What was Trump referring to when he said the Declaration of Independence is about "unity, love & respect"? Wrong answers only! Bonus points for Brits?

[DrPepper12]

The list of things this troglodyte understands is quite short... This is your hero MAGA! Your defender against Marxist historians & liberal professors!

Remember kids! The world isn't laughing at USA America anymore now that Trump is around! What a fucking joke this stunted dumpster fire of bottomless depravity & ignorance is.

[exitseven]

By unity it means Alll men are created equal and all men are granted inalienable rights including life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think President Trump nailed it. He did have the original document put into the oval office because he was so inspired by it. Then there is the part about what happens if a government becomes destructive. I imagine this is part of the plan as well.

[goaded]

No kings.

[exitseven]

@goaded yes and any government that becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to end or alter it

[DrPepper12]

So where are the cosplay patriots? Sucking his orangness king fuckface I

[Twalli]

It has nothing to do with love though. Unity and respect are reaching.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Unless they're POC. Then they're enslaved, oppressed, murdered, mass incarcerated, etc.

[Dongie]

He was talking about elected officials and buerocrats both, adhering to the integrity and character befitting a person given the privilege of serving the United States of America. Not using the office for insider trading (pelosi) or selling their brand to "Chyna" (biden, swalwell, feinstein) or standing in the hallowed halls of Congress spewing lies (schiff, nadler, pelosi, aoc, etc.). Like that teach? 🤓

[DrPepper12]

Lotta words to say no kings

[Twalli]

Yet at the time it was written there weren't elected officials

[Dongie]

They probably had it floating around Twali.

[Dongie]

I'm pretty sure I've heard Bill O'Reilly use the term, but I'll have to look up troglodyt.

[Dongie]

e

🤓

[MisterWack]

It is a breakup letter from England. It was telling King George III off and telling him we are doing things our ‘American Way’.

It wasn’t unity or love based since we didn’t have the support of the States / Continental Army yet to my knowledge, all that came later. American Revolution and kicking English ass lead to unity and love, though was still rocky with Articles of Confederation and all.

[Anonymous]

Those signing were in unity for the purpose, loved each other enough to die for their families and country, and respect for each other that they'd take the risk given the odds were not good. It was a probable death sentence rather than pay $ to the king.

the answer is reasonable.

[DrPepper12]

Only to a MAGA fluffer

[Snakeyes7]

"Hmm someone I disagree with politically is saying that they want unity love and respect. There MUST be some sort of dog-whistle that for some reason I and the ones in my cult are the only one's picking up on."

[Twalli]

It's fine if he wants that (unlikey considering how he's acting). However, a declaration of war really shouldn't indicate that.

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli A declaration of war against who?

[Twalli]

The United Kingdom. It's in the words "Decleration of Independence". Declaring that we are independent. That's declaring that you don't recognize the rule of the king over you. That's a rebellion and, therefore war.

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli Sorry I thought you said that Trump declared war. In any case, the Declaration of Independence was far more than that. It was the mission statement of the US after it was established.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, 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."

[Twalli]

The Constitution is the guideline for how our country will be run. It replaced The Articles of Confederation. The Declaration of Independence was just a declaration of war.

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli No. The Constitution is law, otherwise the amendments are pointless.

[Twalli]

I was talking about the parts before the Amendments.

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli if they don't follow them then what's the point of having a constitution in the first place?

[Twalli]

Most people do follow The Constitution. Trump and his MAGA supporters don't, but they're not the majority.

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli How? And don't say the case with that Gracia guy because he did get his due process under the law. The man saw two judges and the deportation process should have started years ago based on the horrific stuff he has been accused of doing.

I don't even know why we bother with due process for people who aren't even here legally anyway. They aren't even supposed to be here in the first place but he was here because the Biden administration was either retarded or evil.

[Twalli]

Because it says people not citizens.

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli citizens are implied because the founding fathers probably didn't expect us to have our brains so rotted to think that allowing illegal immigration is a good idea.

