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

[Billiejeens]

The Democrats lost the 2024 election because of the switcheroo they played with Biden and Harris.

It was sleazy.

Biden's ego would not let him withdraw a lot earlier and let the Democratic candidates have a legitimate primary process.

Trump won less than 50 percent of the vote. It should have been a hands down grand slam for the Democrats and they blew it.

Back in the 80s we used to laugh how the Democrats were great at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

They're back at it.

.

Stay clueless.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"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.

Both sides are so far off from my vision ATM I can't root for either

 

[PoliticalChic]

Absolutely.

To this?????????

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


You absolutely want Trump to restrict freedom as the Democrats did????????

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Do you want folks, even those on the other side, to have to take care not to give viewpoints that the current administration doesn't approve of????????

How is that different from what we voted against.


Remember this>
Obama set the policy of citizens reporting on other citizens if they disagree with his government.
"The White House wants people to believe they are losing the health care debate because “scary … videos are starting to percolate on the internet” that are spreading “disinformation” about Obama’s health care plan. The White House is even encouraging Obama supporters to help them identify people spreading this “disinformation.” Theofficial White House blog now asks Americans: “If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”
Morning Bell: The People Spreading "Disinformation" About Obamacare

 

[PoliticalChic]

Both sides are so far off from my vision ATM I can't root for either

This is not about rooting......it's about voting.

That is your civic obligation.....and there are only two valid choices.

And you know that.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Again a directive is NOT a statute. NOT a law. A directive is a policy initiative. Now you may think that planning, funding, promoting, initiating violence is just fine. President Trump and his team don't think that.

I agree with them that the violence has gotten out of hand and it is a good and appropriate policy initiative to do what they can to stop it, to make that a priority of the adminstration.

And I like to think I'm smart enough not to let anti-Americans try to make that an attack on free speech. If you actually read the directive you can't lay your finger on a single word, clause or paragraph that in any way is an attack on free speech or endangers free speech in any way or is an endorsement of lawfare against political opposition.

 

[Robert W]

As a voter to whom free speech was the most important reason for my vote, this is scary.

Antifa can't be prosecuted for free speech. They can be prosecuted for the continuing violence and mayhem. They are not the Mayhem man from the insurance company guy on TV commercials.

 

[Robert W]

Do you want folks, even those on the other side, to have to take care not to give viewpoints that the current administration doesn't approve of????????

How is that different from what we voted against.

Speech must be protected. Looting, burning buildings, harming others never should be protected. That is my short list of replies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is not about rooting......it's about votiong.

That is your civic obligation.....and there are only two valid choices.

And you know that.

Look at how the RNC is complete inert. Scott Pressler is doing the work of the RNC because the Republican Party just doesn't care about the country

 

[task0778]

Again a directive is NOT a statute. NOT a law. A directive is a policy initiative. Now you may think that planning, funding, promoting, initiating violence is just fine. President Trump and his team don't think that.

I agree with them that the violence has gotten out of hand and it is a good and appropriate policy initiative to do what they can to stop it, to make that a priority of the adminstration.

And I like to think I'm smart enough not to let anti-Americans try to make that an attack on free speech. If you actually read the directive you can't lay your finger on a single word, clause or paragraph that in any way is an attack on free speech or endangers free speech in any way or is an endorsement of lawfare against political opposition.

OK, if it's not a law or statute then what's the point? Yes or no, is it going to stop or decrease violence? I don't think so. It feels like a political tool to point fingers at antifa that will surely be used by a democrat president against MAGA.

 

[Foxfyre]

Antifa can't be prosecuted for free speech. They can be prosecuted for the continuing violence and mayhem. They are not the Mayhem man from the insurance company guy on TV commercials.

Thank you. And that's a fact!

Does it occur to anybody that it is a pretty squirrelly argument to presume that if the Democrat Party should somehow go away with its lawfare, promotion/toleration of political and domestic violence, its dishonesty, etc., that would be a dangerous thing because then the Republicans would then become as the Democrats are?

That's like saying that if all the murderers are captured, prosecuted and put in prison or executed, then others will have to step up and be the murderers.

What makes anyone think that if the people reject one really destructive and unAmerican political party that the others automatically become bad? Or if that happened the people would not also reject the newly bad party?

And I'm still waiting for anybody to show how President Trump's directive is in any way government lawfare, an attack on political enemies/opposition, or attack on or suppression of free speech.

The whole premise here is really based on an unsupportable narrative that you need to keep something bad around lest others become bad.

 

[Robert W]

Does it occur to anybody that it is pretty squirrelly to presume that if the Democrat Party should somehow go away with its lawfare, promotion/toleration of political and domestic violence, its dishonesty, etc., that would be a dangerous thing because then the Republicans would become as the Democrats are?

