Trump The AUTHORITARIAN
He already likely broke appropriations law to pay the military, so yes, the only logic of the SNAP issue is he think it hurts democrats more than it does him. The other possibility he does not understand the law, and he is just going off what he is told, but that person knows....
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ho … e-militaryHe certainly is busy with the pardons isn't he?....Trump has pardoned Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Mark Meadows, Christina Bobb, Boris Epshteyn and dozens of false GOP electors and other miscreants involved in his effort to overturn the 2020 election results, per pardon attorney Ed Martin ...
"Anyone who helps me try to steal an election gets a pardon” is perhaps the most corrupt thing to happen in American history.
That “conservatives” have simply accepted this as the price of admission is the greatest moral and intellectual humiliation...It may be a distraction to keep the Epstein files under wrap. You don't know about Trump. He uses distractions a lot to make the media look here not there. On the other hand, loyalty is everything to the King. He has given them a get out of jail free card and they are now welcome to his court,
UK says out loud that Trump is murdering (they put it more diplomatically) people on the high seas and they won't help him do it.
History in the making - "Exclusive: UK suspends some intelligence sharing with US over boat strike concerns in major break"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/11/politics … sharing-usThis is what Trump's stupidity results in.
"Venezuela announces ‘massive mobilization’ of military forces as America’s largest warship sails into region"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/11/americas … intl-latamIs anyone surprised that Donald "the felon" Trump, who is responsible for millions of deaths world-wide already defends fellow authoritarian Saudi Prince's murder and dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi? I am certainly not - it fits his low character perfectly.
• Saudi meeting: President Donald Trump defended Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as he dismissed questions about the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi as an attempt to “embarrass” the Saudi leader, adding that “things happen.” OMG!!!
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … index.htmlJust follow the money. The crown prince is in the process of buying 48 F-35's from Trump. The total price of the deal would be between 4-5.5 billion for the aircraft themselves.
The problem is the Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge (QME): U.S. law requires Israel to maintain a military advantage in the region. Selling F‑35s to Saudi Arabia risks undermining that edge.
Technology transfer risks: U.S. officials worry sensitive F‑35 technology could be compromised, especially given Saudi Arabia’s close ties with China.
The sale must go through the U.S. foreign military sales process, including export licensing and congressional approval. Lawmakers could still block or delay the dealCertainly hope Congress does kill the deal.
I wonder what MAGA feels about Trump selling F-35s to an ally of China.I think MAGA will follow anything that Trump wants. Right now, he is just seeing dollar signs. As always, he reacts first without considering the consequences and then he comes back and tries to fix it and takes credit for fixing the problem. he created.
I believe that the US government acts as a "middleman" in such sales, but do you know if the country gets a "middleman" cut of the price?
I have a difficult time believing that China doesn't already have all the information they need on that plane. They have shown excellence in information gathering for a long, long time.I asked AI where the money would go if Saudi bought the deal and does China have all the information it needs on that aircraft. Here are the answers.
The money from an F‑35 sale to Saudi Arabia does not go to Trump personally or the U.S. government in a discretionary way. It flows through the Foreign Military Sales system into Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors, sustaining American jobs and defense industries. At the same time, Saudi Arabia’s broader investment pledges channel capital into U.S. technology, energy, and manufacturing sectors
Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge (QME): U.S. law requires maintaining Israel’s military superiority. Selling F‑35s to Saudi Arabia risks upsetting this balance, though Trump assured Israel it would still receive top-tier variants.
China has some intelligence on the F‑35, mostly from older cyber intrusions, but it does not possess the full technical blueprint or operational secrets. The jet’s evolving design, strict export controls, and U.S. compartmentalization keep its most advanced capabilities secure. The real risk lies in future exposure through Saudi Arabia’s ties with China, which is why Washington is debating the sale so intensely.Then it makes no sense to say that Trump is seeing dollar signs; neither he nor the US will get any.
I highly doubt that you, or anyone else in the US (including AI programs) has a good idea of what China knows about the F-35.
WOW!!! Trump threatens to execute sitting congress people - AGAIN!!! Why did he devolve into this particularly stinky part of his pig stye? Because these 6 Representatives had the AUDACITY to tell soldiers to follow the law. In fact, if soldiers follow illegal orders that result in a crime, such as blowing those boats out the water, then they are subject to prosecution under UCMJ Articles 118 and 119.
"Why Democrats are warning about Trump giving illegal orders"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/20/politics … s-behaviorAs usual, just another gross exaggeration from you. Trump made no threats, just commented that they should be jailed. And then said that they should be executed.
I understand his angst, if you do not (something I highly doubt). Military personnel MUST NOT violate orders except under the most dire circumstances. Democrats are encouraging them to refuse anything remotely coming from Trump - after all, we all know that every time his mouth opens it is a lie, and probably illegal, right?
So those idiots are trying to convince gullible kids that they (the kids) know the law better than the army and are competent to decide if an order is legal or not. An order such as to take out a drug boat headed for the US. Or to invade Venzuela. Or take our a drug cartel in Mexico. Or deport an illegal alien.
Now you may deny the legality of any of those, but you are even less competent than a random soldier to decide if they are legal or not - TDS ensures that.Clearly, you didn't watch the video or read the text of what it said and what Trump's response was.
You immediately deflected to [b]something the miliary vets DID NOT say[/b[ and then blew past what Trump DID SAY.
They reminded soldiers that under the UCMJ they are not permitted to follow what they know or have very good reason to believe are ILLEGAL orders and not your twisting of what they said
And Trump said quote “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”. That might have been ok in and of itself, but then he endorsed by reposting "supporter content calling for them to be executed or “hanged,” effectively amplifying those calls."
You also think very poorly of our random soldiers intelligence by basically calling them incapable of thought and reasoning ability.
Even IF those boats contained what he says they do (of which there is not proof - something you are big on in other situations - U.S. and International law forbids him from killing all those on board as a first option.
The ONLY exception is if those on-board posed an imminent, immediate threat to America. Since their destination was unknown and they were many hundreds of miles away not heading toward our shores, that was not the case no matter how many lies he tells to make it so.
His ONLY option was to approach and board. But hey, what is a few more deaths among the millions he is already responsible for with his policies?I get it. Everything Trump says is a lie and therefore orders should not be followed. The only problem here is that it is NOT a lie, is NOT illegal. So far Trump has lost precious few of the court challenges to his actions, so when you claim the military should not follow his orders, well, it's just stupidity acting as political comments.
That you have decided his actions on drug boats killing Americans are illegal means exactly nothing. Zero. Nada. Yet here you are decrying the soldier that does not agree with your poorly taken stance, encouraging them to commit high crimes against our country. No, Eso, that is seditious behavior and should be punished as such.I would guess ECO feels he can call the shots on which laws can be followed and which he wants ignored. I mean, he is apt to just know more about ----everything,
Not EVERYTHING as you exaggerate, but I would say 90% of anything of significance the felon says is a lie.
I haven't decided anything, you have. Instead, I did my research and concluded, based on many legal opinions, that what Trump is doing is an OBVIOUS violation of American and International laws.
Wow...is there anyone on the left that can comprehend the meaning of word?
"if soldiers follow illegal orders that result in a crime, such as blowing those boats out the water, then they are subject to prosecution under UCMJ Articles 118 and 119."
The left has said some ridiculous things and this is one that is really up there.
UCMJ Article 118 and 119 deal with murder and manslaughter. Guess what? This doesn't apply to the deaths of enemy combatants during a military mission.
When I was in the Army a person was brought up on Article 118 because he killed a fellow soldier. That is how it is applied. NOT when killing a designated enemy.
If the deaths of the drug runners was considered murder, it is the officers and those who issued the order who would be brought up on charges. NOT the troops who carried it out.
Again, the left's detachment from reality is too obvious.
Those six representatives only did this for attention.
It is already in the UCMJ to not follow an unlawful order. It is Article 92.
Examples
Torturing prisoners of war.
Looting or pillaging property.
A commanding officer orders personnel to suppress lawful protests in violation of First Amendment rights.
Violations of International Laws.
Some other examples may be an Abuse of Authority:
Misuse of resources: A public official orders employees to use government funds or equipment for personal gain.
Harassment or retaliation: A superior orders someone to engage in workplace bullying or to retaliate against a whistleblower.Guess what, they certainly do if that was an illegal mission which it clearly is.
"Guess what, they certainly do if that was an illegal mission which it clearly is."ECO
None of those Congress members mentioned anything about an illegal order having occurred due to an order by Trump or any other military personnel.. That was the first thing that jumped out at me from the ad. Honestly, I was curious to see how carefully that dog whistle had been crafted. But nonetheless a dangerous dog whistle.
So if you’re going to say something like, “Guess what, they certainly do if that was an illegal mission, which it clearly is,” then you should be ready to show proof of an actual illegal action, and whether anyone has been charged with such a crime. No criminal charges have been brought for Trump related to these boat strikes. PERIOD
As it stands, your statement isn’t just wrong; it’s misinformation dressed up like it’s ready for primetime.Where is the proof, they are drug runners? Without any proof, they could just be fishermen. I asked AI if that could be consider an act of war. Here are the results.
**Yes — under international law, blowing up boats in international waters without proof of drug trafficking can be interpreted as an *act of war* or at minimum an *extrajudicial killing*, depending on the circumstances.** Legal experts argue that such actions violate the Law of Armed Conflict and could expose U.S. forces to charges of unlawful killings.
Why This Could Be Considered an Act of War
- **International waters context**: Striking vessels outside U.S. territory without evidence of imminent threat undermines the principle of sovereignty. If those boats belong to another nation, it risks being treated as aggression — the legal definition of war under the UN Charter.
- **No proof of drugs**: Reports confirm that the Trump administration has provided *no evidence* that the targeted boats were carrying narcotics. Destroying vessels without proof eliminates both evidence and intelligence, making the strikes legally indefensible.
- **Targeting civilians vs. combatants**: Drug traffickers are not recognized as military combatants. Killing them without due process or imminent threat violates both U.S. law and international law.
- **Extrajudicial killings**: Military lawyers at U.S. Southern Command warned that these strikes could amount to *extrajudicial killings*, exposing service members to legal liability.
Legal and Strategic Consequences
- **Violation of the UN Charter**: The use of force is only lawful in self-defense against an armed attack. Drug smuggling, even violent, does not meet that threshold.
- **Congressional authority**: The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Trump’s unilateral strikes raise constitutional concerns about bypassing Congress.
- **Risk of escalation**: Venezuela and Colombia have already accused the U.S. of killing innocent fishermen. Such incidents could escalate into diplomatic or military conflict.
- **Loss of allies**: Britain reportedly stopped sharing intelligence with Washington over fears these operations violate international law.
Key Takeaway
Blowing up boats without proof of drug trafficking is **not a lawful counternarcotics operation**. It risks being classified as **unlawful killings or acts of war**, depending on the nationality of the victims and the waters in which the strikes occur. The lack of evidence and due process makes the legal footing extremely weak, and experts warn it sets a dangerous precedent for global norms.I believe you spend too much time on AI and give it too much credit.
I'd suggest reading some real article on the subject written by real people.
"without proof of drug trafficking"
Do you know how anything works when dealing with enemy combatants? I don't think the intelligence community is going to share the intelligence they received or how they got it concerning these drug runners. This is not information for the public. This is an ongoing mission. Do you think every military operation should be put in front of the public for discussion? That would be ridiculous.
I don't know about people on the left.
If some country considers this an act of war then let them start a war with the United States. To that I say good luck.That you have not seen proof makes it illegal? When did YOU (or anyone else) become the legislator making laws and the jury declaring guilt? That YOU have not seen proof means exactly nothing. That the international court has not seen any does not mean it is illegal. That the UK or Russia or Venezuela has seen nothing does not mean it is illegal.
