Armed and Ready to Overthrow the Government if Trump Loses in 2024
Are they serious? I don't know whether I should take this as a sensationalism or something to pay attention to? I usually expect better from Newsweek.
https://www.newsweek.com/2021/12/31/mil … 60953.htmlAre they serious? I think Nieznany is as mentioned not a loner. His comments on the social media site Quora received 44,000 views in the first two weeks, and more than 4 million overall. So, in my view he is serious. This does not shock me, I mean we did have an attack on the Capitol. I would think they could do it again. You must realize many from all walks of life believe there was voter fraud.
So, I would certainly take this man seriously. I think Newsweek did a good job on the article. It appeared well researched. In my view, they just pointed out an ugly truth. We have American's so disillusioned they would consider breaking our laws to get their point across.
I can't blame Newsweek for bringing out this truth. I think it's prudent to bring this story into the public eye. Hiding this man's threats gives him a place to hide. Would you want to hear these social media post after a group armed themselves and succeeded in an attack on the Government, and brought and used guns?
The country is in a very bad place, a divide. It's time more realize that, and Newsweek has made whoever read the article heads up.
Our divide deepens daily --- Each side sees the other side's ideologies as unacceptable. I can't think of a greater problem when it comes to getting along with one another. Ideologies involve an individual's morals, values, most will not bend when it comes to morals and values.
Hopefully, our law enforcement agencies will monitor these kinds of threats. Violence certainly can't be tolerated under any circumstances. However, I for one would not be surprised to see violence against the Government. Scary times.
have a look at this comment ECO just posted and the links. I think this is very much might answer your questions.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/352 … ost4219253I am very much reaching to grasp an understanding of what would make anyone storm the our center of government today. I completely understand the underpinnings of the civil war but the concerns today are more difficult to understand and Don't even come close to rising to that level. Because one party loses its a reason to overthrow the government? If members of each party took that view we'd have a civil war every 4 to 8 years because the other side would feel that there concerns or issues aren't being addressed. What has happened to us is human beings I have to ask? That isn't how a democracy works. If there is a group of people in our country who feel like they cannot tolerate anything other than their own leader who adheres to only one unwavering ideology and forces it on others maybe it's time for them to seek out a citizenship and countries that are more authoritarian. Democracy will never be anything more than compromise. Although most of the fears that are stoked I feel have no basis in reality whatsoever. We have some poor old misinformed folks out here who think communism is coming around the corner. Sadly most people can't sort reality from rhetoric.
I'm still wondering what it is that the Trump base is fighting for. Sometimes when you hear the rhetoric you'd think that they are the American equivalent to the Chinese Uyghurs.
I also think social media and media in general tries to amplify the ideas of extremes when in reality the majority of people reside in the middle not the far right or the far left. Misinformation is a big part of our current polarization because it is hard to bring the country together when each side has its own facts and attributions of responsibility. It helps that some leading social media platforms have limited or banned Mr. Trump’s posting privileges. But that will not stop the spread of misinformation as he likely will move to other sites that have few limits on what he can post. His followers will share falsehoods on their own sites, and misinformation will continue to divide Americans and poison our political environment. Most specifically that the 2020 election was rigged.We, as a democracy, watched as our president endured 4 years (and more) of every effort possible effort short of assassination to remove him from the office he was elected to. False claims of malfeasance, false claims of immorality, false claims of illegal actions - anything that could be imagined was thrown against him. The only president ever to be impeached twice...and twice had the accusations "thrown out of court".
We watched a summer of rioting as violent efforts were made to remove police from our streets; to remove the enforcement arm of government.
We watched as entire city blocks were taken over by "insurgents" and no govt. entity was allowed to enter; even residents had to produce identification to visit their own homes.
We watched as police precincts were occupied and destroyed. As federal buildings were set afire - both symbols and tools of our government.
We watched as police were violently attacked and their equipment destroyed. We even watched as our leaders were in the forefront of some of that violence.
We watched as cities and whole states declared they would no longer enforce the laws of the nation; laws democratically voted into place. We even watched as those same cities and states did everything they could to prevent federal enforcement of those democratic laws. We watched as high placed politicians warned criminals of impending enforcement efforts in order that they escape judgement by our democratically produced laws.
And great swatches of our people applaud all of these things. All using whatever means possible to negate actions of a democratic government...because they didn't like what democracy had produced and demanded that they get to make laws for everyone.
So it is with real confusion I read complaints that the country has suddenly deteriorated with the Capital Riot; that it is inconceivable that our democracy is being attacked like that...while we watched and applauded for months and months when people, and our leaders, did exactly the same thing without any response.
Yes, we have decided that violence is an acceptable tool to effect political change, and it is getting worse every year. Yes, we have decided that compromise is not necessary, and that we will get our own way on controlling all the people. The edges of our society have decided that democracy is not for them; that they will govern the country as they see fit and if that requires violence, destruction and death then so be it. If it requires that our laws be ignored or abused, then so be it. If it requires massive government pogroms against political rivals then so be it.
