aren't. You have to qualify as a write in via signatures. I think Trump would get enough signatures. I could be wrong about this so it's more of a question not a statement.

Also, the highlighted portion above is confusing to me. Could you restate that with more specifics so I can understand what you are referring to?

---

It's not an inclusion on the ballot question. It is a qualification to be a candidate question like age and natural born citizenship. You could no more write in a candidate so disqualified then you could write in Putin and have it count.

---

Thanks for clarification and, if that is the case, then I certainly think the 14th amendment has bearing for the 2024 election. But I doubt it will matter much in the presidential electoral college. However, it will effect the overall vote and the down ballot races. It could be devastating for the Republicans in congress.

---

It will have to be litigated and I doubt the odds are good that any such litigation will be timely or successful.

---

I agree. It turns out that we rely far more on norms than the rule of law. And when you (you in the general sense, not you cb93) stop pretending to care about comity, behavior, decorum, etc. then the US has a lot less formal protection against autocracy than many people thought we did.

There are all of these markers of freedom in a system of government that we used to take for granted and it turns out they don't actually exist. A great example is the historical "independence" of the DOJ. It's simply untrue - Trump and his supporters were very clear in stating that Trump was the chief law enforcement officer and could exert any control he wanted over the FBI and DOJ. They also claim persecution from the DOJ because it's been "weaponized" after they told us that Trump was allowed to weaponize it. Similarly, we talk about an "independent" judiciary but we've learned that our lack of actual laws and enforceability of ethics has rendered any such independents illusory.

These are just a few examples but I'm sure we can all think of a large number. The Constitution is a relatively short framework that leaves a lot to the reader's imagination. Turns out that we heavily relied for a really long time on the "readers" having some sort of common north star and that is no longer the case.

We aren't protected from bad guys on the left or the right, this isn't a partisan vulnerability. The major breach happened because of Trump but could just as easily be true of a democrat. Contrary to all of the hysterical claims by the people who defended Trump's omnipetence, we haven't actually seen any evidence of Biden breaking these sorts of norms during this presidency, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't, couldn't or wouldn't.

We should have a bipartisan agreement on closing a lot of these loopholes but we haven't seen enough enthusiasm from Democrats and it's been absolutely stonewalled by the GOP.

---

I couldn't agree more on the need to protect safeguards that have protected our democracy for hundreds of years even if not expedient. Hell is paved with good intentions, and I see even here those who may believe they are pursuing higher goals promoting destroying many of those safeguards.

Whether it's filibuster, separation of powers, Supreme Court appointment for life (decrease the need to be political to be re-elected or reappointed), electoral college (state rights and protect against mob rule), senate (state independence) vs house (popular vote), being careful and thoughtful about indicting former presidents (jeopardizes peaceful transfer of power and enhances risk of political persecution), etc. you have seen some of the nonsense even here by allegedly educated folks with no sense of history or the import of law and order, balancing of majority rule with tyranny of the majority, etc. People are too blinded by tribalism and even hatred of Trump to step back and be grown up about the key foundations of democracy. We are still an experiment and a lot of countries have tried and failed due to resorting to expediency. We will survive Trump and this period only if we have principles and not just stupid, expedient, unsophisticated thinking. Otherwise, we will just be another failed experiment, even if one that survived longer than most.

---

We are a failed experiment cloaked by a high standard of living

---

If you have a better proven form of government that has stood the test of time, would love to read about it.

I am of the firm belief that, as flawed as America is, we are the best country in the world.

---

Let me guess. You're an American, correct? And how many other countries have you lived in again?
BTW, our form of government in theory could very well be the best. We've never ever gotten close to living up to our form of government. Also what are your metrics for measuring the quality of a country?

By most metrics used to measure quality, the US has fallen considerably over the past half century to far below the best. But, why don't you find me some metrics where the US leads the world.