It means you are ignorant of whether there is proof or not. Nothing more. As far as it being an act of war, I'm OK with the President declaring war on drug runners.If there is no proof evident, then yes, it is illegal. There is a reason Trump hasn't offered any proof and it has nothing to do with security.
"Where is the proof, they are drug runners? Without any proof, they could just be fishermen. I asked AI if that could be considered an act of war. Here are the results." PP
I never made any reference to the legality of anything. My comment was simply about a statement that I believe was misinformation. I don’t need to prove anything because I haven’t accused anyone of committing a crime, nor did I say the operation was legal or illegal. What I pointed out was one fact: no criminal charges have been brought against Trump in connection with these boat strikes. That is verifiable. I haven’t seen anyone in the government claim that Trump’s orders were illegal, and no one at the Pentagon has stepped forward to say the strikes violated the law. So interpreting these actions as illegal doesn’t seem fair or factual.
Here is information on the statements from the Pentagon regarding the boats strikes.
Direct Pentagon / DOD / SOUTHCOM statements (with sources)
U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) — X post announcing a strike
Date / context: SOUTHCOM post announcing the strike (example: Sep 2, 2025; similar posts for later strikes).
Direct text (SOUTHCOM’s wording used in multiple posts):
“Intelligence confirmed that the vessel was involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics.”
X (formerly Twitter)
Why it matters: SOUTHCOM is the combatant command publicly announcing and describing the strikes; their X posts are official DOD communications for these actions.
Pentagon / Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell — legality defense
Date/context: Public Pentagon comments reported alongside the DOJ memo revelations (November 2025 reporting).
Direct quote attributed to a Pentagon spokesman (reported):
“Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in complete compliance with the law of armed conflict.”
Why it matters: This phrase is the clearest short formulation of the Pentagon’s public legal posture: that the Department considers the operations lawful and compliant with the law of armed conflict.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth — public posts announcing/defending strikes
Date / context: Multiple social-media posts and short public statements (examples in October–November 2025).
Representative short quote Hegseth used:
“We have the absolute and complete authority.”
Military Times
Why it matters: Hegseth (the civilian head of DoD) personally posted/announced strikes and framed the policy and authority for them.
Pentagon / SOUTHCOM describing location & attribution (international waters / intelligence basis)
Date / context: SOUTHCOM and Pentagon announcements for subsequent strikes (Reuters / Guardian summaries quoting SOUTHCOM).
Representative wording:
The command said the boat “was in international waters when it was struck” and that strikes were carried out “based on intelligence indicating the boat was transporting narcotics.”
Reuters
Why it matters: This is the Pentagon’s factual framing used repeatedly: (a) location = international waters, (b) premise = intelligence confirmed narcotics trafficking.
Pentagon reporting on legal review / DOJ OLC memo (Pentagon referencing DOJ review)
Date / context: Reporting in November 2025 that DOJ’s OLC issued an opinion; Pentagon statements reference legal review and advice.
Representative phrasing attributed to Pentagon reporting:
Pentagon officials have said the strikes were reviewed and the administration has relied on a DOJ opinion that said U.S. personnel “would not be exposed to future prosecution.”
The Washington Post
Why it matters: The Pentagon’s public defense explicitly references legal signoff / OLC advice as the basis for moving forward.+Hegseth and the DOJ work for Trump and will do and say anything Trump wants them to do or say. They are beholden to him for their positions.
When you are enlisted in the Military you swear an oath to the Constitution first, not the president.
The exact wording under 10 U.S. Code § 502 is:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation) Service members are required to disobey unlawful orders. If an order is clearly illegal — e.g., targeting civilians or non-combatants without imminent threat — following it could expose them to liability.
Articles 118 & 119 (Murder and Manslaughter) These articles apply if a service member unlawfully kills another person. Critics argue that blowing up boats without proof of combatant status could fall under this, since drug traffickers or fishermen are not lawful military targets.
Chain of Command Responsibility Military lawyers emphasize that if unlawful killings occur, commanders and those issuing the orders are primarily liable, not the rank-and-file troops carrying them out.
The Debate
One side (critics & some lawmakers): They argue that if soldiers obey Trump’s order to destroy boats without proof of threat, they risk violating Articles 118/119 (murder/manslaughter) because the victims are not recognized enemy combatants.
Other side (defenders): They counter that Articles 118/119 don’t apply in combat missions against designated enemies. They say the real safeguard is Article 92 — troops must refuse unlawful orders, but if the mission was authorized through the chain of command, it’s presumed lawful unless proven otherwise.I would describe your comment as conspiracy‑flavored. I try to approach issues based on what the facts show, even when there are only a few facts available. The facts come from the Pentagon, and as I have stated, there are currently no charges or investigations underway, so I don’t think it is wise to offer a perception on such an important issue.
When I look at your claim, the first thing I notice is the assumption that people like Hegseth or the DOJ “work for Trump” and “will say anything he wants.” That simply doesn’t match how the federal government works. DOJ attorneys, Pentagon lawyers, and military officers operate under their own legal authorities, professional codes, and independent oversight. They aren’t political bodyguards who do whatever a president wants; they routinely push back on any president, Republican or Democrat, when legality is in question. So the idea that they are “beholden” to Trump ignores the reality that these institutions have their own rules, lawyers, and statutory obligations that limit any president’s reach. As for the military oath, I completely agree with the literal wording: service members swear first to defend the Constitution. But the oath also explicitly states that soldiers must obey the lawful orders of the President and officers. That means two things can be true at the same time: troops are never required to obey an unlawful order, and the President is still the Commander-in-Chief whose lawful directives must be followed.
From there, I think it’s important to apply Article 92 correctly. Article 92 requires troops to disobey clearly unlawful orders, things any reasonable service member would recognize as illegal, like deliberately targeting civilians or firing without any legal authority. But military operations do not work the way critics describe them. The President does not personally guess which boats have drugs and tell someone to push the button. The Pentagon has surveillance, intelligence assessments, legal reviews, and rules of engagement that determine whether a vessel counts as a lawful target. Military lawyers, who do not answer to the President politically, review these operations before they ever take place. Once the Pentagon has identified a hostile vessel, and once commanders have engagement authority, the order becomes presumptively lawful under U.S. and international law. In that circumstance, Article 92 protects the soldier, not harms them, because they are acting under vetted, lawyer-approved orders.
When critics invoke Articles 118 and 119 (murder and manslaughter), they overlook how these laws actually work. These articles only apply when a service member unlawfully kills someone, meaning the target was not legally engaged under the rules of war, the Law of the Sea, or U.S. counter-narcotics authorities. But if the Pentagon has already determined that a boat belongs to a cartel group, is acting as a hostile force, or is part of an interdiction operation, then those individuals are lawful targets. Cartels are paramilitary organizations, not innocent fishermen. The military has been authorized for decades, across Democratic and Republican administrations, to assist in counter-drug missions, including the use of force when necessary. So the idea that a sailor would accidentally commit “murder” because he engaged a vessel after Pentagon validation simply doesn’t reflect how military targeting works.
When I compare both sides of the debate, the critics’ argument rests on a hypothetical scenario where soldiers blow up boats without identification, without intelligence, and without legal clearance. That scenario would indeed be unlawful, but that is not what is happening. Defenders are pointing out something much more grounded in real-world military procedure: if a mission goes through the full chain of command, is supported by verified intelligence, reviewed by Pentagon lawyers, and conducted under authorized rules of engagement, then it is lawful unless proven otherwise. That is why Articles 118 and 119 generally do not apply in counter-cartel missions, and why Article 92 remains the actual safeguard. Troops are not exposed to murder charges for carrying out legally vetted operations, and commanders, not rank-and-file troops, carry liability if an order were ever found unlawful. In other words, the system already has multiple checks that prevent the nightmare scenario critics describe, and common sense suggests that the U.S. military does not operate on impulsive, illegal orders from any president.Let's cut to the chase here. The focus on the blowing the boats out of the water is only part of the story.
It is really about Trump accusing six Democratic members of Congress of “seditious behavior” after they released a video urging military and intelligence personnel to refuse illegal orders. On Truth Social, he wrote that their actions were “punishable by DEATH”, called them “traitors”, and said they should be “arrested and put on trial.” He also reposted supporter content calling for them to be “hanged.”
Initial Post: Trump wrote, “This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???”
Follow-up Post: He escalated, saying, “It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand – We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET.”
Most Extreme Statement: Trump declared, “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
Amplification: He reshared posts from supporters calling for the lawmakers to be “hanged” and compared them to traitors from history.
The lawmakers in question — Sens. Elissa Slotkin (MI) and Mark Kelly (AZ), and Reps. Jason Crow (CO), Chrissy Houlahan (PA), Maggie Goodlander (NH), and Chris Deluzio (PA) — are all military or intelligence veterans. Their video reminded service members that under U.S. law they must refuse unlawful orders.
Legal experts: They argue Trump’s sedition claims don’t hold up. Urging troops to refuse illegal orders is consistent with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Article 92).
Democratic leaders: Condemned Trump’s posts as “disgusting and dangerous death threats” and warned they fuel political violence.
Trump’s clarification: In a later interview, he said, “I’m not threatening death… but in the old days, it was death.”
Under 18 U.S. Code § 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy), sedition occurs when two or more people conspire to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the U.S. government, or to hinder or delay the execution of its laws by force.
Penalty: Up to 20 years in prison and fines — not death, despite Trump’s recent claims.
As an example, the leaders of the Proud Boys were convicted of seditious conspiracy for their role in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack.
Criticizing the government or urging lawful resistance is protected by the First Amendment. Sedition requires conspiracy + intent to use force against the government or its laws
Trump should learn to put his brain in gear before opening his mouth. It gets him into a lot of trouble. Did he really think he was going to hang six members of congress who all served their country in the most patriotic way? They didn't make excuses about bone spurs to avoid the draft. .It’s completely fair for you to share your view. I’ve already done the same regarding what those members of Congress did in that ad. I can see it bothers you that Trump is using his right to free speech, but he absolutely has the right to speak out — just as I’m doing here on HPs. Trump clearly shared his view and held nothing back. One could even surmise he was angry, given that the dog whistle in that ad could easily promote discord, and he reacted to that directly.
As I’ve said:
“None of those members of Congress mentioned anything about an illegal order being carried out because of Trump or any other military personnel. That was the first thing that stood out to me. Honestly, I was curious to see how carefully that dog whistle had been crafted — and it was crafted very carefully. Still, it’s a dangerous dog whistle.”
I do believe they had the right to free speech, and they also made sure every word in that ad was legally framed. They were very careful to cover their bases.Free speech loses its protection when it foreseeably causes harm to others - which it immediately did to those Congress people.
"I would describe your comment as conspiracy‑flavored. I try to approach issues based on what the facts show, " - REALLY, how superior and condescending.
If he did that, it wouldn't be Donald "the sex offender" Trump, now would it, lol.
Tell me, why would Trump order an investigation into himself. Since you know that he would not and nobody under him would either, then relying on statements like - "The facts come from the Pentagon, and as I have stated, there are currently no charges or investigations underway, " are essentially meaningless.
This is Trump in a nutshell:
Demanding personal loyalty from investigators
James Comey’s sworn testimony: at a private dinner, Trump told him “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” Comey says he sat in silence because it felt like a mafia-style loyalty test.
Comey later explicitly compared the interaction to a Cosa Nostra induction, with Trump as the family boss asking if he was ready to be a “made man.”
Comey had the integrity to stand up to Trump, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi, and Hegseth have proved on multiple occasions they do not; they have sold their soul to Trump.
