What do you think of this declaration of independence quote?

[Juxtapose]

It's beautiful 💪😎👍

I think it's dreadful!

[goaded]

It's fine. It isn't, by the way, a suggestion that that should be of a democratic government by force. You can VOTE to alter or abolish it by making amendments to the constitution. But only if a vast majority of people agree with you. That was the genius hallmark of the US constitution.

You might manage, for example, to pass an amendment to get big money out of politics. That's very popular across the political spectrum.

You once had prohibition, then you didn't.

[Juxtapose]

The American government is not perfect and laws can be intentionally misinterpreted. There is a point where violence is a perfectly valid and sensible solution in reaction to an utterly corrupt government.

[goaded]

And I suppose you currently have "an utterly corrupt government"?

Did you read the next part?

"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature; a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people...

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands."

Anything like that going on? (Other than Tuberville refusing to confirm military promotions, or McConnell refusing to confirm an eminently qualified nominee for SCOTUS for nine months, or House Republicans regularly threatening the credit of the United States, or Republicans "obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners", of course, or Gaetz getting the Republican Speaker thrown out.)

[Juxtapose]

Well let's see, our government is experimenting with mind control (MK Ultra is real the government experimented with LSD to try to obtain mind control), they want to keep track of all of our purchases if they can, they want to get rid of physical money and generally put all our information in passports they can chip into us so they can control our lives, they have civil asset forfeiture which is legalized theft, they are giving away our money to Ukraine for no goddamn reason, the government put the Japanese in internment camps in World war II, the government experimented on black people with syphilis, the government prosecutes whistleblowers so that lets you know you are being run by criminals, the Patriot Act is utterly constitutional and is so heinous it warrants a revolution all in of itself, the covid reaction was utterly Draconian and violated several amendments of the Bill of Rights such as freedom of movement, the government has illegally drone striked and killed American civilians without a trial overseas, etc etc.

The USA government is so utterly corrupt it has no justification in its existence. It terrorizes its citizens, it terrorizes the world and the government can only exist by the consent of the governed.

[goaded]

I think @madhatters4 took care of that sort of nonsense over here: Do you agree with this image? ↗

If you're so sure all these things are unconstitutional, convince other people of it and run for office. You still have the right to vote to change your head of state, and that's a massive difference from before the genuine revolution.

[Juxtapose]

Madhatter actually had one of the stupidest responses I have ever seen.

You foreigners act like our constitution is perfect and we can use it to cleanse out corruption. The votes are rigged, the laws are intentionally misinterpreted and the people that are supposed to be checks and balances are all in on it together.

[Juxtapose]

Obviously electing representatives and leaving them to their own devices doesn't work. They don't represent us.

[goaded]

Elect different ones, then. (By the way, why didn't you include Iran-Contra in your list?)

Any violent attempt to overthrow the government is sedition because the constitution includes in itself a mechanism (more than one, actually) to throw it out and start from scratch. You could literally write an amendment that eliminates all previous provisions and replaces them with something new.

Your only problem is convincing enough people and their states to vote for it.

[Snakeyes7]

So if a violent revolution were to erupt in the US and succeeded, but actually interpreted the constitution in a way that benefited the people rather than the government, is that really sedition? The only changes you'd be doing is tossing out the legislation that blatantly violates the *original* constitution and the bill of rights.

[goaded]

@Snakeyes7 Yes, of course that would be sedition. What you're really talking about is violently imposing your view of the constitution over everybody else's. If you don't like it, educate people, get their agreement, and use democratic means to achieve your ends. You don't even have to involve the federal government; ⅔ of the states can apply for a convention to propose an amendment. If you can't win two thirds of the states, then you can't get an amendment anyway.

The government you seem to hate was elected by the people. All the amendments were democratically agreed to. SCOTUS has judged some laws to be consitutional and blocked others. The constitution is designed to ensure peaceful transitions of power to winners of elections. A violent revolution is obviously totally against the spirit of the "*original* constitution and the bill of rights."

[Snakeyes7]

But part of what you define as "sedition" is starting from scratch which this wouldn't be because the constitution is still there, only it is actually followed instead of being constantly ignored when it benefits the government especially at the expense of the American people. That is what I am talking about.

> If you can't win two thirds of the states, then you can't get an amendment anyway.

