Discussion:
Regular MSNBC Guest: All Laws Passed Before 1965 Should Be "Presumptively Unconstitutional"
Add Reply
Ubiquitous
2025-04-07 08:30:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered “presumptively unconstitutional.”

Mystal made the assertion during a conversation on the ABC midday talk show
“The View” while discussing his new book, “Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are
Ruining America” — and he argued that any law passed prior to the 1965 Voting
Rights Act should be thrown out because until that law passed, “we were an
apartheid country.”

WATCH:

Guest on "The View" says all laws before 1965 should be ruled null
and void: "Why should I give a f*** about some law that some old
White man passed in the 1920s?" pic.twitter.com/x4Y6veWgFg

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) April 1, 2025

“One of the laws you write about is playing out right now — the Immigration
and Nationality Act,” cohost Sunny Hostin said. “Now, this administration is
using this statute to justify the detentions and possible deportations,
actually, of visa and Green-Card holders who they seek to deem a threat to
U.S. foreign policy. What do you make of the administration’s use of the act,
and, more broadly, is Trump really setting up a First Amendment showdown,
which is what Whoopi’s been talking about?”

“Yes, absolutely,” Mystal declared. “One of my premises for the book is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived her could vote
here.”

“So why should I give a **** about some law that some old white man passed in
the 1920s?” he asked.

Mystal followed up his appearance on “The View” with a racially-charged post
on X claiming that his book “seems to have pissed off the white wing so, as
usual, I’m doing something right.”

Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior to
joining “The View.” During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration’s efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to “fascism.”

--
Not a joke! Don't jump!
BTR1701
2025-04-07 16:44:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously hard-left
but he doesn't even make any sense.

First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
here.

He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution itself is
a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.

Sure. <rolls eyes>

Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them don't even
know what the word actually means.
Rhino
2025-04-07 18:36:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously hard-left
but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution itself is
a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure. <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them don't even
know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.

If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.

But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
--
Rhino
moviePig
2025-04-07 19:05:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously hard-left
but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution itself is
a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them don't even
know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki

How many of those dozen or so qualities are necessary for something to
qualify as truly fascist?
Pluted Pup
2025-04-07 19:41:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously hard-left
but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution itself is
a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure. <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them don't even
know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
That's a desperate definition of Fascism from wikipedia that tries to
make it seem otherwise to every Communist movement and state.

Here is fascism defined in American English:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fascism

"a system of government characterized by rigid one-party
dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private
economic enterprise under centralized governmental control,
belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc."

in other words, every communist state and movement, though
the definition of communism in American English:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/communism

"a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the
community as a whole or to the state"

Anti-fascists have often said that anti-communists are
only about opposition to this very abstract definition
of communism and never on any valid reasons.
Post by moviePig
How many of those dozen or so qualities are necessary for something to
qualify as truly fascist?
The 1930's usage of the epithet Fascist also includes
anyone or anything uncooperative, so an engine that
dies is a fascist engine and a horse that limps is a
fascist horse, a gun that misfires is a fascist gun, re.
the Hemingway book For Whom The Bell Tolls.
Rhino
2025-04-07 19:45:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pluted Pup
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously hard-left
but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution itself is
a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure. <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them don't even
know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
That's a desperate definition of Fascism from wikipedia that tries to
make it seem otherwise to every Communist movement and state.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fascism
"a system of government characterized by rigid one-party
dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private
economic enterprise under centralized governmental control,
belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc."
in other words, every communist state and movement, though
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/communism
"a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the
community as a whole or to the state"
Anti-fascists have often said that anti-communists are
only about opposition to this very abstract definition
of communism and never on any valid reasons.
Post by moviePig
How many of those dozen or so qualities are necessary for something to
qualify as truly fascist?
The 1930's usage of the epithet Fascist also includes
anyone or anything uncooperative, so an engine that
dies is a fascist engine and a horse that limps is a
fascist horse, a gun that misfires is a fascist gun, re.
the Hemingway book For Whom The Bell Tolls.
In other words, the language is just reverting to what it was in the
1930s where everything is fascist so the word means nothing.
--
Rhino
shawn
2025-04-07 21:12:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:45:58 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Pluted Pup
That's a desperate definition of Fascism from wikipedia that tries to
make it seem otherwise to every Communist movement and state.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fascism
"a system of government characterized by rigid one-party
dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private
economic enterprise under centralized governmental control,
belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc."
in other words, every communist state and movement, though
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/communism
"a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the
community as a whole or to the state"
Anti-fascists have often said that anti-communists are
only about opposition to this very abstract definition
of communism and never on any valid reasons.
Post by moviePig
How many of those dozen or so qualities are necessary for something to
qualify as truly fascist?
The 1930's usage of the epithet Fascist also includes
anyone or anything uncooperative, so an engine that
dies is a fascist engine and a horse that limps is a
fascist horse, a gun that misfires is a fascist gun, re.
the Hemingway book For Whom The Bell Tolls.
In other words, the language is just reverting to what it was in the
1930s where everything is fascist so the word means nothing.
Which is no different from the term "Woke" which has devolved to
essentially mean "I don't like this."
moviePig
2025-04-07 21:35:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:45:58 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Pluted Pup
That's a desperate definition of Fascism from wikipedia that tries to
make it seem otherwise to every Communist movement and state.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fascism
"a system of government characterized by rigid one-party
dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private
economic enterprise under centralized governmental control,
belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc."
in other words, every communist state and movement, though
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/communism
"a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the
community as a whole or to the state"
Anti-fascists have often said that anti-communists are
only about opposition to this very abstract definition
of communism and never on any valid reasons.
Post by moviePig
How many of those dozen or so qualities are necessary for something to
qualify as truly fascist?
The 1930's usage of the epithet Fascist also includes
anyone or anything uncooperative, so an engine that
dies is a fascist engine and a horse that limps is a
fascist horse, a gun that misfires is a fascist gun, re.
the Hemingway book For Whom The Bell Tolls.
In other words, the language is just reverting to what it was in the
1930s where everything is fascist so the word means nothing.
Which is no different from the term "Woke" which has devolved to
essentially mean "I don't like this."
'Woke' originally had a positive connotation, but was flipped by
persistent use with scare-quotes ...as anything would be.
Adam H. Kerman
2025-04-07 21:36:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by Rhino
Post by Pluted Pup
. . .
The 1930's usage of the epithet Fascist also includes
anyone or anything uncooperative, so an engine that
dies is a fascist engine and a horse that limps is a
fascist horse, a gun that misfires is a fascist gun, re.
the Hemingway book For Whom The Bell Tolls.
In other words, the language is just reverting to what it was in the
1930s where everything is fascist so the word means nothing.
Which is no different from the term "Woke" which has devolved to
essentially mean "I don't like this."
I don't think "woke" is a generalized epithet, as it's used to apply to
ideas and those who seek to apply them. Whereas "fascist" appears to
have nothing to do with someone who would impose fascism on a state
level.

What's an example of its use as a general epithet?
Rhino
2025-04-07 19:48:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously hard-left
but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution itself is
a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them don't even
know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks them
what the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least a
little bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep
using "fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They
become a laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism
which the listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy."  -Wiki
How many of those dozen or so qualities are necessary for something to
qualify as truly fascist?
If that's the definition you're going with, you need to explain exactly
how Trump, the Republicans, and America in general are "fascist" cecause
that's exactly what your Leftist brothers constantly insist.
--
Rhino
moviePig
2025-04-07 20:15:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously hard-left
but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution itself is
a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them don't even
know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they
don't know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks them
what the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they
never actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing
the word around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least a
little bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep
using "fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They
become a laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism
which the listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy."  -Wiki
How many of those dozen or so qualities are necessary for something to
qualify as truly fascist?
If that's the definition you're going with, you need to explain exactly
how Trump, the Republicans, and America in general are "fascist" cecause
that's exactly what your Leftist brothers constantly insist.
I'm not "going with it", it's just the first that Googled up. But I
think it serves as evidence of an inherently problematic label.
Rhino
2025-04-07 21:45:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously hard-left
but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution itself is
a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them don't even
know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they
don't know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks them
what the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they
never actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing
the word around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would
figure out that they've made the word meaningless and start using
different words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at
least a little bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they
just keep using "fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a
result. They become a laughingstock as they keep making accusations
of fascism which the listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about
so that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist
political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial
leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of
opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of
individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race,
and strong regimentation of society and the economy."  -Wiki
How many of those dozen or so qualities are necessary for something
to qualify as truly fascist?
If that's the definition you're going with, you need to explain
exactly how Trump, the Republicans, and America in general are
"fascist" cecause that's exactly what your Leftist brothers constantly
insist.
I'm not "going with it", it's just the first that Googled up.  But I
think it serves as evidence of an inherently problematic label.
I ss that you completely ignored my challenge to show how Trump, the
Republicans or the USA is fascist. Instead, you chose to quibble about
the definition that you yourself offered.
--
Rhino
shawn
2025-04-07 22:08:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 17:45:15 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously hard-left
but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution itself is
a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them don't even
know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they
don't know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks them
what the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they
never actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing
the word around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would
figure out that they've made the word meaningless and start using
different words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at
least a little bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they
just keep using "fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a
result. They become a laughingstock as they keep making accusations
of fascism which the listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about
so that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist
political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial
leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of
opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of
individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race,
and strong regimentation of society and the economy."  -Wiki
How many of those dozen or so qualities are necessary for something
to qualify as truly fascist?
If that's the definition you're going with, you need to explain
exactly how Trump, the Republicans, and America in general are
"fascist" cecause that's exactly what your Leftist brothers constantly
insist.
I'm not "going with it", it's just the first that Googled up.  But I
think it serves as evidence of an inherently problematic label.
I ss that you completely ignored my challenge to show how Trump, the
Republicans or the USA is fascist. Instead, you chose to quibble about
the definition that you yourself offered.
Fascist tendencies in Trump: A comparison to Hitler's rise | DW News



