Loudest applause line at CPAC: “Democrats are not Americans but the enemy”

[Fuzzy Bear]

I unapologetically love America. So does Trump. Unlike Obama, he can say it without adding a "but". There are no buts. If you don't like it, leave. Please. Leave.

Mike, have you ever considered that there is such a thing as constructive criticism? Do you think our nation has any problems beyond a guy with an afro disrupting your football game?

There is something to be said for what Mike has said here.  There is such a thing as constructive criticism, but criticism that is unaccompanied by love is rarely constructive.

It is hard for me to believe that political figures love America when all they talk about is how racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. America is.  Or how imperialistic it is.  It is hard for me to believe that the NFL "Kneelers" love America; they may love their communities and the folks that live there, but that is a very different concept from loving America and believing it to be not just a "great" nation, but a GOOD nation as well.  Why it is not OK to hate Berkeley and East Los Angeles but OK to hate Chadron, NE and Findlay, OH and other places in Middle America (and the people that live there) is a riddle I haven't solved yet.

I do not believe that people who never acknowledge that America is a GOOD nation love America.  That does not mean that America is perfect.  My wife recognizes I am far from perfect and will tell me so when it is needed, but she isn't one of those folks that have nothing but negative about their spouses.  Many of you know such people and would doubt that they still love their spouses, so why would I not wonder about the love for America of people who do nothing but criticize it and describe it in a negative light?

Now I'm not a big fan of the other extreme.  I'm not a fan of those who go around telling people how Veterans fought for their freedom while demanding that they just shut up on a controversial issue.  Those people don't appreciate liberty, and the right of people (A) to speak their mind and (B) to not speak what is not their mind.  But I'm not convinced that any number of liberals love America.  My dislike of uber-patriotism on the right is balanced by my recognition of the lack of love for the American Nation on too much of the left.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Naso certainly does a lot of complaining about the United States for someone who purports to love them unconditionally. In fact, I'm not sure that I could name any poster who is more negative about this country. He doesn't like most of the people here, how they live, or what they believe. Why doesn't he leave?

Naso complains about persons who are incapable of stating unqualified love for America.  People who can't say "I love America!" and leave it at that.  People who cannot unequivocally state that America is a GOOD Nation. 

Can YOU say "America is a GOOD Nation!" unequivocally?  Without any add-ons?  Just leaving it at that?

[Fuzzy Bear]

America could be a better nation.

If my wife ended every suggestion that I was a good husband with, "He could be slimmer!" or "He could make more money!", I don't think I'd be convinced that she loved me.  If that were the case, our song would be Weird Al Yankovic's "Good Enough For Now".

[Fuzzy Bear]

America could be a better nation.

If my wife ended every suggestion that I was a good husband with, "He could be slimmer!" or "He could make more money!", I don't think I'd be convinced that she loved me.  If that were the case, our song would be Weird Al Yankovic's "Good Enough For Now".

Ok, I'll meet you in the middle.  I'll agree: America is a good nation.  Will you agree that it could be a better nation?

Well, of course, I'd agree to that.   Ilhan Omar and AOC don't agree, however.  They believe that America is a steaming pile of racist trash.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Naso certainly does a lot of complaining about the United States for someone who purports to love them unconditionally. In fact, I'm not sure that I could name any poster who is more negative about this country. He doesn't like most of the people here, how they live, or what they believe. Why doesn't he leave?

Naso complains about persons who are incapable of stating unqualified love for America.  People who can't say "I love America!" and leave it at that.  People who cannot unequivocally state that America is a GOOD Nation. 

Can YOU say "America is a GOOD Nation!" unequivocally?  Without any add-ons?  Just leaving it at that?

Nothing could be easier than calling the United States a "good nation" when you define everything that you dislike about it as un-American.

Since you're asking, I can easily write a response mirroring his screed, but with an emphasis on a different set of virtues:

You hate the guy who wrote Civil Disobedience, if you've even heard of him, you don't value this country's natural beauty, you abhor our major cities, you have only contempt for American pluralism, you despise our environmental laws, you have no appreciation for this country's art or literature, you hate our Congress, and you hold plastic pop culture and a highly personalized sense of cheap nostalgia above all of our higher national ideals.

