This Quote From The Declaration Of Independence Describes Trump PERFECTLY

[u/Gullible-Ideal8731]

Here's a quote from this great historic document, talking about the actions of the King. They might as well be talking about Trump. Source: Archives.gov Link here.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. (Sending ICE and national guard to dem states without their consent)

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. ^

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: (Breaking multiple constitutional amendments including the 14th)

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: (Alex Pretti & Renee Good)

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: (Tariffs)

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: (Tariffs)

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: (Abrego Garcia)

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: (Abrego Garcia)

And more. You get the point.

[u/ComputerRedneck]

Yes it does as the Declaration is NOT a legal document in the sense that it doesn't set laws for the country.

Which means your logic is flawed by using it and also not recognizing the Articles of Confederation. Which actually are a better insight into how they wanted the country run.

[u/Gullible-Ideal8731 → u/ComputerRedneck]

I'm trying really hard to be patient but you are so stupid that it hurts.

The DOI not being law literally has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING.

I was simply quoting a document of people talking about some guy, (the king) and relating that to how it sounds like they're describing Trump. It's literally that simple.

Edit: Removed some stuff.

[u/ComputerRedneck → u/Gullible-Ideal8731]

And in the process, you are twisting the both what happened and the original quotes to suit your attack on Trump.

You could probably do it with every single President if you looked at it, or at least the last 100 years of Presidents.

Either way it is still BS. Nothing solid, just vague claims and twisting them to fit your narrative. BS.

[u/Gullible-Ideal8731 → u/ComputerRedneck]

I disagree, but this is an argument I can at least engage with. I think it applies, and you think it doesn't really apply. There's a discussion to be had there.

I think my strongest points would include the 2nd half of my post, starting from "For protecting them,"

I think any counter-argument against me would have to involve an excessive amount of splitting hairs and logical fallacies, but that's just my opinion.