Is the US descending into fascism? Interview with Professor Jason
Stanley | DW News



Is President Trump Fascist? | NYT Opinion



I wouldn't call him a fascist but there are certainly some tendencies
that go along with fascism as pointed out in the above videos.
Adam H. Kerman
2025-04-07 22:19:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by Rhino
. . .
I ss that you completely ignored my challenge to show how Trump, the
Republicans or the USA is fascist. Instead, you chose to quibble about
the definition that you yourself offered.
Fascist tendencies in Trump: A comparison to Hitler's rise | DW News
http://youtu.be/bKgPzDctPM8
Is the US descending into fascism? Interview with Professor Jason
Stanley | DW News
http://youtu.be/geRic3w01ng
Is President Trump Fascist? | NYT Opinion
http://youtu.be/-QK1IVi4REI
I wouldn't call him a fascist but there are certainly some tendencies
that go along with fascism as pointed out in the above videos.
What do "tendencies" have to do with anything? In any event, Hitler
comparisons are worthless; look at Italy.

Why is it necessary to give Trump that label? Trump behaves like...
Trump. It's worthless to compare America today to the rise of
dictatorships in Europe between the wars, which was more than Italy and
Germany anyway.
moviePig
2025-04-08 02:53:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
On Apr 7, 2025 at 1:30:50 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously hard-left
but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the
Constitution itself is
a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them don't even
know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they
don't know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym
for everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks
them what the word "fascist" means to them and the response is
always an embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know.
But they never actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep
throwing the word around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would
figure out that they've made the word meaningless and start using
different words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at
least a little bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they
just keep using "fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a
result. They become a laughingstock as they keep making accusations
of fascism which the listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about
so that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist
political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial
leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of
opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of
individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race,
and strong regimentation of society and the economy."  -Wiki
How many of those dozen or so qualities are necessary for something
to qualify as truly fascist?
If that's the definition you're going with, you need to explain
exactly how Trump, the Republicans, and America in general are
"fascist" because that's exactly what your Leftist brothers
constantly insist.
I'm not "going with it", it's just the first that Googled up.  But I
think it serves as evidence of an inherently problematic label.
I see that you completely ignored my challenge to show how Trump, the
Republicans or the USA is fascist. Instead, you chose to quibble about
the definition that you yourself offered.
I offered a reason you're unable to communicate about fascism with "me
and my leftist brothers". As for your "challenge", I'm guessing you
don't really need my help to see abundant examples from Wiki's
description in the current administration.
BTR1701
2025-04-07 19:58:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution itself is
a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't even in
the same universe as all that.
moviePig
2025-04-07 20:18:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution itself is
a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
BTR1701
2025-04-08 01:57:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution itself is
a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care of everything we
legally need to deport them.
moviePig
2025-04-08 02:59:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote
here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is
a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang
members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country
illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send
his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need. But, if
"illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other allegations.
BTR1701
2025-04-08 04:14:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua gangbagers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to fangs than it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
moviePig
2025-04-08 14:41:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua gangbangers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to fangs than it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
So, concretely, they're being deported for bad haircuts and dentistry...
BTR1701
2025-04-08 16:31:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation
Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the
Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks
them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least
a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They
become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't
even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua gangbangers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to fangs than it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
So, concretely, they're being deported for bad haircuts and dentistry...
Well, that and all the crime and violence. And at a basic level, we don't want
or need other countries' criminals. They bring nothing of value to the U.S.
and that's a perfectly valid reason to kick their asses the fuck out.
moviePig
2025-04-08 18:09:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation
Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the
Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks
them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least
a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They
become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't
even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua gangbangers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to fangs than it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
So, concretely, they're being deported for bad haircuts and dentistry...
Well, that and all the crime and violence. And at a basic level, we don't want
or need other countries' criminals. They bring nothing of value to the U.S.
and that's a perfectly valid reason to kick their asses the fuck out.
But, if I understand, they're only *accused* of crime and violence.
And, ideally, in accord with traditional American principles, they
oughtn't be punished as though they'd been convicted.
BTR1701
2025-04-08 18:46:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation
Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the
Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua gangbangers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to fangs than it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
So, concretely, they're being deported for bad haircuts and dentistry...
Well, that and all the crime and violence. And at a basic level, we don't want
or need other countries' criminals. They bring nothing of value to the U.S.
and that's a perfectly valid reason to kick their asses the fuck out.
But, if I understand, they're only *accused* of crime and violence.
And

THEY

ARE

ILLEGAL

ALIENS
Post by moviePig
And, ideally, in accord with traditional American principles, they
oughtn't be punished as though they'd been convicted.
THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS.
moviePig
2025-04-08 19:09:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation
Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the
Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks
them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They
become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't
even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua gangbangers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to fangs than it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
So, concretely, they're being deported for bad haircuts and dentistry...
Well, that and all the crime and violence. And at a basic level, we don't want
or need other countries' criminals. They bring nothing of value to the U.S.
and that's a perfectly valid reason to kick their asses the fuck out.
But, if I understand, they're only *accused* of crime and violence.
And
THEY
ARE
ILLEGAL
ALIENS
Post by moviePig
And, ideally, in accord with traditional American principles, they
oughtn't be punished as though they'd been convicted.
THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS.
But they're being PUNISHED for something else. Something unproven.
BTR1701
2025-04-08 20:23:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation
Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the
Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks
them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least
a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They
become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't
even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua gangbangers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to fangs than it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
So, concretely, they're being deported for bad haircuts and dentistry...
Well, that and all the crime and violence. And at a basic level, we don't want
or need other countries' criminals. They bring nothing of value to the U.S.
and that's a perfectly valid reason to kick their asses the fuck out.
But, if I understand, they're only *accused* of crime and violence.
And
THEY
ARE
ILLEGAL
ALIENS
Post by moviePig
And, ideally, in accord with traditional American principles, they
oughtn't be punished as though they'd been convicted.
THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS.
But they're being PUNISHED for something else.
No, they're being deported. That's what you do with illegals.

If they were being punished, they'd be sent to prison.
Post by moviePig
Something unproven.
Nothing other than being an illegal need be proven. The government has
discretion which illegals it wants to prioritize for deportation. They chose
violent criminal scumbags. It beggars the imagination why you'd pick this hill
to die on.
moviePig
2025-04-08 21:26:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation
Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the
Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks
them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least
a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They
become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't
even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua
gangbangers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to fangs than
it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
So, concretely, they're being deported for bad haircuts and dentistry...
Well, that and all the crime and violence. And at a basic level, we don't want
or need other countries' criminals. They bring nothing of value to the U.S.
and that's a perfectly valid reason to kick their asses the fuck out.
But, if I understand, they're only *accused* of crime and violence.
And
THEY
ARE
ILLEGAL
ALIENS
Post by moviePig
And, ideally, in accord with traditional American principles, they
oughtn't be punished as though they'd been convicted.
THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS.
But they're being PUNISHED for something else.
No, they're being deported. That's what you do with illegals.
If they were being punished, they'd be sent to prison.
Google:

"Deportation, or removal, is the formal process of forcing a
non-citizen to leave the United States, often due to immigration
violations or criminal convictions, and can be considered a form of
punishment."