As we as a people not only put up with it but applaud it whenever the desired goal appeals to us.Is this the level that politics has descended to in this country? As long as “your side” wins nothing else matters? What about upholding constitutional principles and the rule of law?
How patriotic of an American can you be if you would sit quietly, or support, the undermining of everything that this country supposedly stands for? Isn’t it our duty as citizens to protect one another’s rights and ensure that our government represents and protects all Americans, not just the “correct ones?”
If you truly support the values that Americans have been espousing for centuries, then you should loudly and repeatedly denounce the president for attacking the elections, simply because he is afraid of losing.
This rule applies to everyone. Anyone, regardless of their politics, who would undermine our institutions is dangerous. Our ultimate loyalty as Americans is not to an individual politician, but to the rights and responsibilities contained in the Constitution.
If we don’t collectively stand up to this insult, then we all are culpable.
As far as police actions in any given city that is a local issue. Let me remind you that one of the principal tenants of Republicanism is avoiding the overreach of the federal government by strictly supporting states rights. Cities who wanted federal help asked and got it others handled it locally. If you didn't like what happened in your area that's something to address with your mayor through the proper channels. Our city center saw continual protest also but you know what? Our mayor, our police force handled our people just fine. We in no circumstance needed The long arm of the federal government agitating the situation.
This type of talk is very extremist and fortunately I don't think many people are that extreme. I don't Believe that most want the authoritarian government you're describing. Most can easily ride out the political cycles of opposite party control without feeling the need to become violent.
"The edges of society" Don't have a right to total control. I'm sorry you'll have to participate in the channels of democracy just like the rest of us.
If not, you really should consider moving to someplace with a more authoritarian style that you'd be comfortable with.Wow. The left has been taking in extremes for at least five years, they’ve rioted, supported riots, bailed each other out so they can rot some more and held every American who doesn’t agree with any far left agenda in contempt. They’ve insulted, canceled, trampled on the free exchange of ideas and you wonder why some are angry?
Sheesh practice what you preach is all I can tell the left.First of all, don't lump me in with."the left" whatever that generally means in your mind. What do I preach? Democracy and its principles of compromise.
Unfortunately talking about principles our country was founded on in democracy gets you labeled as a "leftist" sheeshThe point is the left has done everything possible to trample on the rights of others and then bemoan any reaction. The right always denounce far right extremists while the left embraces their far left extremists.
Until they get their house in order I think it is disingenuous to call either out without understanding. That’s the problem with our country right now. Everyone wants to be heard but no one is willing to listen.I am by far not a "leftist" You apply the label so broadly and actually disrespectfully to include every single individual who may fall under the Democrat label. I'm independent, we are actually currently the largest percentage of voters out there. It's misguided to group so many people together as simply one ideology. But exactly who's "rights" have been trampled on and how?
"If we don’t collectively stand up to this insult, then we all are culpable."
You need to read Wilderness comment once again... Did you stand by the fact Trump was a duly elected President? Or did you support all of the above? All of which was uncalled for.
You seem to question how we ended up so divided. I voted for a president that offered an agenda, an agenda he worked on very hard. The Democrats literally tormented this man from the moment he won the primary. Now you seem to be shocked that some of us are angry, especially with what we are witnessing at this point with
Biden Governing.
People are mad, some people are very much disgusted with the hypocrisy we need to placate.
I think simply many American's do not appreciate or are willing to accept the ideologies that the Democratic party presently stands for. We have the right to buck anything we find unsuitable, or any ideology we find goes against the Constitution or the very principles of what America has strived under. IT would seem the Democrats have just not been able to understand many just don't care for the agenda the party is pushing. We are at a point in our history that people's mindsets have evolved in opposite directions. You more or less say if some don't like it move. I think the other side could say the same. But, the right has not moved away from the Constitution in my view, that would be the Democratic party.
The problem IMO, the left just can't understand, the right is very much feeling America is in danger, and many are not willing to see America become a nation we don't recognize. There are many nations that offer what the left hopes to accomplish here. It would seem many of their citizens are walking across our borders seeking asylum.
And if you support the constitution and all that America has stood for for 200 years you should have loudly and repeatedly denounced those faux impeachment efforts; efforts that were doomed from the beginning to be anything but political grandstanding.
You should be denouncing so called "sanctuary cities" that openly flout our democratic laws. You should be screaming to the heavens about violent efforts to destroy our police departments and our property. You should be doing whatever you can to stop the destruction rather than accepting that your neighbors in Portland and other cities were subjected to months of violence, destruction and death.
But you seem to have formed the idea that I approve of the things I listed; I do not. I am not one of the edges that demand they run everything as they see fit. What I am saying is that a large portion of our population quietly sits back and approves of them whenever they approve of the goal.
