Just Imagine
Imagine..... Biden had won his election on a fundamental promise to end gun violence in America. So, in turn, he claims he has a “mandate” to send the National Guard into the three states with the highest rates of gun violence: Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. The troops converge on small rural towns to round up gun owners suspected of violating a range of firearm laws. Gun shops are raided and trashed by federal agents; tables are flipped over, desks are emptied, customers inside are zip-tied and dragged onto the street in front of onlookers without any reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime. Helicopters buzz overhead as back-up. The agents don’t flash warrants or ID themselves; in fact, they’re all masked and it’s not always clear what agency they are with. They demand identification and proof of firearm licenses from everyone present. All the customers are detained without due process until the agents are sure they haven’t committed a crime. Local police and politicians try to intervene, but they are ignored and forced out of the way. Federal courts stacked with Democratic-appointed judges greenlight the troops’ actions. Then imagine a handful of the customers inside one of these shops ends up being guilty of something, and those people are pointed to as justification for the entire raid.
Even if you knew some of those people broke the law, would you trust this kind of power in the government’s hands? What would you do if that was your store, your community, or your due process rights being run over? Your neighborhood being terrorized, your neighbors being brutalized.
Here’s another: Every year, millions of pro-life activists descend on Washington, D.C. for the March for Life. Imagine President Barack Obama responding to the March for Life rallygoers by framing them all as anti-abortion “radical” extremists and terrorist “lunatics,” and then deploying the National Guard to protect federally funded facilities offering abortion services in Republican-led states. Imagine that when this move draws blowback from the protesters, and Republicans and conservative media, Obama responds by having the troops tear gas crowds, incite violence, and then arrest anyone who fights back for assaulting police.
Or remove any living president from the picture and imagine a president-yet-to-be...perhaps a very progressive anti-Zionist like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Zohran Mamdani. Imagine this president decides that pro-Israel activists are a threat to the security of Muslims in America. So, exercising power the same way trump has, they deploy ICE agents to snatch up Israeli immigrants in the country on green cards for opinion pieces they wrote defending Israel from claims of genocide in their university newspapers. While trying to deport them, this hypothetical president ships them off to a prison thousands of miles away from where they were arrested on the grounds that they support a racist, colonial, terrorist state called Israel.
These are not identical to the things Trump is doing, but they’re all similar to what Trump is doing now... just with the script flipped. As hypotheticals, they are also now far more possible with the precedent Trump is setting.
The central difference is that Trump is targeting the people many of his supporters want targeted. But Trump won’t be president forever, and what we deem acceptable now will , as it always does, come back to haunt us in the future....You give them too much credit. Conservatives are not about principle, it is more like its ok for our side to do this and your side cannot. It can be called a taunt. Oh, they have plenty of rationale and excuses to justify the rule of a tyrant, that they would virtually “have a cow” over if Biden or Obama even contemplated doing the things that Trump is openly doing these days. They are beyond reason and respect only raw power. The Democrats make the mistake of underestimating their adversary and operating within protocols that Republicans have long since abandoned. They will do anything, fair or foul to trip you up.
I am afraid that death is the only way I see Trump ever relinquishing power.That was a bum start to the morning: "I am afraid that death is the only way I see Trump ever relinquishing power."
It started with "conservatives are not about principles ... "and ended with death as a conclusion. Geesh.
Your terminology needs adjusting. Conservatives and Republicans are not synonymous. Core principles are what Conservatives are all about. But Democrats think only their values are worthy of being core values.
One quote covers it: "Political parties only have one goal — to win. Nothing but the win matters to a team player." You and the Republican 'conservatives' you detest are the same: team players who think their farts don't stink.
GAAlright,GA, your point about conservatives and Republicans, particularly of the Trump variety is well taken. Roughly 62 percent of conservatives are MAGA. I suppose you will claim allegiance to the other undefined 38 percent? With so many of you supporting Trump and his unorthodox Presidency, seems like those “core principles” have been abandoned in absolute fear and insecurity involving the “Left”.
There has always been “teams” the difference now is that the referee has been kneecapped and Trump and Republicans are operating outside the standard rules of the game in a major way that threatens democratic governance. This is the case in my humble opinion.
What you consistently fail to remember is that the core values I support are represented far more closely by Democrats than Republicans.
https://today.yougov.com/politics/artic … icans-pollNow that ain't right.
You should remember from our earliest forum exchanges that I 'claim' (it's a Hard Right camoflauge tactic) to fall into the 75% of Independents that aren't MAGA supporters. Tsk. Tsk,
I don't forget, and it's not automatically bad, that your values align with the Democrat party's. What's bad is that you support them blindly, even when you know you're not comfortable with it. That's what MAGA is. You've (generic) become the Left's MAGA.
As for the referee getting kneecapped ... Maybe, or maybe it's the rules being challenged. Maybe the change you speak of - since Tip's time, the reinforcement of 'team' mentality, is the result of both parties' power play rule changes during their ruling administrations. The 'Nuclear' argument that every out-of-power party warns against?
GA" What's bad is that you support them blindly, even when you know you're not comfortable with it. That's what MAGA is. You've (generic) become the Left's MAGA." GA
That’s a lazy way to frame it, honestly. Grouping everyone who disagrees or questions the left into a “MAGA clone” is just another form of sitting on the sidelines dressed up as insight. It oversimplifies complex views into team colors, which is exactly what keeps real discussion from happening. I don’t follow anyone blindly, I weigh ideas, actions, and outcomes. There’s a big difference between supporting a movement because you believe it represents your principles and following something out of tribal loyalty. Calling people “the Left’s MAGA” is just a convenient way to avoid addressing the real issues or acknowledging that some of us simply reject the direction the left has taken.
There is right and wrong, and I have to ask: do you really feel that what we see from the left or Democrats respects American values as we understand them today? It’s not blind loyalty, it’s clarity about what aligns with our country’s founding principles and what doesn’t."There is right and wrong,"
No, no there actually isn't. And that's part of what makes America so greatSo, you actually caught GA with his nether regions impaled upon the fence he tries to straddle?
It is only your opinion as to what America values align with founding principles and those that do not. Many more of us bristle at the illegal turns of a reactionary right President and administration. Conservatives see the rightness of their cause as an absolute. there are many of us who hold a different opinion.
——
“blindly, I weigh ideas, actions, and outcomes. There’s a big difference between supporting a movement because you believe it represents your principles and following something out of tribal loyalty.’
What makes you think that your evaluation is flawless and the support of opposition is based on mere tribal loyalty?I’ve always respected GA’s comments, just as I respect yours. But I’ve changed over the past few years, seeing so many of my own values come under attack has made me more direct. Honestly, I’m just tired of it all.