I doubt many deportees send thank-you notes...
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Something unproven.
Nothing other than being an illegal need be proven. The government has
discretion which illegals it wants to prioritize for deportation. They chose
violent criminal scumbags. It beggars the imagination why you'd pick this hill
to die on.
Umm, remember *principle*? These people are being "selected" based on
crimes they're merely *alleged* to have committed. That's
anti-American, no matter how easily Trump gets away with it. It's
misuse of the law ...analogous to sending the IRS to audit you (which
they have every legal right to do even on a whim) as a political reprisal.
BTR1701
2025-04-08 23:43:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation
Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the
Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks
them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least
a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They
become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't
even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua
gangbangers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to
fangs than
it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
So, concretely, they're being deported for bad haircuts and dentistry...
Well, that and all the crime and violence. And at a basic level, we don't
want
or need other countries' criminals. They bring nothing of value to the U.S.
and that's a perfectly valid reason to kick their asses the fuck out.
But, if I understand, they're only *accused* of crime and violence.
And
THEY
ARE
ILLEGAL
ALIENS
Post by moviePig
And, ideally, in accord with traditional American principles, they
oughtn't be punished as though they'd been convicted.
THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS.
But they're being PUNISHED for something else.
No, they're being deported. That's what you do with illegals.
If they were being punished, they'd be sent to prison.
"Deportation, or removal, is the formal process of forcing a
non-citizen to leave the United States, often due to immigration
violations or criminal convictions, and can be considered a form of
punishment."
"And can be considered"

Love that passive voice.

You can be considered to be a porpoise. Doesn't mean you'd suddenly develop a
taste for mackerel.

Anything "can be considered" to be anything by purposely undefined and
unidentified people with agendas.
Post by moviePig
I doubt many deportees send thank-you notes...
Well, if they don't like it, they can always stop breaking into other people's
countries illegally.
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Something unproven.
Nothing other than being an illegal need be proven. The government has
discretion which illegals it wants to prioritize for deportation. They chose
violent criminal scumbags. It beggars the imagination why you'd pick this hill
to die on.
Umm, remember *principle*? These people are being "selected" based on
crimes they're merely *alleged* to have committed.
But they're still illegal aliens, so even if the government is wrong and the
guy with the Satanic pentagram tattooed onto back of his shaved head and the
demon horns embedded on his forehead and all the murders and rapes he's
committed graffitied across his torso in coded gang language is-- against all
odds and common sense-- not a psychopathic MS-13 thug and is just a totally
nice guy, he's STILL AN ILLEGAL ALIEN and subject to deportation.

If I have a pool of 1000 illegals eligible for deportation and 300 of them
look like this...

https://ibb.co/LD89Khbr

https://ibb.co/sJJzZ5b7

...and most all of them have criminal records on top of it, those are the ones
going to the front of my "get the fuck out" line and there's nothing either
legally or morally wrong with that. But hey, if you want to force us to
pretend all illegals are the same, fine. We'll stop prioritizing the violent
thugs and just start deporting them all. The abuelas and the single moms and
all the sympathetic illegals who otherwise would get a pass are now on the
chopping block because moviePig says we can't look at these evil motherfuckers
and say these guys go first.

There's nothing wrong with a country saying it doesn't want other countries'
criminals. Leftists gleefully giggled that Trump's "32 felonies" means he can
never visit Canada, yet you'll fight to death to keep the guys in those
pictures above here in America.
moviePig
2025-04-09 02:32:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation
Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the
Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks
them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least
a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They
become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't
even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua
gangbangers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to
fangs than
it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
So, concretely, they're being deported for bad haircuts and dentistry...
Well, that and all the crime and violence. And at a basic level, we don't
want
or need other countries' criminals. They bring nothing of value to the U.S.
and that's a perfectly valid reason to kick their asses the fuck out.
But, if I understand, they're only *accused* of crime and violence.
And
THEY
ARE
ILLEGAL
ALIENS
Post by moviePig
And, ideally, in accord with traditional American principles, they
oughtn't be punished as though they'd been convicted.
THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS.
But they're being PUNISHED for something else.
No, they're being deported. That's what you do with illegals.
If they were being punished, they'd be sent to prison.
"Deportation, or removal, is the formal process of forcing a
non-citizen to leave the United States, often due to immigration
violations or criminal convictions, and can be considered a form of
punishment."
"And can be considered"
Love that passive voice.
You can be considered to be a porpoise. Doesn't mean you'd suddenly develop a
taste for mackerel.
Anything "can be considered" to be anything by purposely undefined and
unidentified people with agendas.
Post by moviePig
I doubt many deportees send thank-you notes...
Well, if they don't like it, they can always stop breaking into other people's
countries illegally.
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Something unproven.
Nothing other than being an illegal need be proven. The government has
discretion which illegals it wants to prioritize for deportation. They chose
violent criminal scumbags. It beggars the imagination why you'd pick this hill
to die on.
Umm, remember *principle*? These people are being "selected" based on
crimes they're merely *alleged* to have committed.
But they're still illegal aliens, so even if the government is wrong and the
guy with the Satanic pentagram tattooed onto back of his shaved head and the
demon horns embedded on his forehead and all the murders and rapes he's
committed graffitied across his torso in coded gang language is-- against all
odds and common sense-- not a psychopathic MS-13 thug and is just a totally
nice guy, he's STILL AN ILLEGAL ALIEN and subject to deportation.
If I have a pool of 1000 illegals eligible for deportation and 300 of them
look like this...
https://ibb.co/LD89Khbr
https://ibb.co/sJJzZ5b7
...and most all of them have criminal records on top of it, those are the ones
going to the front of my "get the fuck out" line and there's nothing either
legally or morally wrong with that. But hey, if you want to force us to
pretend all illegals are the same, fine. We'll stop prioritizing the violent
thugs and just start deporting them all. The abuelas and the single moms and
all the sympathetic illegals who otherwise would get a pass are now on the
chopping block because moviePig says we can't look at these evil motherfuckers
and say these guys go first.
There's nothing wrong with a country saying it doesn't want other countries'
criminals. Leftists gleefully giggled that Trump's "32 felonies" means he can
never visit Canada, yet you'll fight to death to keep the guys in those
pictures above here in America.
Here's another parallel ...maybe you can resist deleting this one:

Should the Titanic's captain have given priority to the first-class
passengers in filling the lifeboats? After all, it wouldn't have
affected the number of saved lives. Or maybe he could've simply favored
the passengers he informally judged to be of good character...
BTR1701
2025-04-09 03:16:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation
Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the
Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks
them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least
a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They
become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't
even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua
gangbangers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to
fangs than
it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
So, concretely, they're being deported for bad haircuts and dentistry...
Well, that and all the crime and violence. And at a basic level,
we don't
want
or need other countries' criminals. They bring nothing of value to
the U.S.
and that's a perfectly valid reason to kick their asses the fuck out.
But, if I understand, they're only *accused* of crime and violence.
And
THEY
ARE
ILLEGAL
ALIENS
Post by moviePig
And, ideally, in accord with traditional American principles, they
oughtn't be punished as though they'd been convicted.
THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS.
But they're being PUNISHED for something else.
No, they're being deported. That's what you do with illegals.
If they were being punished, they'd be sent to prison.
"Deportation, or removal, is the formal process of forcing a
non-citizen to leave the United States, often due to immigration
violations or criminal convictions, and can be considered a form of
punishment."
"And can be considered"
Love that passive voice.
You can be considered to be a porpoise. Doesn't mean you'd suddenly develop a
taste for mackerel.
Anything "can be considered" to be anything by purposely undefined and
unidentified people with agendas.
Post by moviePig
I doubt many deportees send thank-you notes...
Well, if they don't like it, they can always stop breaking into other people's
countries illegally.
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Something unproven.
Nothing other than being an illegal need be proven. The government has
discretion which illegals it wants to prioritize for deportation. They chose
violent criminal scumbags. It beggars the imagination why you'd pick this hill
to die on.
Umm, remember *principle*? These people are being "selected" based on
crimes they're merely *alleged* to have committed.
But they're still illegal aliens, so even if the government is wrong and the
guy with the Satanic pentagram tattooed onto back of his shaved head and the
demon horns embedded on his forehead and all the murders and rapes he's
committed graffitied across his torso in coded gang language is-- against all
odds and common sense-- not a psychopathic MS-13 thug and is just a totally
nice guy, he's STILL AN ILLEGAL ALIEN and subject to deportation.
If I have a pool of 1000 illegals eligible for deportation and 300 of them
look like this...
https://ibb.co/LD89Khbr
https://ibb.co/sJJzZ5b7
...and most all of them have criminal records on top of it, those are the ones
going to the front of my "get the fuck out" line and there's nothing either
legally or morally wrong with that. But hey, if you want to force us to
pretend all illegals are the same, fine. We'll stop prioritizing the violent
thugs and just start deporting them all. The abuelas and the single moms and
all the sympathetic illegals who otherwise would get a pass are now on the
chopping block because moviePig says we can't look at these evil motherfuckers
and say these guys go first.
There's nothing wrong with a country saying it doesn't want other countries'
criminals. Leftists gleefully giggled that Trump's "32 felonies" means he can
never visit Canada, yet you'll fight to death to keep the guys in those
pictures above here in America.
Should the Titanic's captain have given priority to the first-class
passengers in filling the lifeboats? After all, it wouldn't have
affected the number of saved lives. Or maybe he could've simply favored
the passengers he informally judged to be of good character...
If the Titanic had a hold full of guys like those in the pictures above, yes,
everyone else should have lifeboat priority over them.
moviePig
2025-04-09 16:15:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation
Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the
Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks
them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least
a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They
become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't
even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua
gangbangers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to
fangs than
it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
So, concretely, they're being deported for bad haircuts and dentistry...
Well, that and all the crime and violence. And at a basic level,
we don't
want
or need other countries' criminals. They bring nothing of value to
the U.S.
and that's a perfectly valid reason to kick their asses the fuck out.
But, if I understand, they're only *accused* of crime and violence.
And
THEY
ARE
ILLEGAL
ALIENS
Post by moviePig
And, ideally, in accord with traditional American principles, they
oughtn't be punished as though they'd been convicted.
THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS.
But they're being PUNISHED for something else.
No, they're being deported. That's what you do with illegals.
If they were being punished, they'd be sent to prison.
"Deportation, or removal, is the formal process of forcing a
non-citizen to leave the United States, often due to immigration
violations or criminal convictions, and can be considered a form of
punishment."
"And can be considered"
Love that passive voice.
You can be considered to be a porpoise. Doesn't mean you'd suddenly develop a
taste for mackerel.
Anything "can be considered" to be anything by purposely undefined and
unidentified people with agendas.
Post by moviePig
I doubt many deportees send thank-you notes...
Well, if they don't like it, they can always stop breaking into other people's
countries illegally.
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Something unproven.
Nothing other than being an illegal need be proven. The government has
discretion which illegals it wants to prioritize for deportation. They chose
violent criminal scumbags. It beggars the imagination why you'd pick this
hill
to die on.
Umm, remember *principle*? These people are being "selected" based on
crimes they're merely *alleged* to have committed.
But they're still illegal aliens, so even if the government is wrong and the
guy with the Satanic pentagram tattooed onto back of his shaved head and the
demon horns embedded on his forehead and all the murders and rapes he's
committed graffitied across his torso in coded gang language is-- against all
odds and common sense-- not a psychopathic MS-13 thug and is just a totally
nice guy, he's STILL AN ILLEGAL ALIEN and subject to deportation.
If I have a pool of 1000 illegals eligible for deportation and 300 of them
look like this...
https://ibb.co/LD89Khbr
https://ibb.co/sJJzZ5b7
...and most all of them have criminal records on top of it, those are the ones
going to the front of my "get the fuck out" line and there's nothing either
legally or morally wrong with that. But hey, if you want to force us to
pretend all illegals are the same, fine. We'll stop prioritizing the violent
thugs and just start deporting them all. The abuelas and the single moms and
all the sympathetic illegals who otherwise would get a pass are now on the
chopping block because moviePig says we can't look at these evil motherfuckers
and say these guys go first.
There's nothing wrong with a country saying it doesn't want other countries'
criminals. Leftists gleefully giggled that Trump's "32 felonies" means he can
never visit Canada, yet you'll fight to death to keep the guys in those
pictures above here in America.
Should the Titanic's captain have given priority to the first-class
passengers in filling the lifeboats? After all, it wouldn't have
affected the number of saved lives. Or maybe he could've simply favored
the passengers he informally judged to be of good character...
If the Titanic had a hold full of guys like those in the pictures above, yes,
everyone else should have lifeboat priority over them.
You must wonder why we bother with a trial if the defendant's ugly...
BTR1701
2025-04-09 17:45:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
On Apr 8, 2025 at 7:41:51 AM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Apr 7, 2025 at 7:59:35 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Apr 7, 2025 at 1:18:03 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation
Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the
Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks
them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least
a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They
become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't
even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care
of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua
gangbangers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to
fangs than
it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
So, concretely, they're being deported for bad haircuts and
dentistry...
Well, that and all the crime and violence. And at a basic level,
we don't
want
or need other countries' criminals. They bring nothing of value to
the U.S.
and that's a perfectly valid reason to kick their asses the fuck out.
But, if I understand, they're only *accused* of crime and violence.
And
THEY
ARE
ILLEGAL
ALIENS
Post by moviePig
And, ideally, in accord with traditional American principles, they
oughtn't be punished as though they'd been convicted.
THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS.
But they're being PUNISHED for something else.
No, they're being deported. That's what you do with illegals.
If they were being punished, they'd be sent to prison.
"Deportation, or removal, is the formal process of forcing a
non-citizen to leave the United States, often due to immigration
violations or criminal convictions, and can be considered a form of
punishment."
"And can be considered"
Love that passive voice.
You can be considered to be a porpoise. Doesn't mean you'd suddenly
develop
a
taste for mackerel.
Anything "can be considered" to be anything by purposely undefined and
unidentified people with agendas.
Post by moviePig
I doubt many deportees send thank-you notes...
Well, if they don't like it, they can always stop breaking into other people's
countries illegally.
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Something unproven.
Nothing other than being an illegal need be proven. The government has
discretion which illegals it wants to prioritize for deportation. They
chose
violent criminal scumbags. It beggars the imagination why you'd pick this
hill
to die on.
Umm, remember *principle*? These people are being "selected" based on
crimes they're merely *alleged* to have committed.
But they're still illegal aliens, so even if the government is wrong and the
guy with the Satanic pentagram tattooed onto back of his shaved head and the
demon horns embedded on his forehead and all the murders and rapes he's
committed graffitied across his torso in coded gang language is-- against all
odds and common sense-- not a psychopathic MS-13 thug and is just a totally
nice guy, he's STILL AN ILLEGAL ALIEN and subject to deportation.
If I have a pool of 1000 illegals eligible for deportation and 300 of them
look like this...
https://ibb.co/LD89Khbr
https://ibb.co/sJJzZ5b7
...and most all of them have criminal records on top of it, those are the ones
going to the front of my "get the fuck out" line and there's nothing either
legally or morally wrong with that. But hey, if you want to force us to
pretend all illegals are the same, fine. We'll stop prioritizing the violent
thugs and just start deporting them all. The abuelas and the single moms and
all the sympathetic illegals who otherwise would get a pass are now on the
chopping block because moviePig says we can't look at these evil motherfuckers
and say these guys go first.
There's nothing wrong with a country saying it doesn't want other countries'
criminals. Leftists gleefully giggled that Trump's "32 felonies" means he can
never visit Canada, yet you'll fight to death to keep the guys in those
pictures above here in America.
Should the Titanic's captain have given priority to the first-class
passengers in filling the lifeboats? After all, it wouldn't have
affected the number of saved lives. Or maybe he could've simply favored
the passengers he informally judged to be of good character...
If the Titanic had a hold full of guys like those in the pictures above, yes,
everyone else should have lifeboat priority over them.
You must wonder why we bother with a trial if the defendant's ugly...
One wonders if you're really this stupid or just playing it for effect.