Want the police gone? Keep quiet about rioting. Don't like the elected President? Keep quiet about witch hunts concealed as "investigations". Want the feds gone from your city and federal laws ignored? Quietly support it when those laws are set aside or, worse, actively bypassed. Vote those back into office that turn a city into a sanctuary for criminals and refuse to allow the laws of the nation to be enforced.
As far as your locality - was there any destruction? Were any buildings looted, were there any cop cars set ablaze or overturned? There weren't where I live, there was no rioting at all.
But. When the "occupy" movement came to town a few years ago and destroyed a city park, my voice was there, asking why this was allowed and letting it be known that it is not acceptable. So yes, when violence hits, when property or lives are harmed or destroyed, I'm among those letting it be known that it is not acceptable.
Are you? Or do you sit back and say nothing when the "protests" turn violent, when property or people are harmed, as long as the "cause is just"? Do you support a nation of laws democratically enacted or just those that you like?I'm not sure why you're so focused on protests that happened in various cities? The way that those protests were handled is a reflection of local government. Nothing more nothing less. I'm not understanding how the duly elected government deals with rioting in Portland has anything to do with my city? If my "neighbors" in Portland want different, let them do different. If I'm unhappy with how my mayor or governor is handling issues I'll vote differently next time and I suppose the people of Portland have the same option, don't they?. I'm certainly not going to sit back and do nothing as you imply if I'm unhappy with the way things are handled in my city. No, It's my city and my vote here. My vote and my voice are the only way I can hold anyone accountable. Tend to your own backyard. If my city wanted to become a sanctuary city then I'd have some say in that otherwise I have no effect on what other cities want to do. Again, states rights. It is a Republican principle I actually believe very strongly in.
Citizens have the right to assemble and protest. Do you want to take that away too? No they don't have the right to cause violence or destroy property but just like the capitol riot how do you know when that will happen ahead of time? Be safe and just take away people's rights?
Also, impeachments are within the purview of the Congress whether they be controlled by either party. Would you like to purge congress's ability to impeach also?
The "persecution" complex that Mr. Trump has projected just doesn't hold water. I'd also say it's not governing from a position of strength either. We have an adversarial system of government but it's also the nature of politics. If he wasn't able to weather it without such a massive blow to his ego it's best for him to stay far from politics Because it's beginning to sound like the whines of the petulant child who just couldn't get his way.
I'm sure there are many folks out there who Loved what the Obama era brought or the Reagan era brought or the policies of any president for that matter. But the fact is we move on with a new president We don't talk about killing people because we would like to keep the ideas or policies of a certain president going."If we don’t collectively stand up to this insult, then we all are culpable."
You need to read Wilderness comment once again... Did you stand by the fact Trump was a duly elected President? Or did you support all of the above? All of which was uncalled for.
You seem to question how we ended up so divided. I voted for a president that offered an agenda, an agenda he worked on very hard. The Democrats literally tormented this man from the moment he won the primary. Now you seem to be shocked that some of us are angry, especially with what we are witnessing at this point with
Biden Governing.
People are mad, some people are very much disgusted with the hypocrisy we need to placate.
I think simply many American's do not appreciate or are willing to accept the ideologies that the Democratic party presently stands for. We have the right to buck anything we find unsuitable, or any ideology we find goes against the Constitution or the very principles of what America has strived under. IT would seem the Democrats have just not been able to understand many just don't care for the agenda the party is pushing. We are at a point in our history that people's mindsets have evolved in opposite directions. You more or less say if some don't like it move. I think the other side could say the same. But, the right has not moved away from the Constitution in my view, in my view that would be the Democratic party.
The problem IMO, the left just can't understand, the right is very much feeling America is in danger, and many are not willing to see America become a nation we don't recognize. There are many nations that offer what the left hopes to accomplish here. It would seem many of their citizens are walking across our borders seeking asylum.Personally, I'm not feeling a sense of "danger" either physically within the area that I live in or politically. Of course I recognize you may live in an area that may feel physically more dangerous but I don't really understand the feeling of danger in the overall political climate.
The comment by wilderness was honestly pretty shocking especially invoking the term pogrom.
As far As the impeachment proceedings in the past for former President Trump, he of course was Open to be impeached through our process of government. All of the duly elected Congress persons voted on the articles of impeachment. Just as with with Bill Clinton. I don't remember folks threatening to kill other people and overturn the government when Mr Clinton was impeached. He was impeached and we moved on. There really isn't much any of us can do in terms of that. It's a function of government. The collective group of our elected Congress people have that option. If your congressional representative voted in a way you disagreed with on the articles of impeachment that is something for you to take up locally. Vote them out next time. Folks are certainly welcome to go about trying to get rid of the process of impeachment in our government but that is extremely unlikely to happen.