I think it’s obvious that I tend to respect those who speak their minds and get involved. Being level-headed is great, until it turns into standing silent while everything around you starts to crumble.
You’re right that opinions vary, but not all opinions carry equal weight when it comes to aligning with the founding principles of this country. The Founders laid out a framework rooted in individual liberty, limited government, and the rule of law. When modern America drifts toward censorship, open borders, selective justice, or government overreach in every aspect of daily life, it’s not just a “different opinion”; it’s a departure from those foundational ideals.
You mention “illegal turns of a reactionary right President,” but that assumes the left’s overreach is somehow lawful, moral, or justified. Many of us see the opposite: agencies weaponized for political ends, constitutional limits ignored, and moral relativism celebrated as virtue. That’s not progress — it’s decay disguised as compassion.
As for “tribal loyalty,” that’s a convenient accusation used to dismiss conviction. There’s a difference between blindly following and holding fast to principles that built the nation. Supporting a movement that defends borders, free speech, and faith in the Constitution isn’t tribal — it’s patriotic.
You say you “weigh ideas, actions, and outcomes,” but so do we — we just reach different conclusions because we measure success by constitutional integrity, not ideological comfort. And if defending those enduring principles looks like “tribal loyalty” to you, maybe that says more about your detachment from them than about anyone else’s blindness.How on Earth could anyone view the actions of this regime as "limited government" LOL....
Yes, Sharlee, my values are under attack by the reactionary right, so we both have the same problem but on opposite sides of the coin.
There are even varied opinions on what aligns with what you speak of as founding principles, i focus on some while you focus on others. No need to be self righteous because we might think of our perspectives as absolutes, they are not. Almost half of the electorate did not see Trump and the Republicans as the keeper of the values you claim as sacrosanct.
I have more trouble with the rights “overreach” than that of the left, so what is the difference, besides one being your opinion and the other being mine?You have read enough of my comments to know what I stand for, is it really so unreasonable?
Saying one side is tribal while your side stands for bedrock principles is a bit arrogant in my opinion. There are few if any absolutes, conservatives are inherently stubborn in their failure to recognize that often times shades of gray can apply to any situation. Patriotism is also a relative idea, my love of country is not absolute. Jingoistic patriotism can also be defined as tribal in its own way.
You and your side are also clinging to ideology from a hard core right wing perspective even though you wont acknowledge it. Face it, there are two sides and one is simply juxtaposed relative to the other.Cred, I hear you, and I think there’s a lot of truth in what you’re saying. I get that we both feel our values are under attack, but the reality is, we’re just seeing the threats from opposite ends of the spectrum. I can agree that “founding principles” are a broad and sometimes flexible concept, and different people will naturally emphasize different aspects. You focus on some, I focus on others - it doesn’t make either of us inherently right or wrong.
That said, I’d push back a bit on the idea that there’s no difference between left and right overreach. I think where people draw the line depends on what they value most, and yes, that’s subjective, but it’s also fair to point out when one side’s actions feel like they go against the framework we consider important. That’s not necessarily being tribal, it’s defending the principles you believe in.
I get your point about absolutes and shades of gray. I don’t think patriotism is black and white either, and I agree that jingoism can look a lot like tribalism. But here’s the thing, acknowledging shades of gray doesn’t mean we abandon the principle entirely. You can still have a core set of beliefs while understanding that nuance exists.
I’d say both sides cling to ideology to some extent, even if we don’t admit it. Recognizing that doesn’t weaken your position, it just means we have to be honest about what we value and why. The challenge is figuring out where to draw lines when reality demands a choice, without letting “perfect” get in the way of action.But here’s the thing, acknowledging shades of gray doesn’t mean we abandon the principle entirely. You can still have a core set of beliefs while understanding that nuance exists.
————-
True, but that can be applied from my blue side as well, principles maintained in the face of acknowledging nuances.
We are in agreement as to your explanation, it is just that I come from the opposite direction.
This is true... the battle is for the soul of the nation... the direction it takes... for most of our lives it seemed we essentially all wanted the same thing... today that is not the case.
Whether or not we maintain a Sovereign Nation is at the top of this struggle.
For decades we have been moved down the road toward an International government ruling over all Nations...
There have always been problems to that... one being America and it's Constitution. That Free Speech.... and the 2nd Amendment.
Another being Borders and a controlled immigration and Citizen Rights only being for Citizens... rather than the Open Borders... migrants' rights trump native rights ideology that comes from this Globalist NWO agenda.
We are at war within... as to whether we will remain an independent Nation... with controlled borders... with Laws that are followed and enforced by the AGs, DAs, and Police forces sworn to uphold them.
Well damn, there go my 'Hard Right' credentials. Back on the fence where I started.
My labeling wasn't intended to be lazy, but as a strong Pres. Trump supporter, I can see how it read that way to you. Try this explanation.
Positively so, and because I must, let me plead the 'context' defense.
My responses were contextual to a timeline when Cred and I discussed issues of the time of the bipartisanship of the 'Tip O'Neill' era. The extremes of the issues now were unthinkable then.
The easiest example is the F-word, and it is analogous to almost any hot-button social issue of today. I still think as 'we' did back then: It is unthinkable that our president would, in response to an internationally broadcast press conference question, use the F-word as an answer. And, that our sage representatives cuss like sailors on national monument steps and platforms for national consumption—both sides. Or that a Cabinet Secretary couldn't define a woman in a Congressional hearing. Or ...
That was the perspective of extremism my use of MAGA was intended to convey. It was a label I knew he would understand as a label. That is my perspective of the Republican core-MAGA. Trying to turn biological reality into a life choice is a liberal example of the same extreme.
It isn't a matter of labeling anyone who disagrees; it is the labeling of extreme degrees of disagreement. Extrapolate that to almost any issue, toss in sychophantic support (or denial, and again, both sides), and you have the context of my use of the "MAGA" label.
The remainder of your comment, the reference to the complexities, and the defensive interjection of details (the 'what you dos') that weren't in my comment, read like you take it personally and that I defended the Left's idiocies. Both are wrong (although there are occasions ... ). Sometimes, oversimplification is the only way to have a discussion. Starting with the details only leads to arguments about the details instead of the 'complex issue itself.
That's not 'insight,' it's experience. And it's not coming from the sidelines (or fence), it's coming from the newly named Independent Lane. I'll grab whatever I think is good, from either side, regardless of its label. ;-)
GAGA, In my view, you can call it “Independent Lane” if you want, but that sounds more like a convenient refuge than conviction. You’re trying to thread the needle between taking a stand and keeping your distance, but in doing so, you’re proving exactly what frustrates so many Americans right now: this idea that sitting “on the fence” somehow makes you the voice of reason. It doesn’t. It just makes you hesitant to own a side when the issues actually matter.