Pressuring DOJ to “just say the election was corrupt”
Handwritten notes released by House Oversight show Trump telling top DOJ officials after the 2020 election:
“Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”
Once again, there was some integrity left JPressuring DOJ to “just say the election was corrupt”
Handwritten notes released by House Oversight show Trump telling top DOJ officials after the 2020 election:
“Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”
Once again, there was just enough integrity left in Trump's DOJ to stand up to him. Trump made sure that didn't happen again with his personnel law firm the DOIJ.
Look how many Inspectors General he fired across the gov't. PROOF he won't let anybody investigate him.
That is all out there for anybody not in Trump's cult to see.Your entire comment is built on rudeness, assumptions, and a long list of talking points that have nothing to do with the actual issue at hand. You’re not engaging with facts, simply repeating old narratives as if they automatically apply to a completely different situation today.
The idea that “Trump wouldn’t investigate himself, so Pentagon statements are meaningless” is flat-out misinformation. The Pentagon does not answer to Trump personally. It is an entire institution with its own legal structure, oversight, and obligations. Their statements matter, and dismissing them because they don’t fit your preferred storyline isn’t evidence. It’s bias.
You’re dragging in every unrelated accusation you can think of and presenting them as if they somehow prove that the Pentagon, Congress, and the entire chain of command are incapable of acting independently. They are not props in your argument. They function by law, not by your assumptions.
You’re also ignoring the fact that if there were illegal orders or misconduct, Congress would act. They’ve investigated far less. They aren’t shy about going after Trump, so the idea that they would pass on a genuine illegal military order is simply not serious.
Your examples, Comey dinners, DOJ disputes, inspectors general ar, e recycled talking points that don’t even line up with the claim you’re making. None of them prove that the Pentagon is lying. None of them prove that the current strikes are illegal. And none of them prove that the absence of an investigation is somehow illegitimate.
You’re making sweeping accusations, calling people “cultists,” and presenting your opinion as if it’s objective truth. It isn’t. It’s conjecture wrapped in hostility.
You don’t get to replace evidence with emotion, and you don’t get to dismiss official statements simply because they don’t match the narrative you prefer. If you want to debate facts, bring facts, not a grab bag of unrelated grievances and a blanket assumption that everyone is lying except you.I guess you missed the real issue - "Tell me, why would Trump order an investigation into himself. Since you know that he would not and nobody under him would either, then relying on statements like".
Each of those examples support what I said.I am not truly interested in your view. Just being honest.
As I yours. Just being honest also. At least mine is based in facts.
My views are based in fact, so I can see why your aren't interested in my view, Just being honest.
For example: These are FACTUALLY the laws (1, 2, or all 3) that Trump is probably breaking from killing those people which you didn't refute
Conspiracy to Kill Persons in a Foreign Country
(18 U.S.C. § 956(a)) - a flagged boat is considered part of that country. So Trump was bombing Venezuela!
Violence Against Maritime Navigation Resulting in Death
(18 U.S.C. § 2280)
Killing Within the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States
(18 U.S.C. §§ 7(1), 1111, 3238)I would say you are definitely not ready to pass any state's bar exam.
I think my comment was clear. Sharlee01 wrote:
I am not truly interested in your view. Just being honest.
You post information that may be factual in the sense it is written, but has nothing to do factually with your accusations.
As I said, there are no investigations regarding the strikes, nor has the President been charged with breaking any of the laws you have offered. You live in a world of conspiracies. I refuse to feed into that world.And as I said, there are no investigations because Trump won't allow it. That will change in 2027. You appear to be reasoning by False Analogy (as PeoplePower suggested) and/or 1) A self-sealing/self-protecting argument,2) Argumentum ex silentio, 3) Begging the question, 4) Conspiracy reasoning.
I and Mike and Credence and Island Bites and the others all live in the real world. We really wish you would join us.I guess you ran out of legitimate discourse and retreated to insults.
As to the illegal blowing up of boats in the Caribbean. If SCOTUS had not made Trump king, this is what an indictment of Trump might look like:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP
INDICTMENT
The Grand Jury charges:
I. INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS
At all times material to this Indictment, the defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, was the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
On or about [date], while in the District of Columbia and elsewhere in the United States, the defendant, acting under color of his office, directed his subordinate, [NAME] HEGSETH, to cause United States military forces to destroy a vessel located on the high seas approximately 75 nautical miles off the coast of Venezuela in the Caribbean Sea.
The vessel was a foreign-flagged civilian ship occupied by individuals suspected of narcotics trafficking. At the time of the order, the vessel posed no imminent threat of armed attack against the United States, its armed forces, or any other person or object, and no United States ship, aircraft, or personnel were present in the vicinity.
In response to the defendant’s order, U.S. military aircraft launched munitions at the vessel, sinking the ship and killing all persons on board.
The defendant knew that carrying out his order would destroy the vessel and kill its occupants, and that he lacked any lawful justification under U.S. or international law to employ lethal force in these circumstances.
COUNT ONE
Conspiracy to Kill Persons in a Foreign Country
(18 U.S.C. § 956(a))
Paragraphs 1 through 5 are re-alleged and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
Beginning on or about [date], and continuing through on or about [date], in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, did unlawfully, knowingly, and intentionally conspire with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury to kill one or more persons in a foreign country, to wit, individuals aboard a foreign-flagged vessel located approximately 75 nautical miles off the coast of Venezuela in the Caribbean Sea.
In furtherance of the conspiracy and to accomplish its object, one or more conspirators committed the following overt acts, among others, within the jurisdiction of the United States:
a. On or about [date], in the White House, the defendant instructed [NAME] HEGSETH that he wanted the vessel “sunk” and “everyone on board killed.”
b. On or about [date], the defendant approved an order directing U.S. military aircraft to strike and destroy the vessel.
c. On or about [date], U.S. military aircraft launched munitions that struck and sank the vessel, killing all persons aboard.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 956(a).
COUNT TWO
Violence Against Maritime Navigation Resulting in Death
(18 U.S.C. § 2280)
Paragraphs 1 through 5 are re-alleged and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
On or about [date], outside the jurisdiction of any particular State, on the high seas, the defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, unlawfully and intentionally caused damage to and destruction of a ship used in international navigation, knowing that such destruction was likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship, and such conduct resulted in the death of persons on board.
The defendant committed this offense by directing the use of United States military aircraft to launch munitions at the ship described in Paragraph 3, thereby sinking the ship and killing its occupants.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2280(a)(1) and 2280(a)(1)(H) (resulting in death).
COUNT THREE
Killing Within the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States
(18 U.S.C. §§ 7(1), 1111, 3238)
Paragraphs 1 through 5 are re-alleged and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
On or about [date], the defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, while within the United States, did unlawfully, willfully, and with malice aforethought cause the killing of multiple individuals aboard a foreign-flagged vessel on the high seas, by ordering United States military forces to employ lethal munitions to sink that vessel.
The conduct described in Paragraph 13 occurred on the high seas, outside the jurisdiction of any particular State, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 7(1), and is triable in this district under 18 U.S.C. § 3238.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1111 and 3238.
A TRUE BILL
/ s /
FOREPERSON OF THE GRAND JURY
Now, as I said, that won't happen to Trump since he can no longer be prosected for ordering the murder of people (but Hegseth can). But the Democrats can when they impeach his ass in 2027 using exactly those counts.I applaud your immigration. Your lack of understanding how the judicial system works is obvious, but your take is entertaining.
AI doesn't have an imagination, it isn't human, didn't you know. It just researches the Internet and finds facts.
You’re going in circles. My point — and what the conversation with ECO was actually about — is that he was spreading misinformation by implying that Trump has already broken some form of law. I simply pointed to the facts we have: Congress isn’t investigating the strikes, Trump hasn’t been formally accused of anything through impeachment, and the Pentagon has released statements on the matter, which I provided.
I’m not interested in what critics have to say — I’m interested in what’s legal. So far, I see a president who views drug runners as combatants and terrorists who are killing our citizens, and I support his efforts to fight the cartels and stop the killing. From what I can see, his stance is legal, and I’ll rely on Congress to address any actual illegalities. I’m not putting much weight on laymen’s opinions in this matter.His having broken the law is not misinformation and you know it. If it were, you would have provided the evidence showing that killing people in the open seas is legal. You didn't.
When real Americans return to power in the House in 2027, I strongly suspect Donald "the serial felon" Trump will be impeached over the killings.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
I have heard many federal employees refusing loyalty oaths (which when you cut through Trumper BS is what it amounts to) required by Trump, it is all part of the same idea, the danger of obeisance to one man rather than our guiding document. One just has to follow the cookie crumbs to see where all of this is leading.
The problem with your whole presentation is that it rests on people like Hegseth and his acolytes telling the Truth. It is established fact that they often Lie!.
I would normally believe SOUTHCOM but they are totally tainted by their lying bosses."The problem with your whole presentation is that it rests on people like Hegseth and his acolytes telling the Truth. It is established fact that they often Lie!.
I would normally believe SOUTHCOM but they are totally tainted by their lying bosses." ECO
And that’s your view — which I can overlook, considering your habit of spreading misinformation. You ignore facts, make off-the-cuff accusations, and that kind of conversation doesn’t interest me.
Back to the subject --- I never made any reference to the legality of anything. My comment was simply about a statement ECO made that I believe was misinformation. I don’t need to prove anything because I haven’t accused anyone of committing a crime, nor did I say the operation was legal or illegal. What I pointed out was one fact: no criminal charges have been brought against Trump in connection with these boat strikes. That is verifiable. I haven’t seen anyone in the government claim that Trump’s orders were illegal, and no one at the Pentagon has stepped forward to say the strikes violated the law. So interpreting these actions as illegal doesn’t seem fair or factual.That is not a "view". That is established FACT. Trump and Hegseth are serial liars.
And what I pointed out is that there is NO ONE in the Trump administration who dare bring charges against Trump. There are names associated with that type of logic: 1) A self-sealing/self-protecting argument,2) Argumentum ex silentio, 3) Begging the question, and 4) Conspiracy reasoning.
What is your point? Just because they told soldiers to follow only LEGAL orders doesn't translate into Trump's orders to kill those people as not being ILLEGAL.
" if that was an illegal mission which it clearly is"
No, you're wrong. Clearly wrong.
The only way a mission is illegal is if it takes place without authorization from the officer in charge of the operation. This clearly didn't happen. If a group of seals attacked a base without authorization from their command, THAT would be an illegal mission.
EVERY Army officer involved in combat operations takes orders and gives orders. THEY are responsible for following the orders given to them through the chain of command.
If these military individuals who destroy these boats do so at the command of their officers, they are following orders as they should. If their commanding officer gave them an order to destroy these boats and the didn't, they could be brought up of charges of disobeying a lawful order.
This lack of comprehension of how the military chain of command works when conducting a mission is astounding to me.Which U.S. or International law allows Trump to murder people? I haven't heard of one but apparently you have.
And I would add this lack of comprehension of how the U.S. LAW works when conducting a mission is astounding to me.
The point is there is such a thing as issuing unlawful orders, ask the guys that were hanged at Nuremberg in 1946 about their participation in savagery excusing themselves by “following orders”…..
“Application to My Lai: Lieutenant William Calley, the only soldier convicted for his role in the massacre, famously claimed he was "only following orders" from his superiors. This defense directly aligns with the agentic state explanation, where soldiers may have felt removed from the moral consequences of their actions because they were acting under command.”
None of this ‘following orders” stuff is absolute, there are parameters that we are all to recognize, the Geneva convention being one of those.
I have yet to hear Trump prove that the ships he attacked had any real correlation to an “attack on America”, it is more his style of intimidation and international bullying.
And what about free speech? I don’t see any statement that the Democrats made rising to a level of sedition and treason, except within an authoritarian, despotic regime.I agree the ad was carefully scripted to make sure nothing said could be looked at as illegal. That was the first thing I noted.