As far as President Biden goes, he won the election. And yes I'm very shocked that people don't believe that he won in a free and fair election. People can be upset or even angry if that is not who you preferred to be in office but the antics that continue to go on are just counterproductive for the country as a whole. If folks didn't agree with the impeachments then how long is the resentment and bitterness going to continue? Until it ruins our country as a whole?
Too many people are forgetting or not understanding what a democracy is truly about.I think the fears are due to a huge split in ideologies, not really anything physical. I feel many on the right are more fearful of losing the Democracy we cherish and help built-in America. Simply IMO we at this point in America have a true split on what we find are suitable ideologies
To be blunt many felt the two Trump impeachment were drummed up political schemes. He was accused, without any true evidence of committing crimes. They marched up hearsay witnesses that could offer nothing but their own views, opinions. Plus the second was nothing but unconstitutional it was after he left office. It was clear he was out of office. This was just a vindictive political ploy, which the Democrats are clearly known for. Impeachments are for presidents that need to be removed from office. This impeachment trial in my view was unconstitutional.
The Clinton impeachment does not in any way compare to either of Trump's impeachments. He lied to Congress openly and continued his lie to the public. the evidence was solid and conclusive --- a dress with sperm on it, and a live woman that wore that dress, and claimed to have had consensual oral sex with him in a closet. He lied to congress period... In Trump's impeachments, there was nothing that appeared to be factual evidence of any crime, only smoking guns, and "maybes".
Impeach is a tool Congress can use and should use with good evidence that a President has done something to warrant impeachment. It should not be used lightly or as a political ploy. As IMO it was with Trump both times.
Your shock is warranted in regard to some people not believing the election was fair. People have the right to free speech, no matter if you or I agree. It does not change their anger.
For me, I moved on quickly, and prefer to concentrate on today... And concentrate on this administration.
It is evident that some citizens feel that the last election was in some respects fraudulent, and they feel democracy has broken down. That government in which they empower to be vested in the people has failed, and they are left to believe our Democracy is in danger. This is a very strong cause, one that will not in my opinion be easily put under.
Do you or I like this cause? I don't... Can I do a dam thing about it? No
Do I see how and why many came to feel this way? Yes I can.When Gerald Ford was a member of the House, he defined an impeachable offense as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." In other words, impeachment and conviction by Congress is a political punishment, not a criminal one.
And I am definitely not implying that Mr Clinton should not have been impeached. I'm just saying that the structural process of impeachment as outlined in the constitution was there and it was utilized for both of the former presidents. As well as former President Nixon I might add.
In all three cases, Representatives held the required formal inquiry into whether or not there are grounds for impeachment.
And all three, They found grounds meeting the criteria. I think I understand that you're saying that the articles should have never been brought for Mr Trump.
But I think that that would go directly to changing the constitution and the way impeachment is handled .And I think we all know how unlikely that scenario is.
Really the only recourse is to hold our representatives and senators accountable if we don't agree with the way they're representing us.You do realize the second impeachment of President Donald Trump occurred AFTER he had left office. The democrats completely ignored the Constitution. Since he left office, what would their punishment be? Couldn't remove him from office. That is the purpose of impeachment. The democrats simply put on a show and ignored the Constitution.
The impeachment inquiry and the adoption of the articles afterward happened while Mr Trump was still in office.. Only the Senate trial happened after his term ended.
As far as the constitution, The Constitution says: “The President ... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
It says nothing about the impeachment of a former president.
it appears most scholars agree that a president can be impeached after leaving office. One argument is that state constitutions that predate the U.S. Constitution allowed impeachment after officials left office. The Constitution’s drafters also did not specifically bar the practice.
Yes, removal from office was the penalty That's not really a concern for a former president. Still, conviction would send a message about Mr.Trump's conduct. Moreover, if the Senate were to convict, lawmakers would have presumably taken a separate vote on whether to disqualify Mr. Trump from holding future office."Still, conviction would send a message about Mr.Trump's conduct. Moreover, if the Senate were to convict, lawmakers would have presumably taken a separate vote on whether to disqualify Mr. Trump from holding future office."
And there you have it; the entire thing was designed and implemented in an effort to remove a political rival from the political arena.If I use your logic then I would have to apply it to every impeachment. In our country's history. Including when it's been used for judges and other individuals.
Therefore, whenever the process of impeachment inquiry all the way through it's possible end of trial in the Senate Have all served the sole purpose of removing rivals from whatever arena they are in. The structural procedures of impeachment remain constant.. So I would then have to apply your conclusion to all of them.
It sounds like your issue is more with the constitutionally sanctioned remedy of impeachment..
"It says nothing about the impeachment of a former president."
You know what else it doesn't say? It doesn't say that the speaker of the house has to be a duly elected representative of Congress. So, when the Republicans take back the Congress...they could make President Donald Trump the Speaker of the House. I think that would be great. Then, if they have a veto proof majority in Congress and control of the Senate, they can do away with harris and biden for the good of the country.