That's like saying that if all the murderers are captured, prosecuted and put in prison or executed, then others will have to step up and be the murderers.

What makes anyone think that if the people reject one really destructive and unAmerican political party that the others automatically become bad? Or if that happened the people would not also reject the newly bad party?

And I'm still waiting for anybody to show how President Trump's directive is in any way government lawfare, an attack on political enemies/opposition, or attack on or suppression of free speech.

The whole premise here is really based on an unsupportable narrative.

Remember this about Politicalchic , she is super brilliant and can discuss things from several vantages to see what others have to say.

 

[Foxfyre]

Remember this about Politicalchick, she is super brilliant and can discuss things from several vantages to see what others have to say.

I know. She is one of my favorite people here. I honestly can't tell if she is serious with this thread or if she is playing devil's advocate here. I certainly hope the latter is the case here when President Trump's directive is painted as an attack on free speech or on Democrats/political opposition for that matter.

But in truth, nobody is going to agree with anybody 100% of the time. At least if the person is intellectually honest.

 

[Robert W]

Thank you. And that's a fact!

Does it occur to anybody that it is a pretty squirrelly argument to presume that if the Democrat Party should somehow go away with its lawfare, promotion/toleration of political and domestic violence, its dishonesty, etc., that would be a dangerous thing because then the Republicans would then become as the Democrats are?

That's like saying that if all the murderers are captured, prosecuted and put in prison or executed, then others will have to step up and be the murderers.

What makes anyone think that if the people reject one really destructive and unAmerican political party that the others automatically become bad? Or if that happened the people would not also reject the newly bad party?

And I'm still waiting for anybody to show how President Trump's directive is in any way government lawfare, an attack on political enemies/opposition, or attack on or suppression of free speech.

The whole premise here is really based on an unsupportable narrative that you need to keep something bad around lest others become bad.

Excellent perspective on the op issues. Trump is not the sort of president to try to harm citizens unless said citizens endanger others.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Antifa can't be prosecuted for free speech. They can be prosecuted for the continuing violence and mayhem. They are not the Mayhem man from the insurance company guy on TV commercials.

The OP is not restricted to ANTIFA.

It really focus is free speech.

Antifa can't be prosecuted for free speech. They can be prosecuted for the continuing violence and mayhem. They are not the Mayhem man from the insurance company guy on TV commercials.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Speech must be protected. Looting, burning buildings, harming others never should be protected. That is my short list of replies.

You are missing the point.

Don't dismiss the chill effect on free speech by doing what the administration is doing.....hiding behind ANTIFA.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Look at how the RNC is complete inert. Scott Pressler is doing the work of the RNC because the Republican Party just doesn't care about the country

OK, who are you voting for.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I know. She is one of my favorite people here. I honestly can't tell if she is serious with this thread or if she is playing devil's advocate here. I certainly hope the latter is the case here when President Trump's directive is painted as an attack on free speech or on Democrats/political opposition for that matter.

But in truth, nobody is goiang to agree with anybody 100% of the time. At least if the person is intellectually honest.

My primary reason for voting for Trump was free speech, and the defeat of Democrat censorship.

What this directive represents is what Lord Acton warned of:


Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.



I thought about what this directive would do, and Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to suppress dissent and maintain order during the Civil War, allowing the military to arrest and detain individuals deemed a threat to public safety without formal charges. This allowed authorities to silence pro-Confederate sympathizers, such as the "Copperheads," (Democrats) who opposed the war effort.

This was in a war, and to save the nation.


We are not at anywhere near that point, and there is no excuse for suspening free speech.

 

[Foxfyre]

Excellent perspective on the op issues. Trump is not the sort of president to try to harm citizens unless said citizens endanger others.

And thank you for that too. He can be abrasive, annoying, petulant, irritating, excessive with his hyperbole etc. etc. etc., but I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest he does not love America and Americans and does not have their best interests at heart.

 

[Foxfyre]

My primary reason for voting for Trump was free speech, and the defeat of Democrat censorship.

What this directive represents is what Lord Acton warned of:


Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.



I thought about what this directive would do, and Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to suppress dissent and maintain order during the Civil War, allowing the military to arrest and detain individuals deemed a threat to public safety without formal charges. This allowed authorities to silence pro-Confederate sympathizers, such as the "Copperheads," (Democrats) who opposed the war effort.

This was in a war, and to save the nation.


We are not at anywhere near that point, and there is no excuse for suspening free speech.

Where in the directive do you see any suggestion of suspension of habeas corpus?

Where in the directive do you see any suggestion of suspension or curtailment of free speech?

Where in the directive do you see any suggestion of absolute power?

Be specific with any quotes in accurate context.

I'm pretty darn sure there is absolutely nothing there that should alarm or be of concern for any honorable citizen, even those most worried about government overreach or inappropriate power.