You’re defending your use of “MAGA” as a contextual label, but that’s just intellectual camouflage. You can’t drop a loaded political term like that, with all its modern meaning, and then act shocked when people interpret it through today’s lens. If you truly meant it in some nostalgic “Tip O’Neill era” sense, then you may have lost touch with how language and politics have evolved. That’s not nuance — that’s evasion.
And invoking “both sides” for every moral and cultural breakdown doesn’t make the point balanced; it makes it blurry. The fact that leaders curse publicly or that gender has become politicized isn’t a partisan “symptom”; it’s a reflection of cultural fracture. But when you flatten those issues under the umbrella of “everyone’s extreme,” you rob the discussion of accountability.
You say you’ll “grab whatever is good from either side,” but that only means something if you’re willing to define what good looks like and stand behind it, not explain it away through “context” or nostalgia. At some point, you’ve got to stop talking about fences and start choosing what you’re actually standing for. Otherwise, it’s just polished fence-sitting dressed up as wisdom.Now you have me treading carefully. Your response reads, with a couple of changes, to be an example of what I have been saying. Overreaching is a historical worry for me.
With that caveat, and innocent intentions ...
I don't need a refuge, and I do have a side. My side. And I do take a stand. It's just that you don't think that's an option. You think there are only two possible 'real' sides, and the only legitimate stand is your side's stand.
Why would I see more than two choices, and you (or Cred) can't? Between the three of us, I lean more to your 'side' than I do to his, but I do agree with some of his side's objectives. That might be why I think there are more than two choices. Or, I've crossed the 'idiot' line.
Why can't you or Cred see more than two choices? More sane than I? More realistic or pragmatic? Or more restricted by team mandates?
I've heard this 'take a side' BS for 15 years here. I do have a side, it's just not yours or theirs. It never has been. I'll hold an ideology with you, but my politics are my own.
Maybe it's egotistical, but I don't think I've been trying to thread a needle all these years; I have been successfully doing it. I have a presumptive thought that even Cred might agree that my conservative ideology and 'Independent Lane' positions and core value discussions haven't changed much over the years.
For instance, I don't usually intend intellectual cleverness (camouflage), if it reads so to you, it is probably a failed politeness attempt. But of course I can drop a loaded political terms like Woke and MAGA without all the modern connotations they carry. I'm using them as descriptors, not as pejoratives or affirmations. They instantly serve their purpose every time, as they have done with you. Plus, I'm not throwing them out to random readers, I'm using them in discussions with folks that have heard this explanation for years in these forums. Your argument ignores that and looks for all the possible reasons my use of it was wrong.
Intellectual camouflage, Harrumpt, the only thing I need to hide is my snark. And I'm working on that.
Lost touch with the evolution of language and politics?
Damn Sharlee, my fingers froze. A dozen snarky explicatives were rushing to the keyboard when my good sense took over. Bless your heart, I can only hope to be as savvy as you someday.
Then I hit your close and knew I was lost.
GAYou say you’ve “successfully threaded the needle,” but from where I stand, that needle seems to have turned into a revolving door. I don’t doubt your independence or that your beliefs are your own, but consistency isn’t the same as clarity. Having “your own side” only carries meaning if it actually stands for something, not just apart from everything else.
You frame your independence as seeing more than two choices, and I respect that in theory. But too often, that kind of “see all sides” stance becomes a convenient way to stay comfortably above the fray. There’s a fine line between independence and indecision, and sometimes what looks like balance is really just avoidance dressed in reason.
As for your use of terms like MAGA or Woke, I know you see them as contextual shorthand. But let’s be honest, language doesn’t work in isolation. Those words carry modern freight whether we like it or not. To use them without acknowledging that weight isn’t nuance; it’s selective deafness. Words evolve, and pretending they haven’t is a form of self-editing that keeps a discussion safe, maybe too safe.
And I have to say, your closing line made me smile. You don’t usually go long, so the fact that you did tells me something. Maybe I struck a chord. So yes, I’ll take that as a small victory, not because I got your dander up, but because somewhere in the exchange, we might have nudged that needle you’ve been threading for years.
SharYes, you have a small victory because I'm bordering on being obstinate. So help me out with an example of revolving door principles or stands, or ideological inconsistencies that you have seen from me. If I'm gonna get gored, it might as well be over something specific. Or, pick an issue of your choice.
GAYou asked me for examples of revolving-door principles or inconsistencies, so I took you up on it and actually found a few.
When you said, “Well damn, there go my ‘Hard Right’ credentials. Back on the fence where I started,” that kind of sums it up. That’s not just self-awareness, it’s a shift. You’re literally admitting that you swing between positions, depending on where the conversation lands.
Then there’s your line about still thinking as “we did back then,” followed by calling out “both sides.” That’s another moment where you seem to move between nostalgia for traditional conservatism and frustration with modern extremes. I get it, times have changed, but it’s hard to tell where you actually plant your flag when your view keeps circling between eras.
Another example is your use of words like MAGA or Woke. You say they’re just descriptors and not meant with the modern connotations attached to them, but you also admit they “always serve their purpose.” That’s a contradiction right there; those words carry a charge no matter how you frame them, and I think you know that.
And finally, when you said, “I’ll grab whatever I think is good, from either side, regardless of its label,” that’s fair-minded, but it also reads as selective. It’s like standing in the middle of a revolving door, one minute leaning right, the next left, depending on which issue spins by.
None of that is an attack, by the way. I actually respect that you’re thinking things through instead of just towing a line. But you did ask for examples, and those three stood out as clear signs of ideological movement, or at least, a willingness to hop lanes when it suits the discussion.
I’ve followed you for years, and I think I’ve been fair with my assessment. This is just one small issue; you have so many other very positive ways you communicate. You’re articulate, thoughtful, and genuinely engaging. This one little inconsistency doesn’t overshadow the many great communication skills you bring to the table.. Are you perfect? No. But are you pretty darn close? Most likely. LOL
SharThis one can't be held back. I reread it, thought about it, and decided to give the devil some cooling-off time and come back in the morning.
--------------------------------------------------------
It didn't help; he just simmered all night. Sometimes it's earned.
' ... just one small issue, and Bless your heart, you have so many nice positive ways ...' 'It's just one little inconsistency...'
My ass. From someone who prides themselves on understanding nuance and the importance of context, your first 'find' was amazingly wrong. Even worse, in following replies, the "Hard Right" label was mentioned as a joke theme. Cred applied the label after I said otherwise, so I agreed with him; 'I didn't think so, but so be it.' In another exchange, I joked to Ken that I was 'challenging' something he said to get 'some brownie points to mitigate my Hard Right label,' I think there was a third poke at the label, but I didn't go back and look.