Who cares about the amendments? The federal government sure doesn't. They can't even be bothered with the first 10. Even if we got an amendment through, what are the chances that the federal government is going to respect that? If you ask me, slim to none unless it is like 16th where there are no downsides for the federal government and all downsides to the people.

[Snakeyes7]

>The government you seem to hate was elected by the people.

The government you support is trying to remove their political opponent's name off of the ballot, which doesn't sound grassroots to me. They are doing it on a state level because they couldn't do it on a federal level as he got acquitted of the thing they accused him of, which is not the outcome the elites wanted. My point is, this part is not decided by the people.

If they successfully remove him, this will only set the precedent that the only candidates who will be allowed on the ballots will be people the elites approve of, not the people. So you have no room to accuse me of hating a government that is elected by the people.

>The constitution is designed to ensure peaceful transitions of power to winners of elections.

Which is why they should be challenged if something fishy is going on, which there was. Trump argued that it is fraud but I think it is due to last minute rule changes and ballot harvesting in blue states. Regardless, Trump is well within his rights to challenge this, just as much as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore did for theirs, but Trump is acting like a fascist by trying to ensure that the election system is working as intended and not the rest? That part alone shows how corrupt the system is.

>A violent revolution is obviously totally against the spirit of the "*original* constitution and the bill of rights."

Wrong. The Declaration of Independence says that we not only have the right but we also have the duty to alter or abolish any government that does not secure our unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[goaded]

@Snakeyes7 No, it's not. Career prosecutors are holding criminals responsible for their crimes; that's their job. If the White House was trying to control what they're doing, they'd resign, like when Trump wanted to replace acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with Jeffrey Clark. Oaths mean something to honourable people.

What happened to "state's rights"? How can you possibly think it's unreasonable to exclude someone who "having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."? en.wikipedia.org/.../Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It's the LAW.

"If they successfully remove him, this will only set the precedent that the only candidates who will be allowed on the ballots will be people the elites approve of, not the people."
Bullshit. The only people excluded will (as ever) be people who rebelled against the constitution.

Trump hasn't proven any election fraud, let alone anything that would have changed the result. He's had years to publish his oft-claimed proof, and still hasn't, because there isn't any. The challenges of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore stopped when the law said they'd lost. They endorsed the winner. Trump is still lying about 2020.

"Wrong. The Declaration of Independence says that we not only have the right but we also have the duty to alter or abolish any government that does not secure our unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Yes, by VOTING!

[Snakeyes7]

>No, it's not. Career prosecutors are holding criminals responsible for their crimes; that's their job.

What crimes? We still haven't been able to prove that Trump was behind J6 and Trump is exercising his right to petition the government in a redress of grievances for what he believes was fraud in the 2020 election. How can Trump be a criminal for crimes we haven't proven he has committed yet?

> If the White House was trying to control what they're doing, they'd resign.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Who is "they?"

>What happened to "state's rights"?

They already tried the federal level, Trump got acquitted and the elites got mad about it and are now trying to take him down on a state level, which shouldn't be applicable because this is a federal affair. The Dems couldn't accept the results of the federal hearing.

>Bullshit. The only people excluded will (as ever) be people who rebelled against the constitution.

But that will not be up to the people. Is that not what you said I am supposedly against?

>Trump hasn't proven any election fraud, let alone anything that would have changed the result. He's had years to publish his oft-claimed proof, and still hasn't, because there isn't any.

Ok so why are we trying to flatten him over that? He hasn't been able to prove fraud, the rest of them were not able to prove that they won and they are still not in prison. I hear Clinton still hasn't accepted defeat from 2016 but things like the Muller and the Durham reports are people admitting that she lost even though she and the FBI was caught trying to interfere with that election. If anyone were to belong in prison it is Clinton and the members of the FBI who took part of the Steele dossier.

> Yes, by VOTING!
Where in the declaration did it say that? That document was written before the American Revolution by delegates who were sick of the crown's shit and were ready to die to ensure a future free form tyranny.

[goaded]

@Snakeyes7 If you steal something, you're a criminal even before you've been caught, let alone indicted.

The crimes are listed in the indictments (and the NY fraud trial has already found him guilty of fraud, it's working on the amount of the damages). Trump's delaying the trials as long as he possibly can (in one case with the help of the judge he appointed and who already illegally interfered on his behalf in the very same case) so that disingenuous people like you can make that exact argument and enough people might believe it and vote him in again so he can pardon himself.