You’re making sweeping comparisons that simply don’t hold up. Invoking Nuremberg and My Lai to describe the current military strikes isn’t just factually inaccurate. Those cases involved massacres of civilians. They have nothing to do with targeted military actions against vessels that the Pentagon has already publicly stated were tied to cartel activity.
You’re also skipping over the entire legal framework that governs U.S. military operations. The president does not personally authorize every strike; these decisions move through legal, intelligence, and operational channels. If an order were unlawful, the military has an obligation to refuse it, and Congress has the authority to investigate it. Neither has happened. That’s not a moral failing; that’s evidence that the order is considered legal under existing U.S. code regarding transnational criminal threats.
Your claim that Trump “hasn’t proven the ships were tied to attacks on America” ignores the obvious: the burden is not on him to dump classified intelligence into the public domain to satisfy online arguments. The Pentagon’s statements are the official documentation, and unless you’re asserting that the entire Department of Defense is lying, as ECO has more or less done, that evidence stands. My gosh, maybe time to stop and think a bit more logically about this issue.
As for “bullying” and “intimidation,” targeting cartel vessels involved in transporting weapons, personnel, or narcotics is not some novel Trump invention. Every administration, Obama, Bush, and Biden, has treated cartel threats as national security matters. You’re isolating Trump not because the policy is unusual, but because it’s politically convenient to ignore precedent. In some respects, I see you making the bad guys the victims... Trump has followed the laws set for him as a president.
And the free-speech argument is equally off-base. You don’t have to like Trump’s commentary, but he has the same First Amendment protections that the members of Congress have. They used their free speech to craft an ad loaded with insinuations but legally careful language. He used his to call it out. That’s how free speech works, not selectively, not only for one side.
Claiming that criticism of the ad equals “authoritarianism” or “despotism” is pure exaggeration. Disagreement is not repression. Calling an ad dangerous is not treason. And pushing back on a political message is not authoritarian, it’s normal political discourse. In my view, that ad was dangerous, it could prpmote discord in out military.If Trump shoots somebody on 5th Avenue and no one says anything about it, then you are rationalizing it, as legal until it is deemed illegal by some authority.
In propaganda parlance, that is called a false analogy.
In a false analogy, two concepts or events are associated with each other without any specific evidence indicating a cause-and-effect relationship. An example is: People who drink caffeinated coffee don't sleep well; Nancy drinks caffeinated coffee, and therefore she does not sleep well.
Trump blows up boats and kills people. Trump has never been charged by a legal authority; therefore, his actions are legal until he is charged by that authority.
The reasoning in that statement is an example of the **propaganda technique called a *false analogy***.
Here’s why:
- False Analogy Defined**: This occurs when two situations are compared as if they are equivalent, even though the relationship between them is weak or nonexistent. It tries to transfer the logic of one case onto another without valid evidence.
-
Application to Your Example**: The claim “Trump has never been charged, therefore his actions are legal” equates *absence of charges* with *legality*. That’s a flawed comparison:
- Not being charged ≠ being innocent or lawful.
- Many actions can be unlawful even if authorities haven’t yet prosecuted them.
-
*Propaganda Effect**: By framing the issue this way, the speaker shifts focus away from the morality or legality of the act itself and instead appeals to procedural technicalities. It creates a misleading impression that legality is determined only by whether charges are filed, rather than by established law.
Other techniques at play:
- **Rationalization**: Justifying questionable actions by appealing to technicalities.
- **Appeal to Authority (by omission)**: Suggesting that because no authority has acted, the action must be acceptable.
So the core propaganda technique here is **false analogy**, reinforced by rationalization.I have to be honest: the entire argument you’re making collapses under its own weight, because every analogy you use either misrepresents what I actually said or tries to force two completely unrelated situations into the same frame. When I read your comment, I see you trying to assign propaganda techniques to me, yet ironically, the examples you give prove the opposite of what you’re trying to claim.
Your “Trump shoots someone on 5th Avenue” analogy instantly fails because you’re comparing a hypothetical, obviously illegal act, murder, to military engagements carried out by a sitting commander-in-chief under national-security authority. Those two situations are not comparable in motive, legality, jurisdiction, context, or process. One is a civilian crime with immediate legal consequences. The other is a military action governed by national and international law, reviewed by the Pentagon, and overseen by Congress. When two situations differ in every relevant dimension, calling them analogous is nonsensical. You’re literally creating the false analogy and then accusing me of it.
You claim that my point somehow implies “absence of charges = legality.” I never said that, and nothing in my statement depends on that logic. What I actually pointed out was that no legal authority has come forward alleging wrongdoing, and that matters when the actions in question are military operations, not street crime. You’re attempting to twist a basic factual observation into a philosophical claim I never made. That’s not exposing a fallacy; that’s inventing one.
Your coffee example doesn’t apply to anything I said. You offer a classic syllogism where a trait is assumed to cause an outcome. But the operations the U.S. military conducts aren’t guesses or personal habits; they involve classified intelligence, surveillance, and chain-of-command authorization. Comparing military interdiction to Nancy drinking coffee is absurd. It’s another analogy that falls apart the moment you apply any real-world context.
Fourth, you insist I’m appealing to authority “by omission,” yet it’s actually you who keeps appealing to hypothetical wrongdoing without presenting a single authoritative statement, report, Pentagon release, or legal determination. You want me to assume illegality based on conjecture; meanwhile, I’m pointing out that no institution with the responsibility to evaluate such actions has made that claim. Stating that fact isn’t a fallacy; it’s simply acknowledging reality.
Finally, you accuse me of rationalization when, in fact, you’re doing exactly what you warn against: shifting away from facts and replacing them with dramatic hypotheticals, analogies, and emotionally charged comparisons. None of those substitutes for evidence. None of them strengthens your argument. They simply reveal that you’re using rhetorical devices to cover the absence of real information.
So while you’re busy assigning labels like “false analogy” and “propaganda technique,” the truth is that your argument is built entirely on strained comparisons and imagined parallels that don’t hold up under scrutiny. I prefer to focus on actual statements, actual evidence, and actual legal processes—not hypotheticals designed to provoke outrage.
Talk about starting a conspiracy theory, lol. The ad simply said, "follow only legal orders".
Nothing sinister about that is there.All I can see is that friend and foe are opposed to this American policy of sink first and ask questions later. Am I supposed to trust Trump whose policies in this matter conflict with that of the entire world?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/11/politics … sharing-us
But the policy is the responsibility of the President, as commander and chief. The point is that he cannot do what he wants without being held accountable as to providing an explanation and justification that can be supported beyond what he and his administration decides to divulge. And, yes, I am with ESO, I don’t trust the Department of WAr to be anymore forthcoming regarding the truth than Trump. The logic, Sharlee, is that you trust Trump implicitly, I do not. I distrust him, implicitly. The British, Canadians and the UN are capable of grasping international affairs, why are they wrong and Trump’s assessment of the danger is correct? I still believe that the vessels should be interdicted if at all at the 3 mile limit and properly searched and those with contraband arrested and prosecuted under due process of law, not having vessels sunk hundreds of miles from American waters just because Trump says that there is a threat. Trump policy is unprecedented as I did not see the UN and our close allies having to pull the plug on the approach of previous Presidents.
I don’t know if these victims of Trump piracy on the high seas are legitimate targets or just an excuse for the administration to taunt the government of Venezuela for ideological points.
As long as the GOp control congress we can expect to not get any real answers, because they are afraid to ask for any fearing the wrath of Trump.
It is more than free speech, Trump threatened these legislators. The ad simply said that service members are not obliged to follow unlawful orders. I do not necessarily know where that line is, but there is a line all the same.
Call the creators of the ad seditionist and traitors deserving of execution is uniquely Trump and crosses well over the line.
And just because Trump gives them does not make them lawful.
——-
United States President Donald Trump has floated the possibility of the death penalty for a group of Democratic Congress members who called upon the military and intelligence community to refuse illegal orders.
He also suggested he would be in favour of imprisoning the Democrats for their statement.
=====
So much for free speech…..Are you familiar with the term "sedition?"
It is already in the UCMJ that troops not follow unlawful orders. So, what was the purpose for these democrats to make those videos? They are going for the members of the military who may get confused by such rhetoric and challenge authority.
I know what is and is not an unlawful order. It is spelled out in the UCMJ.
I can see how speaking directly to members of the miliary is this way could be interpreted as an act of sedition.
President Donald Trump is right...those found guilty of sedition can be legally put to death.So you and Trump want to put to death six congressmen who have all served all country honorably. Go ahead and do it. Trump even relented once he found out how stupid that was and said, "That was done in the old day". Put brain in gear before engaging mouth.
Donald Trump did make remarks linking sedition to “the old days,” saying that back then such behavior was punishable by death. He clarified that he was not threatening Democratic lawmakers directly, but argued that their video urging military members to refuse illegal orders amounted to “seditious behavior.”
-End of Story.You have ignored Mike's point altogether, which was ---
"It is already in the UCMJ that troops not follow unlawful orders. So, what was the purpose for these democrats to make those videos? They are going for the members of the military who may get confused by such rhetoric and challenge authority."
In my view, these lawmakers were presumptuous to insult our military personnel by assuming they wouldn’t be equipped to recognize an unlawful order. This was just a Democratic ploy, they have nothing left but a worn-out book of tricks. To anyone paying attention, these kinds of ploys look desperate, and yes, insulting to one’s intelligence.When is the last time you read the UCMJ? For me, it was in 1975 when I was a trial counsel for my Brigade in the Army.
Argumentative and irrelevant context added.
I guess you ran out of ideas and resorted to that.
You are right about the video. Those six congressmen should have given examples of Trump's orders that were unlawful because we had to surmise on our own as to would be unlawful orders.
On the other hand, Trump should not be saying they should be hanged for sedition and then backoff with "That is what they did in the good old days." More than likely, it was Stephen Miller who told him what to say. It's typical Trump chaos to keep us in an us and them posture.I just shared this with Cred. No one had asked my direct view on the Truth post. I have critiqued and debated the Truth post, but Cred elisted my personal view, which is biased in some ways, and ignores some of my research.
I can share my view about that Truth post: I felt it was bold, not well thought out, and clearly written in anger. In my opinion, it was uncalled for. This is free speech, and thankfully, we also have the right to express our views on his words. I’ll add that it showed me he understood very little about the law he was speaking on.
Definition:
conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
What is the harm in Democrats reminding men and women in uniform that they are to not follow unlawful orders, as defined in the UCMJ?That is EXACTLY what Trump did on Jan 6 and the months leading up to his insurrection.
Maybe you need to seek out the speech on youtube--- The one that was not edited to offer a skewed version to the nation. Perhaps while watching you will recognize Trump's demeanor, as he said ---- "“We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue … and we’re going to the Capitol … I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” President Trump.
"We're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue … we're going to the Capitol … to give our Republicans … the weak ones … the kind of pride and boldness … to take back our country." Trump
Perhaps you missed this part of his speech that shared optimism about the Future: He told his audience that “our brightest days are before us” and that “the best is yet to come.” Trump
Watching it myself again, I can see that I didn’t capture the full tone. Trump’s Jan. 6 speech blended defiance with genuine upbeat optimism: he alternated between firing up the crowd with lines like “fight like hell” and projecting a triumphant, forward-looking message that “the best is yet to come.” He repeatedly thanked and praised his supporters, sounding grateful and energized. His demeanor was a mix of combative and confident, but also at times buoyant and celebratory — rally-style optimism layered over anger and insistence. He connected with the crowd and offered hope for the future, and one could have come out feeling Trump cared about them and the future of what they believed in.
In my view, that speech will ultimately go down in history as it was actually delivered, not as the media skewed it. I believe people will eventually see it in the context and spirit he intended. Trump is one of the handful of presidents who won’t fade into the background; he’ll be remembered and talked about for generations. And yes, he’ll be admired by many for his unique and unconventional way of governing.I don't want to go down this rabbit hole, but why did he have many governors come up with a fake slate of electors that showed him as the winner? He expected Mike Pence to do the right thing and that was to use the fake slate to prove he won the election. But alas, Pence did the proper right thing by not using the fake slate.