You follow all the threads, so surely you saw the context of my exchanges with Cred and Ken. And then you pick the finale, the "Well damn, there go my ‘Hard Right’ credentials" as a serious admission of true colors rather than a perfect ending to a string of sarcastic jabs. Geesh.
Look at the context of the exchange, the nuance of the words; it was all a joke. Even if you didn't see it then, take a second look. You, of all people, got it wrong. And you used a purposeful word choice in doing so. " ... it’s a shift ...," " ... admitting that you swing between positions," " ... where the conversation lands."
Your other two examples were also misses, but for different reasons. The "thinking as we did" part wasn't about vacillating between eras or bemoaning the change, or a nostalgic desire; it was a comparison to illustrate a measure of extreme, the measure that modern society's acceptance (your acceptance) that f-word-type obscenity is normalized for our president would be viewed as extreme, bordering on untrhinkable in O'Neill and Regan's time. Can you imagine Regan saying 'Tear down this f**king wall! There was no circling between eras, simply a vivid comparison to illustrate a point. Once again, the context and nuance you read were yours.
The labels, MAGA and Woke. This one is different. I am overconfident on this one. That's a worry. Here's a 'she said/he said' path where any misunderstandings will be easy to spot.
She says those labels come with connotations attached, whether I wanted them or not. I say you're right.
She says you can't ignore them. I say I certainly can ignore them. Talking about a peach doesn't mean you have to also talk about its pit and fuzz, too. The fact that folks bring along their pejorative connotations only needs addressing when the issue is about an aspect of Woke, not the concept. I addressed the concept as a label for efficiency, and it works every time. Instantly. The perjoratives are also instantly there, but my context and word choice speak to the concept, not the details. So, yes, they can be legitimately ignored if they're not part of the discussion. There's no need for a tangent arguing about a detail of a detail unless those details are the discussion. They're not, they're a diversion. Look at your experience with threads. Consider how often you have complained about a topic getting hijacked by tangents. See what I mean Jelly bean?
And then, the selectivity of picking by choice (from either side) is what choice is all about. It seems that team players don't have that choice. They ding it as inconsistency or avoidance, weakness, and lack of conviction. Even treasonous in some cases. Why? Why isn't making your own issue choice better than signing on to the team choice?
Of course it's selective. Why shouldn't it be?
Your 'revolving door' analogy does work in one sense: I'm fine with standing in the middle and being able to pass on the stuff I think is wrong and grab any stuff I think is right. But it does make me a poor team player.
Here's my escape hatch. If all that is wrong, it is because I really don't understand the criticism as I read it. I don't think so, but if I'm wrong, at least I'm bigly wrong.
GAIt wasn’t personal criticism — I was specifically addressing your comment. I’m not the type to dig through old posts; that’s just not me. Honestly, most of the time I don’t even read or jump in when I see the fellows having a long, lively conversation. So, I did not follow your conversation with Ken and Cred.
I can accept your explanation and give you the benefit of the doubt. That said, I think we might pick up on context a little differently. I felt like my honest compliments got overlooked, so maybe I should’ve just skipped the challenge and said, “You’re absolutely perfect.”
I really wanted to critique this latest comment in full, but I knew it would turn into a book! You made some solid points, though, and there are a few I could definitely debate. So new challenge?Yep, a book. You've already gotten more out of me in one post than I've posted in years.
I see your explanation. But, my reading of your reply was one of condensation. So it lit all the fuses.
No worries, there will be a next time.
GAHaha, wow, I hope I’m reading this right! From what I gather, you’re saying my post was kind of “a book” for you, and it sparked a lot of thoughts all at once - like I lit a few fuses without even trying. And even though it was a lot, you’re looking forward to more conversations down the road. Did I get that about right, or am I accidentally detonating the wrong fireworks?
Shar
P.S. You know I hardly ever bother you—so I think I’ve earned myself a little break, don’t you?Your "P.S." saved you. The little devil had his an estocada already loaded. But I stopped. Yep, you earned a break.
GASo you stopped short of the estocada? Wise move. Don’t forget Yo también tengo cuernos. However, I do believe I overstepped my bounds. Hey, maybe too quick to see red--- Friends?
Just to butt in where I am not needed...
I get what you are saying... and throughout most of America's history that you and I have enjoyed, that was a logical and prudent way of looking at it.
And like you... I have preferred to keep my options open rather than side with a Party.
In 2019... had the Democrats shown some growth and understanding toward American's concerns (IE - Controlled Borders, less business strangling regulations) and chosen a Nominee that represented a saner position (IE - Tulsi Gabbard) I would have supported the Democrats.
The Democrats instead chose the corrupt 45 year-DC-insider to be their front man (Biden) and went as hard Left as they could during his Administration... while fleecing America of trillions... and spending billions to bring in millions of migrants.
So now... there really is no fence for most people...
The choices have become so stark... so vastly different... there is little reason to try and leverage your vote.
You want Open Borders and mass migration required to be supported by the Global Compact on Migration... or you want the one President/Party who says F-that and shuts down mass migration and controls the border.
You want men pretending to be women to be accepted as normal or you don't.
You want Pedophilia to become legal or you don't.
You support DEI and Equity or you don't.
The two parties have vastly different agendas and plans for America.Jump in, it's a topic you and I have touched on, relative to comparing things to a pendulum swing.
Your points about 2019 sound right to me. I also think the fringe's initiatives (you named them often) during the Biden administration pushed too hard and too far, too fast.
But in the efforts to get that pendulum swing under control, the 'how' still matters. It's hard to judge the "how" in these issues because we don't know what is necessary. It's usually more than a yes or no 'whether you support DEI or not' choice, and it's usually more impactful than finally settling on a bathroom. It's a how do you achieve your choice question.
I don't support DEI as it is generally perceived during the Biden years, particularly when it involves administration-promoted or mandated discriminatory policies and practices. But I also don't support branding its promoters with a branding iron. So to speak. Unless it was necessary. What or who decides the necessity?
A juicier example would be the current ICE raids issue. It started with the highly publicized images of tattooed gang members walking in shackles up a military plane loading ramp. I thought that was a good thing, and I think most of America did too. Closing the border and getting rid of the worst of the worst.
But we're ending with highly publicized images of moms being dragged out of cars in school parking lots, parents thrown to the ground in front of their kids, priests shot with pepper balls for laughs, etc.
Was that necessary? The answer seems really obvious, hell no, it's morphed into thuggery. But, there was a but.