Why not? If you can impeach a president when he's out of office, anything can be on the table. Right?
Now, some reality. pelosi and the democrats knew President Trump would not be impeached. They knew the votes before they ever started the process. Everybody made their position clear.
So, why did they move forward with an impeachment they knew would never succeed? Like all thing's democrat, they wanted to put on a show. It was a great show. It was a political show like no other. There was no real evidence or substance to it, but it was a great show.
The greatest accomplishment of the second impeachment is to anger the Republican base so bad, they are now more than determined to take back the house and senate.
All the Republicans who voted for impeachment? Majority of them have left office, been voted out of office or retired. It is the great purge, and it continues.
I will stick with the Constitution's words on why a president should be impeached. I don't care what Ford had to say about it.
We were discussing Trump's impeachments, they are different from any in our history. The second one was unconstitutional --- he was out of office.
Agree we need to hold all accountable in our Federal Govement.So first, just looking at the text, Articles One and Two of the Constitution talk about impeachment. Nowhere do they expressly limit this power to sitting or current office holders.
The Senate also at the time voted and declared the impeachment constitutional.I prefer to hear the words from one's mouth --- I prefer this to an article. I also prefer Alan Dershowitz when needing information on the Constitution. He actually wrote a book on this very subject.
Dershowitz speaks on the fact that Congress can not vote to impeach after he has left office. https://www.c-span.org/video/?508950-3/ … dent-trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqmhfyH09jM
WATCH: Dershowitz says charges against Trump are ‘outside' of impeachment offenses.
He stands behind the Constitution and claims Trump should not have been impeached either time.
" Still, a conviction would send a message about Mr.Trump's conduct. Moreover, if the Senate were to convict, lawmakers would have presumably taken a separate vote on whether to disqualify Mr. Trump from holding future office."
And I must ask -- Do you feel it is reasonable to disrespect the constitution in regard to impeachment, to send a message, and or to stop him from running again? It's very much clear to me that's what the Democrats did, there is no doubt of that. They pulled this ploy twice. Twice Trump was acquitted. The Democrats show no respect for the constitution either time IMO.Nearly 150 constitutional experts from both ends of the political spectrum signed an open letter arguing that the trial was on solid legal ground.
Protect Democracy also posted a letter signed by over 170 legal scholars, including the ultra conservative federalist society setting forth the reasons why impeachment and trial of officials who have left office is in fact constitutional.
I respect Mr Dershowitz opinion obviously But I may tend to go more on the larger consensus.
I'm no constitutional expert by any means. Just like the economy we're going to have experts line up with differing views based on their calculations and training.
The Constitution seems to be one of those areas that is open to differing interpretations at times for sure.
I am certain though that the many millions of people who consider themselves Democrats probably have very widely ranging views on the constitution.
I do remember a time though when Mr Trump weighed in on his views of The Constitution:
"I’ve seen a lot of bad deals in my life, but this Constitution is a total mess,” he said. “We need to tear it up and start over.”
The branches thing is maybe the worst part of this deal,” he said. “The first thing we do when we pull out of the Constitution is get rid of two of those branches.”
He also called the First Amendment “something that really has to go.”
“No one in his right mind would put something like that in a Constitution,” he said. “Russia doesn’t have it. North Korea doesn’t have it. All the best countries don’t have it.”
I don't know, is he on to something?
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowit … nstitutionYou did catch that your link, giving those quotes on Trump and the Constitution, was humor? Not fact?
But even if it were had “No one in his right mind would put something like that in a Constitution,” he said. “Russia doesn’t have it. North Korea doesn’t have it. All the best countries don’t have it.” the first thought I would have had would have "Great sarcasm! - makes the point quite well".
Again Alan Dershowitz in both videos quotes the Cosutusion. Which words are very clear. It was not constitutional to impeach a president that was no longer in office. he is very much clear and quotes the constitution. I do realize some made arguments against his opinion.
However, I am very much inclined to have faith in Alan Dershowitz.I hear Mr Dershowitz giving his interpretation of the word "and" As it was written in the Constitution. It appears to be that he is saying removal from office and disqualification from holding public office in the future are a package whereas other constitutional scholars see it as an "or" That's what I'm getting from the video but obviously I'm not a constitutional scholar and could be quite off-base. He seems to be making a case on semantics which I believe happens quite a bit with the constitution.
He also talked about The presedence Belknap. The case gives equal weight really to the constitutionality of Mr Trump's impeachment. The impeachment of Mr Trump looks to be identical of Belknap.
In both cases we see a former elected official brought up for impeachment, the Senate votes in each case that the impeachment is constitutional and then goes on to acquit in their respective Senate trials. Afterward, senators described their logic to acquit is going to the unconstitutionality of the impeachment.
So what do I submise from this? A hundred years or more later we still haven't addressed how to handle this issue.