You really think the officers of the Titanic are going to stop and hold a
trial for *anyone* while the ship is starting tilt bow downward?
moviePig
2025-04-09 19:01:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
On Apr 8, 2025 at 7:41:51 AM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Apr 7, 2025 at 7:59:35 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Apr 7, 2025 at 1:18:03 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation
Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the
Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks
them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least
a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They
become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't
even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care
of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua
gangbangers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to
fangs than
it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
So, concretely, they're being deported for bad haircuts and
dentistry...
Well, that and all the crime and violence. And at a basic level,
we don't
want
or need other countries' criminals. They bring nothing of value to
the U.S.
and that's a perfectly valid reason to kick their asses the fuck out.
But, if I understand, they're only *accused* of crime and violence.
And
THEY
ARE
ILLEGAL
ALIENS
Post by moviePig
And, ideally, in accord with traditional American principles, they
oughtn't be punished as though they'd been convicted.
THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS.
But they're being PUNISHED for something else.
No, they're being deported. That's what you do with illegals.
If they were being punished, they'd be sent to prison.
"Deportation, or removal, is the formal process of forcing a
non-citizen to leave the United States, often due to immigration
violations or criminal convictions, and can be considered a form of
punishment."
"And can be considered"
Love that passive voice.
You can be considered to be a porpoise. Doesn't mean you'd suddenly
develop
a
taste for mackerel.
Anything "can be considered" to be anything by purposely undefined and
unidentified people with agendas.
Post by moviePig
I doubt many deportees send thank-you notes...
Well, if they don't like it, they can always stop breaking into other
people's
countries illegally.
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Something unproven.
Nothing other than being an illegal need be proven. The government has
discretion which illegals it wants to prioritize for deportation. They
chose
violent criminal scumbags. It beggars the imagination why you'd pick this
hill
to die on.
Umm, remember *principle*? These people are being "selected" based on
crimes they're merely *alleged* to have committed.
But they're still illegal aliens, so even if the government is wrong and the
guy with the Satanic pentagram tattooed onto back of his shaved head and the
demon horns embedded on his forehead and all the murders and rapes he's
committed graffitied across his torso in coded gang language is-- against all
odds and common sense-- not a psychopathic MS-13 thug and is just a totally
nice guy, he's STILL AN ILLEGAL ALIEN and subject to deportation.
If I have a pool of 1000 illegals eligible for deportation and 300 of them
look like this...
https://ibb.co/LD89Khbr
https://ibb.co/sJJzZ5b7
...and most all of them have criminal records on top of it, those are the
ones
going to the front of my "get the fuck out" line and there's nothing either
legally or morally wrong with that. But hey, if you want to force us to
pretend all illegals are the same, fine. We'll stop prioritizing the violent
thugs and just start deporting them all. The abuelas and the single moms and
all the sympathetic illegals who otherwise would get a pass are now on the
chopping block because moviePig says we can't look at these evil
motherfuckers
and say these guys go first.
There's nothing wrong with a country saying it doesn't want other countries'
criminals. Leftists gleefully giggled that Trump's "32 felonies" means he can
never visit Canada, yet you'll fight to death to keep the guys in those
pictures above here in America.
Should the Titanic's captain have given priority to the first-class
passengers in filling the lifeboats? After all, it wouldn't have
affected the number of saved lives. Or maybe he could've simply favored
the passengers he informally judged to be of good character...
If the Titanic had a hold full of guys like those in the pictures above, yes,
everyone else should have lifeboat priority over them.
You must wonder why we bother with a trial if the defendant's ugly...
One wonders if you're really this stupid or just playing it for effect.
You really think the officers of the Titanic are going to stop and hold a
trial for *anyone* while the ship is starting tilt bow downward?
You can't legally discriminate based on crimes that are merely alleged.
Seems obvious to me, but I herewith accept that somehow it isn't to you.
BTR1701
2025-04-09 19:22:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
On Apr 8, 2025 at 7:41:51 AM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Apr 7, 2025 at 7:59:35 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Apr 7, 2025 at 1:18:03 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation
Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not
everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone
who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the
Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined
network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the
fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks
them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't
know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and
keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their
leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least
a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They
become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what
he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and
ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible
suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't
even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care
of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua
gangbangers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to
fangs than
it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
So, concretely, they're being deported for bad haircuts and
dentistry...
Well, that and all the crime and violence. And at a basic level,
we don't
want
or need other countries' criminals. They bring nothing of value to
the U.S.
and that's a perfectly valid reason to kick their asses
the fuck out.
But, if I understand, they're only *accused* of crime and violence.
And
THEY
ARE
ILLEGAL
ALIENS
Post by moviePig
And, ideally, in accord with traditional American principles, they
oughtn't be punished as though they'd been convicted.
THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS.
But they're being PUNISHED for something else.
No, they're being deported. That's what you do with illegals.
If they were being punished, they'd be sent to prison.
"Deportation, or removal, is the formal process of forcing a
non-citizen to leave the United States, often due to immigration
violations or criminal convictions, and can be considered a form of
punishment."
"And can be considered"
Love that passive voice.
You can be considered to be a porpoise. Doesn't mean you'd suddenly
develop
a
taste for mackerel.
Anything "can be considered" to be anything by purposely undefined and
unidentified people with agendas.
Post by moviePig
I doubt many deportees send thank-you notes...
Well, if they don't like it, they can always stop breaking into other
people's
countries illegally.
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Something unproven.
Nothing other than being an illegal need be proven. The government has
discretion which illegals it wants to prioritize for deportation. They
chose
violent criminal scumbags. It beggars the imagination why you'd
pick this
hill
to die on.
Umm, remember *principle*? These people are being "selected" based on
crimes they're merely *alleged* to have committed.
But they're still illegal aliens, so even if the government is wrong
and the
guy with the Satanic pentagram tattooed onto back of his shaved head
and the
demon horns embedded on his forehead and all the murders and rapes he's
committed graffitied across his torso in coded gang language is--
against
all
odds and common sense-- not a psychopathic MS-13 thug and is just a totally
nice guy, he's STILL AN ILLEGAL ALIEN and subject to deportation.
If I have a pool of 1000 illegals eligible for deportation and 300 of them
look like this...
https://ibb.co/LD89Khbr
https://ibb.co/sJJzZ5b7
...and most all of them have criminal records on top of it, those are the
ones
going to the front of my "get the fuck out" line and there's nothing either
legally or morally wrong with that. But hey, if you want to force us to
pretend all illegals are the same, fine. We'll stop prioritizing the
violent
thugs and just start deporting them all. The abuelas and the single
moms and
all the sympathetic illegals who otherwise would get a pass are now on the
chopping block because moviePig says we can't look at these evil
motherfuckers
and say these guys go first.
There's nothing wrong with a country saying it doesn't want other
countries'
criminals. Leftists gleefully giggled that Trump's "32 felonies"
means he
can
never visit Canada, yet you'll fight to death to keep the guys in those
pictures above here in America.
Should the Titanic's captain have given priority to the first-class
passengers in filling the lifeboats? After all, it wouldn't have
affected the number of saved lives. Or maybe he could've simply favored
the passengers he informally judged to be of good character...
If the Titanic had a hold full of guys like those in the pictures above, yes,
everyone else should have lifeboat priority over them.
You must wonder why we bother with a trial if the defendant's ugly...
One wonders if you're really this stupid or just playing it for effect.
You really think the officers of the Titanic are going to stop and hold a
trial for *anyone* while the ship is starting tilt bow downward?
You can't legally discriminate based on crimes that are merely alleged.
The captain of a sinking ship filling lifeboats absolutely can legally do
that.
moviePig
2025-04-09 21:01:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
On Apr 8, 2025 at 7:41:51 AM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Apr 7, 2025 at 7:59:35 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Apr 7, 2025 at 1:18:03 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation
Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not
everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone
who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the
Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined
network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the
fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks
them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't
know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and
keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their
leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least
a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They
become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what
he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and
ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible
suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals and gang members isn't
even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care
of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua
gangbangers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to
fangs than
it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
So, concretely, they're being deported for bad haircuts and
dentistry...
Well, that and all the crime and violence. And at a basic level,
we don't
want
or need other countries' criminals. They bring nothing of value to
the U.S.
and that's a perfectly valid reason to kick their asses
the fuck out.
But, if I understand, they're only *accused* of crime and violence.
And
THEY
ARE
ILLEGAL
ALIENS
Post by moviePig
And, ideally, in accord with traditional American principles, they
oughtn't be punished as though they'd been convicted.
THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS.
But they're being PUNISHED for something else.
No, they're being deported. That's what you do with illegals.
If they were being punished, they'd be sent to prison.
"Deportation, or removal, is the formal process of forcing a
non-citizen to leave the United States, often due to immigration
violations or criminal convictions, and can be considered a form of
punishment."
"And can be considered"
Love that passive voice.
You can be considered to be a porpoise. Doesn't mean you'd suddenly
develop
a
taste for mackerel.
Anything "can be considered" to be anything by purposely undefined and
unidentified people with agendas.
Post by moviePig
I doubt many deportees send thank-you notes...
Well, if they don't like it, they can always stop breaking into other
people's
countries illegally.
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Something unproven.
Nothing other than being an illegal need be proven. The government has
discretion which illegals it wants to prioritize for deportation. They
chose
violent criminal scumbags. It beggars the imagination why you'd
pick this
hill
to die on.
Umm, remember *principle*? These people are being "selected" based on
crimes they're merely *alleged* to have committed.
But they're still illegal aliens, so even if the government is wrong
and the
guy with the Satanic pentagram tattooed onto back of his shaved head
and the
demon horns embedded on his forehead and all the murders and rapes he's
committed graffitied across his torso in coded gang language is--
against
all
odds and common sense-- not a psychopathic MS-13 thug and is just a
totally
nice guy, he's STILL AN ILLEGAL ALIEN and subject to deportation.
If I have a pool of 1000 illegals eligible for deportation and 300
of them
look like this...
https://ibb.co/LD89Khbr
https://ibb.co/sJJzZ5b7
...and most all of them have criminal records on top of it, those are the
ones
going to the front of my "get the fuck out" line and there's nothing
either
legally or morally wrong with that. But hey, if you want to force us to
pretend all illegals are the same, fine. We'll stop prioritizing the
violent
thugs and just start deporting them all. The abuelas and the single
moms and
all the sympathetic illegals who otherwise would get a pass are now
on the
chopping block because moviePig says we can't look at these evil
motherfuckers
and say these guys go first.
There's nothing wrong with a country saying it doesn't want other
countries'
criminals. Leftists gleefully giggled that Trump's "32 felonies"
means he
can
never visit Canada, yet you'll fight to death to keep the guys in those
pictures above here in America.
Should the Titanic's captain have given priority to the first-class
passengers in filling the lifeboats? After all, it wouldn't have
affected the number of saved lives. Or maybe he could've simply favored
the passengers he informally judged to be of good character...
If the Titanic had a hold full of guys like those in the pictures above, yes,
everyone else should have lifeboat priority over them.
You must wonder why we bother with a trial if the defendant's ugly...
One wonders if you're really this stupid or just playing it for effect.
You really think the officers of the Titanic are going to stop and hold a
trial for *anyone* while the ship is starting tilt bow downward?
You can't legally discriminate based on crimes that are merely alleged.
The captain of a sinking ship filling lifeboats absolutely can legally do
that.
'You' in this instance refers to an otherwise unconstrained enforcer of
the Constitution ...not to the captain of a sinking ship.
BTR1701
2025-04-09 21:06:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