> I don't understand what you mean by this. Who is "they?"
The prosecutors. The special counsel, especially; they're independent of any political actors.

"They already tried the federal level..."
What are you talking about now? Impeachment is a political remedy, not a criminal one (and apparently at least some of the "jury" was intimidated by the threat of violence to their families). The trials are ongoing, including at the federal level. He committed crimes in multiple states and his co-defendants have already pleaded guilty in Georgia.

> But that will not be up to the people. Is that not what you said I am supposedly against?
If you're 33, you're also not eligible to run for president. Same thing, and also not "up to the people".

>Trump hasn't proven any election fraud, let alone anything that would have changed the result. He's had years to publish his oft-claimed proof, and still hasn't, because there isn't any.

The election is proof that Biden won, especially in the total absence of evidence to the contrary. And Trump and his fellow Republicans committed fraud when he lost; that's one of the things he's being tried for.

"> Yes, by VOTING!
Where in the declaration did it say that?"

So now you're not content with ignoring everything since the civil war, you want to ignore the constitution as well?

[Anonymous]

No only a great American declaration of the natural rights of man. It was a proclamation of the necessity of the right to walk away required to remain in the natural state of freedom to which man was born.

[IveGotTheSixG]

When the Hamas monsters cut off the heads of Jewish babies, and burned them alive, the college students in America didn't give a shit. When the Israelis unleashed a can of whoop ass against the Iranian-backed terrorists, the American college students weeped.

I support killing the baby killers.

The second amendment isn't about deer hunting.

[Juxtapose]

Well said!

[Paris13]

Beautiful But With Biden Minions in Office Now, Our Fore Fathers Would Be Rolling in Their Graves \With What They Have Done To This Country. xxoo

[Paris13]

Thanks, Gag. xxoo

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

It's beautiful

[andreasderjuengere]

I guess that it's time to put into action what 'they' suggested once.

They say, the people are tired of fighting this 'war' for self determination;

I ask you, people:

''If necessary, do you want a war more total and radical than anything that we can even imagine today?''

[normalice]

It is a misquote as it had a period at the end but that's not the end of the sentence. He goes on to say "laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
This last part is important as he is saying democracy, and only democracy, should replace the rule of the British kind.

[Juxtapose]

America is not a democracy it is a Democratic Republic.

[normalice]

The two are not mutually exclusive

[Juxtapose]

But yeah, replacing the government with something else was perfectly within the expectations of the founding fathers and the American Republic will not last forever. It will be overthrown, and either replaced by an enemy or by the people.

[normalice]

Why do you imagine the British empire would have overthrown and replaced its own government?

[Juxtapose]

It is inevitable, if your country is not conquered by a foreign power then your own people will displace you eventually.

Literally no country will last forever and anybody who says otherwise is diluted.

[normalice]

Oh, well I mean life itself will inevitably end one day so why try anything at all 🤷

[Juxtapose]

All organizations become very quickly corrupt. What we are doing with government is not working and the people need to take a much more proactive and authoritative role over their representatives.

[normalice]

Organizations can't become corrupt, only the people who operate them. A democracy (or whatever you want to call it) is the only system in existence where changing those people doesn't require violence.
Also "authoritative" is hopefully the wrong word, as authoritarianism is necessarily an exclusion from power for most people. What you are suggesting is some dictator rise up, presumably with the will of the people, and rule the government representatives with an iron fist. Yes, that's christian nationalism. And fhe flaw is once you put such a person into such a position, it's permanent so from then on you're trusting that person won't become corrupt (nevermind trusting they werent already corrupt). And since christian nationalists pretty universally demand trust upfront and make half their campaigning about never actually earning it, you get a cult leader as dictator where loyalty is promoted above competence and the rest of the government is just a puppet figure. I am, of course, basically quoting the Heritage Action (or was if the Federalist society?) Plan for any 2024 republican victory. Notice their only plan for a Democrat victory is to try again in 2028. Because the people who own the republican party are well aware the two sides are completely different..

[Juxtapose]

Under your line of reasoning George Washington was a dictator lol.

No, organizations are made up from people and people gathering together in positions of power are most prone to corruption. The most narcissistic, sociopathic people are attracted to power and a new government would likely be corrupted within 5 years.