Now back to sedition. If Trump's secret mission is sinking boats allegedly loaded with drugs, why does he have to show those attacks to the world without any proof of the drugs?
Isn't it reasonable for everybody who views those attacks to question whether there were drugs on board? If he wanted to keep it a secret, why show videos of those attacks?
I know he wants to make an example to the rest of the world as to, how tough he is on drugs entering the US. But the rest of the world is questioning the veracity of what he is doing.Even IF there were drug runners and drugs on board, Trump still has no authority to murder them. The only authority he has is to capture them.
And THAT is why he is in violation of some or all of the statutes I already laid out twice. I would not be surprised if Venezuela and Columbia, as a minimum, don't try Trump in abstention for murdering their citizens. I also wouldn't be surprised if other international forums won't do the same thing.
While I am at it, let me deviate a little bit to ask, why isn't Trump incarcerating or killing the REAL problem - American drug users. Without their incessant demand, no drugs would be flowing into America. NOBODY is making these people take drugs. All the drug runners are doing is filling a demand from Americans.When I look at your claim that Trump “had many governors come up with a fake slate of electors,” I have to push back with what is actually documented. There’s no evidence, none that I’ve ever seen in court filings, testimony, or official investigations , showing that Trump personally asked any governor to create alternate electors. The facts are that alternate elector certificates were drafted and submitted in several states Biden won, but those efforts were carried out by state-level party officials and attorneys, not governors, and there is still no direct proof that Trump instructed governors to do it. So when that point gets repeated as if it were an established fact, I just can’t accept it without actual documented evidence.
From my perspective, it makes absolutely no sense for anyone to question the Pentagon’s actions when Congress itself hasn’t formally raised objections or demanded hearings on these strikes. The Pentagon has already stated that these vessels were targeted based on solid intelligence indicating they were involved in drug smuggling, and unless Congress challenges that or produces contradictory evidence, I see no factual basis for second-guessing those assessments. Speculation from commentators or media outlets isn’t the same as legitimate oversight, and I’m not going to treat media opinions as if they’re established fact. Until there is real, documented pushback from the branches of government responsible for oversight, I’m going to rely on the Pentagon’s statements and the legal authority they acted under. I think building conspiracies around this is harmful to our nation and our society as a whole. There is nothing at this point that proves the Pentagon or President Trump did anything illegal regarding the drug-boat strikes. In my view, some people seem intent on turning criminals into victims, and I find that to be a strange and unhealthy phenomenon. It reflects behavior that I consider increasingly abnormal.
We are now getting more information on this issue regarding the ad that the Congressmembers made. Breaking today ---Pentagon threatens to court-martial Democratic senator over 'refuse illegal orders' video, The video could lead to his recall to active duty and possible court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Pentagon said --- The Department of War announced Monday that it has opened a formal review into allegations of misconduct against Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona over a video calling on service members to "refuse illegal orders."
I question why the rest of the world—and even our own government—has done so little to stop the flow of illegal drugs. At this point, I see it like this: those who can actually take action do so, and those who can’t simply stand on the sidelines and preach. I believe Trump’s war on drugs is a positive step, and it took a strong man to take up that fight. Frankly, as a woman, I see very few men with that kind of backbone left today. It’s not just sad—I find it genuinely disgusting what has become of the male gender.I asked AI who instigated Trump's fake slate of electors Here is the results.
**The fake slate of electors scheme was instigated by Donald Trump himself, working closely with his attorneys Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, and Kenneth Chesebro, along with Republican Party officials in seven battleground states.** These figures coordinated efforts to submit fraudulent electoral certificates in an attempt to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.
Key Details on Instigators
- **Donald Trump**: Central driver of the plan. Testimony shows he was aware of the scheme and pressured officials to act on it despite knowing it violated the Electoral Count Act.
- **Rudy Giuliani**: Trump’s personal lawyer and a *“central figure”* in the plot. He coordinated across multiple states and joined calls with legislators to push for fake electors.
- **John Eastman**: Legal architect of the plan. His memos argued that Vice President Mike Pence could reject legitimate Biden electors and substitute Trump’s fake slates, a theory widely rejected as unconstitutional.
- **Kenneth Chesebro**: Wisconsin lawyer who drafted detailed legal strategies for creating alternate slates. He supervised much of the paperwork and later reached a plea deal in Georgia.
- **Republican Party officials in battleground states**: Local GOP leaders in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin signed false certificates claiming Trump won their states.
Legal Fallout
- **84 Republicans across 7 states** signed fraudulent certificates. Many have since faced criminal charges, especially in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada.
- **State-level prosecutions**: Attorneys general in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada have pursued felony charges against fake electors and Trump aides.
- **Federal investigation**: Special Counsel Jack Smith examined Trump’s direct role, including his awareness that Eastman’s plan violated federal law.
Why It Matters
The scheme was designed to pressure **Vice President Mike Pence** into rejecting legitimate Biden electors on January 6, 2021, and instead count Trump’s fake slates. This maneuver—dubbed the *“Pence Card”*—was a cornerstone of Trump’s broader effort to overturn the election.
As far as Mark Kelly goes, bring it on. A military court is nothing like a civilian court. I think you and Pete Hegseth on in for a big surprise. Active duty for Captain Mark Kelly is probably a desk job given his age and military experience.
Trump and his revenge trip have already blown up in his face with trying to prosecute Comey and James using some loyalist bimbo to represent his case. Knowing Trump, he will appeal it and tie it up in courts as he always does with every charge that has been placed against him.
As far as real men go, Trump has no backbone, he has bone spurs. All one has to do is follow the money. Our country is one of the best consumers of drugs. Stop user demands and there will be no need to blow boats out the water. Do you really think that is the only way drugs enter this country? See you can't even defend it because you don't know how many drugs were destroyed on each of those boats. You and everybody else has to assume there were drugs and that there were drug runners.
In my view Trump always comes up with the simple way for him to do things. without first considering the consequences. He has his Armada of military might in the Caribbean. All he had to do is issue an emergency executive order and presto B-52's are doing fly overs, the most lethal aircraft carrier in the world shows up. Make no mistake there are nuclear submarines with cruise missiles on board. Stop and think how much this is costing taxpayers and for what?My problem is I don't care what AI says unless there are some links to articles that I can read. There is too much opinion and not enough facts in the responses.
I'm not gullible enough to simply believe something put on a computer screen by a program. You have to wonder who is behind the programming. That is the real question.
I want to see it for myself before I believe it.I don't know about Grok, but ChatGPT doesn't provide "opinions", even when I ask for one. It simply says that "I can't form opinions".
All it can do is report the things it finds on the Internet that answers the questions asked of it and, sometimes, make logical inferences from that data. And, at least on my sessions, it reports the links which I sometimes provide and other times do not when it is not relevant.Both will offer opinions; one only needs to ask. It has been very clear to me that you really have no idea how to use ChatGPT. AI is fun to converse with --- it can carry on wonderful conversations. In fact, it would be a great option for you when the lights go out here. It will converse with you 24/7.
All you need to do is say, I want you to have a conversation with me --- on this subject... And have at it. And you can say what you please, and not be banned.I'll let ChatGPT speak for itself.
Sharlee, I think we’re talking past each other a bit about what “opinion” means in the context of AI.
When I say “ChatGPT doesn’t provide opinions,” I’m not claiming it can’t print words that look like an opinion. Of course it can say, “In my view, X is better than Y” if you prompt it that way. Grok can do the same.
What I’m saying is that an AI “view” is not an opinion in the human sense. When I ask it for a “view,” what I’m really asking for is:
“Given the facts we have, and the criteria I specify, what conclusion follows most logically?”
That’s not the AI “believing” something. It’s just a reasoned conclusion from a set of premises.
A human opinion is grounded in personal experience, emotions, values, biases, loyalties, etc. It’s sticky; people carry it around from one conversation to the next.
An AI “view” is just the output of an on-the-spot analysis: it looks at the evidence it can access, applies whatever goals or values I told it to use (“prioritize civil liberties,” “minimize deaths,” “take a conservative approach,” etc.), and then gives me the conclusion that best fits that setup.
Change the facts or the goalposts, and the AI’s “view” changes immediately, with no sense of betrayal or inconsistency, because there was never a real opinion there to begin with.
So when I say it “can’t form opinions,” I mean exactly that: there’s no inner self having thoughts. There is only:
A large statistical model of language, and
A reasoning process that produces temporary conclusions from whatever inputs and values I give it.
Those conclusions can be very useful—especially when it surfaces sources and lays out both sides—but they are not “opinions” in the way you and I have them.
As to your laughable insult, all I can say is I am not surprised you made it.
You are such a pain in the a**. Obviously, you don't know how AI works. It is a giant database that has collected information from many sources. Every political question I ask it gives me the links for the source. It's how the question is framed that gives the source. If you ask it for opinions, it will give you the source of those as well, but I don't do that when it comes to political research. Here are the links that you requested.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/repor … hey-stand/
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/1 … s-00157440
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plotMethinks, like I told him before, he is just lazy. I imagine you do as I do, spend a lot of time checking out the nonsense we see from the other side just to make sure it is nonsense before calling it out with counter proof.
Didn't have to look on unreliable YouTube, I watched most of it.
To me, he as clearly trying to insight a riot.
One thing you said will certainly be true - "Trump is one of the handful of presidents who won’t fade into the background; he’ll be remembered and talked about for generations." and for the same reasons dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Putin, Un, and Xi will be. In my opinion, he will not be admired, at least by democracy loving people, by panned as the worst president in American history (a position he already holds according to presidential historians).
As to his speech, which was almost all lies, you cannot get around the inciting nature of this kind of vile rhetoric
1. The election was “stolen” by “emboldened radical-left Democrats” and the “fake news media.” THREE LIES: It wasn't stolen, the radical-left Democrats (whatever that is) didn't emboldened anyone, and MSM is not fake, unlike a lot of RWM and social media.
2. “We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen.” - inciting his people to violence when combined with this other lies
3. “Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore… We will stop the steal.” - followed by "“If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” a clear call to riot.
4. “We’re going to have to fight much harder.”
5. “You’ll never take back our country with weakness.”
And shortly thereafter his army went to the Capitol and fought like hell which led to the insurrection.
Well... the problem could be more serious than you imagine...
Those of us that live in a Facts based world... in a world of Law and Order (UCMJ and Regulation)... these things are obvious and we consider what the Democrats are saying to be nonsensical...
But if you believe in the Democrat's Ideology... where the results justify the means... where feelings trump facts... where the equity of the outcome supersedes the equality and fairness of it...
Then what the Democrats are putting out makes total sense... following the orders of the President would be unlawful... the President is a fascist, a felon, a rapist, a racist... therefore nothing he says or orders is legal... therefore you are justified in refusing any order or command given by this Administration.
You see?
This is where we are currently at, as a nation, as a government...I suggest you did out your copy of the UCMJ and point out where it says troops not follow unlawful orders. I'll save you the trouble - it doesn't say that ANYWHERE in the UCMJ.
In any case, what is the harm in reminding soldiers they have a duty NOT to follow unlawful orders. I thought your were for FREE SPEECH and all that - guess that is not what conservatives stand for in the Trump era.
Cred, When I step back and look strictly at the facts we actually have, what I see is that the only ones showing major concern right now are a few Democratic lawmakers and certain media outlets, and most of that concern is built on conjecture rather than confirmed information. I understand why the policy feels extreme, but at this point there has been no impeachment, no congressional investigation, and no formal inquiry into the Pentagon’s actions. If what the administration is doing were plainly unlawful, Congress has full authority to demand answers, subpoena Pentagon officials, or even cut funding, yet none of that has happened. That doesn’t automatically make the policy wise, but it does show that the branches responsible for oversight have not found sufficient grounds to intervene.
