i've commented on the topic. you've commented on me. who is not contributing substantively here exactly? therefore who is the troll?
and who are you? why would you have a strong opinion about me. do i know you? otherwise, to go after me personally, anonymously, this is what we call a troll
You want to know who also agrees with you, terrorists agree with you, which is why they use terror to force people to do things that the terrorists want them to do.
Really? You equate our constitutional system of checks and balances to terrorism? Terrorism is the simple majority deciding that they can tell you what to do. Are you OK with 51% of the population deciding that you no longer get to speak freely, because they don't like what you have to say? That's democracy. A constitutional republic (which we are, that's not really open for debate, even when you confuse it with something else, like a monarchy - and you're very confused, here) has tools in place to prevent people like you from rallying 51% of the people who vote to do things like have the other 49% enslaved, or killed, or whatever you'd like to see done in the name of your having the majority of simple votes on the matter.
Democracy ie representing the majority
The majority is not always right, and the people who wrote our constitution knew that. It's why the country isn't run like one bit PTA meeting or a dog club. We have three branches of government, and the legislative branch is broken up in to two houses specifically to blunt the tyranny of the majority. You either haven't ever studied the basics of how the constitution is structured, or you have, and your pretending you haven't so that you can make your really bad analogies. Please try to get it straight.
you'd be surprised
there are people who actually believe trading in and looking at child porn isn't a problem, that that is victimless, it's just pictures and video
(it creates demand, of course it's a fucking problem)
watch this thread, you'll see them commenting
yes, that's real
but do you consider that as big a problem as purposefully disenfranchising poor and black people with ridiculous id hurdles, gerrymandering bullshit districts, and rich people and corporations perverting the people's will with legalized corruption?
because random bus people are a grave threat to democracy
unlike gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, plutocratic corruption...
So democracy is mob rule, hmm, OK.
Yes, it is. Which is why the very smart people who wrote the US constitution chartered the country as a republic, not a democracy. And a good thing, too.
Voter fraud is a nonissue fearmongered and blown out of proportion to enact the real disenfranchisement: Republicans pass laws making voting harder for blacks and the poor.
It's interesting because it's a last ditch desperate effort to preserve a voting base of old white conservative people which is quite literally dying off.
Then there is the gerrymandering to make sure the Republican voters always dominate in any given Rorschach ink blot of a voting "district."
But after that, Republicans have a real problem keeping and growing a voter base.
Long term, they either die off, or they radically change their ideology.
Even if it is simply "I will hold public opinion polls and honor their conclusion"
So, you'd be OK with him supporting mandatory labeling on all foods that contain DNA? Because 80% of the population says they support their government helping them out with that.
I'd never support a politician who says he'll do what the majority say they want. We don't need mob rule directly, or by proxy, either.
Bringing a fighter jet to a bomb threat. That makes sense!
You don't have much of an imagination, do you? Or pay any kind of attention to actual events, pretty much ever?
Escort aircraft can make observations and help with communications and recordings that can't be made any other way. One of the threats suggested the bomber was on board, implying the possibility that he might make demands which could include, possibly, making that aircraft into a weapon aimed at a metropolitan area
so you're ok with child porn and death threats?
What part of my position is not clear? Yes.
i stopped reading there. you're a hopeless moron
seizure in the usa is already way out of control
the recent federal review of asset seizure laws is welcome, but weak:
worrying about banks seizing funds is the least of your problems
call it zuckerbucks
it's for zuckers
so you're ok with child porn and death threats?
can i take photos of you having sex with your significant other and put it on a billboard in your hometown? it's just free speech dude
everything has limits. including free speech. not because i say so, but because of simple logic and reason: it ends where it impinges on the freedoms of others. classic example: yelling fire in a crowded theatre
the fact that i recognize that freedoms are not boundless, but logically constrained by other people's freedoms, does not make me an authoritarian, it just makes me smarter than you