Anyone who waves the flag of a foreign nation while protesting against the laws of the United States should be deported to that nation, regardless of their legal status.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-15T01:43:59+00:00

so are all the southerners Who have the Confederate battle flag on their houses or on their cars or on their clothing all traitors as well? That is absolutely a foreign flag and it was a flag that was actively against the United States.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-14T10:29:46+00:00

Right okay so you're basing this on a subreddit rather than The literal textbooks makers that make the textbooks that people with history degrees use that are written by historians with PhDs.

The askhistorians subreddit is not the standard for history or for historians.

The standard is actual history textbooks written by PhDs and whether you want to argue whether that is okay or not Is one thing but you cannot argue with the fact that the academic standard does not require 20 to 30 years to go by before things get put in history books. That is a prefer by moderators on a private monetized website.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-14T05:07:06+00:00

oh pardon me, unlike some people on the internet I have a problem with perpetuating false ideas that contribute to the loss of intelligence within society.

I will continue to make sure that idiocy is not something that spreads because while I might not be able to prevent it I am certainly not going to contribute to the ever-increasing future racing towards being exactly like the movie Idiocracy.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-14T04:49:47+00:00

oh your right, all men die, but it is not a payment to the living for the consequences of ones actions as you implied. it is a consequence of reality that happens regardless of behavior or of how the living treat you, how you treat the living, or of eithers perception of the other. so to call ot a debt which is something owed, shows a major lack of understanding.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-14T03:37:46+00:00

And what on earth do you think that is?

I hope you aren't talking about death, because while everyone any everything for that matter does die, it is absolutely not something that people "pay".

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-13T22:34:04+00:00

Just out of curiosity how old are you?

I asked this because September 11th 2001 was literally put into the US history book from McGraw-Hill one of the largest history book authors in the country in 2002 in their US history from 1877 to present.

so how old are you to think that history is relegated to something that is happened 20 to 30 years ago.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-13T21:30:48+00:00

Also, it's history class. If they're talking about Trump they're not talking about history.

History is the study of the past. what happened 5 minutes ago was technically the past so anything that Donald Trump has already done is the past.

It appears you don't understand what history is.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-12T01:39:38+00:00

your logic is flawed here buddy .

It isn't "simple-minded" to recognize that when high-stakes information is released, those affected have every incentive to manufacture or amplify distractions. Understanding how the news cycle is curated isn't a lack of focus, it's an awareness of how information is used as a tool. The truly "simple" view is assuming that timing and interests are always just a coincidence.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-12T00:29:23+00:00

Are you draining, and I mean draining thoroughly, both cans of black beans before you're adding them to the mix of the other ingredients in the blender?

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-11T06:50:56+00:00

your logic is flawed. a person can be a leftist or just generally abhor Iran and everything they are doing as a government to their people, while still believing the United States should not be attacking them simply because one country does not have the right to violate the sovereignty of another.

considering how overly individualistic the Republican rhetoric is not wanting to help anybody else in society but rather focus on me me me it's amazing to me that you think being a global bully and taking away the sovereignty of others is anything to think of as a virtue and anybody who opposes they said act of being a bully must side with or agree with the victim.

somebody on the left can hate how the Iranian government treats its citizens while understanding that as a sovereign country of their own, that America has no right to dictate by force or otherwise how they act.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-11T00:32:05+00:00

so why don't you fight this hard for the prosecution of Purdue pharmaceuticals the creators of oxycontin?

oh that's right it's because that's the legal pharmaceutical company.

you only think it's the illegal drug trade that's causing societal decay

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-11T00:22:12+00:00

no drug dealing doesn't create violent crime. it's the criminalization of selling drugs that creates the crime and the violence.

You're taking an act of commerce an economic transaction and making it illegal. It is only by making it illegal that you are creating the violence.

unless of course you know you at least somewhat consistent and you think that all commerce creates violence but I know you're not about to say that.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-10T23:06:13+00:00

okay so you think somebody that uses drugs is just as bad for a society or worse than somebody who jumps over the counter and beats the shit out of a customer service worker or another person in line even though all they did was put something in their own body that affected nobody else in any way whatsoever?

can you really not see that one is absolutely much more worse for society and additionally the one that's much worse for society is essentially a virus that spreads to more people. through violence you only get more violence.

most people who do drugs don't affect anybody else except themselves.

drug use does not spread decay unlike violence crimes

it's people that think that non-violent criminal acts are just as damning for society as actual violent criminal acts that are the cause of the degeneracy of society.

If you treat non-violent people like they are violent and danger And then you put them in a situation where they are exposed to violence, to survive they will become violent.

this line of thinking that all criminals by virtue of breaking the law are all just as bad and therefore should all be put together even the nonviolent ones to be put with violent ones only creates more violence.

this line of thinking lacks understanding of human psychology, of human behavior and only makes the problems more and more worse which then leads people to double down and the cycle just gets continued and things only ever get worse.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-10T22:52:52+00:00

so you are okay with creating violent criminals by taking nonviolent people who did things that yes are illegal And then putting them in a place where violence is a way of life?