On Apr 8, 2025 at 2:26:22 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
On Apr 8, 2025 at 7:41:51 AM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Apr 7, 2025 at 7:59:35 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Apr 7, 2025 at 1:18:03 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
On Apr 7, 2025 at 1:30:50 AM PDT,
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation
Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of
my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the
1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not
everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone
who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is
unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the
Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined
network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman
Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance,
he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal
illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who
snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these
people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the
fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks
them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't
know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and
keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their
leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless
and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least
a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that
happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They
become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it
easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what
he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and
ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible
suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals
and gang members isn't
even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care
of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally
needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua
gangbangers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to
fangs than
it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
So, concretely, they're being deported for bad haircuts and
dentistry...
Well, that and all the crime and violence. And at a basic level,
we don't
want
or need other countries' criminals. They bring nothing of value to
the U.S.
and that's a perfectly valid reason to kick their asses
the fuck out.
But, if I understand, they're only *accused* of crime
and violence.
And
THEY
ARE
ILLEGAL
ALIENS
Post by moviePig
And, ideally, in accord with traditional American principles, they
oughtn't be punished as though they'd been convicted.
THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS.
But they're being PUNISHED for something else.
No, they're being deported. That's what you do with illegals.
If they were being punished, they'd be sent to prison.
"Deportation, or removal, is the formal process of forcing a
non-citizen to leave the United States, often due to immigration
violations or criminal convictions, and can be considered a form of
punishment."
"And can be considered"
Love that passive voice.
You can be considered to be a porpoise. Doesn't mean you'd suddenly
develop
a
taste for mackerel.
Anything "can be considered" to be anything by purposely undefined and
unidentified people with agendas.
Post by moviePig
I doubt many deportees send thank-you notes...
Well, if they don't like it, they can always stop breaking into other
people's
countries illegally.
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Something unproven.
Nothing other than being an illegal need be proven. The
government has
discretion which illegals it wants to prioritize for
deportation. They
chose
violent criminal scumbags. It beggars the imagination why you'd
pick this
hill
to die on.
Umm, remember *principle*? These people are being "selected" based on
crimes they're merely *alleged* to have committed.
But they're still illegal aliens, so even if the government is wrong
and the
guy with the Satanic pentagram tattooed onto back of his shaved head
and the
demon horns embedded on his forehead and all the murders and
rapes he's
committed graffitied across his torso in coded gang language is--
against
all
odds and common sense-- not a psychopathic MS-13 thug and is just a
totally
nice guy, he's STILL AN ILLEGAL ALIEN and subject to deportation.
If I have a pool of 1000 illegals eligible for deportation and 300
of them
look like this...
https://ibb.co/LD89Khbr
https://ibb.co/sJJzZ5b7
...and most all of them have criminal records on top of it, those
are the
ones
going to the front of my "get the fuck out" line and there's nothing
either
legally or morally wrong with that. But hey, if you want to
force us to
pretend all illegals are the same, fine. We'll stop prioritizing the
violent
thugs and just start deporting them all. The abuelas and the single
moms and
all the sympathetic illegals who otherwise would get a pass are now
on the
chopping block because moviePig says we can't look at these evil
motherfuckers
and say these guys go first.
There's nothing wrong with a country saying it doesn't want other
countries'
criminals. Leftists gleefully giggled that Trump's "32 felonies"
means he
can
never visit Canada, yet you'll fight to death to keep the guys
in those
pictures above here in America.
Should the Titanic's captain have given priority to the first-class
passengers in filling the lifeboats? After all, it wouldn't have
affected the number of saved lives. Or maybe he could've simply favored
the passengers he informally judged to be of good character...
If the Titanic had a hold full of guys like those in the pictures above,
yes,
everyone else should have lifeboat priority over them.
You must wonder why we bother with a trial if the defendant's ugly...
One wonders if you're really this stupid or just playing it for effect.
You really think the officers of the Titanic are going to stop and hold a
trial for *anyone* while the ship is starting tilt bow downward?
You can't legally discriminate based on crimes that are merely alleged.
The captain of a sinking ship filling lifeboats absolutely can legally do
that.
'You' in this instance refers to an otherwise unconstrained enforcer of
the Constitution ...not to the captain of a sinking ship.
Dude, you were the one who brought up the Titanic and its lifeboats and tried
to shame me into addressing it ("maybe you can resist deleting this one"). Now
that I've addressed it (and showed that your own analogy fails you), you
suddenly don't want to talk about it anymore?
moviePig
2025-04-09 22:58:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
On Apr 8, 2025 at 2:26:22 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
On Apr 8, 2025 at 7:41:51 AM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Apr 7, 2025 at 7:59:35 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Apr 7, 2025 at 1:18:03 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
On Apr 7, 2025 at 1:30:50 AM PDT,
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation
Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965
should be considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of
my premises for the book
is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the
1965 Voting Rights Act,
we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not
everybody who lived here could
vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously
hard-left but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone
who lives here can vote
here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even
if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is
unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the
Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined
network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman
Michael Steele just two days
prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance,
he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal
illegal aliens and gang
members amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who
snuck into the country
illegally and then committed more crimes against Americans while
here, and send
his ass back to wherever he came from.
Sure.  <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these
people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the
fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. I've seen a few cases where someone asks
them what
the word "fascist" means to them and the response is always an
embarrassed pause as they realize that they don't
know. But they never
actually seem to make an effort to find out and
keep throwing the word
around with abandon.
If they had an ounce of sincerity in them, their
leaders would figure
out that they've made the word meaningless
and start using different
words in their rhetoric so that their statements made at least
a little
bit of sense. But I've never seen that
happen: they just keep using
"fascist" and keep weakening their statements as a result. They
become a
laughingstock as they keep making accusations of fascism which the
listener *knows* is a word they don't understand.
But hey, I'm fine with that. It just makes it
easier to tell you're
listening to a yammerhead that has no idea what
he's talking about so
that you can ignore what he's saying.
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and
ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible
suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
And deporting violent illegal alien criminals
and gang members isn't
even in
the same universe as all that.
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care
of everything we
legally need to deport them.
Well, your sympathetic SCOTUS is all you *legally* need.
No, under the U.S. Code that's all that's legally
needed. No SCOTUS
necessary.
Post by moviePig
But, if "illegal alien" does the trick, I wonder why all the other
allegations.
Politics. It's more politically palatable to deport Tren de Aragua
gangbangers
with death tattoos on their shaven heads and teeth filed down to
fangs than
it
is to deport someone's abuela making tacos on the corner.
So, concretely, they're being deported for bad haircuts and
dentistry...
Well, that and all the crime and violence. And at a basic level,
we don't
want
or need other countries' criminals. They bring nothing of value to
the U.S.
and that's a perfectly valid reason to kick their asses
the fuck out.
But, if I understand, they're only *accused* of crime
and violence.
And
THEY
ARE
ILLEGAL
ALIENS
Post by moviePig
And, ideally, in accord with traditional American principles, they
oughtn't be punished as though they'd been convicted.
THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS.
But they're being PUNISHED for something else.
No, they're being deported. That's what you do with illegals.
If they were being punished, they'd be sent to prison.
"Deportation, or removal, is the formal process of forcing a
non-citizen to leave the United States, often due to immigration
violations or criminal convictions, and can be considered a form of
punishment."
"And can be considered"
Love that passive voice.
You can be considered to be a porpoise. Doesn't mean you'd suddenly
develop
a
taste for mackerel.
Anything "can be considered" to be anything by purposely undefined and
unidentified people with agendas.
Post by moviePig
I doubt many deportees send thank-you notes...
Well, if they don't like it, they can always stop breaking into other
people's
countries illegally.
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Something unproven.
Nothing other than being an illegal need be proven. The
government has
discretion which illegals it wants to prioritize for
deportation. They
chose
violent criminal scumbags. It beggars the imagination why you'd
pick this
hill
to die on.
Umm, remember *principle*? These people are being "selected" based on
crimes they're merely *alleged* to have committed.
But they're still illegal aliens, so even if the government is wrong
and the
guy with the Satanic pentagram tattooed onto back of his shaved head
and the
demon horns embedded on his forehead and all the murders and
rapes he's
committed graffitied across his torso in coded gang language is--
against
all
odds and common sense-- not a psychopathic MS-13 thug and is just a
totally
nice guy, he's STILL AN ILLEGAL ALIEN and subject to deportation.
If I have a pool of 1000 illegals eligible for deportation and 300
of them
look like this...
https://ibb.co/LD89Khbr
https://ibb.co/sJJzZ5b7
...and most all of them have criminal records on top of it, those
are the
ones
going to the front of my "get the fuck out" line and there's nothing
either
legally or morally wrong with that. But hey, if you want to
force us to
pretend all illegals are the same, fine. We'll stop prioritizing the
violent
thugs and just start deporting them all. The abuelas and the single
moms and
all the sympathetic illegals who otherwise would get a pass are now
on the
chopping block because moviePig says we can't look at these evil
motherfuckers
and say these guys go first.
There's nothing wrong with a country saying it doesn't want other
countries'
criminals. Leftists gleefully giggled that Trump's "32 felonies"
means he
can
never visit Canada, yet you'll fight to death to keep the guys
in those
pictures above here in America.
Should the Titanic's captain have given priority to the first-class
passengers in filling the lifeboats? After all, it wouldn't have
affected the number of saved lives. Or maybe he could've simply favored
the passengers he informally judged to be of good character...
If the Titanic had a hold full of guys like those in the pictures above,
yes,
everyone else should have lifeboat priority over them.
You must wonder why we bother with a trial if the defendant's ugly...
One wonders if you're really this stupid or just playing it for effect.
You really think the officers of the Titanic are going to stop and hold a
trial for *anyone* while the ship is starting tilt bow downward?
You can't legally discriminate based on crimes that are merely alleged.
The captain of a sinking ship filling lifeboats absolutely can legally do
that.
'You' in this instance refers to an otherwise unconstrained enforcer of
the Constitution ...not to the captain of a sinking ship.
Dude, you were the one who brought up the Titanic and its lifeboats and tried
to shame me into addressing it ("maybe you can resist deleting this one"). Now
that I've addressed it (and showed that your own analogy fails you), you
suddenly don't want to talk about it anymore?
The Titanic analogy -- particularly with respect to the first-class
passengers -- meant to elicit some glimpse of the vigilantism in
enforcing one's personal judgments simply because one can.
Adam H. Kerman
2025-04-08 03:04:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
. . .
How about deporting *ACCUSED* violent illegal alien criminals?
Note the key term there: illegal alien. That takes care of everything we
legally need to deport them.
They're still entitled to notice and a hearing. The Supreme Court just
said so hours ago.
The Horny Goat
2025-04-28 19:25:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
How many of those dozen or so qualities are necessary for something to
qualify as truly fascist?
It would certainly apply to HAMAS (and of course to Stalin 1941-45)
Rhino
2025-04-28 19:48:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by moviePig
"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political
ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader,
centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition,
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual
interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong
regimentation of society and the economy." -Wiki
How many of those dozen or so qualities are necessary for something to
qualify as truly fascist?
It would certainly apply to HAMAS (and of course to Stalin 1941-45)
I hope you're not saying that Stalin was *only* horrible between 1941
and 1945. I've read a LOT of books about him and I can assure you he was
horrible for pretty much his entire life.