---

Yes I am an American. And I express my belief through action by choosing to live here. Like most, I have options. I am not like those who say one thing and do another by mocking America and then choosing not to live elsewhere. I live where I believe is the best despite flaws, including the country, state and city. Why do you live here? It isn't that hard to leave. If you want to argue job, etc., isn't that also what makes this a great country - that a person who could not get a job anywhere else can make a living here and still have time to post how much they don't like it here? How sad of life to have no option but to live where you don't want to live.

The metric? The percentage of people from other countries who want to immigrate here legally or illegally over other countries.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

GoOskie said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

bearister said:

---

If the government was plotting against tRump, by now he would be buried next to his ex wife (who "fell" down the stairs) off one of the fairways at Bedminster, and guys would be relieving themselves on his grave before hitting their 2nd shots back to the fairway.

---

The government can off him anytime they want, even with his secret service protection. It wouldn't be the first time.

People who have constituted much less threat than Trump have been offed with regularity.

It's mind boggling to me that the right thinks the system is rigged against them. LOL
Any historian with a comprehensive understanding of this issue could bring on a rant that would just destroy that concept instantly.

Whether it be the known political and world views of the folks that make up the bulk of the CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies as well as the military and the Washington establishment or the actual policies and practices of those agencies or the practices of your average police force, the system is clearly and heavily biased towards controlling communist and left leaning groups as well as minorities and the disenfranchised. In other words, it is geared towards fighting urban crime not white collar crime.

Hoover was essentially a fascist as was CIA counter intelligence director Angleton. And that's just to name a few. Those institutions haven't changed that much except that, with Trump and the growth of white nationalism, they are begrudgingly starting to shift their focus to those threats. But it is sluggish and not very aggressive compared to the actual threat. Compare that with the hyper-vigilance that those agencies engaged in to monitor and control almost all of the peace, anti-war and civil rights groups that posed no threat other than to the establishment.

It's clear that these agencies were put together largely to protect the establishment from left leaning and communist sympathizing groups. In that sense, they are a product of cold war politics, which means they are focused on controlling the left because, as incorrect as it is, the left is seen as communist sympathizing. In fact, even that myth is an example of how those agencies were weaponized against the left (see McCarthyism). We are still in McCarthyism. Many folks on this board demonize the left just as these agencies and McCarthy have been doing, making up myths and untruths in order to marginalize any liberal agenda, even if it has nothing to do with communism.

The system and the people in it feel that the left is far more of a threat than the right. Because the establishment and the real deep state is heavily right wing and fascist. The real deep state is the military congressional industrial complex that both Eisenhower and Kennedy warned us about. That complex is not going to take out Trump. But they took out Kennedy. So that should clearly tell you what and who is being weaponized against whom.

The idea that the right is being victimized by a left leaning establishment weaponized against them is yet another example of the psychological warfare tactic I mentioned earlier, which is this...

• Claim that you are being victimized by the very things you victimize people with
• Blame it on your opponent
• Create a narrative so extreme that the other side has to react in the extreme
• Manipulate it so that the other side has to claim that those things don't and can't happen at all
• Now the other side can't claim that you are doing it to them
• So now you've hijacked the narrative, destroyed it's credibility and effectively removed it from your opponents talking points

This is the entire strategy for the right when it comes to narrative tactics against the left and they are using regarding:

• The police--How many whites are killed by police? Check the stats
• Law and order in general--disproportionally designed to fight the drug war put a lot of black men in jail.
• Washington political establishment--Discussed above
• Deep state--The deep state was originally defined by Peter Dale Scott, a UC Berkeley professor regarding the involvement of the Reagan administration in funding the contras through drug sales
• Oversees wars--The right wing profits from this far more than the left. Just ask how many of these right wingers that are criticising these wars have stock in Lockhead or other military contractors. The left is more likely to have "social responsible" investment portfolios that remove guns, military contractors and polluters from their portfolios
• Unfair elections--The right has been trying to manipulate and cheat on elections for centuries because they know they are in the minority. They try to limit and disenfranchise voters, redistrict for minority rule, make voting harder in minority areas and get the supreme court to arbitrarily stop a recount when it doesn't serve them.
• Congressional Investigations and witch-hunts--The right uses accusations and innuendo as "evidence" to run investigations to mimick and discredit the evidence based investigations being run against them.
• Protests and rallies--Blame antifa, which doesn't actually exist, and black lives matter for things that their right wing infiltrators do to de-legitimize them. Right wing infiltration of the left is an old practice going back to the 60s and started by the FBI under Hoover. The classic practice is to take a non-violent group like the anti-war movement and infiltrate it with rioters and violent people to make the anti-war movement seem violent. Thereby discrediting them. It is easy to do and is rarely investigated or prosecuted so folks can do it repeatedly with impunity. These practices have effectively eliminated most heavy duty left leaning street movements in this country. But, when they (ie black live matter) do crop up, they use the same tactics all over again.