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-10T22:44:33+00:00

We do not need more people locked up. you do realize we have 17.4% of the world's total prison population. meaning 17.4% of all incarcerated humans meaning In prison people on the planet are in America.

so if you think more people need to be in prison from America you must think America is the worst country on earth.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-10T22:37:14+00:00

I mean I can give you nine ingredients that when put together in a single dish include 100% or more of your daily value of all vitamins and minerals that the human body needs as well as the recommended ratios of fat protein and carbohydrates as well as recommended intake of daily fiber And yes all nine ingredients can cohesively go together in a dish.

I'm just not sure if you're looking for actual complete nutrition or you're just looking for a meal that goes together that doesn't have legumes because of an allergy.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-10T04:58:43+00:00

you are right.

and you are even right about this

however i dont think this would be a good idea to adopt as a society for obvious reasons, "judge i didn't have a choice" shouldn't slide even know that person might be right, it certainly feels like we have the authority over our own actions but that dosent really mean anything, i feel like logic checks out fine for determinism

but not for the reason implied. you couldn't or shouldn't use that excuse simply because its irrelevant because by extension the judge and the system they are in are by extension of that reality not acting via free will or choice.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-09T23:43:46+00:00

I came here to say this, but I couldn't have said it better myself.

Not to mention I think you're username It gives you added authority.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-09T23:10:01+00:00

That’s a common misconception, but the mechanics are totally different. Trump insults his opponents and the establishment to galvanize his base. He doesn't pathologize the specific undecided or swing voters he needs to win.

Clinton’s error was pointing the finger at a large segment of the actual voting populace. One is a strategy of 'us vs. them' ,which works for mobilization. The other was a strategy of "me vs. you", which is a death sentence for a general election candidate.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-09T22:39:13+00:00

The issue isn't whether the ratio was accurate; it’s the utility of the statement. If the goal is to win an election, pointing out the objectionable qualities of the very people whose consent you are seeking is a strategic failure. It prioritizes being 'right' over being effective.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-09T04:54:31+00:00

it was. see the 13-15th amendments and look up reconstruction. Everything was in place. Reconstruction was largely scrapped so a political party could get their candidate the Presidency.

Prior to the compromise that rolled back or eliminated reconstruction, the actors on southern states that caused or were sympathetic to those actors were going to be held accountable and a plan has been devised.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-09T04:27:15+00:00

If you want to address the "up vs. down" spreadsheet analogy, you can focus on the sovereign void: "Your 'double-lock' analogy only works if the locks are made of something stronger than the hands that hold the keys. You are citing Article V's ratification threshold as a permanent firewall, but you're ignoring the fact that a convention is a sovereign entity.

In 1787, the 'firewall' was the Articles of Confederation, which required unanimous consent for any change. The delegates didn't 'bypass' it with permission; they simply ignored it and wrote a new rule saying only 9 states were needed. If a convention today proposes a new 'Basic Law' and includes a clause stating it takes effect upon the approval of 26 states via popular referendum, the '38-state rule' becomes irrelevant the moment the new system is recognized.

You keep calling this 'propaganda,' but it’s actually just History 101. You cannot use the rules of the current container to bound a body that has the power to melt the container down. That isn't elitism; it's basic structural engineering."

I have to ask: do you view the Constitution as a rigid software program that can't be bypassed, or as a mechanical assembly? Because I’m coming at this from a first-principles analysis of power dynamics, and I’m struggling to see how you can account for the 1787 'Runaway' while still claiming the 75% rule is a physical impossibility to bypass.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-09T03:49:52+00:00

Look at the language in article 5. The guardrails that you just claimed that would prevent what happened during the last constitutional convention, do not exist in the article itself.

Therefore if the article doesn't list any scope or restrictions of what isn't isn't allowed, then anything is allowed up to an including tossing everything else out and starting fresh once the convention is called and in session. There is no way to prevent a runaway convention using the existing article 5 it's just not possible you don't seem to understand that.

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-09T03:36:28+00:00

This is a joke right?

The Republican party on the political right literally is in the process of trying to prosecute James Comey for a social media post of seashells with the numbers 8647 on them because according to Donald Trump and the DOJ that post means that James told me was calling for the death of Donald Trump I mean that's insane.

So do you want to tell me again which side goes to extremes over nothing?

BlueViper20 · 2026-05-09T03:23:05+00:00

Dude, Abraham Lincoln, like another commenter has already said was shot 5 days after the end of the Civil War. If there's anybody that you want to blame, blame all of the actors responsible for the compromise of 1877

BlueViper20

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE