If You Were Joyously Anticipating The Demise Of The Democrat Party........

[CrusaderFrank]

It's worked so far, and no one can come up with a plan to fix it, so I guess we are doomed or we will inflate out way out of it.

That’s what Maddie and Paul are fighting against!!

Republicans and democrats are Thelma and Louise driving off the cliff together. Does it matter who’s driving?

 

[task0778]

Again the only possible issue I can see is if Trump should treat a violent MAGA group differently than a leftist group. Then I will agree that is a dangerous thing. To condemn Trump in advance because he "might' do that in my opinion is an argument bordering on extremism.

I don't know of any MAGA groups however that are planning, promoting, funding, instigating violence. Do you?

My problem with all this is that the next democrat in the White House could use this as an attack on anti-democrat persons and policies with no more evidence of violence than they had when they labeled the Jan 6th actions as an insurrection. Suppose that AOC or Newsome or some other far left politician gets him or herself elected at some point. Will the Right protest? Could be, maybe with some alleged violence that common sense dictates is nowhere close to domestic terrorism or an insurrection. But the democrats will sure as hell portray it that way and then it is the MAGA types who are seeing their rights curtailed and abused.

IOW, are we opening the door to further politization of our law enforcement and legal system? Here's the problem: if you make it harder to protest non-violently then what could eventually happen is a shift to violence. It doesn't matter whether you actually get convicted of anything; you can be arrested and perhaps charged for something that ought to be your right to do so. Does that not chill free speech? And is that a good thing? Maybe it sounds good today, but how good will it be when a democrat is in the WH?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you have the actual text of the entire directive?

Here it is I believe in its entirety. I just don't see anything alarming in it. It isn't going after Trump's 'enemies' or those who disagree with him. It is going against those planning, funding, instigating, carrying out violence in a way that endangers or otherwise violates the rights of citizens.

https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-19141.pdf

Again the only possible issue I can see is if Trump should treat a violent MAGA group differently than a leftist group. Then I will agree that is a dangerous thing. To condemn Trump in advance because he "might' do that in my opinion is an argument bordering on extremism.

I don't know of any MAGA groups however that are planning, promoting, funding, instigating violence. Do you?

Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM/NSPM-7 MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[PoliticalChic]

^ Democrats and Republicans, this time Republicans are driving

Do you have a comparable list as this, for the other side?



Race and gender preferences

Language police

No punishment for criminals

Open borders

Attacks on the Supreme Court

Transgender sports competitions

Antisemitism

Wealth tax

Cancel culture

Welfare State

Government run healthcare mandates

Sanctuary Cities

Two-Tiered Justice system

 

[Edgetho]

My problem with all this is that the next democrat in the White House could use this as an attack on anti-democrat persons and policies with no more evidence of violence than they had when they labeled the Jan 6th actions as an insurrection. Suppose that AOC or Newsome or some other far left politician gets him or herself elected at some point. Will the Right protest? Could be, maybe with some alleged violence that common sense dictates is nowhere close to domestic terrorism or an insurrection. But the democrats will sure as hell portray it that way and then it is the MAGA types who are seeing their rights curtailed and abused.

IOW, are we opening the door to further politization of our law enforcement and legal system? Here's the problem: if you make it harder to protest non-violently then what could eventually happen is a shift to violence. It doesn't matter whether you actually get convicted of anything; you can be arrested and perhaps charged for something that ought to be your right to do so. Does that not chill free speech? And is that a good thing? Maybe it sounds good today, but how good will it be when a democrat is in the WH?

This is BULLSHIT!

How much more can dimocrap scum hate us? How much more can they use the DoJ to go after their enemies? How much more can they us them to silence us on social media? How much more can they prosecute peaceful protestors? How much more can they lie, cheat and steal? How much more can they get unstable morons to try to murder us? How many morer riots can they cause? How much more can they cheat at the Ballot Box? How much more......???????

Are you afraid of them? Are you afraid of your own shadow?

**** dimocrap scum. Pound them into the dirt.

Then when they try to get up, pound them again.

 

[Foxfyre]

My problem with all this is that the next democrat in the White House could use this as an attack on anti-democrat persons and policies with no more evidence of violence than they had when they labeled the Jan 6th actions as an insurrection. Suppose that AOC or Newsome or some other far left politician gets him or herself elected at some point. Will the Right protest? Could be, maybe with some alleged violence that common sense dictates is nowhere close to domestic terrorism or an insurrection. But the democrats will sure as hell portray it that way and then it is the MAGA types who are seeing their rights curtailed and abused.

IOW, are we opening the door to further politization of our law enforcement and legal system? Here's the problem: if you make it harder to protest non-violently then what could eventually happen is a shift to violence. It doesn't matter whether you actually get convicted of anything; you can be arrested and perhaps charged for something that ought to be your right to do so. Does that not chill free speech? And is that a good thing? Maybe it sounds good today, but how good will it be when a democrat is in the WH?

So those who plot, conspire, fund, promote, instigate, carry out violence against innocent American citizens should be given a pass because Democrats might utilize lawfare against us? How would that not be politicizing law enforcement?

As if the Democrats have not been utilizing lawfare against PEACEFUL Tea Party, MAGA, Republican, conservative groups for decades now? And the Democrats have long given a pass to leftist groups committing violence and as a result we have violent riots as the norm now instead of isolated and uncommon events. We should just accept that?

At what point do we say enough? That we say those who plan, fund, promote, carry out violence will be prosecuted? If that should be a group on the right, so be it. I don't know of any on the right doing that, but certainly if there is, they should be prosecuted as vigorously every bit as much as anybody on the left.

I see NOTHING in the directive issued to stop the violence that suggests it will target only leftist groups or enemies of Trump. It targets enemies of all honorable citizens of America. It is not only high time that happens, but it is Constitutional.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you have a comparable list as this, for the other side?



Race and gender preferences

Language police

No punishment for criminals

Open borders

Attacks on the Supreme Court

Transgender sports competitions

Antisemitism

Wealth tax

Cancel culture

Welfare State

Government run healthcare mandates

Sanctuary Cities

Two-Tiered Justice system

It’s not about sides!!

We have $2 Trillion in annual deficits and the small handful people treating it as an existential crisis are now Trump’s mortal enemies

Musk highlighted serious structural flaws, most of all how Congress personally benefits from the deficits — and that’s ignored.

I don’t want Kamala and the Dems, I just want Trump and Republicans to stop being part of the problem

 

[PoliticalChic]

It’s not about sides!!

We have $2 Trillion in annual deficits and the small handful people treating it as an existential crisis are now Trump’s mortal enemies

Musk highlighted serious structural flaws, most of all how Congress personally benefits from the deficits — and that’s ignored.

I don’t want Kamala and the Dems, I just want Trump and Republicans to stop being part of the problem

"It’s not about sides!!"


Really?

OK.....so don't vote or vote for the Loser-tarians.


You are usually far more lucid, and if you think about it, you will agree that we simply vote for the side....the SIDE...closest to our wishes for the country.

 

[Cassandro]

Trump is hazardous to the continuation of the Republic and the Nation

Don't you get tired of repeating these mindless slogans?

 

[task0778]

So those who plot, conspire, fund, promote, instigate, carry out violence against innocent American citizens should be given a pass because Democrats might utilize lawfare against us?

Do you think we had no law to protect us from this sort of thing prior to Trump's decision? I thought we already had sufficient laws to prosecute the planning, funding, and promotion of political violence. Was Trump's NPSM-7 necessary?

How is that politicizing law enforcement?

IMHO it allows a president more latitude to further squelch political speech and protest.

As if the Democrats have not been utilizing lawfare against PEACEFUL Tea Party, MAGA, Republican, conservative groups for decades now? And the Democrats have long given a pass to leftist groups committing violence and as a result we have violent riots as the norm now instead of isolated and uncommon events. We should just accept that?

Of course not. But IMHO it could give them a little more legal room to continue what they're doing and escalate their actions.

I don't know of any on the right doing that, but certainly if there is, they should be prosecuted as vigorously every bit as much as anybody on the left.

I see this decision as useful to the Left as it is to Trump now. It is and will be a continuing threat to opposition speech that could be escalated into more violence. Give a person or group the name of domestic terrorism and go after them for peaceful demonstrations and they could very well turn to more violent opposition. Possibly drives the opposition underground.

I see NOTHING in the directive issued to stop the violence that suggests it will target only leftist groups or enemies of Trump. It targets enemies of all honorable citizens of America. It is not only high time that happens, but it is Constitutional.

I see nothing in the directive that will stop future violence either. Who decides who the enemies of all honorable American citizens are? When Biden was in office it was the TDSers. Sooner or later a democrat will enter the WH, so who do you think he will determine who the enemies are then? When Biden was in office he and other democrats often decried the MAGA types, but now the next democrat president will go after them as domestic terrorists. Say there is a PAC that plans and funds protests against the democrats, will the democrat president label them as domestic terrorists even though nothing they've actually done constitues a terrorist attack? Are we reducing the freedom and right to protest?

IOW: what difference is this action going to make in the long run? Will it help or hurt? All I see is a fanning of the flames, and I don't see that as helpful.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you think we had no law to protect us from this sort of thing prior to Trump's decision? I thought we already had sufficient laws to prosecute the planning, funding, and promotion of political violence. Was Trump's NPSM-7 necessary?





IMHO it allows a president more latitude to further squelch political speech and protest.





Of course not. But IMHO it could give them a little more legal room to continue what they're doing and escalate their actions.






I see this decision as useful to the Left as it is to Trump now. It is and will be a continuing threat to opposition speech that could be escalated into more violence. Give a person or group the name of domestic terrorism and go after them for peaceful demonstrations and they could very well turn to more violent opposition. Possibly drives the opposition underground.





I see nothing in the directive that will stop future violence either. Who decides who the enemies of all honorable American citizens are? When Biden was in office it was the TDSers. Sooner or later a democrat will enter the WH, so who do you think he will determine who the enemies are then? When Biden was in office he and other democrats often decried the MAGA types, but now the next democrat president will go after them as domestic terrorists. Say there is a PAC that plans and funds protests against the democrats, will the democrat president label them as domestic terrorists even though nothing they've actually done constitues a terrorist attack? Are we reducing the freedom and right to protest?

IOW: what difference is this action going to make in the long run? Will it help or hurt? All I see is a fanning of the flames, and I don't see that as helpful.

You must not have read the directive. There is NOTHING to squelch free speech in it. There is NOTHING that targets Democrats, 'enemies' of Trump or anything like that in it. But it does mean our government will no longer tolerate or look the other way when ANY people are plotting, planning, facilitating, promoting, funding, carrying out violence against citizens of the United States.

In my opinion, anybody who would object to that are people who would participate in it.

Or are dutifully parroting the dishonest spin a dishonest media and Democrats etc. are putting on it.

Read the directive and then tell me how it squelches 'free speech' in any way. If it encourages the Democrats to combat domestic violence/terrorism, how is that not a good thing?

Shows me a single clause in that directive that you disagree with.

 

[task0778]

You must not have read the directive. There is NOTHING to squelch free speech in it. There is NOTHING that targets Democrats, 'enemies' of Trump or anything like that in it. But it does mean our government will no longer tolerate or look the other way when ANY people are plotting, planning, facilitating, promoting, funding, carrying out violence against citizens of the United States.

In my opinion, anybody who would object to that are people who would participate in it.

Or are dutifully parroting the dishonest spin a dishonest media and Democrats etc. are putting on it.

Do you think we had no law to protect us from this sort of thing prior to Trump's decision? I thought we already had sufficient laws to prosecute the planning, funding, and promotion of political violence. Was Trump's NPSM-7 necessary?

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you think we had no law to protect us from this sort of thing prior to Trump's decision? I thought we already had sufficient laws to prosecute the planning, funding, and promotion of political violence. Was Trump's NPSM-7 necessary?

A directive is not a change in the law. A directive is a policy statement and initiative that the President has every right and even a constitutional obligation to promote. And I can't imagine that any honorable citizens would not approve of President Trump's directive to stop the the violence against persons and property in our society.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I guess that doesn't include me.

I was anticipating the demise of the Democrat party joyously, myself.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you think we had no law to protect us from this sort of thing prior to Trump's decision? I thought we already had sufficient laws to prosecute the planning, funding, and promotion of political violence. Was Trump's NPSM-7 necessary?





IMHO it allows a president more latitude to further squelch political speech and protest.





Of course not. But IMHO it could give them a little more legal room to continue what they're doing and escalate their actions.






I see this decision as useful to the Left as it is to Trump now. It is and will be a continuing threat to opposition speech that could be escalated into more violence. Give a person or group the name of domestic terrorism and go after them for peaceful demonstrations and they could very well turn to more violent opposition. Possibly drives the opposition underground.





I see nothing in the directive that will stop future violence either. Who decides who the enemies of all honorable American citizens are? When Biden was in office it was the TDSers. Sooner or later a democrat will enter the WH, so who do you think he will determine who the enemies are then? When Biden was in office he and other democrats often decried the MAGA types, but now the next democrat president will go after them as domestic terrorists. Say there is a PAC that plans and funds protests against the democrats, will the democrat president label them as domestic terrorists even though nothing they've actually done constitues a terrorist attack? Are we reducing the freedom and right to protest?

IOW: what difference is this action going to make in the long run? Will it help or hurt? All I see is a fanning of the flames, and I don't see that as helpful.

Read the directive Task. Read the directive.

 

[task0778]

A directive is not a change in the law. A directive is a policy statement and initiative that the President has every right and even a constitutional obligation to promote. And I can't imagine that any honorable citizens would not approve of President Trump's directive to stop the the violence against persons and property in our society.

I did read the directive. Now - answer my question: is this necessary? Do we not already have statutes in place to prosecute domestic terrorism? Today the focus in on antifa, but when a democrat president assumes office where do you think that person will redirect attention to for investigation and prosecution of domestic terrorism? Answer: they will go after MAGA and others that oppose their agenda. And it will be worse than it was under Biden. Here's why:

The President can define who gets investigated and prosecuted by his own decree. He has given himself that power, right? That is the whole point of NPSM-7, he gets to decide. Used to be the DOJ had that sole authority, now they don't. IMHO, Trump has legalized the politization of the DOJ. And the democrats will exercise that same power whenever they return to the WH. Against us.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I did read the directive. Now - answer my question: is this necessary? Do we not already have statutes in place to prosecute domestic terrorism? Today the focus in on antifa, but when a democrat president assumes office where do you think that person will redirect attention to for investigation and prosecution of domestic terrorism? Answer: they will go after MAGA and others that oppose their agenda. And it will be worse than it was under Biden. Here's why:

The President can define who gets investigated and prosecuted by his own decree. He has given himself that power, right? That is the whole point of NPSM-7, he gets to decide. Used to be the DOJ had that sole authority, now they don't. IMHO, Trump has legalized the politization of the DOJ. And the democrats will exercise that same power whenever they return to the WH. Against us.

^ Why Republicans suck and cannot be trusted

As soon as democrats win back Congress (probably in the midterms) and the WH (in 28) the NRA will be labeled a domestic terrorist organization

The plan is probably to remove Trump after the midterms and install Peter Thiel and Karp's sock puppet, JD as POTUS

 

[Robert W]

1. ......here is the danger the nation faces.
If we become the only party, watch out for the same from our side that we hated by them.

Online Library of Liberty
Online Library of Liberty › quotes › lord-acton-writes-to...
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.



2. Sometimes what seems like a great idea gets out of hand.


3. "Donald Trump’s designation of “antifa” as a “domestic terrorist organization” last week....Trump signed a national security policy memorandum called “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” known as NSPM-7.


4. ....NPSM-7 “directs a new national strategy to ‘disrupt’ any individual or groups ‘that foment political violence,’ including ‘before they result in violent political acts.’”



5. ....the “indicia” (indicators) of future political violence listed in the report are:

• anti-Americanism,
• anti-capitalism,
• anti-Christianity,
• support for the overthrow of the United States Government,
• extremism on migration,
• extremism on race,
• extremism on gender
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family,
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on religion, and
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on morality."
• Trump Classifies “Anti-Capitalism” as a Political Pre-Crime

IS this really how far we, who voted for Trump, want to go????????????????

In the particular case of Antifa, yes. Who is anticapitalist? Merely that should not be a guide. Same with other issues. Trump over those matters chances will, chances are, be stopped by courts of law.

 

[Robert W]

I did read the directive. Now - answer my question: is this necessary? Do we not already have statutes in place to prosecute domestic terrorism? Today the focus in on antifa, but when a democrat president assumes office where do you think that person will redirect attention to for investigation and prosecution of domestic terrorism? Answer: they will go after MAGA and others that oppose their agenda. And it will be worse than it was under Biden. Here's why:

Biden did just that.

 

[Billiejeens]

1. ......here is the danger the nation faces.
If we become the only party, watch out for the same from our side that we hated by them.

Online Library of Liberty
Online Library of Liberty › quotes › lord-acton-writes-to...
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.



2. Sometimes what seems like a great idea gets out of hand.


3. "Donald Trump’s designation of “antifa” as a “domestic terrorist organization” last week....Trump signed a national security policy memorandum called “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” known as NSPM-7.


4. ....NPSM-7 “directs a new national strategy to ‘disrupt’ any individual or groups ‘that foment political violence,’ including ‘before they result in violent political acts.’”



5. ....the “indicia” (indicators) of future political violence listed in the report are:

• anti-Americanism,
• anti-capitalism,
• anti-Christianity,
• support for the overthrow of the United States Government,
• extremism on migration,
• extremism on race,
• extremism on gender
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family,
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on religion, and
• hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on morality."
• Trump Classifies “Anti-Capitalism” as a Political Pre-Crime

IS this really how far we, who voted for Trump, want to go????????????????

Absolutely.