Basically the right has been using the same tactics against society for centuries with impunity. Nobody ever holds them accountable. The trump and white supremacist stuff is a rare exception that has upset the spoiled white kids of the right enough to make them cry foul. And I love it. It's such fun sport to watch. Much more fun than watching Cal sports.

---

I wonder if tRump can get tricked into riding in the back of a convertible Lincoln. Preferably in the Dallas area.

---

Sick POS

---

Nah, it was a hilarious post. 5 star post

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I don't know why you would remove him from the ballot. Can't he qualify as a write in anyway? Wouldn't that just bring out more MAGA voters to write him?

IOW, I think it would backfire.

The real issue is that Trump will most likely be in court and then in prison during the crucial time when he would be campaigning

---

If he is disqualified, the same as if he were unqualified (underage, foreign national), votes for him would not be counted.

Some states need to finish their primary ballot in December. This needs to be resolved before the primaries, delaying until after the conventions could be a disaster for Republicans.

Of course the Trump court could screw the pooch by refusing to hear the cases and letting every state decide for itself.

---

I believe the 14th amendment simply allows states to remove him from the ballot. That does not necessarily mean he is removed from the election in that state. Are you sure that the write in candidate votes aren't counted. I know from my work as a poll worker, that some write in candidates votes are counted and others aren't. You have to qualify as a write in via signatures. I think Trump would get enough signatures. I could be wrong about this so it's more of a question not a statement.

Also, the highlighted portion above is confusing to me. Could you restate that with more specifics so I can understand what you are referring to?

---

It's not an inclusion on the ballot question. It is a qualification to be a candidate question like age and natural born citizenship. You could no more write in a candidate so disqualified then you could write in Putin and have it count.

---

Thanks for clarification and, if that is the case, then I certainly think the 14th amendment has bearing for the 2024 election. But I doubt it will matter much in the presidential electoral college. However, it will effect the overall vote and the down ballot races. It could be devastating for the Republicans in congress.

---

It will have to be litigated and I doubt the odds are good that any such litigation will be timely or successful.

---

I agree. It turns out that we rely far more on norms than the rule of law. And when you (you in the general sense, not you cb93) stop pretending to care about comity, behavior, decorum, etc. then the US has a lot less formal protection against autocracy than many people thought we did.

There are all of these markers of freedom in a system of government that we used to take for granted and it turns out they don't actually exist. A great example is the historical "independence" of the DOJ. It's simply untrue - Trump and his supporters were very clear in stating that Trump was the chief law enforcement officer and could exert any control he wanted over the FBI and DOJ. They also claim persecution from the DOJ because it's been "weaponized" after they told us that Trump was allowed to weaponize it. Similarly, we talk about an "independent" judiciary but we've learned that our lack of actual laws and enforceability of ethics has rendered any such independents illusory.

These are just a few examples but I'm sure we can all think of a large number. The Constitution is a relatively short framework that leaves a lot to the reader's imagination. Turns out that we heavily relied for a really long time on the "readers" having some sort of common north star and that is no longer the case.

We aren't protected from bad guys on the left or the right, this isn't a partisan vulnerability. The major breach happened because of Trump but could just as easily be true of a democrat. Contrary to all of the hysterical claims by the people who defended Trump's omnipetence, we haven't actually seen any evidence of Biden breaking these sorts of norms during this presidency, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't, couldn't or wouldn't.