He once told Beria, the last head of the secret police (which was not
called the KGB until after Stalin died), that he (Stalin) was so
paranoid the he (Stalin) thought he (Stalin) was plotting against HIMSELF.

He once told his daughter, Svetlana, that it was a shame that Hitler had
turned on him in 1941. "Together," he said, "we could have really done
some things!"
--
Rhino
Adam H. Kerman
2025-04-07 19:21:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
. . .
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. . . .
To be fair, that's how I use "commie".
Ian J. Ball
2025-04-07 20:31:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
. . .
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. . . .
To be fair, that's how I use "commie".
That's 'cos COMMIES ARE THE WORST!!!! [thumbs up (x3)]
The Horny Goat
2025-04-28 19:29:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian J. Ball
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
Worse yet, most of them don't even reflect on the fact that they don't
know what "fascist" really means. They use it as a synonym for
everything they hate. . . .
To be fair, that's how I use "commie".
That's 'cos COMMIES ARE THE WORST!!!! [thumbs up (x3)]
The whole definition of 'left' vs 'right' derives from the late 19th
century French Assembly which had a circular arrangement where the
Speaker was at the top of the circle and the various parties were
divided in their places around the circle.

What this meant of course is that Communists and authoritarians were
at opposite sides of the circle (e.g. adjacent) with only the Speaker
betweent them.

A lot of people thought that was completely fitting...
Adam H. Kerman
2025-04-07 19:19:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut.

Here's a citation to the story Ubi the shithead plagarized.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/regular-msnbc-guest-all-laws-passed-before-1965-should-be-presumptively-unconstitutional
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously hard-left
but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution itself is
a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Does that include the post-Civil War civil rights legislation written by
the Radical Republicans, all of which was found CONSTITUTIONAL and in
force by the Supreme Court under Earl Warren? Even Hansberry v. Lee
(Hansberry was the father of Lorraine Hansberry) was decided in 1940,
under Charles Hughes.

Does that include the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The statement is a tautology. (There's a better Latin phrase.) Blacks
weren't in Congress because they were slaves, and blacks didn't have the
vote because they were slaves. Only white men could enshrine liberty in
constitutional and legislative law. But civil rights legislation,
written by white men, are unconstitutional like all other law due to
lack of enfranchisement. But lack of the franchise makes laws
unconstitutional. But no one but a sitting member of Congress can write
legislation, including civil rights laws.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure. <rolls eyes>
Did any of these men have a final order of removal? Trump doesn't say.
We know in one prominent case, the man had an order from an immigration
judge that he was NOT subject to removal (as long as he didn't violate
conditions of humanitarian parole).

Let's retain probable cause, shall we? Prosecute the fuckers for crimes
committed in the United States upon indictment with probable cause.
Trump doesn't present evidence in court 'cuz there ain't none.

You can't defend Trump on this.
Post by BTR1701
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Of course this is moviePig language, but Trump is merely removing
people. Where's the promised transparency?

It's a coverup.
shawn
2025-04-07 19:43:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 19:19:29 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut.
Here's a citation to the story Ubi the shithead plagarized.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/regular-msnbc-guest-all-laws-passed-before-1965-should-be-presumptively-unconstitutional
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure. <rolls eyes>
Did any of these men have a final order of removal? Trump doesn't say.
We know in one prominent case, the man had an order from an immigration
judge that he was NOT subject to removal (as long as he didn't violate
conditions of humanitarian parole).
Let's retain probable cause, shall we? Prosecute the fuckers for crimes
committed in the United States upon indictment with probable cause.
Trump doesn't present evidence in court 'cuz there ain't none.
Don't forget that there's apparently no process in place to release
someone once they are deported. At least it is being claimed that they
have no means to get El Salvador to release someone once in their
custody. So even if the Trump administration was to admit to having
sent someone to El Salvador who was innocent there would be nothing
they can do.