Was the visual message, the thuggery and commitment, sent to the world necessary? It's not an easy answer. For generations, the world has heard 'Come to America, the land of milk and honey,' and the last two generations have heard a second message, 'If you can make it to America, they'll have to let you in and give you whatever you need.'
Everyone has spoken about the 'Draw' or 'Magnet' issues that lure the poor. They wanted to send free money to pretend it would get through the corruption and help folks stay home and fight the 'push' factor.
Changing that second message is a big deal. Changing a gnerational belief is a big deal. But, removing the incentive of a freebie life is also a big deal. Is the thuggery necessary? Maybe.
I think it's thuggery and wrong, and I don't like it, but I don't think it's impossible that it is a very necessary step. So, I'm stuck. I have an opinion for me, but not one strong enough to share without knowing the 'necessary' answer. Some see that as avoidance or lack of conviction, I don't.
GAYou have a good point... a good mind for analyzing the deeper reasons for what is occurring, what is being shown... some of it may be for the messaging it sends to those foreigners who would consider coming... while some may be (perhaps even staged/fake) for political purposes and drumming up outrage.
Still these particulars aside... there is now a broken pendulum.
There are two sides... one is Nation State... Citizen Rights... Merit based... Moral Norms (Christian Morals and also Western Liberties) and for better or worse we have the Trump Administration championing them.
The other side is Open Borders... Rights for All (8 billion people)... Equity and DEI... the destruction of Norms be they moral, gender, or liberties.
Two completely different outlooks for society, for sovereignty, for liberty and justice.
This is no longer a pendulum swing... it is one side or the other... one future for America or the other.
This is what the alternative to Trump looks like today (and 2028):
This is the message
https://x.com/amuse/status/1982645657048604895
This is the cleaned up version for consumer consumption
https://x.com/AOC/status/1799095276382085488
AOC for president in 2028
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 29945.html
Understand... however excessive the current Administration may be... what will come under the next Democrat controlled government will not be like Biden's Administration... it will be far Left of that.
One only has to look to the UK (or Canada or France) to see where it will go:
Police Make 30 Arrests a Day for offensive online messaging (true figures are likely far higher)
https://freespeechunion.org/police-make … 3b97fa6688
Fact check: UK Police make 30 Arrests a day for "offensive messages"
https://factually.co/fact-checks/justic … sts-eb7196
UK police made 12,183 arrests across 37 police forces, which averages to approximately 33 arrests per day.
In the United Kingdom, gun ownership is considered a privilege, not a right, and access by the general public to firearms is subject to strict control measures. An oppressive government in the UK could never be successfully resisted by an armed populace.
America is the one place where the People are (were) in control of their government. The goal of the Democratic Party today is to lead us to a place where that is no longer the case and where the Constitution has been neutralized or bypassed.
The goal of the Republican Party is to resist that change, to maintain National sovereignty, and to represent the interests of American Citizens... not the NWO-Global/International Agenda. Well... one can hope it is.You offer a lot of points I agree with, and a lot where there is only a difference of degrees.`After hearing: 'This is the most important election of your life.,' every election all my life, this might be the time it is true. We don't need minor tinkerings and adjustments; we need a full turnaround (That's where you'll find those degrees of difference)
But the 'hows' matter. Considering the scale of change we're seeing, they matter even more so now. There is a right way, and Pres. Trump is using every valid tool he has, but being valid (legal?) doesn't make their use automatically right. What makes them right is the way they are used.
If I could answer that 'is that necessary' question, there might be a lot of that ain't rights' I'd throw at the Republicans' feet. Until then, I can't discount the possibility that they are necessary. Your characterizations and 'prophesies' aren't sounding as ... improbable, but I still think we have the time and tools to do it the right way.
2026 will tell us if the pendulum is broken. I don't think it is.
GAI think there are several things at play here that all come into the mix...
They are hard to calculate or quantify...
We are the richest nation in the world, our poor people living on Welfare and other government support live better than 98% of the rest of the world, they buy steak and lobster with their EBT cards... without producing one damned thing for it they can spend an entire lifetime living well.
This gives Americans a distorted view of reality that most never wake up from... those of us who serve in the military and travel to places like Somalia, Iraq, Syria, etc. and get to see how inhumane and dire life can really get do get a wake up call... but we are a small minority of Americans.
It is like the debate we had about Haitian migrants... because I had dealt with Haitians outside of America... I knew when President Trump commented that they were eating the ducks in the park and people's pets that was almost certainly a true statement. Heck, even in Korea when I was there (a country that was a heck of a lot better off than Haiti) they raised dogs to eat them... something Americans would find offensive to consider if mentioned.
Most Americans... most Western Nations... don't have a clue. Much of what I try to discuss in the forum thread "the inability to see what is right in front of us" touches on this.
The million Somalis that Sweden let in are not going to conform or be assimilated into that culture, they are going to isolate and multiply and recreate the same environmental existence they created in Somalia.
This is exactly what Europeans did hundreds of years ago when they massed in numbers anywhere as they colonized North America... nothing about humanity has changed.
If you bring in enough foreigners rather than assimilating to the new environment and culture they are in (within a generation or two) they will over-run the host society in geographic areas, and then in whole.
America's saving grace is that... until Biden wantonly brought in the worst humanity had to offer from across the globe (countries emptied out their jails and filled planes sending them here) ... the majority of the Hispanic population that came to America shared in its values... their backgrounds most often were Christian and industrious.
That is not what you are getting out of other parts of the world. And when the population becomes a high enough percentage of foreigners, you lose your cohesive society or ability to assimilate.
This is the goal of the NWO - Open Border - Globalist Agenda... to make America filled with enough non-Americans that there is no appreciation for the Rights and Freedoms we take for granted. This is the effort that the Democratic Party funded through USAID... billions doled out to NGOs and Non-Profits and the UN to support tens of millions of migrants to flood into the country, to be able to counter the rise of Nationalism and Citizen Rights that many Americans want to preserve.
I would have to write a book to flesh out the entirety of what is going on... but to sum up... the Democratic Party today is the Un-American party... the destroy the Nation State party... the Open Borders... recreate America and negate the Constitution party.
Along with all the other issues that Party now champions.
The Republicans are trying to restore America to Americans, retain freedom of speech and the second amendment which protects the first...
The two parties are totally opposite on the issues that matter most.
One side must ultimately destroy the extreme of the other... there is no room for compromise... there is no room for kid gloves... if the Republicans do not have the strength of will to do what needs to be done, when the Democrats return to power there will be a bloody revolution because they DO have the lunatics on the left willing to commit bloody murder to get their way... whether it looks like Russia's revolution or China's doesn't really matter.
That is what is at stake... most American's can't see that because they have never seen how horrible humanity can really get... I have, it won't be pretty.