We should have a bipartisan agreement on closing a lot of these loopholes but we haven't seen enough enthusiasm from Democrats and it's been absolutely stonewalled by the GOP.

---

I couldn't agree more on the need to protect safeguards that have protected our democracy for hundreds of years even if not expedient. Hell is paved with good intentions, and I see even here those who may believe they are pursuing higher goals promoting destroying many of those safeguards.

Whether it's filibuster, separation of powers, Supreme Court appointment for life (decrease the need to be political to be re-elected or reappointed), electoral college (state rights and protect against mob rule), senate (state independence) vs house (popular vote), being careful and thoughtful about indicting former presidents (jeopardizes peaceful transfer of power and enhances risk of political persecution), etc. you have seen some of the nonsense even here by allegedly educated folks with no sense of history or the import of law and order, balancing of majority rule with tyranny of the majority, etc. People are too blinded by tribalism and even hatred of Trump to step back and be grown up about the key foundations of democracy. We are still an experiment and a lot of countries have tried and failed due to resorting to expediency. We will survive Trump and this period only if we have principles and not just stupid, expedient, unsophisticated thinking. Otherwise, we will just be another failed experiment, even if one that survived longer than most.

---

We are a failed experiment cloaked by a high standard of living

---

If you have a better proven form of government that has stood the test of time, would love to read about it.

I am of the firm belief that, as flawed as America is, we are the best country in the world.

---

Let me guess. You're an American, correct? And how many other countries have you lived in again?
BTW, our form of government in theory could very well be the best. We've never ever gotten close to living up to our form of government. Also what are your metrics for measuring the quality of a country?

By most metrics used to measure quality, the US has fallen considerably over the past half century to far below the best. But, why don't you find me some metrics where the US leads the world.

---

Yes I am an American. And I express my belief through action by choosing to live here. Like most, I have options. I am not like those who say one thing and do another by mocking America and then choosing not to live elsewhere. I live where I believe is the best despite flaws, including the country, state and city. Why do you live here? It isn't that hard to leave. If you want to argue job, etc., isn't that also what makes this a great country - that a person who could not get a job anywhere else can make a living here and still have time to post how much they don't like it here? How sad of life to have no option but to live where you don't want to live.

The metric? The percentage of people from other countries who want to immigrate here legally or illegally over other countries.

---

I'm staying here because:

• This is what I'm familiar with and comfortable with. So, subjectively it is better for me here. That doesn't make it objectively better
• Despite the above, I have seriously considered leaving but have decided to stay because I want to take responsibility to help America realize it's promise instead of running away.
• The cost of moving to another country is more than I can afford right now.

As for your metric. That's fine. What is your source that shows you that America has more immigrants compared to other countries? It is a good metric but a good portion of immigrants come from our neighbors to the south and many of them are leaving horrid situations. To say that America is a better country than most of our neighbors to the south is not really saying much. Also, arguing that a country is more attract is not necessarily the same as arguing that it is better. To be blunt, many men are attracted to strippers that doesn't mean strippers are better women. Maybe many folks are attracted to our second amendment. That doesn't make it better. Also, you have to factor in the size of our country. Where does America rank on average annual immigration over the last 10 years as a percentage of our population compared to other countries percentage of their population.

I would hope you had more metrics than that.

Also, who is mocking America. Is criticism mocking? Is trying to point out problems so they can be addressed complaining? I don't have a negative attitude towards America. I have a realistic attitude. It's similar to the football team. I don't sunshine pump. And, as a result, I have been much more accurate.

Finally, don't worry about me. I live exactly where I want to live, in the SC mountains. Other than fires and wind, it's paradise. I don't know how you concluded I was unhappy. But I am also lucky. Most Americans don't/can't live the way I do.

concordtom said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

10% For The Big Guy said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cutting to the chase...

The 14th Am says a person can't hold office if they engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the US.

The question is whether or not contesting an election constitutes an insurrection or rebellion.