[Twalli]

Implication doesn't matter. We follow the laws as written. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't think it was right for private citizens to carry assault rifles when they wrote te second amendment either. So we follow what they wrote, not that we think they might have meant.

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli People owned cannons and warships back then, I don't think that is a good example dude.

There is no proof that the constitution stated that every person on the planet have a right to exist within the US. We have always had an immigration process for a reason and we don't just ignore it because we don't like it. Abolish it if you don't like it. Until then, it is not only criminal, it is as retarded to not have a door to your home. Who knows how many spies we have in the US now thanks to this?

[Snakeyes7]

*as not having a door to your home

[Twalli]

So only some people are allowed to exist un thr U. S? What type of of people can't exist in the U. S? Why can't they exist? Can they exist elsewhere? If they can exist elsewhere, why does geographic location determine their existence?

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli
-Yes
-People who deliberately avoid the point of entry when entering the country (aka illegal immigrants)
-Because they have clearly demonstrated that they don't care about the country or its laws which is why many of them end up committing violent crimes. Deliberately allowing this to happen on a massive scale also makes the country vulnerable to spies from our enemies because there is no one who checks these illegal immigrants by definition
-Yes. They could have existed in the US, but they deliberately disobeyed immigration law so they don't get to be there. They could also exist in their home country and anywhere else so long as they follow the immigration laws of the specific country they want to immigrate to.
-Because each geographic location has their own laws especially in regards to who gets to move in, that is their right to decide how strict they want their policy to be. No one is entitled to live anywhere, especially in the US.

[Twalli]

Most immigrants involved in crimes here are victims rather than perpetrators. The conservative buzzeird migrant crime is not accurate. The accurate term is crimes against migrants. Trump just sees a % of migrants involved in violent crimes and his racist xenophobia leads him to believe that their involvement means they're the perpetrators. Most often they're the victims. I was involved in torture when I was in highschool. I was not the one who committed torture though, I was the one tortured.

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli And your proof that this is the case is...

[Twalli]

Looking at more than just numbers.

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli Regardless, they committed a crime just in the manner of which they came and should be deported because of it.

There is a reason why we have laws. If you murder someone, you go to prison. If you break into someone's home, you go to prison. If you break into a country, you get kicked out of the country. If we do not enforce these laws, then there will be next to nothing there to stop people who want to do these harmful acts from doing them.

If you want to immigrate, take the legal way. Otherwise, you get kicked out.

[Twalli]

And even those that are here legally are usually victi. s of crime based on the fact they emigrated from Latin America.
During an interview with the leader of a civilian watchdog group the other members beat up an immigrant. He was legal. Ther justification, he was speaking Spanish while talking in his phone.
The viral picture of a Hispanic person giving the finger to the camera has a bit more context to it. There was an altercation between police and some Hispanic people in the streets. From their body cams, we can see the altercation was started by the police. I'm pretty sure calling someone Betty la Fea is not grounds for being grabbed and slammed against a wall. That's why the fight started. Back to the photo, he was arrested for being involved in it. He was arrested because he was Hispanic. The truth of the matter was that he wasn't even in the area at thst time and was actually at home
He was flicking off the camera to show his displeasure at clear racial profiling.

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli "During an interview with the leader of a civilian watchdog group the other members beat up an immigrant. He was legal. Ther justification, he was speaking Spanish while talking in his phone."

Assuming that story is true, was that guy getting wrongfully deported? If not, then this is immaterial.

"That's why the fight started. Back to the photo, he was arrested for being involved in it. He was arrested because he was Hispanic."

You just stated two different reasons, which one is it?

And the guy got off because it turns out he was misidentified, which happens all the time. He was arrested because he matched the description of "man in a black and white jacket and pink shoes." The real person who was there was Marcelino Estee. Misidentification is by no means exclusive to Hispanic people.

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...-york-times-square.html

Even if he was innocent of the crime, if he is an illegal immigrant, he should be kicked out. He never should have been here in the first place (or here legally) if our border patrol did their job.