Naso's perverse vision is not unapologetically "loving America." He doesn't get to define what the United States is from his La-Z-Boys and then tell the rest of us that we're un-American for having different values. Even if his posts often read more like some kind of public decree. All that's missing is a leaden seal.

*Yes, I realize that most Democrats are sad and pathetic enough to apologize for anything, and that many on the left are too preoccupied with guilt and suffering to recognize goodness, but there's a world outside these increasingly dolorous alternatives.

Well, yes, it's no more virtuous to hate San Francisco and Manhattan than it is to hate "The Heartland" (rural flyover country).  I certainly don't think small towns have cornered the market on virtue.  In truth, I see more "Peep Show" establishments when I drive through a certain rural stretch of WV than I do in suburbanized FL, so I get that.

There are posters here that, quite frankly, never say a positive thing about America.  Some are foreign, yet leftist Americans here side with them unequivocally, never thinking that their viewpoint is  one in which the welfare of America and Americans does not come before the welfare of themselves and THEIR nation, which is not America.  That's fine, as far as it goes, but I will point out the "conflict of interest" on the matter.

I'll simplify it:  If you look at the flag and dwell on how racist, sexist, imperialist, etc. America is, and meditate on all of America's faults, it is not reasonable for me to believe that you love the American Nation unequivocally.  There are some here that, based on their posts, have convinced me that they truly hate America and only wish to remake it in their own image (while they rail about the Mike Nasos of the world being "intolerant".)   They will never acknowledge the great good that comes from America, and the force for good that America has been in the World, because that is in conflict with at least some of their rhetoric.  And I use the example "look at the flag" because a nation's flag is a symbol for that nation as a whole; looking at the Hammer and Sickle flag brings to mind the former Soviet Union, while looking at the Union Jack brings to mind not just England, but the former British Empire, do they not?  Let's be real; many Americans loathe America and only seek from it what they can get, while never acknowledging what it has given to them.

[Fuzzy Bear]

America could be a better nation.

If my wife ended every suggestion that I was a good husband with, "He could be slimmer!" or "He could make more money!", I don't think I'd be convinced that she loved me.  If that were the case, our song would be Weird Al Yankovic's "Good Enough For Now".

Ok, I'll meet you in the middle.  I'll agree: America is a good nation.  Will you agree that it could be a better nation?

Well, of course, I'd agree to that.   Ilhan Omar and AOC don't agree, however.  They believe that America is a steaming pile of racist trash.

You literally voted for a president who's central, overarching campaign plank was that America isn't great. His opponent, who you have regularly bashed and demonized, always countered with America is great and always will be.

The argument is over. You lose.

I didn't lose.  You can't read.

My concern is whether or not America is a GOOD Nation.  America has always been a GOOD Nation.  A Good Nation with flaws that it has needed to rectify, and has, in some cases, been slow to rectify.  But a GOOD Nation.  A Nation that is a force for Good in the World.

There are people here who cannot mention America without mentioning racism, imperialism, materialism, and chronic diarrhea.  They do not believe America to be a Good Nation.  There are others who cannot speak unequivocally positively about America, not even for one post.  I've got my flaws, but if my wife could never discuss me without mentioning my faults, I'd conclude that she didn't love me and only stayed with me because it was the most convenient option.  (Thankfully, that's not the case!)  That's how lots of people here speak of America, their country.  It's their right to do so, but they can at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that on this issue, Naso was right about what he posted about them.

[Fuzzy Bear]

America could be a better nation.

If my wife ended every suggestion that I was a good husband with, "He could be slimmer!" or "He could make more money!", I don't think I'd be convinced that she loved me.  If that were the case, our song would be Weird Al Yankovic's "Good Enough For Now".

Ok, I'll meet you in the middle.  I'll agree: America is a good nation.  Will you agree that it could be a better nation?