---

tequila4kapp asks one of the only two relevant questions worth discussing on this issue. Unfortunately, it got drowned out by the useless Democratic pablum. The other relevant question and why this is such a stupid idea is that questions about what the Bill of Rights actually means are ultimately decided by the Supreme Court. Do you Resistance Democrats actually believe that secretaries of state are going to disqualify Trump in states where he would otherwise win or be competitive and that there would be no legal challenges? And do you have any faith that this Court is going to support your TDS theories of the Constitution?

The best case scenario of going down this road is that the Court punts the ball and says Congress needs to create a law to deal with this scenario, which obviously isn't happening with a Republican controlled Congreas.

The worst case scenario for you guys is that the Court further rules that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply because Trump didn't participate in an insurrection or sedition. This isn't the DC Courts where an overwhelmingly liberal jury pool stretches the definition of insurrection and sedition to ludicrous lengths or the TDS January 6th Committee. This could blow the Deomcrats' whole lawfare game.

If Democrats really thought this was something they wanted to do, they would have done it long ago. It's not happening, no matter what a couple of conservative originalist professors with a terminal case of Trump Derangement Syndrome and Laurence Tribe say on the matter.

The 14th Amendment is not a magic spell that can save us from Trump https://t.co/HlXCQ5r9Hy

— Bloomberg Opinion (@opinion) August 24, 2023

Hopefully the words in this article aren't too big for sp4149

---

Trump may be eligible to run for office but, if he thinks he's eligible to run from the law, he's in for a big surprise. It will be hilarious having a state of the union speech from behind bars. He won't have to say anything. Just seeing him in his cell will say everything about the state of our union.

---

A contraire, I'VE been in for a big surprise. The situation is goddam embarrassing as an American!
Try explaining to Europeans what's going on. They are disdainful of us.

---

I would love to explain what is happening to Europeans and would have no trouble doing so. It would serve as a cautionary note to them.

It's very simple. The national security state combined with the elite and radical industrial right have been testing and refining psychological warfare techniques for decades. With the advent of computers, the internet and now social media, they have found the ideal delivery system for their warfare. With the media completely bought out by partisan interests, we are further dumbed down, making us more susceptible to manipulation, deception and mind control.

That's what's happened.

Say, what do you think about the plight of "dreamers"?
That is, take a kid who is brought here at 5 years old by his immigrant parents who sneak across the border.

Kid goes to US schools and learns English and everything else just like other kids.

But then he becomes an adult and he has no SS# or birth certificate or other legal documents. He's here illegally. He's now a second class citizen, and he knows nobody back in the home country, nor even the town from where he came.

What should America do with all these people? Millions of them. Dreamers.

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I don't know why you would remove him from the ballot. Can't he qualify as a write in anyway? Wouldn't that just bring out more MAGA voters to write him?

IOW, I think it would backfire.

The real issue is that Trump will most likely be in court and then in prison during the crucial time when he would be campaigning

---

If he is disqualified, the same as if he were unqualified (underage, foreign national), votes for him would not be counted.

Some states need to finish their primary ballot in December. This needs to be resolved before the primaries, delaying until after the conventions could be a disaster for Republicans.

Of course the Trump court could screw the pooch by refusing to hear the cases and letting every state decide for itself.

---

I believe the 14th amendment simply allows states to remove him from the ballot. That does not necessarily mean he is removed from the election in that state. Are you sure that the write in candidate votes aren't counted. I know from my work as a poll worker, that some write in candidates votes are counted and others aren't. You have to qualify as a write in via signatures. I think Trump would get enough signatures. I could be wrong about this so it's more of a question not a statement.

Also, the highlighted portion above is confusing to me. Could you restate that with more specifics so I can understand what you are referring to?

---

It's not an inclusion on the ballot question. It is a qualification to be a candidate question like age and natural born citizenship. You could no more write in a candidate so disqualified then you could write in Putin and have it count.

---

Thanks for clarification and, if that is the case, then I certainly think the 14th amendment has bearing for the 2024 election. But I doubt it will matter much in the presidential electoral college. However, it will effect the overall vote and the down ballot races. It could be devastating for the Republicans in congress.