And I suppose it goes directly to the difficulty in discerning what the framers of the constitution meant in certain situations. So we have scholars interpret. The interpretations are always ranging. But I do think a consensual agreement around an interpretation arises in any case. It seems that we generally lean toward the preponderance of thought. I'm not sure that we could really do it any other way.
Otherwise we would be deep into the weeds of sorting out which constitutional scholars are somehow " better" than others.
I found the following linked below article an interesting back and forth on both sides of this debate.
But ultimately I don't believe they subverted the constitution for Belknap anymore than they did Mr Trump. I think the problem is we are trying to interpret the intentions of a very old document from a very different time. Although I think it happens logically and thoughtfully it's far from a scientific process.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/222424 … am-belknap
I agree with all you have said. And I must say so well said.
"Because one party loses its a reason to overthrow the government? "
That's the million-dollar question. It is difficult to comprehend that any American would still be threatening to over through the government like the man in the article seems to threaten. And no his threats do not support the Democracy we have always lived under.
Yes, Trump was banned on the two popular social media sites. However, he has responded with ---
"The former president launched Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) in October. He unveiled plans for a new messaging app called Truth Social, meant to rival Twitter and the other social media platforms that banned him following the deadly attack on the US Capitol on 6 January."
It would be very apparent that many of his bases do frequent sites where they find support from people that hold their beliefs. I don't feel any form of violence solves problems. I don't think the majority of Republicans would or will become associated with these very far-right ideologies.
I believe in law and order and hope the FBI is keeping its eyes and ears open to any threat of violence against the Government.
I agree with Live To Learn -- These guys are no different from the radicals who rioted throughout the summer. Our politicians have done everything they can to alienate those with opposing views.
The large majority of Americans who stand in the middle will eventually prevail over these radicals on both sides of the political spectrum.
These guys are no different from the radicals who rioted throughout the summer. Our politicians have done everything they can to alienate those with opposing views.
The large majority of Americans who stand in the middle will eventually prevail over these radicals on both sides of the political spectrum.
As an outsider, (of the discussion), looking in, I spotted an opportunity to jump in. But I don't dare tag onto any one comment. (plus it looks like you folks could use a bit of distraction)'
Consider this, I think Fayetteville Faye and Wilderness are at odds because they are talking about different things. They have to be, or I would be wrong because I agree with most of what both have said.
I read Wilderness to be talking about ideologies and perspectives, (with a bit of hyperbole, maybe?), and I read Faye as speaking to state and local sovereignty, and issues of choice.
I think that many conservative Americans feel just as was described. Whether that feeling is right or wrong is secondary to one end of that scale, (Wilderness' "they" end), and becomes more important as it approaches Faye's end of the scale. (Moderate Independents, aka [C]onservative aka Classical Liberal)
Come on guys, pick a target. :-O
GAChallenge accepted. Let's talk ideology.
I believe there is currently a deep divide between elites and what you may call everyday people.
For elites, politics is driven by ideology.
Which brings us to Mr. Trump.
He is an ex-Democrat who flirted with running on the Reform Party line in 2000 and only became a Republican recently. Back in 2008, He said Hillary Clinton would “make a good president or good vice president,” and refused to answer whether he would vote for her or for a Republican if she won the nomination. "I know her very well,” Trump said. “She's very talented. And she has a husband that I also like very much.”
As befits someone whose conversion to the Republican Party was relatively recent, Trump speaks conservatism with an accent, when he speaks it at all. In the past, Trump had praised single-payer health care systems and declared himself “very pro-choice.” During the 2016 election, he broke with conservative dogma and swore to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from cuts; to make sure everyone had health insurance paid for by the government; to raise taxes on rich guys like himself and, for good measure, he praised Planned Parenthood and slammed the Iraq War.
Real conservatives noticed. In their “Against Trump” editorial, National Review, as close to a guardian of conservative ideology as exists in American life, warned that “Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP.
People have opinions, party and group loyalties. But the internally coherent (or at least semi-coherent) ideological frameworks that drive the activities of politicians, pundits, and other political actors are foreign to most voters. For everyday folks it's party over ideology.
The truth, it seems we choose our party for a variety of reasons chief among them being the preferences of our family members, core groups, and community and then we sign on to their platforms.
Most politicians really are highly ideological, and they use their power over the party’s machinery to beat back or convert those who would seek to lead their party without joining in their ideological crusade.
But Trump, because of his celebrity, his money, and his media savvy, was able to campaign without party support. And that let him show that you don’t need to be a consistent conservative to appeal to Republican voters, because most of them aren’t consistent conservatives either — there’s much more to politics than ideology, even if political professionals likes to pretend otherwise.I am unclear about the meaning of ideology in the points you make. If it helps, the ideology I spoke of, (relative to Wilderness' comment), was simply the larger box, (label), of liberal or conservative. The specific smaller boxes you mention; elites and politicians are a different discussion.