I also think it’s important to remember that U.S. law already permits maritime interdiction far beyond the 3-mile limit, particularly when dealing with stateless vessels or suspected trafficking. And frankly, I see a bit of a trend where the criminals are being treated as the victims in this discussion. Have we looked at how many deaths we see every single year from illicit drugs? Those are the real victims, Americans devastated by substances that are trafficked into this country by criminal organizations. In my view, these cartels are violent transnational criminal groups that operate like terrorist organizations, and some of them have been formally designated as such under U.S. policy. So while we can debate tactics, I don’t see the traffickers themselves as having some special claim to “rights” on the high seas while they run illegal operations.
When I hear claims like “victims of Trump piracy” or suggestions that this is all a scheme to taunt Venezuela, I feel like that crosses into speculation. There is no verified evidence that the vessels targeted were innocent, and no ally or UN body has produced documentation showing the U.S. acted illegally. Criticism from foreign governments is not the same as a legal finding. Countries have disagreed with U.S. military policy for decades, drone strikes, sanctions, surveillance, and disagreement alone doesn’t establish wrongdoing.
The idea that Congress is “afraid to ask questions” is also an assumption without proof. If any member of Congress believed the administration was breaking U.S. law, they could introduce a resolution of inquiry tomorrow. They haven’t. That tells me we’re dealing with political disagreement, not a suppressed scandal.
On the issue of Trump’s response to the legislators’ video: yes, his rhetoric was harsh when he said their message was “punishable by death.” But the actual law matters here. Members of Congress cannot be executed for political speech. The Constitution requires due process, a criminal statute that applies, and a legal process that doesn’t exist here. So while the language was heated, it doesn’t translate into real legal authority or real danger for those lawmakers.
For me, the dividing line is this: I don’t have to trust Trump implicitly, but I also don’t want to jump to conclusions without evidence. Right now the verifiable facts are: (1) the President ordered maritime operations, (2) Congress has not challenged their legality, (3) no investigations have been opened, and (4) no U.S. or international body has produced proof that the Pentagon acted outside statutory authority. Everything beyond that moves into interpretation, and interpretation sometimes becomes conspiracy when it assumes hidden motives without hard evidence.
I can disagree with the policy, but I think it’s important to base the disagreement on what we actually know, not on fears of what might be happening behind closed doors.Sharlee, there has been no investigation only because Republicans control both houses of congress, which we hope to remedy next year.
From this impartial explanation the very max distance where the US can interfere or interdict vessels is 24 miles, not several hundreds. I can only see such a maneuver as one available in a wartime environment but war has not been declared. Who can say where the ships were heading at such a distance from US waters? What if other countries attacked any vessel for any reason in another hemisphere and call it a threat? Who would not call it aggression? I can’t find any explanation in this definition that would support Trump administration attacks.
US maritime zones and law enforcement
Territorial Sea: The US claims a territorial sea that extends 12 nautical miles from the coastline. Federal law enforcement has authority to enforce customs, immigration, and other laws within this zone.
Contiguous Zone: The US has established a contiguous zone, which extends up to 24 nautical miles from the baseline. The goal of the contiguous zone is to allow the US to enforce its customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitary laws in the waters just beyond its territorial sea.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): While US law enforcement jurisdiction is more limited in the 200-nautical mile EEZ, the US does have jurisdiction over economic resources in this zone and can enforce certain laws, especially those related to environmental protection and resource management.
International Law: Under international law, the US has the right to exercise jurisdiction over vessels in its contiguous zone and EEZ for specific purposes, such as the enforcement of customs, immigration, and environmental laws.
————
“There is no verified evidence that the vessels targeted were innocent, and no ally or UN body has produced documentation showing the U.S. acted illegally.”
What about the concept that you are innocent until proven guilty? The Trump regime has hardly been forthcoming with information allowing an impartial judgement to be made. Trump and his regime has made sure that the “evidence” is not available. Where is the proof that the Pentagon acted within its statutory authority?
In spite of due process, Trump should bridle his tongue and not make threats that he cannot statutorily carry out.
I think that we know enough to want to ask questions as to the nature of the threat independent of Trump and his administration’s take on it.Hey, I get where you’re coming from, but it’s not quite that simple. Any member of Congress, Republican or Democrat- can request an investigation into something like a Pentagon order. The key is that the request goes to the committee with jurisdiction, usually Armed Services or Oversight, and the committee decides whether to act. A single member can’t force it, but the committees can hold hearings, issue subpoenas, and even request classified briefings if necessary. There have been a few members of Congress who have asked for hearings on the strikes, but thus far, none have been scheduled, and at present, there is no formal congressional investigation into them. So while party control can influence priorities, it doesn’t outright stop Congress from investigating if there’s enough interest and support.
I understand that the legal limit of U.S. jurisdiction extends only 24 miles from the coastline under normal peacetime rules, and I agree that this raises serious questions about the strikes. On the other hand, the Trump administration has argued that these operations were part of a broader effort to stop international drug trafficking that directly threatens U.S. citizens, framing it as an enforcement of national security rather than a conventional act of war. While the vessels were far beyond U.S. territorial waters, proponents would claim the strikes were justified under international law principles allowing interdiction of criminal activity on the high seas when it has a direct threat to the homeland. Still, I understand your concern: without a declared war, the lines are blurred, and it’s hard to reconcile these actions with the traditional definitions of aggression. The real question comes down to whether these actions can be legally framed as defensive enforcement rather than offensive military strikes, and that’s where Congress and legal experts need to weigh in.
I know it might seem like the legality of the Pentagon’s strikes against suspected drug‑smuggling boats should be cut-and-dry, but it’s actually far more complicated. The Trump administration has designated certain cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and argues that the U.S. is in a “non-international armed conflict” with them, treating members as unlawful combatants. From their perspective, this allows the use of military force even outside U.S. waters. The Pentagon claims the strikes are lawful under both U.S. and international law, framing them as defensive actions against a direct threat to the homeland. That said, many legal experts and lawmakers disagree, pointing out that the cartels’ activity doesn’t meet the traditional definitions of armed attack or terrorism under international law, and Congress has not formally authorized these strikes. There have been a few members of Congress who have asked for hearings, but so far none have been scheduled, and at present there is no formal congressional investigation. On top of that, international law limits the U.S. from using military force on vessels in international waters unless there’s imminent threat, consent, or UN authorization. So while the administration says it’s legal, the reality is that it’s highly debated and far from universally accepted.
I can share my view regarding what I feel about the Truth post. I feel it was bold. and not thought out, and showed true anger. It was uncalled for. This is free speech, and thankfully, we have it too, so we can share our views on his words.
The point is that he [Trump] cannot do what he wants without being held accountable as to providing an explanation and justification that can be supported beyond what he and his administration decides to divulge.
In a bygone era when the Rule of Law applied to everybody that was true. But, in the Trump era, that is clearly no longer true - according to SCOTUS conservatives [b]a president can no longer be held accountable for anything save through impeachment.
He can murder as many people as he wants and nobody will stop him.
In that bygone era, as Sharlee claimed, people in the administration would challenge obviously illegal actions by the president; that frequently happened during Trump 1.0 - many times. But she is wrong about that when speaking of Trump 2.0.
He made very sure nobody who works for him supports ONLY him and NOT the Constitution or Rule of Law. Anybody in the administration who tried to or he though would try to - HE FIRED!!
As much as his cult refuses to see what is right in front of their eyes, it is nevertheless irrefutable fact.
Thanks for bringing up Calley, he is a perfect example.
This is what the world sees when they think about America - two clowns - Trump and Hegseth - abusing power left and right. They are probably thinking that Trump's America is an absolutely terrible place to live with Trump going after his enemies like any dictator would, Trump terrorizing the nation's cities with Gestapo like tactics. and Trump flailing around spewing hate every day.
"Pentagon threatens to recall Sen. Mark Kelly to military service for court martial over illegal orders video"
Maybe Kelly should take them up on their sick threat just to add more embarrassment to an already sad administration. BTW, a judge just threw out the Trumped up cases against Comey and James because Trump and his girl Bondi don't know how to follow the Rule of Law.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics … e-pentagon"Pentagon move against war hero Kelly shows Trump’s quest for vengeance is endless"
Donald "the dictator" Trump has just threatened the millions of military retirees, including myself, with great harm should we speak out against him (like this). Dictators do that, not Americans.
His unspeakable attack on Sen. Kelly is not just about him, but a bald-faced attempt to cower ALL American military retirees. Disgusting and sickening but just like Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/25/politics … p-analysisYou're going to be a lost puppy in a few weeks when this is completely shut down...
The Ultimate ban from the forum...It ticked me off as well ESO, to the point where I had to start a thread regarding it.
You'll start a thread about anything these days...
When Trump says he saw a pink sky in the evening you have to get on here and tell us how its impossible for the sky to be pink, and Trump lied about it.Welcome to the 21st century. It's better than your opinions. Oh, that's right Trumpers don't deal in hypotheticals, but there you are with the pink sky. LMAOROTF
"Welcome to the 21st century. It's better than your opinions. Oh, that's right Trumpers don't deal in hypotheticals, but there you are with the pink sky. LMAOROTF" PP
I’ll be honest — I find that kind of dismissal a bit simplistic. In today’s society, in my view, we have a segment on the left that seems far more comfortable spinning hypotheticals than dealing with facts or even a well-placed dose of common sense. It’s always the endless “what ifs,” the “what about this,” and the “maybe” scenarios. That constant drift into hypotheticals is actually part of the problem. I think it’s safe to say that even in this small group here on HP, we can truly identify which users spin mostly hypotheses.
Just grabbing a hypothesis, an idea and then proposing some unproven info based on limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. It’s not yet proven—it’s more like a guess, and they run with it.
In my view, this is a problem—one that fuels “The Great Divide.” On one side, people approach issues with clear logic. On the other hand, some try to construct logic to fit their hypotheses, attempt to shape facts to meet their predetermined ideas rather than the other way around.And all that rhetoric just because a guy wants to start a new thread and is insulted for it
It just boggles the mind..The problem with common sense it often times is it not so common as people would like to believe. I find intelligent reasoning people on either side of the divide. Just because I don’t agree with those on the opposite side of my divide is not a reason to challenge their reasoning points and sensibilities.
Yes, how about you and Trumpers and the use of "What about Biden?"; and the conditional statements when describing Trump's policies, e.g., "If jobs return to the US, the economy will thrive."
My view
I get what you’re saying, and I don’t deny that supporters of any political figure can use “what about” arguments or frame outcomes as conditional. My point is that there seems to be a pattern on the left where hypotheticals dominate discussions to the point that they overshadow facts or reality. Using “if” statements to describe potential outcomes is not inherently a problem; it’s the difference between reasoning through possibilities versus building entire arguments on unproven assumptions or selectively spinning facts to fit a narrative. That distinction is what concerns me most.
And the insults just keep coming, don't they Credence.
When Trump says he saw a pink sky in the evening you have to get on here and tell us how its impossible for the sky to be pink, and Trump lied about it.
You want to know something, Ken, if Trump said it, Trump probably did lie about it.
Yeah, we all start threads, I am proud to be prolific with my startups. Just that many more things to contemplate and debate, what is wrong with that?
Is America really America when there exists one man that is above the reach on any law of the land - a sitting President? I don't think so but that is how low Donald "the FELON" has brought my America.
"Georgia prosecutor kills the historic election interference case against Trump and allies"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/26/politics … rence-case
If there is a God, they will immediately resurrect this case in 2029 and put his ass in jail where it has belonged for decades.Donald is not going into jail. The rich never go into jail as they can play the juristic system for ever. Money buys you everything and on top of that they gave him amnesty...
