I have no problem with Trump trying to keep his campaign promise.  What I am saying is his administration actually doing this in good faith.  Meaning are they actually working hard to build a case or is this grandstanding.  Its one thing to declare the NE, its totally different to be prepared to fight for it.  So far between Trump and his administration interviews, its looking more like grandstanding then actually an effort to get it done.  Is Trump base really looking for him to grandstand so he can say I did something or are they looking for him to be prepared to fight for the NE and battle to get it done.  As I stated, we will see just how prepared Trump and his administration are prepared to fight as the lawsuits come in.  If this does go to the supreme court then you can believe this will never make it before 2020 elections.  If his administration look like fools during this time, it will definitely hurt his chance for reelection.  This whole process will be way more complex then him just declaring an NE and let GOD sort it out.  His administration will need to battle a lot of fronts, and so far they have not shone to be very deft in that department.

Thank god they refused to show that,people are paranoia enough already.

The second part of your comment is just yeah ... just take a breather please.

Trump is a right wing populist but not a Nazi. You shouldn't compare Trump to Hitler, it makes you look like a fool and it doesn't do the history justice.

That FOX does not show the ad has one positive result,  you posted it here and now I know about the documentary, thank you :)

Don't you think the documentary tackles a very interesting and important topic? Especially in a day and age were alt-right movements gain more traction?

Looking back on this thread I'm noticing one of the most consistent ways of deflecting responsibility from the political right or misrepresenting the issue.

I'm seeing a lot of conflating bigotry with justified hatred. People in this thread are acting like it's the same level of unethical to say 'I hate trump supporters' as it is to say 'I hate foreigners/muslims/mexicans/blacks', in order to deflect and misrepresent the issues. And it's not just here, even in my personal circles I'm getting a lot of 'well it's not okay to be racist but it's also not okay to hate all republicans.'

And I ask, why not? Being black is not a choice. Being gay is not a choice. Being muslim...well, it is a choice but you're still born into it most likely and therefore it paints your personality before it became a choice. Hating people for their gender, race, nation of origin, sexuality, or even religion is bigotry that is wrong.

Hating someone because they chose to support bigotry is not unethical. Hating someone because they believe their 2nd amendment rights supercede the need for safety in schools is reasonable. Hating someone because they believe this is a white christian nation and are actively campaigning to keep non-whites out is what you should be doing. Hating someone for their actions is what you're supposed to reserve hatred for.

Would the world be better without hate? yes, yes it would. Would the world be better if people chose to educate and embrace others? Indeed it would. Is it foolish to blanket-hate entire groups based solely on their political affiliation? Yes, it is.

But judgement is reserved for a person's words and deeds. You should never judge someone based on their gender, their sexuality, their race, or any other factors beyond their control. But on the flipside, you SHOULD be making judgements based on a person's actions, intents, or affiliations. If you are going to hate someone, hate them for the things they do and the causes they support and the things they say. Hate them for their actions and words, not for things beyond their control.

I hate republicans in america because they chose to vote for and subsequently elect trump, thus painting their personality by affiliation. supporting someone as grossly abhorrent as trump is grounds for judgement. If you support trump - either directly or through affiliation - you're a bad person. If you don't want to be seen as a bad person and judged for it, then don't associate yourself with bad people who do bad things with bad intent.

It's really that simple.

What about people who are born into racist environments? Is it ok for them to be racist in that case? Supporting anyone is grounds for judgement if your going to start judging anyone. Don't the Dems believe that judging people who are different than you is wrong, especially if they are born into it? If no matter what you do or say, makes you a racist because of the party you side with, then why be worried about committing supposed 'racist' acts? Why bother doing 'acceptable' things if your going to be put down for them regardless? Would the world/universe be better if each race had their own viable planet, easily reachable, while Earth was the universal racially diverse planet for those who preferred it? Doesn't really matter since it's not possible at this point in time, just like how a hate free, low IQ free planet, isn't possible now either, if ever.

Judge people based on their words? You said the world would be better without hate, and then pointed out how and why to hate people if your going to choose to do so, and then said yourself you hate Reps. How can you expect the world to ever be close to hate free, if you yourself won't buy into it and set an example? Why should anyone else?

The world would be better without hate. The world would be better without war or conflict. The world would be better if we took care of ourselves and others. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have a need for hatred or bigotry or war or racism or sexism or violence or rape or murder...but we DO live in a world with all of this, and thus sometimes hate can be a wonderful motivator to make positive change. 