I think it would be much easier to accept the generally described meanings of those larger boxes and go to the perspectives of those ideologies. You know what "liberal" and "conservative" mean, in the broad sense of the whole box. And so do I.
If you want to use Pres, Trump as the object, (not the subject), that illustrates a conservative perspective you have to look at the "why" that makes doing so acceptable in any of its degrees. And then you have to accept that the different "whys" are real to those that hold them.
For 4+ years conservatives lived through just what Wilderness described. And for those years, plus Pres. Obama's years, they also lived through social issues that were nuts, (by their perspective), ie. the national `bathroom' debate. It's easy to understand how that perspective was formed. I would offer that the past years of liberal agendas were so bad for conservatives that we breathed a sigh of relief at the Rittenhouse verdict. Finally, the common sense of reality won one.
However, I can see the liberals having the mirrored image of those same feelings. I don't think they, (setting aside the fringes and extremes), are wrong in their desires either. It's simply a battle of what should, (or could) be vs. what is and can be.
So when it comes to the object of your ideology example, (Trump), I am generally with the conservatives. The man sucked but the actions, (policies), were mostly as desired.
GASorry, that may have been a bit of my thoughts off on a tangent. Just trying to convey my point that I don't believe ideology and party are a perfect correlation. I suppose yes it's fitting yourself into the box that you believe matches closest. I recently read a study that I did not save unfortunately but the gist of it was that a great majority of people couldn't accurately elaborate on the ideology of left or right. Group loyalty may be the stronger motivator of opinion than are any ideological principles. Or as in the case of Mr Trump, loyalty to an individual.
Can anyone who voted for Mr Trump say that they would have set aside their proclaimed conservative ideology if he had identified as a Democrat? I strongly suspect that a lot of "ideology" would have been set aside, changed or reexamined.
Ok, back on focus. When I hear or read people talking about what they've " lived through" in terms of Mr Trump being "persecuted" through his term really gives me pause .
My own view is that however difficult the current times feel, American history tells us that the people, when properly engaged in politics, have always managed to survive even the most divisive of presidents and the most depressing of eras. From Reconstruction to the first Red Scare under Woodrow Wilson, from the rise of a new Ku Klux Klan in the early 20th century to the cataclysm of the 1930s, sweeping legislation by FDR that would have been called communism today, from Joe McCarthy to the backlash against civil rights, our national story is no fairy tale. Troubled times are the rule, not the exception.
Conservatives used to condemn what they described as "victimhood culture." Mr Trump unabashedly embraced it. Almost indelibly ingrained it in some, as we are still hearing the cries of "persecution" years later.
Ann Coulter wrote a book in 2009 titled, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America.
The idea being that "victimhood culture" led to demands for undue benefits and special privileges. Americans, the right argued, must reject a broad sense of self-pity and instead embrace personal responsibility and strength. Where is that today?
I would suggest that Mr Trump not only sees himself as a victim, he's eager to have his followers embrace victimhood as a staple of their political identity.
It's wholly lacking in any sane justification, but this is the state of conservative politics in 2021.
And This is where my argument about ideology and party not corresponding directly, intersect.
People may want to re-examine which political box their actual ideology fits intoFirst, I think your ideology and party thought fairly covers the point, but I don't recall that correlation, or the other `tribal' behaviors mentioned being contested.
For the rest of the Trump stuff, if hearing that "persecuted" statement gives you pause, then it might be because, since you don't believe it, you can't accept that others would rationally see it differently.
I also agree with your thought about us surviving past political turmoil. Two strong concepts we should all hold: "There is nothing new under the sun." and "`. . . and this too shall pass."
GAHearing the statement about being persecuted and the general attitude of taking on the victim role is more due to the fact that these positions are being taken for an individual, for a man and there is seemingly a complete lack of consideration for the structural issues of government that are at play.
If you believe that the individual, Mr Trump was "persecuted" well those same structures of government remain. Does that matter? Or does it only matter because of one man? What causes me to pause is that the conversation is always centered around one individual which I find is a very dangerous place to be.
Do I believe that he was persecuted, no I don't. I believe he was a willing participant in the political system and all of its structures. Would the gears of impeachment have turned for any other president under the same circumstances? I believe so. If anyone believes the government is that corrupt and they abuse the powers they've been given then please get active. That goes well beyond the concerns of one man.I think that "one individual" thought might have different angles. I would offer one angle that the "individual" could be more of an icon than a messiah, (a man). And that the support is more for a champion, (in the old sense), than for an idol.
Take a breath . . . I did not carry forward the Trump inference I read in your use. My response has nothing to do with Pres. Trump as an individual. My "one individual" was as a representative object, (icon). That difference matters. It almost guarantees missed connections.
Your reference to structural issues of government remaining unchanged and intact is spot on, I think, and applies as equally to our earliest presidential issues as it does to todays. Hells bells, check out the early 1800s—same games, just different players and tools. And, I would bet there were probably the same levels of informed public as today.