Well, of course, I'd agree to that.   Ilhan Omar and AOC don't agree, however.  They believe that America is a steaming pile of racist trash.

You literally voted for a president who's central, overarching campaign plank was that America isn't great. His opponent, who you have regularly bashed and demonized, always countered with America is great and always will be.

The argument is over. You lose.

I didn't lose.  You can't read.

My concern is whether or not America is a GOOD Nation.  America has always been a GOOD Nation.  A Good Nation with flaws that it has needed to rectify, and has, in some cases, been slow to rectify.  But a GOOD Nation.  A Nation that is a force for Good in the World.

There are people here who cannot mention America without mentioning racism, imperialism, materialism, and chronic diarrhea.  They do not believe America to be a Good Nation.  There are others who cannot speak unequivocally positively about America, not even for one post.  I've got my flaws, but if my wife could never discuss me without mentioning my faults, I'd conclude that she didn't love me and only stayed with me because it was the most convenient option.  (Thankfully, that's not the case!)  That's how lots of people here speak of America, their country.  It's their right to do so, but they can at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that on this issue, Naso was right about what he posted about them.

Naso’s vision of America is a dystopian nightmare.  People like him are more out of touch with this country’s values than the immigrants they’d see locked up in cages like stray dogs at a kennel.  Ultimately, Naso is a racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic bigot who thinks sex predators belong in the Oval Office and on our highest court and that society should tell their victims to shut up and smile more often.  He wouldn’t know what makes America great from a hole in the ground.  At the end of the day, that’s just who he is and while I won’t put words in your mouth, I have to think that at some level you know this is true.

That well may be Naso's vision.  I'll allow him to clear that up.  That's not my vision.

My vision of America is a land of the Rule of Law where people can disagree with each other without resorting to Religious or Political Jihad; where people don't take up arms when their party loses an election, where people have the right to be different and to be left alone about it and not harassed, but where others aren't required to proclaim that someone else's way is just as good as their way (even if others have just the same rights to pursue their chosen way).

My way is a way of real tolerance, and real tolerance is something that Biblical Christianity reflects, and which God, and only God, makes possible (for Believers and Unbelievers, alike).  "Insofar as it is possible with you (emphasis added), live peaceably with all men."  This is a command of Scripture, and this is America at its best.  And America's Best shows itself far, far more often than America's Worst shows itself (although people who are on Social Media all the time will never know this). 

Even that vision isn't good enough for many here.  All they choose to see is racism, sexism, etc.  They cannot say they love America without major qualifiers (at best).  Many here on the left flat-out don't love America; they love their own identity group and their own identity politics.  That is not the ideal of America; the ideal of America is E Pluribus Unum.  But the Unum is the key to Goodness, as well as Greatness.

I love America, and I believe America is a Good Nation and a Force for Good.  Not a perfect nation, but a Good Nation.  Without qualification and without apology.  I believe you'd like my vision of America.  I believe many here would as well, once they got over the torture of giving up their identity politics addictions.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There are people here who cannot mention America without mentioning racism, imperialism, materialism, and chronic diarrhea.

But this is literally America in a nutshell. LOL. The incoming paragraph full of meaningless platitudes you come up with will not change that.

I cannot support people for public office who view America as you do.  America isn't perfect, not at all, and I think folks ought to be introspective about it without the hatred for it that you manifest.  But I could not imagine you ever taking a grievance I, myself, would have seriously.  I believe you actively resent White Americans, and that unmitigated resentment would get in the way of your objectivity (granting that no one is perfectly objective).  That's fine, too, until you, or somewhat like you, runs for office and actually get elected. Then, I am in the position of having an elected official that does not care about my concerns at all.  I can understand that you may view yourself in that situation depending on who represents you in GA.  I only suggest that this cuts both ways.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There are people here who cannot mention America without mentioning racism, imperialism, materialism, and chronic diarrhea.

But this is literally America in a nutshell. LOL. The incoming paragraph full of meaningless platitudes you come up with will not change that.