We have an enemy within... they need to be treated as an enemy... using words like traitors, terrorists, and criminals and treating them as such.Do you really think EBT recipient can afford to gorge on steak and lobster? How about the rest of the story, Ken?
Budget limitations: The average monthly SNAP benefit is about \(\$4\) a day, which makes it difficult for many recipients to purchase expensive items like steak and lobster on a regular basis.
————-
I don’t have to travel extensively as you obviously have to already be familiar with man’s inhumanity to man.
The debate about Haitians eating their neighbors pets was bogus. Am I going to believe Trump or the mayor of the city in question and the Ohio governor saying that Trump and Vance were “full of it” creating unnecessary pandemonium for an entire community?
How many Americans were themselves coming from foreigners just a generation or two removed? I just see a mountain being made from a molehill.
A cohesive society does not mean that we all have to be clones of one another, we all should agree to abide by the English common law, the Constitution, accept capitalism as our economic system, outside of that, living within the geographic limits of the United States, should be enough.
We are looking at the mirror from two different directions, I see Trump and the Republicans as threat never before experience in the history of this republic.
We vote as to which course we ultimately take, the voter rules supreme and if the Republicans intercede on those basic principles, then there will be trouble in River City.And that is how I see the Democrats today... that Party is now controlled by the Leftist Progressive extreme, what we saw during the Biden Administration... Open Borders... the economic support for those millions of migrants... Lawlessness... DEI... was tame compared to what will come if the Democrats return to power with the Progressive Left at the helm.
As big of a threat to the Nation as anything seen in my lifetime.
I was trying to track down your post regarding this topic... but the one that referred to the messaging aspect of why these more outlandish acts were done.
I think another aspect of it is simply ...a few bad apples.
When you think about what we are in at the moment... Sort of a civil, civil war.... You will get bad actors... And you will get some deliberately bad acts instigated by others, intelligence gone wild...
It will likely get worse before it gets better... Some of the worst atrocities to occur came after the civil war by northern forces on an occupied south...
I do see how you believe 2026 will be a marker for which direction things will go...There probably is a 'bad apple' factor. Especially those who laugh about it. But it feels like the enforcement direction is being encouraged. There are too many separate incidents of abuse. So it's probably not all bad actors.
I think creating the counter message I mentioned is purposeful. If it's not, then the actions are as bad as they look. Tattooed gang members vs school moms, that's not accidental. It better be due to purposeful messaging, if not, the Left's descriptors are more accurate than the Right's—it's thuggery.
GA
"Is the thuggery necessary? Maybe."
What?! Oh hell no. Sorry, the idea is quite contrary to the core principles of democracy, antithetical to American values and constitutional principles.
"Thuggery". It's going to lead us to the second Civil War.Amen. I agree with you. It's been gnawing on me since it started. It (remember, this is specific to the ICE issue) does go against everything I think America stands for.
Think of all the tired 'last straw' lifeboat-type moral question scenarios we've all heard. They may be worn, but they're not wrong. A hell of a lot depends on the situation really being as dire as portrayed. If it is, then maybe the right answer is the necessary one.
I think things are critical enough to rate those "lifeboat" analogies. Hence the "maybe."
(this one's going to confuse the hell out of Sharlee, is it hard right or wishy-washy?)
GA
GA, In my view, you can call it “Independent Lane” if you want, but that sounds more like a convenient refuge than conviction. You’re trying to thread the needle between taking a stand and keeping your distance, but in doing so, you’re proving exactly what frustrates so many Americans right now: this idea that sitting “on the fence” somehow makes you the voice of reason. It doesn’t. It just makes you hesitant to own a side when the issues actually matter.
——-
I have it hand it to you, you sure know how to tell it like it is…….Cred, LOL, yes—many people in my world have told me, “You know how to tell it like you see it.” Some even add, “But do you have the right to do so?”
I get why some are upset, and I feel that both parties have morphed into versions that a lot of us might not even recognize anymore. I can see why someone might look back fondly on their Party of old, and feel tempted to step into the independent lane, thinking they can just take the best of both worlds. But here’s the thing: when it comes to voting, there’s no half-and-half option. You can’t cast a split vote. You still have to pick a side.
Maybe I bit off more than I can chew here, but what I really wanted to share is this: nostalgia is understandable, and it’s okay to be frustrated with how things have changed, but in my view, straddling the fence doesn’t give you more influence or clarity. If you truly care about shaping outcomes, you have to own a choice, even if it’s messy. That’s just the reality of participating in the system.
What ain’t right? Do you take issue with the material that i linked in my comment?
I don’t support anything blindly, i have only two courses available to take, and that of the Trumpers, conservatives, Republicans, is not the one that I can choose. There are many things that I am not comfortable with in my chosen party, but in my view the GOP alternatives and solutions are always worse, so i take the lesser of two evils because that is all I have.
Under whose authority are these time honored rules are to be challenged? Trump and his administration has taken an unfortunate trend since Tip O’Neill and exacerbated it beyond recognition and beyond the pale.That I fall into the 38% of Republicans is the part that 'ain't right.'
Hence the explanation: "You should remember from our earliest forum exchanges that I 'claim' (it's a Hard Right camoflauge tactic) to fall into the 75% of Independents that aren't MAGA supporters. Tsk. Tsk,"
How did you miss it? I know, you skipped it and went straight to your counter. Tsk. Tsk.
You're also wrong about having only two choices available. That restriction only applies to team players. Imagine the possible choices a league All-Star team might have.
GAIs there a third political party for me to align with GA? What is your great non-team player solution as how does any of it move the ball past the goal posts?
Yes, there is: Independent. They allow you to support whichever policy or politician you want. That's the direction to a solution; dilute the power of the political party extremists. Make us powerful enough to be needed.
*as a little poke ... surely you remember me making the same claim back in our 'O'Neill days when you kept telling me conservative moderates were fading relics. I think the future (2028) is looking bright for us. We will make a difference by then. The party votes will be so locked in that they will need our moderating effect (notice the use of moderating instead of changing).
GAWhy am I going to support a third party independent even if it clicked all the boxes that has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning? Why waste my vote, I want results, not making a adamant Political point. That sounds great but it is not happening now.
As for your future prediction, that remains to be seen. I believe it when i see it. Moderates out of sheer necessity are relics for either side these days.That you think you would be wasting your vote is the point.
That attitude is what got us here. It's not wasting your vote, it's owning it, and telling the 'Party' they have to earn it by your standards, not get it as the price of admission.
Here's an example that fits us: I'm fine with the LGB issue and the success it had. But I'm not fine with the 'TQIA+' part. From your past comments, I think that also describes you.