Ostracizing people who believe terrible things is a nonviolent way to let certain people know that their views are not supported and tha their ethics are morally bankrupt. 

You may be born and raised into a racist or hateful world, but when you grow it's up to you to decide what you do with your life. If you were raised to think 'fags should burn', then that's on your parents. If you mature into an adult and STILL think that gays lack rights or otherwise continue to perpetuate that belief in a world that so wholly rejects such bigotry, then that's on you. 

Saying fire is a bad thing, and then fighting fire with fire makes no sense. That would mean fire isn't a bad thing necessarily, and that actually it's a useful tool when used in certain ways. Which would then also mean hate is a useful tool, maybe even a necessary tool in certain circumstances, when used in the right way, so to say a world without hate would certainly be better, would be presumptuous. Which then makes you wonder how many other 'bad' things are actually useful and possibly necessary.

Excluding people, and hating them, are very different things. You can be of the opinion that someone is wrong or needs to be taught a lesson, and exclude them without hating them. It's also a dangerous way of trying to mold a person because total exclusion can lead to hatred and radicalization, defeating the purpose and causing an even bigger problem.

So what is the age at which a person needs to come to this understanding? Anyone under 18 is aloud to be a racist, sexist, etc, and completely get away with it? Since when is the world the deciding factor? Certain countries are super closed off and racist, sexist, etc, yet nobody bats an eye because they aren't in the spotlight. Do they need to be taught a lesson and excluded in the hope that they eventually come to terms? Are you saying the individuals who paid the price for suggesting the Earth was round deserved their horrible mistreatment? Everyone knew the world was flat, the authorities and (lack of) data said so, and so anyone who questioned it needed to pay in some manner. How much time and when is enough data truly enough? Does data trump feelings or vice versa?

The leaps of logic...they burns us! 

The whole metaphor about 'fighting fire with fire' is foolish. Again, you're conflating action with reaction. Instigation vs response. I didn't ask to live in a nation where 50 million people put forth their support to Donald Trump (I'm not even gonna list off his misdeeds for they are far too numerous at this point to recount; also, I don't live in America but for the sake of argument the point still stands), but the reality is that we DO live in that world. 

If you think politely asking people to be nicer is going to work, hoo boy have I got about 100,000 years of human history to teach you. 

I hate violence, but the reality is that some times it truly is the only answer. If being aggressive towards those who, for lack of a better or more mature term, started it, then I will do so. Inaction does not foster results. I spent my whole life trying to discuss and debate and educate and explain things to those with whom I don't agree. It doesn't work. Never has. Saying 'hey, you probably shouldn't be racist' only makes people be more racist. IT'd be nice if it worked the opposite way and simply educating people would make them see the error in their ways, but it doesn't work. 

Okay, it works sometimes, but it's a very small minority of examples. 

Aggression is the only language some people respond to, and while I don't condone violence the reality is that it may be necessary. I truly do believe that modern republicans - at least the ones who marched in Charlottesville or the ones who are sending bombs to senators or the ones who are violently pushing right-wing rhetoric - need to be stopped, and ideaology is not enough, it seems. On the flipside, it appears most of them are too dense to understand reason or kindness and thus peaceful discussions won't work. The worst part is that they KNOW their ignorant stubbournness is what gets under the skin of so many others, and they know that if you frustrate your opponent and they lash out then you win both in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of onlookers. 

I say fuck that. Lash out. Yell. LEt them know their hatred will not stand, and if that means 'fighting fire with fire', then so be it. If that means aggressively treating them the same way they treat others, then so be it. (Also, firefighters use fire to 'control' forest fires...so metaphor broken, I guess?)

Donald J. Trump is the solution and is saving American economy and his government is building stronger nation that will benefit the American people. Trump's legacy will be remembered as one the greatest Presidents, who did great things despite the vocal opposition that doubted him. It takes a great leader to fight on despite the opposition against him. So what, Trump has many critics on social media and on leftist TV networks. Trump is the American President and his critics are not American President. We live in a democratic society and everyone can voice his/her own opinion.

So, are you joking or are you living in opposite land? I can't fathom a person actually believing this because EVERYTHING we've witnessed and experienced in the past two and a half years screams the exact opposite of what you're saying. 

You are wrong. 

Fullstop.