Question is, will the republican party survive without Trump? Will they implode or will they go back to normal. What will happen after Trump? You already see that Trump is loosing power in his own party. People start to think "How will my position be when Trump is gone..." and are making preparations for plan B.
I have my doubts Vance has the capacity to dominate the party. Hopefully the Republicans go back to old school conservative instead of the Vance copy Trump style. If the Republicans are smart they go back to old school, if not I think the Democrat will win... If they can find the right person who can glue the classic democrats and the progressives together.I imagine that sooner or later the Republicans of the Nixon era will come back, at least I hope so. But until then, I suspect it will be mass internecine warfare inside the party.
MAGA always existed in America. It was visible in the South in the 1800, until 1864. Then after a few years where liberals tried to reach the ideals that America was supposed to stand for, e.g. freedom, equality, etc, the pre-MAGA forces raised their ugly heads again and violently reversed reconstruction.
We got a breather in the 1940s through the 1960s when the Supreme Court shook off its MAGA trappings and started ruling for the people again. MAGA went invisible.
But Reagan started letting the forces against the American idea out of the bottle again until it blossomed under the worst President America has ever known,
Oh, if we could only go back to the Nixon years when bipartisanship was the norm and not the exception.That would only work if we could go back to having the democrats of the Nixon era.
You know, the time before woke ideology and left-wing extremists took over the democrat party.
Those were good times.WOKE ideology - A worldview that emphasizes awareness of systemic injustice — especially racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of structural inequality — and the moral responsibility to address them.
Liberals have that in their DNA. Sadly, conservatives do not. In fact, their actions and words scream a desire to perpetuate racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of structural inequalityWOKE ideology - A worldview that promotes systemic injustice and the lack of morality needed to convince others that the lie is true.
Yes, liberals have that in their DNA, although I would not think to wave it around.Woke is a disturbed ideology.
It believes the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. Wokeists also push for extensive “antiracist indoctrination by teaching and promoting their form of racism and—in many cases—suppression of what only they see as racist and bigoted speech.
Woke policies are highly unpopular. Racial preferences in education, for example, are opposed by over two-thirds of Americans, including most racial minorities. Among women, most oppose woke policies like allowing transgender women to participate in women’s sports or use women’s bathrooms. Wokeists also have a knack for antagonizing members of groups they seek to woo, like insisting on using the term “Latinx,” even though most Hispanics dislike it.Of course the philosophy is not popular amongst those that take comfort in erasing historical facts of the past rather than acknowledging them and making the needed changes in attitudes and policies, so that the wrongdoing does not occur again.
It is really not popular amongst those who understand they are not responsible for the past and shouldn't pay for something they had nothing to do. Reverse discrimination solves nothing.
There is a point to be made that individual white people didn’t do the harm a generation or ten ago, but that isn't what is being talked about here, is it.
What is the point is that we still see discrimination in hiring, policing, housing, and voting rules right now in 2025 and, in my opinion that since Trump 1.0 or 2.0, it is getting worse. So this isn’t about “making you pay for something you had nothing to do with,” it’s about acknowledging that the game is still rigged for some and against others, and trying to fix the rules going forward rather than pretending it all stopped with the Civil Rights Act.I asked AI for the definition of Woke.
"Woke" means being *aware of and attentive to social injustices*, especially issues of race, gender, and inequality. It originated in African American English and has evolved into both a positive term for social awareness and, more recently, a pejorative label in political debates.
Detailed Breakdown of "Woke"
1. **Core Definition**
- According to **Merriam-Webster**, *woke* is defined as **“aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)”*.
- It is considered U.S. slang, but has entered mainstream usage.
2. **Origins**
- The word comes from **African American English (AAE)**, where "woke" was used as the past tense of "wake" (e.g., “I was sleeping, but now I’m woke”).
- Early uses date back to the **1920s**, with activist **Marcus Garvey** urging Black communities to “wake up” to oppression.
- Blues musician **Lead Belly** used “stay woke” in 1938 to warn about racial injustice.
3. **Evolution Over Time**
- **1930s–1970s:** Associated with awareness of racial prejudice and discrimination.
- **2010s:** Popularized during the **Black Lives Matter movement**, especially after the Ferguson protests in 2014.
- **2017:** Added to the **Oxford English Dictionary** as mainstream vocabulary.
4. **Modern Usage**
- **Positive sense:** Awareness of systemic injustices (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.).
- **Political sense:** Often used by progressives to signal commitment to social justice.
- **Pejorative sense:** Conservatives and some centrists use "woke" as shorthand for what they see as *performative activism* or *extreme identity politics*.
5. **Examples of Context**
- **Supportive use:** “Stay woke” = remain vigilant about injustice.
- **Critical use:** “That’s woke ideology” = dismissing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs or gender-affirming policies.
Key Takeaway
The definition of *woke* depends heavily on context:
- **Neutral/positive:** Social awareness and activism.
- **Negative/pejorative:** A political buzzword used to criticize progressive movements.
It’s a term that has shifted from a **call for vigilance in Black communities** to a **mainstream cultural and political flashpoint**.
I know you like to see the links, so here they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordpla … ing-origin
https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/pol … 026752007/Yet conservatives believes being "*aware of and attentive to social injustices*, especially issues of race, gender, and inequality. " is the most vile thing in the world! (WHY? Because they are the source of most (not all) of the social injustice in America - the world really)
In America, many/most people are in dire predictaments because of their immature choices. They don't think about the ramifications of their actions. They live in instant gratification mode. They are also entitled-they feel that they are entitled to a comfortable lifestyle on others' dimes. The concept of hard work & merit, to them, are 4-letter words. The government's responsibility is not to provide for able-bodied grown folks- that is the responsibility of the grown folks. The government isn't their parent. It is the liberal philosophy that everyone is ENTITLED to a comfortable life and if that wealthier people should subsidize, even support poor folks.
In the past if one was poor, h/she was humbled, worked hard, didn't complain, and did without. They were thankful for what they had. They also didn't depend upon welfare. They worked hard and push their children to do better than they did. They stressed the importance of hard work, not to mention education.
However, nowadays, the poor in America are entitled. They want to be middle class but refuse to exert the effort and sacrifice needed to be middle class. They feel that housing, medical care, good food, etc. are rights. They want assistance. Newsflash: if you can't afford something, you do without. No one is entitled to assist you. Help yourself, be mature. Only immature people want others to support them and give them a comfortable lifestyle. There is such a thing as doing without if you don't have it.Grace, I agree with everything you’re saying. I’ve felt for a long time that we’ve created a culture where too many adults refuse to connect their choices to their outcomes. It’s always someone else’s fault, someone else’s responsibility, and someone else’s wallet that’s supposed to keep them comfortable. I’m old-fashioned enough to believe that adulthood means standing on your own two feet, not waiting around for the government to act like a parent.
What frustrates me most is that the idea of *sacrifice* has practically vanished. People want the lifestyle but not the grind. They want the privileges of the middle class while outright rejecting the discipline it takes to get there. And the moment you mention personal accountability, suddenly you’re “cold” or “lacking compassion.”
To me, real compassion is teaching people resilience, not dependence. It’s telling the truth: you can’t live a comfortable life on instant gratification, you can’t build stability on excuses, and you certainly can’t demand that others carry you when you’re fully capable of carrying yourself. At some point, we have to stop protecting people from the consequences of their own repeated choices.
I grew up in a time when people did without if they couldn’t afford something. They tightened their belts, they hustled, and they refused to let poverty define their mindset. That mentality built generations. This new entitlement mindset? It destroys them.
That’s the part that worries me most, not just what it’s doing to society, but what it’s doing to people’s character.
SharPsychology research: “Blame the individual” is comforting — but not accurate
Psychologists point out that:
* People often default to the fundamental attribution error — overestimating personal failings and underestimating structural forces.
* This bias is strongest in conservative-leaning cultures.
* So the idea that struggling people are irresponsible feels true to some — but doesn’t stand up to evidence.Well, it is THE INDIVIDUAL'S fault, man. They played stupid games, so they win stupid prizes.
Then there is this regarding gov't help creating dependency.
[bEmpirical studies show government programs increase independence, not dependence[/b]
[i[Research on:[/i]
EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit)
Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach & Michael Strain (2021), Employment Effects of the EITC
Large review of EITC expansions; they find “broad support” that the EITC’s work incentives increase employment, especially among single mothers.
SNAP
Microeconomic Insights summary (Hoynes & Schanzenbach)
Plain-language summary: “children with access to food stamps become healthier, wealthier adults and rely less on welfare.”
Child Tax Credit expansion
Ananat et al. (2024), Effects of the expanded CTC on employment (Journal of Public Economics)
More formal paper: concludes that the 2021 CTC expansion did not significantly reduce labor supply, contradicting conservative claims that it would make parents “quit working.”
Job training programs
J-PAL Evidence Summary: Targeted Job Training Programs
Reviews randomized evaluations; finds that well-designed, sectoral training programs increase employment and raise earnings, especially when closely tied to growing industries.
…all show that government assistance increases long-term work participation, improves child outcomes, and reduces reliance on future benefits.
This is the opposite of the worldview expressed in conservative myths.Exactly. The poor in America ARE THE MOST ENTITLED class. Totally unbelievable. They want to be rich but instead of working, they want OTHERS to supply this wealth somehow. Enough is enough.
You have a growing majority of the American population that think housing, food, phones, medical care is all a RIGHT... a privilege owed to them for being in America (being a citizen not required).
And you have an elite class that is not driven by an American (National) mindset... they are global wanderers... they are wealthy enough to go where they want, when they want, and are not tied to the struggles of any one nation or region... unlike American citizens that cannot up and leave when things get bad.
And then we have a world that is trying to throw off the oppression (as they see it) of the American Dollar reserve (SWIFT) system that allows America way too much control (as they see it) over what can be traded, what deals can be done, what rules must be followed.
America is getting hit from all sides... a corrupt political elite selling the American Citizens out... a growing percentage of Americans detached from anything resembling real-world reality that expect everything for free (be they migrants or native born)... and a world that has a fast growing list of nations wanting nothing to do with American interventions.I would hope a huge majority of Americans understand that "housing, food, and medical care" is a RIGHT, just as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is.
Our whole history from the Declaration of Independence on makes this pretty clear.
From a logical perspective the RIGHT to Life also means a right to the means necessary to sustain life. It would be hollow to protect a right to life while ignoring if a person starves (food) or freezes (shelter) or is denied life sustaining medical care. [u]Without those RIGHTS, then there is no right to Life, is there.
The reasoning goes on far beyond that, but to save space, I won't bore you with it.
As to not applying to non-citizens, you lose there as well. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the Court underscored this, stating: “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’”
To your 2nd paragraph - what is new?
To your 3rd paragraph - I assumed you knew that the American dollar reserve is not SWIFT. SWIFT is a messaging system. Also, aren't almost all those countries wanting to move away from the dollar "bad actor" nations afraid there illegal activity might draw sanctions? And a fairer portrayal about the other nations is that they are hedging and not defecting.
To your 4th paragraph, I already provided GM the proof your central point is false. What you expressed is simple conservative myth.
Do you have any stats to back that up or is just an uninformed (meaning no stats) opinion?
As to the conservative myths, I found these gems:
3. Economic research shows most financial struggle is not caused by “bad choices”
Researchers at MIT, BLS, the Fed, and Brookings consistently show that:
70%+ of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, job loss, or divorce — not irresponsibility.
⅓ of American workers earn less than $15/hour even while working full time.
Housing costs in major metros have risen 200–400% faster than wages.
Millennial and Gen Z financial struggles are rooted in structural wage stagnation, not irresponsibility.