There needs to be a hypervigilance and a new way to surveil government because obviously electing representatives and leaving them to their own devices doesn't work.

And I don't give a shit about what the heritage foundation says. You're okay with all the radical left shit that's going on where kids are being shipped from one state to another to be transitioned against their parent's will and you have other nutjob saying kids should be on puberty blockers by default.

The Democrats are such a joke they are cheering on terrorists and promoting endless war. They don't have a single leg to stand on when criticizing the Republicans.

Thank goodness I am not a Democrat or a Republican.

[normalice]

Yes, he was a dictator who gave up his power.

I dont know what far right fantasy you're talking about in regards to shipping kids between states or whatever. Obviously made up, though.

Democrats aren't cheering on terrorists or promoting endless war. When you have these obviously bullshit criticisms as excuses for hatred of the democratic party, and someone points out it is obviously bullshit, why doesn't the hatred go away? That's a rhetorical question I already know the answer to. I wonder if you do..

[Juxtapose]

You would have been discouraging the revolution from the very beginning and you would have been wrong.

web.archive.org/.../

There it is, but you're going to ignore it because it's uncomfortable for you.

Yes, they are. They love this Ukraine nonsense and cheered on Hillary with her warmonger rhetoric.

The Democratic party has been shit from the very beginning. They were the ones who created Jim Crow laws and they are still racist as fucked today, with the bigotry of low expectations.

[normalice]

Yes, and then the Civil rights movement happened, embraced by democrats, and all the racists in the democratic party migrated over to the republican party. A name is not an identity, however much the far right would like it to be.
Also no, I'm ignoring it not because it's uncomfortable but because I've never heard of a "web. archive. org" website and anyway don't actually believe there is any point in taking you seriously. Republicans could line up to openly tell you they made bothsidesism up because there was no chance they could pass their oligarchy into law any other way, and you'd just think they were joking then go on believing the thing they just told you they lied to you about, because it makes you feel better.

[Juxtapose]

You don't even know how web archiving works LMFAO!

[normalice]

Say rather I do know how. org sites work 😅

[Juxtapose]

No, you didn't even know about web archiving.

[normalice]

Like I say, I know what org sites are. Beholden and accountable to no one.

[Juxtapose]

Nope, try again.

www.google.com/.../

[Juxtapose]

It was used as evidence in a court case.

[Juxtapose]

God I can't believe there are people who have not heard of the Wayback machine.. wtf..

[normalice]

Cool. But that's the third time you responded to my disinterest in clicking your link instead of my other main reason for being disinterested. I believe if I go through all the trouble of figuring out how you are wrong you will just move the goal posts again. These are things I could have Googled by now for myself if I thought you were an honest person. But I dont so what incentive is there to do anything more than take the opportunity to remind you you are obviously brainwashed by the far right?

[Juxtapose]

Cool! Then I won't cite my sources anymore and will just say what I believe without having to do show you why I do.

[Juxtapose]

Frankly citing my sources is a waste of time anyway because nobody listens.

[normalice]

Or, cite sources that don't come from a. org site and maybe if I'm in the mood to waste some time ill check them out to give you some exercise in moving goal posts.

[normalice]

Declaring "nobody listens" is a classic symptom of someone who doesn't listen, just fyi.

[Juxtapose]

It was literally used as evidence in a court case and polygraph tests are inadmissible in court. If that doesn't give you an idea of the credibility then I'm done here.

[normalice]

Why don't you start by explaining what you believe it proves? Part of the reason I'm not interested is because you vaguely claimed "there it is" and then repeated more random far right misinformation. There what is? And what does it have to do with the far right misinformation you blurted out about Hillary, Ukraine, and democrats in general?

[Juxtapose]

"California Legislature passes bill giving courts authority to take custody from parents of minors seeking ‘Transgender’ treatments"

"I dont know what far right fantasy you're talking about in regards to shipping kids between states or whatever. Obviously made up, though."

[normalice]

Yeah, sounds made up.

[Juxtapose]

You didn't even check the link did you?

[normalice]

I've told you repeatedly that when I prove you wrong you'll just move the goal posts. I've seen no indication that you would even want me to believe otherwise.

[Nuget]

It's hard to believe there was a time when politicians cared about anything other than themselves.

[AviatorTom]

It's beautiful, how most countries are formed.

[exitseven]

Thomas Jefferson waht the man.

[Snakeyes7]

Based