Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
A Nazi personally? No, although he and his father were convicted of racism. But enabling Nazis and KKK does lead us to perceive guilt by association.
Racism is not against the law. You cannot be convicted of holding certain opinions, although some racist acts are against the law. I assume you are referring to this case, which happened 45 years ago: https://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/4959...ed-by-decades-old-housing-discrimination-case It was a civil case, so nobody was "convicted" of anything, and Trump and his father did not admit guilt, although they did agree to make a settlement.
What a system! Losers win! This sort of 'win' looks pretty shaky. Losers don't rule with the consent of the governed. This loser can't even rule his own party. Tragic.
Trump was elected in accordance with the US Constitution, even though he did not get a majority of the popular vote. Nobody did. Hillary Clinton did get a plurality, thanks to heavy turnout in NY and CA, but there were more votes for GOP candidates - Trump and Gary Johnson - than there were for Dems.
Then you agree that speech and the press have unlimited freedom, that gov't must not support religions, and that possessors of firearms must be members of a well-regulated militia.
Speech and the Press do not have totally unlimited freedom, but they do have close to it. Governments must neither support nor, up to a point, restrict Religions, although they have been known to do so, such as in the case of the Branch Dravidians. Possessors of firearms need not be members of a militia, but they should be available to be pressed into service if needed. At one time, the potential threats were roving bands of dispossessed Tories, renegade Indians, criminal bands and similar groups. The first two are no longer threats, but there are still criminal mobs and rioters and jihadists and other possible menaces, and an armed citizenry is the best way to defend against them.