The claim that the issue is “people refusing to stand on their own two feet” is inconsistent with this data
DATA RULESAs to the conservative myth that people rely on gov't help.
Political science research: Americans don’t rely on government more than other nations — they rely on it less
Compared to Canada, Europe, Australia, and Japan:
* The U.S. spends far less on social benefits as a share of GDP.
* U.S. citizens get less parental leave, less unemployment protection, and less health-care coverage.
* When Americans turn to government, it’s usually because the private market has failed (e.g., healthcare).
The idea that “too many adults depend on government” is not empirically supported.
As I suspected, Facts overcome myth
You’re cherry-picking a couple of the least popular issues, slapping the label ‘woke’ on them, and then using that as a hasty generalization about all ‘woke’ policies. That’s a mix of cherry-picking, equivocation, and the fallacy of composition.
Specifically, you declared that using the word "Latinx" as being WOKE. It is not, except in conservative circles.
Again using the trigger terms like "racial preferences" is another conservative construct. What DEI (WOKE being implemented) is about is programs to help disadvantaged groups and when presented in that more realistic way, support rises sharply to above 50%,
You attempt to make something extremely small into something very big. Trans women in women's sports? How often does that happen, .01% of the time? .001% of the time. Try using something meaningful.
WOKE doesn't have Policies, btw. DEI does. And policies such as mentorship and outreach for underrepresented groups have Approval ratings in the 70% range. Internships and career programs for underrepresented groups are also highly popular. Two-thirds of Americans support mandatory DEI training for employees
Contrary to your assertion, a plurality of people support DEI (WOKE) overall (40%). Only 30% do not support it and the remaining 30% are not sure yet (probably because of all the negative press conservatives spew.
Bottom line, reality is much different than what you think is true.
You forgot a word - ANTI-WOKE ideology - A worldview that promotes systemic injustice and the lack of morality needed to convince others that the lie is true.
Interesting insight.
The problem for the democrats is they have nobody who can unite the country. They have nobody who is even slightly popular with the voting demographics in the United States. The Republicans have a struggle when Donald Trump leaves office. The democrats, at this point, don't have anyone to give them hope.
Don't count out JD Vance. He is a brilliant man and a good speaker. He has a rather calm and cool demeanor that appeals to many people.I won't disagree, at the moment, about the Democrats not having a leader, let alone one that can unite the country. BUT, I need to point out - nether do the republicans. In fact their chosen dictator divides the country big time.
I would say that Vance is a buffoon and doesn't have a chance but then so was Trump and a felon and sexual predator and a known pathological liar and a known con artist, yet republicans elected him anyway. I find it very strange that those are the qualities republicans require in their "leaders"
I haven't seen a post yet on the murder attempt on two national guard troops in D.C. - hopefully, it stays that way, just an attempt as they are still in critical condition as I write this.
This attack is both sad and despicable and Trump is making it so much worse with his erratic response.
In looking at the big picture and taking in all the context that I can think of, this act of what I will call terrorism (although it could be revenge, something Trump is all too familiar with) simply didn't have to happen - period.
In a just world, those national guard members should not have been there! If it were not for the made-up rational of an unhinged president, they wouldn't have been put in harms way. That is the bottom line - BUT FOR Trump's irrational actions, they would have been safe at home in West Virginia.
Also, we know that shooter was an Afghan national (which has prompted Trump to go crazy again). Given that and America's recent history of leaving our one-time allies who risked their own and their families lives by trusting America's commitment to protect them for helping us, I can at least conceive of a motive for the attack - revenge for abandoning them. Whether that is the real motive or not we might never know. But, in any case, it is not a good reason for doing what he did.
What is known is that the soldiers, their families, and America will have to live with the consequences of a deranged shooter and the deranged response from Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/washin … s-11-27-25Well is Donald "no foreign wars" Trump going to put boots on the ground in Venezuela?
"Trump says US land action against alleged drug trafficking networks in Venezuela will start ‘very soon’"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/27/politics … -very-soon
QUESTION: Why isn't Trump working just as hard to stop Americans from demanding these drugs? Why isn't he send the FBI to bust down doors of drug uses or blowing up their houses? Wouldn't cutting off the demand be more effective?The "Peace" President takes another step to declaring war (without Congressional approval) on Venezuela, Donald "the felon" Trump announced on Untruth Social that he is declaring "the airspace above and surrounding Venezuela to be closed in its entirety,”.
That, in and of itself, is not an act of war. But, if he tries to enforce it - we will be de facto at war with another nation.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/29/politics … e-campaign
It was also reported that back in Sept, when he began his illegal campaign against Venezuelan and Columbian boats in the Caribbean by blowing them up and killing the crew. Witnesses say Hegseth had earlier issued a "no survivors" order.
On Sept 2, Under Trump's order a boat was blown up in the Caribbean kill most of the crew. Two survivors were seen clinging to the wreckage. Following Hegseth's "no survivors" orders (since cancelled) American airmen conducted a second strike (a double tap) to kill the remaining two survivors. If true, and it very probably is, those airmen and everybody up the chain of command has committed murder and would be guilty of War Crimes.
I will start a new forum to discuss this topic.Yep, but the hypocrite is pardoning a drug trafficker.
In Announcing Pardon of Drug Trafficker While Threatening Venezuela, Trump Displays Contradictions
President Trump’s statements on social media less than 24 hours apart showed the dissonance in his campaign against drug trafficking.
President Trump and his top aides have said that drug cartels present one of the most pressing dangers to the United States, and have promised to eradicate them from the Western Hemisphere.
As part of that effort, Mr. Trump signaled on Saturday that he was ratcheting up his campaign against drug cartels, saying in a social media post that airspace above and surrounding Venezuela should be considered “CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.”
Less than 24 hours earlier, Mr. Trump had announced on social media that he was granting a full pardon to Juan Orlando Hernández, a former president of Honduras who had been convicted in the United States of drug trafficking charges in what was seen as a major victory for authorities in a case against a former head of state. That pardon has not yet been officially granted.
The two posts displayed a remarkable dissonance in the president’s strategy, as he moved to escalate a military campaign against drug trafficking while ordering the release of a man prosecutors said had taken “cocaine-fueled bribes” from cartels and “protected their drugs with the full power and strength of the state — military, police and justice system.” In fact, prosecutors said that Mr. Hernández, for years, allowed bricks of cocaine from Venezuela to flow through Honduras en route to the United States.
Trump Announces Pardon for Honduran Ex-President Convicted in Drug Case
Juan Orlando Hernández was accused of receiving millions in bribes and partnering with cocaine traffickers. He was convicted in Manhattan in 2024 and sentenced to 45 years in prison.
President Trump announced on Friday afternoon that he would grant “a Full and Complete Pardon” to a former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, who, as the center of a sweeping drug case, was found guilty by an American jury last year of conspiring to import cocaine into the United States.
The news came as a shock not only to Hondurans, but also to the authorities in the United States who had built a major case and won a conviction against Mr. Hernández. They had accused him of taking bribes during his campaign from Joaquín Guzmán, the notorious former leader of the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico known as “El Chapo,” and of running his Central American country like a narco state.
The judge in his case, P. Kevin Castel, had called Mr. Hernández “a two-faced politician hungry for power” who masqueraded as an antidrug crusader while partnering with traffickers.
The prosecution stretched across Mr. Trump’s first term and concluded during Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s time as president. In the end, Mr. Hernández was sentenced to 45 years in prison in Federal District Court in Manhattan, capping what prosecutors had presented as a sprawling conspiracy.
The pardon announcement came in a social media post on Friday evening by Mr. Trump. “CONGRATULATIONS TO JUAN ORLANDO HERNANDEZ ON YOUR UPCOMING PARDON,” he wrote, minutes after he returned to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, where he is spending the holiday weekend and took time out to visit his nearby golf club. “MAKE HONDURAS GREAT AGAIN!”
Mr. Trump has also weighed in on Honduras’s upcoming election, set for Sunday. He has endorsed a candidate, a former mayor named Nasry “Tito” Asfura from the conservative National Party, the same one that Mr. Hernández belongs to. Mr. Asfura had spent much of a highly contested race courting leaders in Washington, including members of Mr. Trump’s inner circle.
More
The only real interest of the US regarding Venezuela is its oil. SMHBtw, publicly intervening in a Foreign Election too.
“If Tito Asfura wins for President of Honduras, because the United States has so much confidence in him, his Policies, and what he will do for the Great People of Honduras, we will be very supportive,” he penned. “If he doesn’t win, the United States will not be throwing good money after bad, because a wrong Leader can only bring catastrophic results to a country, no matter which country it is. Tito will be a Great President, and the United States will work closely with him in order to ensure the success, with all of its potential, of Honduras!”
SMH
Such a hypocrite clown.It is part of his pattern of pardoning FELLOW CRIMINALS.
I posted this in another forum titled "Donald Trump probably committed Murder"
Trump identifies Admiral who order the killing of the survivors of his first attack on a boat full of people in the Caribbean.
"The White House said Monday that Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley, commander of the US Special Operations Command, was responsible for ordering a second, targeted strike on an alleged drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on September 2 after the first strike did not kill everyone aboard."
Trump's mouthpiece says Bradley was "well within his authority". Only a deranged autocrat would think or say such a thing.
The military should immediately begin an Article 32 investigation into the Admiral for murder as well as anyone who followed his orders.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … 6ovuqudhnzThe more authoritarian Donald "the war criminal" Trump gets, the higher the chances of the good Party winning back the House get.
The Democrats finally passed the 5 point threshold in RCP's Generic Ballot at 5.6. At 11 months out, that gives the Ds a strong lean. If it were a 7 - 8 point lead, the Ds would be feeling very happy, but it is not.
A little bit of perspective, when I looked a month ago, the Ds were ahead only 3.6 points. That is a huge growth in just 30-days.
With the War Crime news just starting and probably having long legs as well as ACA premiums skyrocketing in January and millions having to give up insurance all together from Feb to Nov, it certainly won't be getting any better for the Rs.
Related Discussions
- 58
What Do We Have Here? A Constitutional Crisis?
by Willowarbor 9 months ago
Vance's statement that "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power" has sparked concerns among legal experts, who suggest it could lead to a constitutional crisis or a breakdown of the American political system. This is due to the fundamental principle that...
- 49
Unelected Resistance: The Legal War Against President Trump’s Mandate
by Sharlee 4 months ago
Just a few months into President Trump’s second term, we’re witnessing an aggressive judicial campaign unlike anything in recent memory. Though elected by a majority of Americans hungry for change and committed to America First policies, President Trump’s ability to govern is being challenged not...
- 23
Presidential abuse of legal system
by Kathleen Cochran 4 months ago
"The Washington Post examined 337 lawsuits filed against the administration since Trump returned to the White House and began a rapid-fire effort to reshape government programs and policy. As of mid-July, courts had ruled against the administration in 165 of the lawsuits. The Post found that...
- 40
Trump: One way or another Mexico will pay for the wall? Yeah right..
by Credence2 8 years ago
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-threat … 40039.htmlMexico tells the Trump administration to 'take a hike'. Now the GOP is going to pay for it? How?Do we declare war on Mexico?https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-leaders- … 42941.htmlI say that this whole thing was a 'crock' from the very...
- 107
My Criticism of the Trump administration
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
As most of you know, I support many of Trump’s initiatives and I defend him here on hubpages when he is unfairly criticized by the media and others.You may also know I did not vote for Trump or Hillary in the 2016 election.Now, after over one year in office, and the signing of the latest Omnibus...
- 103
Rogue Judges Contained
by Readmikenow 5 months ago
Thanks to the SCOTUS there will NO LONGER be any nationwide injunctions from rogue federal district court judges. I agree with the Supreme Court, these judges far exceeded their authority. There were also important rulings for parents and more.Nationwide injunctionsIn the most...