---

It will have to be litigated and I doubt the odds are good that any such litigation will be timely or successful.

---

I agree. It turns out that we rely far more on norms than the rule of law. And when you (you in the general sense, not you cb93) stop pretending to care about comity, behavior, decorum, etc. then the US has a lot less formal protection against autocracy than many people thought we did.

There are all of these markers of freedom in a system of government that we used to take for granted and it turns out they don't actually exist. A great example is the historical "independence" of the DOJ. It's simply untrue - Trump and his supporters were very clear in stating that Trump was the chief law enforcement officer and could exert any control he wanted over the FBI and DOJ. They also claim persecution from the DOJ because it's been "weaponized" after they told us that Trump was allowed to weaponize it. Similarly, we talk about an "independent" judiciary but we've learned that our lack of actual laws and enforceability of ethics has rendered any such independents illusory.

These are just a few examples but I'm sure we can all think of a large number. The Constitution is a relatively short framework that leaves a lot to the reader's imagination. Turns out that we heavily relied for a really long time on the "readers" having some sort of common north star and that is no longer the case.

We aren't protected from bad guys on the left or the right, this isn't a partisan vulnerability. The major breach happened because of Trump but could just as easily be true of a democrat. Contrary to all of the hysterical claims by the people who defended Trump's omnipetence, we haven't actually seen any evidence of Biden breaking these sorts of norms during this presidency, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't, couldn't or wouldn't.

We should have a bipartisan agreement on closing a lot of these loopholes but we haven't seen enough enthusiasm from Democrats and it's been absolutely stonewalled by the GOP.

---

I couldn't agree more on the need to protect safeguards that have protected our democracy for hundreds of years even if not expedient. Hell is paved with good intentions, and I see even here those who may believe they are pursuing higher goals promoting destroying many of those safeguards.

Whether it's filibuster, separation of powers, Supreme Court appointment for life (decrease the need to be political to be re-elected or reappointed), electoral college (state rights and protect against mob rule), senate (state independence) vs house (popular vote), being careful and thoughtful about indicting former presidents (jeopardizes peaceful transfer of power and enhances risk of political persecution), etc. you have seen some of the nonsense even here by allegedly educated folks with no sense of history or the import of law and order, balancing of majority rule with tyranny of the majority, etc. People are too blinded by tribalism and even hatred of Trump to step back and be grown up about the key foundations of democracy. We are still an experiment and a lot of countries have tried and failed due to resorting to expediency. We will survive Trump and this period only if we have principles and not just stupid, expedient, unsophisticated thinking. Otherwise, we will just be another failed experiment, even if one that survived longer than most.

---

We are a failed experiment cloaked by a high standard of living

---

If you have a better proven form of government that has stood the test of time, would love to read about it.

I am of the firm belief that, as flawed as America is, we are the best country in the world.

---

Let me guess. You're an American, correct? And how many other countries have you lived in again?
BTW, our form of government in theory could very well be the best. We've never ever gotten close to living up to our form of government. Also what are your metrics for measuring the quality of a country?

By most metrics used to measure quality, the US has fallen considerably over the past half century to far below the best. But, why don't you find me some metrics where the US leads the world.

---

Yes I am an American. And I express my belief through action by choosing to live here. Like most, I have options. I am not like those who say one thing and do another by mocking America and then choosing not to live elsewhere. I live where I believe is the best despite flaws, including the country, state and city. Why do you live here? It isn't that hard to leave. If you want to argue job, etc., isn't that also what makes this a great country - that a person who could not get a job anywhere else can make a living here and still have time to post how much they don't like it here? How sad of life to have no option but to live where you don't want to live.

The metric? The percentage of people from other countries who want to immigrate here legally or illegally over other countries.

---

I'm staying here because:

• This is what I'm familiar with and comfortable with. So, subjectively it is better for me here. That doesn't make it objectively better
• Despite the above, I have seriously considered leaving but have decided to stay because I want to take responsibility to help America realize it's promise instead of running away.
• The cost of moving to another country is more than I can afford right now.