[Twalli]

The guy beat up was crossing the street. I don't know if the one picked up for a crime he was not at all part of was here illegally. The case didn't have to do with anyone being here illegally. The people were asked to leave area. They did and one called a police officer "Betty la Fea". Apparently the police who knew Spanish found that enough to attack them. I've actually seen the show and the English version, Ugly Betty, and while it was an insult, it's not something that excuses the retaliation.

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli "The case didn't have to do with anyone being here illegally."

Then this was an irrelevant case and I don't even know why you brought that up. It sucks what happened but that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

As for the Betty la Fea thing. This is NYC cops we are talking about, they are infamous for being the corrupt and after all that ACAB bs, the only cops that haven't resigned from the force are power tippy fucks those who don't give a shit about looking bad on camera regardless of the context. It's a self fulfilling prophesy.

[Snakeyes7]

*Trippy

[Twalli]

My point was that immigrants are being treated unfairly without anyone knowing if they're here legally or not.

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli We are going further away from the original point. If the person is here illegally, then they should be deported, case closed. How random weirdos treat even those who are naturalized is an entirely different issue.

[Twalli]

So let's go back. Do you have your papers proving your citizenship with you?

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli They exist, yes. I am not an expert on how that all works but I am sure there are other ways to prove my citizenship even without them, such as biometrics like fingerprints.

[Twalli]

Yet none of that happens now. That's the problem. If you lack perfect unaccented English, ICE will arrest and detain you with the possibility of deportation

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli You have no evidence of this. The best you got were random morons who weren't in law enforcement.

[Twalli]

You do know thatvtheirbordeds are to arrest migrants, being a migrant doesn't mean you're illegal. We also see cases of people having the necessary papers and ICE disregarding this.

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli "Migrants" "undocumented" whatever, they are all just words the media uses to conflate legal and illegal immigrants. Trust me, i know legal immigrants and they do not appreciate that.

[Twalli]

Appreciate what? The dictionary? I don't make up what the words mean.

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli Then don't contribute to this conflation like the media does. This conflation is why people are getting so angry and legitimately think ICE is deporting legal immigrants for no reason.

[Twalli]

They are for the reason that it would take time to apply due process to all those detained by ICE. ICE has ignored legal documentation of immigrants for a variety of reasons. Thry have detained people who have applied for citizenship, but aren't yet citizens.

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli That is complete crap. They have detained legal immigrants and have been released due to due process. This is by no means exclusive to ICE, regular cops arrest the wrong people all the time. It should come to no surprise that this happens especially due to the drive to fix the massive illegal immigration fuck-up of at least the past decade.

I was too young to really understand what was going on but where were you when Obama, the Clintons and many other democrats held the same exact view as Trump up until Obama was president? Then they magically changed their tune to "no one is illegal."

[Twalli]

I was too young to understand what was going on under Clinton. I was 9 in 2000. Maybe I was a late bloomer, but I wasn't politically savvy at 9.

[Snakeyes7]

@Twalli There are literally videos of Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton and even Bernie Sanders arguing against open border policy. Sanders argued that it was a Koch Brothers proposal.

What changed?

[Twalli]

You said "I was too young to really understand what was going on". I was just pointing out that I was too young to understand what was going on in the 8 years we had under Clinton.

[Likes2drive]

Wrong answers only? Well it doesn’t seem like we’re a free country anymore

[seeyounexttuesday]

$100 there's more to trump's answer that didn't made the intellectual toddler's meme.

[DrPepper12]

Post it son!!

[DryGermanGuy]

His three wives, Ivana, Marla and Melania?

[Dargil]

Have you ever read it?

[DrPepper12]

Yes. Has Trump?

[Dargil]

An unanswerable question used as a weak retort. Good for you.

[Twalli]

It's a declaration of war.

[Anonymous]

He likes to depart children

[beefcakebradybatson]

USBS !!!