I could say anything I think is right, without any worries of peer (team) pressure. No worries about getting the side eye.
You have a team. You know your team's position. It's not yours; instead of standing with what you think, the best you can do — when pushed — is a grudging admission that you don't agree with 'that part.' Are you worried about the 'side-eye?'
Wait. That was a made-up position to be in. The point was about 'team influence' being a real thing, ie, the example. As Sharlee might note, it's a tribal thing.
GAthe polarization between the two parties in the system is so great, that from my point of view, I cannot afford to concede anything and risk the sheer danger of my adversaries coming to power.
The lesser of two evils, while probably the least courageous, is the only approach that can work right now.
Oh yes, there are aspects of my party’s promotions that I may take issue with, but I am not going to find an independent nor I am not voting against a party that otherwise supports 90 percent of my positions on things. I am not going to get everything that i want, people that support either party probably recognize that.
You can only take the position that you do when you consider both parties to be one and the same and it does not matter to you which one wins. My experience and background require me to be more selective.
Being “right” is not good enough, i have to win.
I don’t agree with your concept of tribal and team influence. Face it, GA, when the last time that you have seen a third or independent party actually come close to being successful at the presidential level for instance?Now there's a motto that's going to stick with you: "Being “right” is not good enough, i have to win."
That goes along with your stated belief that two wrongs can make a right, if it gets you what you want.
GA
The problem remains that I need to assure myself that other side does not get a foothold and make certain my vote reflects that rather than to go to a third party even if preferred, with no chance of winning.
You want assurances. Bless your heart. Where ya gonna get them?
GA
Cred, I completely disagree with that characterization. It’s unfair and intellectually lazy to suggest that conservatives have no principles or that we only care about power. Many of us support Trump not out of blind loyalty, but because we believe in restoring fairness, rebuilding American strength, and challenging a political system that has grown corrupt and dismissive of everyday citizens. To label that as “tyranny” is pure projection from a side that spent years pushing censorship, weaponizing agencies, and bending laws to target opponents.
I also have to call out the very last thing you said, suggesting that “death is the only way” Trump would relinquish power, is completely unacceptable. Statements like that are reckless, dangerous, and, in my view, a dog whistle reflecting how desperate some Democrats have become. To publicly imply or even joke about the death of a sitting or former president is beyond disrespectful; it undermines our political system and normalizes violence as a political tool. Demonizing Trump and his supporters while implying death as a solution says more about the desperation of his critics than it does about him.
Trump has operated within the bounds of the Constitution, and unlike what’s often claimed, he’s been more transparent about his goals and policies than most modern presidents. I strongly disagree with the idea that conservatives operate only on raw power; many of us genuinely believe in fairness, strong leadership, and protecting American interests. Our democracy should be about debate, principles, and accountability, not threats or fantasies of violence. And you know what? Republicans and conservatives don’t use language that promotes violence, in my view; that’s coming entirely from your side, from your elected officials down to those who cheer on their dog whistles.
Thank God there are still Americans who see through this and value strength, fairness, and integrity over political theater that is clearly fomenting violence.Many of us support Trump not out of blind loyalty, but because we believe in restoring fairness, rebuilding American strength, and challenging a political system that has grown corrupt and dismissive of everyday citizens
======
Perhaps, but many others including myself, do not see Trump in that light and those numbers are more than just a handful. What you consider unacceptable, with Trump usurping of power unto himself, riding over Congress and its responsibility, Trump turning himself into a monarch for life is not beyond possibility. I simply don’t believe that he would voluntarily leave office under his own volition. Thus, Death is a part of life and often times, it is the one and only thing that can make the slate clean. I made no reference to violence, people do die, regardless. The man is almost 80, do you think that he can live forever?
The Right accused Obama of wanting a third term, when he was no where the threat that Trump has been.
As I always say, there is a difference between lofty words and the actual view from ground level."Perhaps, but many others including myself, do not see Trump in that light and those numbers are more than just a handful." Cred
I can only share my perspective, which comes from extensive research. From what I see, your group represents a small minority of Americans. I pay close attention to social media and public discourse. I rely on human nature, and it has rarely steered me wrong. I appreciate you sharing your view, but in this case, there is absolutely no room for even a hint of agreement with what you wrote in your previous comment.
I have to be honest, your comment reads more fear-driven than serious. It feels like you are relying almost entirely on extreme hypotheticals and vivid, emotionally charged imagery to make a point, rather than engaging with facts or context. In my view, it reflects a mindset that processes politics primarily through fear, narrative, and ideology, assuming the worst at every turn.
Hey, in my view, that is slippery slope logic, “if this happens, something catastrophic could happen later”. It seems designed to provoke outrage, not thoughtful discussion. I also see the influence of echo chambers here; in some circles, repeating extreme hypotheticals can make them feel plausible even when they are wildly unlikely.
I think it’s important to separate genuine concern from dramatized "if comes". Painting worst-case scenarios as inevitable only stokes fear and undermines debate.I don’t know how “small” “my group” actually is except for the fact that Trump did not exactly win by a landslide. Something to include in your dogged research. Trump did not get 50 of the vote 49 vs 48 for Harris.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statist … tions/2024
—————-
“there is absolutely no room for even a hint of agreement with what you wrote in your previous comment.”
That is ok, I suspected as much and am not surprised.There are active efforts by Republicans in several states to redraw maps for partisan advantage, which could in turn help increase their power (and thus indirectly influence future presidential contests.
Donald Trump won 312 electoral votes, while Kamala Harris received 226.
He won with an overwhelming number of electoral votes, and that’s just a fact. In my view, Republicans aren’t only focused on maintaining that advantage, they’re actively working to expand it. If you pay attention to their efforts to register new voters, you might be surprised at how strategic and organized they’ve become. This is no longer the old party of stiff collars and pious speeches. Behind the scenes, they’ve become far more progressive and tactical in their approach to holding on to power.
I’d say they’ve got real fire in their bellies right now. From what I see, Republicans are energized and focused, while Democrats seem to be struggling to inspire with ideas that connect to most Americans. There’s a clear contrast in momentum.The electoral college gives the Republicans an advantage they don’t deserve when you consider how close the popular vote between and Harris and Trump was.
But, as i say we will fight fire with fire, and the new more radical less conciliatory Democrats that I support are prepared to create the bonfire.The Electoral College is part of the U.S. Constitution. Does that document only matter when it fits your narrative? It seems to me that it’s your side that struggles to accept America as she truly is. The reality is, most Americans still love this country for its traditions, freedoms, and the system that has kept it stable for over two centuries.
That’s something the Democrats should have learned by now: they’ve been betting on the wrong horse when it comes to understanding what drives the heart of this nation.