Though isn't El Salvador being paid to keep these people in their
custody. Which would mean that even if El Salvador were to refuse to
release someone to the US custody (unlikely) they aren't going to keep
holding on to those prisoners if the USA stopped paying.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
You can't defend Trump on this.
Post by BTR1701
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.
Of course this is moviePig language, but Trump is merely removing
people. Where's the promised transparency?
It's a coverup.
Hell, they didn't even want to admit to removing the guy. Apparently
we only know they did so because his wife saw him in one of the pics.

So no transparency at all.
The Horny Goat
2025-04-28 19:38:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 15:43:59 -0400, shawn
Post by shawn
Don't forget that there's apparently no process in place to release
someone once they are deported. At least it is being claimed that they
have no means to get El Salvador to release someone once in their
custody. So even if the Trump administration was to admit to having
sent someone to El Salvador who was innocent there would be nothing
they can do.
Does the US have a clause saying all non-citizens convicted of an
offense with a maximum sentence over ___ years (in Canada it's 5
years) are automatically deported at end of sentence (which may not be
actually _____ years given early release or parole rules)?

Point of my question is that Canada DOES have such a rule but right
now we are having a case in the Canadian courts where the 2018
Humboldt Saskatchewan bus driver who ran a stop sign and t-boned a
team bus killing 16 people has now served his sentence and is
appealing his deportation order ... which of course is costing a ton
of money since the feds are fighting this one tooth + nail since it's
politically quite an explosive case as Rhino would surely attest. (As
in 'instant political suicide for any politician who signed an order
rescinding his deportation)

Let's just say there are a LOT of Canadians who know where Humboldt SK
is that didn't back in 2017.
Rhino
2025-04-28 20:06:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 15:43:59 -0400, shawn
Post by shawn
Don't forget that there's apparently no process in place to release
someone once they are deported. At least it is being claimed that they
have no means to get El Salvador to release someone once in their
custody. So even if the Trump administration was to admit to having
sent someone to El Salvador who was innocent there would be nothing
they can do.
Does the US have a clause saying all non-citizens convicted of an
offense with a maximum sentence over ___ years (in Canada it's 5
years) are automatically deported at end of sentence (which may not be
actually _____ years given early release or parole rules)?
Point of my question is that Canada DOES have such a rule but right
now we are having a case in the Canadian courts where the 2018
Humboldt Saskatchewan bus driver who ran a stop sign and t-boned a
team bus killing 16 people has now served his sentence and is
appealing his deportation order ... which of course is costing a ton
of money since the feds are fighting this one tooth + nail since it's
politically quite an explosive case as Rhino would surely attest. (As
in 'instant political suicide for any politician who signed an order
rescinding his deportation)
Let's just say there are a LOT of Canadians who know where Humboldt SK
is that didn't back in 2017.
I agree that the truck driver faces an uphill battle in fighting
deportation. I am puzzled about why he wants to stay. Personally, I
think there are still plenty of people who would happily kill him if
they saw him on the street in this country.

If I remember the details correctly, he was only in Canada a year when
the crash happened. He was newly married as well with a kid either just
born or on the way. I think the kid turned out to have some special
needs so that might be why he wants to stay here: he might not be able
to get the same level of care back in India.

I expect the courts will eventually render a decision on him being able
to stay but it's going to be interesting to see if the media covers it
on the front page or not and what, if anything, the politicians say. I
would certainly expect some blowback against politicians who looked like
they were in favour of him staying.

I'm not sure how long it will take to settle this matter. He finished
his sentence a year or more back but that is nothing compared to the
time it can take for the courts to rule on things.

It still boggles my mind that he killed 16 people and injured 13 but got
only 8 years in the slammer for that. Life really is cheap in this
country, isn't it? Mind you, if he'd shot people with a gun, he'd still
only get a 25 year sentence no matter how many he'd shot before he'd be
eligible for parole. I'm hoping that changes if Poilievre wins the
election....
--
Rhino
Adam H. Kerman
2025-04-28 20:30:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
. . .
Does the US have a clause saying all non-citizens convicted of an
offense with a maximum sentence over ___ years (in Canada it's 5
years) are automatically deported at end of sentence (which may not be
actually _____ years given early release or parole rules)?
Deportation isn't automatic. There's a hearing.

The two main categories of crimes that can put you at risk of
being deported are aggravated felonies and crimes involving
moral turpitude. The Immigration and Nationality Act also
enumerates certain crimes that serve as independent grounds of
deportation, even if they are not classified in one of those two
categories.

https://www.justia.com/immigration/deportation-removal/criminal-grounds-for-deportation/
Post by The Horny Goat
. . .
suzeeq
2025-04-28 20:34:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
. . .
Does the US have a clause saying all non-citizens convicted of an
offense with a maximum sentence over ___ years (in Canada it's 5
years) are automatically deported at end of sentence (which may not be
actually _____ years given early release or parole rules)?
Deportation isn't automatic. There's a hearing.
The two main categories of crimes that can put you at risk of
being deported are aggravated felonies and crimes involving
moral turpitude. The Immigration and Nationality Act also
enumerates certain crimes that serve as independent grounds of
deportation, even if they are not classified in one of those two
categories.
https://www.justia.com/immigration/deportation-removal/criminal-grounds-for-deportation/
There's supposed to be a hearing, but with the current policies I
wouldn't bet on it.

BTR1701
2025-04-07 20:02:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut.
Here's a citation to the story Ubi the shithead plagarized.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/regular-msnbc-guest-all-laws-passed-before-1965-should-be-presumptively-unconstitutional
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously hard-left
but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution itself is
a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Does that include the post-Civil War civil rights legislation written by
the Radical Republicans, all of which was found CONSTITUTIONAL and in
force by the Supreme Court under Earl Warren? Even Hansberry v. Lee
(Hansberry was the father of Lorraine Hansberry) was decided in 1940,
under Charles Hughes.
Does that include the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
And since the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865, well before Mystal's cutoff,
I guess slavery's back on the menu, boys!
Adam H. Kerman
2025-04-07 20:16:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Here's a citation to the story Ubi the shithead plagarized.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/regular-msnbc-guest-all-laws-passed-before-1965-should-be-presumptively-unconstitutional
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book
is that every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting
Rights Act, we were functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody
who lived here could vote here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously hard-left
but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can
vote here. Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote
even if they live here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution
itself is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution
is unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Does that include the post-Civil War civil rights legislation written by
the Radical Republicans, all of which was found CONSTITUTIONAL and in
force by the Supreme Court under Earl Warren? Even Hansberry v. Lee
(Hansberry was the father of Lorraine Hansberry) was decided in 1940,
under Charles Hughes.
Does that include the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
And since the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865, well before Mystal's cutoff,
I guess slavery's back on the menu, boys!
Go bigger!

There were no blacks in Europe during the Age of Enlightenment! It's all
invalid. Western civilization has been returned to the Dark Ages!
The Horny Goat
2025-04-28 19:40:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 20:16:01 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Go bigger!
There were no blacks in Europe during the Age of Enlightenment! It's all
invalid. Western civilization has been returned to the Dark Ages!
Really? There were blacks in England in the 14th century which is well
before "Enlightenment"
Adam H. Kerman
2025-04-28 20:10:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Go bigger!
There were no blacks in Europe during the Age of Enlightenment! It's all
invalid. Western civilization has been returned to the Dark Ages!
Really? There were blacks in England in the 14th century which is well
before "Enlightenment"
Only in the Shondaverse!
NoBody
2025-04-08 14:18:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book is that
every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively
unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were
functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote
here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously hard-left
but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution itself is
a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure. <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them don't even
know what the word actually means.
OMG. I guess the Constitution should be illegal then.

OY
Ubiquitous
2025-04-09 08:30:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal
claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be
considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
"Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book is
that every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be
presumptively unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting
Rights Act, we were functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who
lived here could vote here."
This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously hard-left
but he doesn't even make any sense.
First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live here.
He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution itself
is a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
I am pretty sure slavery was outlawed and women suffrage was passed before 1965.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior
to joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure. <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them don't even
know what the word actually means.
Semantic satiation has been reached.
(Cf. "racist", "Nazi")

--
Not a joke! Don't jump!
The Horny Goat
2025-04-28 19:23:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.
Sure. <rolls eyes>
Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them don't even
know what the word actually means.
I tend to think a lot of the current woke sort think it means
something like

"When ze Fuhrer says dat we iss da master race, we heil we heil right
in the Fuhrer's face!"

though I've seen some who wouldn't have a clue what a Fuhrer was...
Loading...