The US Department of Justice is out of control!

Thumbs down to the variety of sources, is it? To each his own, ladies and gentlemen.

@Noflaps

One thing I always say is "avoid conflating facts and faith".

I feel like you're at a point where your default defense for Trump's actions is retreating into "the left lied to us, and Trump's been persecuted", but when THAT stance is challenged, you merely dismiss criticisms, regardless of validity.

Take this, for example:

We are now assured by some that the Trump administration is "lawless." If so, why has it won so MANY appeals? Indeed, why did it even BOTHER to appeal to BEGIN with, if it's so "out of control" ? Do "lawless dictators" and "autocrats" REALLY bother to appeal at all?

In a previous thread, I already provided evidence that a similar claim you made was highly questionable, by pointing out the fact that the Trump administration's legal success rate was, in fact, pretty damn low (40%-- which ain't exactly a passing grade). Despite this, you maintain your unaltered stance that Trump's been wildly successful in court. Do you have evidence to prove your stance on appeals (as in numbers)? Or are you just convinced of its accuracy?

In the past, I (as well as others) have also noted your use of whataboutism, a common fallacy, yet post 25 is riddled with it-- often recycled from previous forum debates of yours. Additionally, you have a tendency to ignore the main points others are making and zero in on the details if it is easier to defend your position. For example, the main point of post #28 seemed to be that Portland ain't exactly Normandy, but you completely ignored that and focused on Chicago and Memphis. Those were easier to attack, sure, but that still doesn't address the main point of his post.

Why do I bring this up? Well, in order to effectively argue, one has to maintain credibility and rationality, which these actions undermine. At this point, it seems like your belief is not the rational kind, but the faith kind, where belief trumps evidence. You are free to hold faith in the presidency, but you should not expect others to accept your positions merely because you faithfully hold them.

Incidentally, I 100% agree with this:

I wish EVERYBODY on the Right and on the Left and on the Center would not treat their politics like a religion, listening only to the media "ministers" of their own sect and being oh-so-very-certain that they understand everything perfectly.

#29
"if people come to us illegally, they are criminals"

• Except for the few surviving Indians all US Citizens came illegally.

Well, we're in agreement about some things, noble @clousems, and that should reassure us both.

Even if we may differ in the extent to which we listen to NPR and the extent to which we admire, or at least agree with, Liz Cheney.

And need I remind that a win in a trial court that is later over-turned is NOT a dependable long-term win. UPON APPEAL the Trump administration this term has been doing pretty well. That's not just my opinion, as I've already pointed out twice. And, in any event, would a genuine "dictator" bother to appeal AT ALL? That's my point.

Trump is OBVIOUSLY not a dictator or an autocrat who is "destroying democracy." No matter how many bumper stickers come to display the claim.

And it's not "whataboutism" to point out that any who might make such a claim have gotten a LOT wrong in the past. THAT's the other point. I'm not remotely "irrational," even if some find my refusal to nod along to be frustrating.

As far as Portland goes, do you think its streets seem as dependably friendly to ICE agents as they do to, say, a host from MSNBC or even NPR? Do your usual sources shed any light on that question?

And no, @tpr, plenty of the ancestors came to North America without breaking a single law.

See now we view the shameful lack of ethics of @Noflaps aka Flapadoodle laid bare. He doesn't debate honestly. He ignores facts. He ignores evidence. He posts lies and mistruths regardless of how many times things have been manifestly proven to be the opposite. Ironically, just like Trump.

That is why...we should not take Flapadoodle seriously anymore. He should be jettisoned from civil discussion. That's why the only thing to do, whenever you detect Flapadoodle, is to "booo" him mercilessly and thumbs down all of his posts until the odour of Flapadoodle has left the comment thread. Everyone realizes it. Clousems, Kitzschen, everybody. He is not an honorable person to hold debates with. At best he is a right wing troll

#34
The Appalachian Mountains were the legal frontier, but was illegally crossed.
President Andrew Jackson ordered a genocide of the indigenous people.
All settlers came to the land of the indigenous people illegally.

What "shameful lack of ethics" ? lol.

I try to stay polite, I use the Socratic method, and I discuss the issues. In response, I sometimes get evasion, silly name-calling and insult. And rarely do I see reflective, fact-laden responses.

Indeed, the name calling may be rising to a fever pitch! (Even if it's merely a low-grade fever).

And yet I don't see a refutation for anything I've written. I do see various vague, disparaging characterizations, but nothing particularly pointed or apt.

And no, @tpr, it isn't remotely true that "all settlers" came to the New World "illegally." If you think I'm wrong, kindly cite the "law" that you think was broken.

New France and various Indian nations were quite congenial for a long time. And Britain formed its own relationships, with the Mohawks being, for a time, perhaps the most dependable Anglophiles among the Nations.

I wonder how many young people even know of the real estate transactions that were already occurring between the colonies and the native Americans even before the so-called "French and Indian War" (eventually known as the "Seven Years War" in Europe) began. And yes, I know that not all of those transactions were equally to be praised or condoned.

Indeed, the history of the Ohio Country is quite interesting. George Washington gained renown in that country, as a very young man, long before there was any thought of the colonies breaking away from Britain.

#37
Point is that all settlers came by boat from Spain, France, England, Ireland, Italy, Germany, Holland hoping for a better life and took the land from the indigenous people.
Those that now come by boat or walking from South America do the same but are considered illegal.
They are descendants from the indigenous people that crossed the Bering Straight 20,000 years ago.
What president Andrew Jackson did was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, but he ignored their ruling.

There was a heck of a lot going on in the New World LONG before Andrew Jackson, friend. And I'm still awaiting mention of some specific, pertinent law.

It's helpful, I believe, to realize that the native Americans were not some homogenous group. They divided themselves into discrete groups and nations -- and cannot all be lumped together as if they were a single entity. And there was, at times, both cooperation and struggle between the disparate groups.

Land under the control of one group might not remain under the control of the same group forever. And land even got conveyed to the European colonists at times, in exchange for real and significant compensation. Native Americans even formed alliances with some settler jurisdictions, although in my personal opinion New France often did the best job of seeing the utility of such cooperation.

I'd continue to elaborate upon the history that too many seem to supplant with vague, popular notions that, I suspect, tend to be derived from motions pictures or television much more than from a careful study of the actual history. But what would be the point?

Enjoy your day. Sincerely.

Those who sailed from Europe to North America in search of a better life did just the same as those who now come from South America to North America. It cannot be that the latter are illegal criminals and the former not.