As for your metric. That's fine. What is your source that shows you that America has more immigrants compared to other countries? It is a good metric but a good portion of immigrants come from our neighbors to the south and many of them are leaving horrid situations. To say that America is a better country than most of our neighbors to the south is not really saying much. Also, arguing that a country is more attract is not necessarily the same as arguing that it is better. To be blunt, many men are attracted to strippers that doesn't mean strippers are better women. Maybe many folks are attracted to our second amendment. That doesn't make it better. Also, you have to factor in the size of our country. Where does America rank on average annual immigration over the last 10 years as a percentage of our population compared to other countries percentage of their population.

I would hope you had more metrics than that.

Also, who is mocking America. Is criticism mocking? Is trying to point out problems so they can be addressed complaining? I don't have a negative attitude towards America. I have a realistic attitude. It's similar to the football team. I don't sunshine pump. And, as a result, I have been much more accurate.

Finally, don't worry about me. I live exactly where I want to live, in the SC mountains. Other than fires and wind, it's paradise. I don't know how you concluded I was unhappy. But I am also lucky. Most Americans don't/can't live the way I do.

---

First of all, I did not write that you were unhappy. I said that you must live here because you think this is the best place to live. It seems you agree and are happy where you live. It would be sad if you had to live where you are unhappy doing so.

And so what country do you think is better? You are the one who felt strongly enough to challenge my post where I stated that I believed this is the best country. What experience do you have to feel even slightly challenged by my belief in my country? What country do you prefer or do you feel as if one has to live in every country to believe their country is the best?

https://www.threads.net/@rudepundit/post/CzxcodsokVb/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

tequila4kapp said:

---

Sometime I really do feel badly for people who have no legal training and limited understanding of the Constitution or SCOTUS. The average citizen, likely HS educated, is vulnerable to believing this type of tripe. If they are watching MSNBC they probably want to believe it which is, of course, the reason networks put deranged people on the air who say this type of stupidity.

---

+1000

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Sometime I really do feel badly for people who have no legal training and limited understanding of the Constitution or SCOTUS. The average citizen, likely HS educated, is vulnerable to believing this type of tripe. If they are watching MSNBC they probably want to believe it which is, of course, the reason networks put deranged people on the air who say this type of stupidity.

---

You have legal training and you made it clear from your previous posts that you didn't understand the 5-4 disagreement and now you are here lecturing others after revealing your own obtuseness on the matter.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/118841/replies/2310428

---

-1,000,000,000,000

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Sometime I really do feel badly for people who have no legal training and limited understanding of the Constitution or SCOTUS. The average citizen, likely HS educated, is vulnerable to believing this type of tripe. If they are watching MSNBC they probably want to believe it which is, of course, the reason networks put deranged people on the air who say this type of stupidity.

---

You have legal training and you made it clear from your previous posts that you didn't understand the 5-4 disagreement and now you are here lecturing others after revealing your own obtuseness on the matter.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/118841/replies/2310428

---

-1,000,000,000,000

---

Strong tribe work in your last two posts

---

Yup, I am definitely not in your tribe, the tribe of folks who don't know crap about interpreting law and act as if they do.

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Sometime I really do feel badly for people who have no legal training and limited understanding of the Constitution or SCOTUS. The average citizen, likely HS educated, is vulnerable to believing this type of tripe. If they are watching MSNBC they probably want to believe it which is, of course, the reason networks put deranged people on the air who say this type of stupidity.

---

You have legal training and you made it clear from your previous posts that you didn't understand the 5-4 disagreement and now you are here lecturing others after revealing your own obtuseness on the matter.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/118841/replies/2310428

---

-1,000,000,000,000

---

Strong tribe work in your last two posts

---

Yup, I am definitely not in your tribe, the tribe of folks who don't know crap about interpreting law and act as if they do.

---

You are in the tribe of people who have law degrees and show they aren't able to understand a legal ruling and still admonish people without law degrees