If I follow that same reasoning, that the one individual is an icon—a symbol, not a man, then it is easier to understand the support illustrated in the original example. An icon is the essence of any perspective.
So, if this reasoning is valid, the cause of the extremes, (both divisions and fervors), must be something beyond the man. And we're in luck, I have a thought for that too. I say an inch was conceded and a mile was taken, and it worried a lot of people and pissed off a lot more.
That thought isn't new or original. You can find it expressed throughout the conservative spectrum. But it is a thought that is too often too quickly dismissed. Too much too fast. It happened to the Gingrich conservatives and I think it will happen to the squad-sphere liberals. The structural issues of government have remained constitutionally the same, but boy, have the rules changed. We are back at a point where not only have both ideologies mucked the rules for advantage, both sides have peddled red meat to their public, and now, one wants to take a leap as extreme as packing the Supreme Court.
Can you stand in those shoes for a moment to consider their "why"?
GA
They signed a letter stating --- Former president Trump can’t use the FIRST Amendment to shield himself from accountability during the upcoming impeachment trial, according to an open letter released on Friday from a group of nearly 150 constitutional scholars. The larger consensus did not address the same problems Dershowitz found unconstitutional in both of Trump's impeachments. He pointed out the fact that either was constitutional. Due to the very verbiage of the Constitution. The 150 scholars that signed that letter signed it in protest of Trump Constitusioally could not rely on the first amendment.
"A letter from nearly 150 constitutional experts has slammed a key part of the planned impeachment defense of Donald Trump as “missing the point entirely” and “legally frivolous.”
Trump’s attorneys are preparing to argue in his upcoming trial that the former president, who has been impeached for “incitement of insurrection,” had a First Amendment right to goad his supporters with election lies before they stormed the Capitol last month in a riot that cost five lives.
The First Amendment does not protect all speech, such as incitement, law professors and First Amendment lawyers of various political sympathies pointed out in an open letter released Friday."
I do not have respect for the Protect Democracy, I am aware that they put forth an opinion w in regard to whether a president could be impeached after they left office. Those that signed were notable for their ideological diversity.The following case I believe was used as precedence and it was certainly mentioned quite a bit during the inquiry.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2021 … office-lo/Faye, I am very satisfied with Alan Dershowitz's opinion. I feel he has always been very non-political, and non-bias. He used the very words of the Constitution in his several presentations on both impeachments. We will need to agree to disagree. I felt both were political hit jobs.
Wilderness? None of those claims have proven to be false. Even if they were, what do you expect the majority of Americans to do when someone who didn't get the most votes ends up in the White House twice - twice in three elections - and is proven to have approached our enemies for help getting there? Stand by and watch? How many laws does a president have to break before he is held accountable? How much money is he allowed to use the highest office in the land to make off the people he is supposed to be serving? How many in his administration have to go to prison before he is questioned for complicity in their crimes? What universe are people living in when they can't see wrong when it is right in front of them? Civil War? What's become of those January 6th insurrectionists? They haven't survived a year without being prosecuted. I have faith in the good people of the United States. Give it a try.
Related Discussions
- 126
Impeachment Dem's Going For A Doubleheader...
by Sharlee 3 years ago
So far it is obvious President Donald Trump is extremely unlikely to resign in the final few days of his presidency. And VP Pence is equally unlikely to force him out by invoking the 25th amendment of the Constitution, despite calls from the Democrats to do so.So, in the wake of last week’s...
- 148
Is Biden the real danger to Democracy?
by Readmikenow 7 days ago
To suppress Americans who disagree with biden he is currently fighting in the Supreme Court to continue having the power to violate Americans' 1st Amendment rights & censor them online. Supreme Court frowns at limiting biden administration’s contact with tech companiesThe high court...
- 42
What Will Happen to America If Trump Litigates His Way to a 2nd Term?
by Allen Donald 3 years ago
There are two separate questions really:1. What if Trump successfully proves that the election was fraudulent?2. What if Trump does not prove that the election was fraudulent, but is able to gain a 2nd term because one of his political appointees makes it so?3. What if Trump does not prove fraud...
- 42
How many Americans will truly leave the US if Trump is elected president?
by Adi Quamina 7 years ago
How many Americans will truly leave the US if Trump is elected president?
- 147
What Would You Do If Sarah Palin Became President?
by Paul Wingert 13 years ago
Although her chances of winning is next to nothing (I'd rather vote for a sock puppet), but as a worse case senereo, I would tour Canada and Europe for four years and try not to stick out as an American due to embarrasment (very hard to do). It was bad enough traveling to Canada while Bush was in...
- 21
What Will Happen if Mitt Romney Is Elected President?
by VC L Veasey 11 years ago
What Will Happen if Mitt Romney Is Elected President?