I cannot support people for public office who view America as you do.  America isn't perfect, not at all, and I think folks ought to be introspective about it without the hatred for it that you manifest.  But I could not imagine you ever taking a grievance I, myself, would have seriously.  I believe you actively resent White Americans, and that unmitigated resentment would get in the way of your objectivity (granting that no one is perfectly objective).  That's fine, too, until you, or somewhat like you, runs for office and actually get elected. Then, I am in the position of having an elected official that does not care about my concerns at all.  I can understand that you may view yourself in that situation depending on who represents you in GA.  I only suggest that this cuts both ways.

You supported Trump, who has a much lower opinion of America than any nationally prominent Democrat or most any (255,0,0) red avatar here.

Nonsense, of course, but you're pretty hard up for intellectually sound arguments at this point, so we'll roll with that.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Btw, no offense, but I gotta say Fuzzy, it occurs to me that it must require some pretty serious cognitive dissonance for one to be a Trump supporter and talk simultaneously stress the importance of maintenaning the rule of law.  Trump is defined in no small part by his cynical contempt for the very notion of the supremacy of the rule of law.  The man has literally been a blatant crook for his entire professional life and is currently an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal conspiracy which also involved his personal lawyer, his company’s CFO, and one of his sons.  

Trump is going to be charged with and likely convicted of multiple felonies in less than five years (likely becoming the first former President to serve time in prison).  He has committed multiple counts of obstruction of justice and actively tried to undermine public trust in the FBI, his own Deputy AG, and numerous other public servants who put their country first when the rubber hit the road.  He fired his own Attorney General for following the law and recusing himself from an investigation in which he had a conflict instead of being “my [Trump’s] Roy Cohn.”  The rule of law and Trump go together about as well as anchovies and chocolate ice cream.

The Rule of Law involves the presumption of innocence and Due Process.

Much of what you cite here are political questions, which will be decided in an election, and (possibly) in an impeachment and removal process.  He has every right to fire the AG and fire the FBI Director, regardless of the reason.  That is not, and cannot be, Obstruction of Justice, because a President has every right to fire these folks for whatever reasons he chooses.  If the electorate and the Congress wish to impose political consequences on Trump for these actions, then let them happen.  The assertion that his firing the AG and the FBI Director is Obstruction of Justice criminalizes the normal functioning of the Presidency.  

I'm sure you know far more than I do about this topic, but well into the 1940s, the Courts were reluctant to decide "Political Questions".  The reason the Supreme Court has become a predominant issue in Presidential Elections these days is the withering away of the Court's resistance to entering the "Political Thicket".  To be fair, the conservative jurists have lost this reservation as much as the liberal jurists have.  The Rule of Law has meant that the Courts do not enter the Political Thicket, and it is not a good thing that this is less so.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Firing the head of the FBI in order to influence an investigation that the president is implicated in is not a normal function of the presidency

It's also not legal, and one cannot just redefine crimes as political questions to be decided by election. Trump is a literal criminal who should be prosecuted, not absolved because he spews enough nonsense at rallies to get a sufficient number of votes.

The President of the United States can fire the FBI Director at any time, and for any reason.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Firing the head of the FBI in order to influence an investigation that the president is implicated in is not a normal function of the presidency

It's also not legal, and one cannot just redefine crimes as political questions to be decided by election. Trump is a literal criminal who should be prosecuted, not absolved because he spews enough nonsense at rallies to get a sufficient number of votes.

The President of the United States can fire the FBI Director at any time, and for any reason.

Ok Alan Dershowitz. “Obstruction of Justice” is defined as “obstructing a prosecutor or government official in preventing the course of justice”. Firing the head of the FBI in order to influence an investigation the president himself is implicated in fits this definition to a t

No, it does not.  It cannot be "obstruction of justice" if it involves an action that a President is legally entitled to take.

This doesn't mean it's OK, but the OK-ness of the issue is a political question, and impeachment/removal is, indeed, a political process.  Nixon was fully entitled to fire Archibald Cox, and to fire those who refused to fire him.  That didn't make it the right thing to do, but our system does entitle people to do the legal thing that is not always the best thing.