I would think you may want to consider, we have the military, and I think bonfires would not do much against a well-armed military. Just saying.I would rather we all be engulfed in flames than to allow a continued tyrannical activity by one side. I support the Electoral College only because it is Constitutionally mandated, but it shows how it always gives Republicans, the least popular candidates, an advantage that they otherwise do not deserve. We love America too, but not through your prism. Wrong horse, huh, a few more months of Trump will show many by the midterms that it is well advised to change horses in mid stream.
You can refer to the military as a threat, but the people that i support will not be intimidated by a tyrants rants and idle threats. So, I say, if necessary, bring it on, let loose the dogs of war. If that is what it must come to…..
I will see the entire sh-bang come down before i live in an America that has abandoned its creed.I think it has become clear what you support. If your group does not get it way, trample over the majority.
I also push back on a certain leftist mindset I see too often, the idea that anything goes if it suits their narrative, even when it goes against the majority or basic fairness. In my view, the left’s ideologies feel very foreign to traditional American values and to what this country was built on. There’s no real chance of ever selling those adverse ideas to the majority of Americans who still believe in hard work, freedom, and accountability. When you start justifying double standards or bending rules to fit an agenda, you lose credibility. Real leadership means standing on principle, not shifting your values every time the political winds change.
I love my country, too, and I want America to stay true to its founding creed, but burning everything down because you disagree hands the country to chaos, not to the cause you claim to protect. The Electoral College is part of the Constitution; if you think it’s unfair, change it the right way, through votes, amendments, and state action — not by cheering on intimidation. Democracy isn’t a contest won by who screams loudest or who threatens most; it’s won at the ballot box, in the courts, in legislatures, and through organizing communities. If you believe Republicans are wrong for the country, then get out and vote, recruit candidates, win local offices, and make the case persuasively. Promoting or celebrating violence corrodes the very freedoms you say you want to defend and makes reconciliation impossible. I’ll stand for strong, principled resistance, not for tearing the country apart. And I will respect the majority.Lol the founder's are rolling in their graves at the military occupations in cities...
Maga certainly doesn't represent anywhere near a majority in this country either.https://www.americanprogress.org/articl … wer-grabs/
I agree that the rule of the majority is the goal but that is only when we all stay within the guardrails of the Constitution and the rule of law, equal rights, one man, one vote, etc. My commitment can only be based on us all playing the game under the same rules. When we abandon those prescribed boundaries, the country becomes unrecognizable and my allegiance to it must now be in question.
You sound so much like a public service announcement. The “left’s” ideology BE IT just left of center or a magnitude further is embraced or at least seen as a viable alternative for half the nation according to the popular vote last fall. You need to check yourself if you cannot come to terms with the reality on the ground over the lofty ideals. The Pollyanna, ma and apple pie stuff does not resonate with me.
The violations of the Constitution processes as listed in the link are a real threat in my view, even though it may not be the case from your perch.
As i said if the country abandons those Constitutional prescriptions, then what it will become is not worth preserving.
When I speak of fire, i am saying that Trump will not be allowed to simply mandate states to change their apportioned congressional districts in Republican states, another unorthodox move, with out expecting Democrats to counter.
Yes, I am part of the resistance to all things Trump, since obviously he sees fit to ply excrement to me and our points of view from his imaginary jet plane. If he crosses the line in these critical areas he can expect resistance and you are seeing it now. His response will continue to undermine what it has meant to be American and serve as just that much more provocation for which will require a reaction. Newsome in California is just an example of resistance and there will be more.
I voted within a system that operates with protections and guardrails, regardless of which party won. I did not vote to destroy those protections, regardless of majority rule. Because it is perceived that Trump is out line, my ideal Democrats are not just sitting idly by and will challenge this at every point.
It is our “strong principled resistance” that may just end up tearing the country apart, that is the rub here."Yes, I am part of the resistance to all things Trump"
Then you are against a nation of laws that are enforced equally and everywhere? You are against secure borders, where people are checked and allowed in only under the law? You are against ending discrimination against ALL, not just your particular race or sex? You are against equal treatment of men and women in sports, or Title IX? You are against ending the war in Gaza? You are against fair trade practices, where the US participates on an equal footing?
Just a small portion of the things "All Trump" that "your side" has screamed about since day one as terrible, evil events fostered by Trump. Are you positive you are against everything Trump says and does?My sentiments exactly...
This was at the forefront of my mind for 4 years during the Biden Administration.
Merit and capability was discarded for DEI.
Women were told to step aside and 'deal with it' so that insane men could pretend to be women.
Equity replaced Equality
There was no "playing the same game under the same rules" with that Administration.
On top of wantonly provoking and then escalating a war with Russia...
Open Borders were considered 'under control' while taxpayer funds were doled out by the hundreds of billions to the UN and NGOs to help migrants get here and be supported... millions of them.
Trust me when I say... the dastardly evil you believe is being done upon America by the Trump Administration... was similarly felt by myself and millions of others during the Biden Administration (Obama's third term).
The two sides want a completely different America.
Irreconcilable differences... there will be no reconciliation."The two sides want a completely different America.
Irreconcilable differences... there will be no reconciliation." Ken
Yes, Ken, you hit the nail on the head. Do you see any kind of hope when you read a statement such as this?
Willowarbor wrote:
"There is right and wrong," Shar
"No, no, there actually isn't. And that's part of what makes America so great" WillowTrust me when I say... the dastardly evil you believe is being done upon America by the Trump Administration... was similarly felt by myself and millions of others during the Biden Administration (Obama's third term).
The two sides want a completely different America.
Irreconcilable differences... there will be no reconciliation.
————
My point exactly, we see the world and America through different lenses and I don’t really know if there can be any reconciliation between such diverse views and positions?I have come to the same conclusion.
I was perplexed by what I saw as a hardening extremism by you over the years.
I have had a long time to consider what the Biden Administration did, why, do research and delve into the various parties to it.
I think you were reflecting where your Party is willing to go... I don't think you are extreme, I think you are center of the Democratic Party today.
Like Gus often chides you, there are things about your Party you don't agree with... but you see the alternative as outright evil to be destroyed.
If the Right/Conservatives/Republicans do not match that intensity and determination, then your Party and all it represents will win.
It is simple as that.
There is no more reconciliation between the two possible.
Polar opposites are wanted for the country.
One "extreme" must win... the other must categorically be eliminated from our schools, our government, all positions of power.
Well said... represents the 'Leftist' mindset very well.
I would tweak it to what it says to me:
We will get our way, or we will do our best to destroy the whole nation, the entire world if need be.
Hence why I say, we must recognize the 'enemy within' and treat them as such.
Which is occurring... they seem far more relaxed about the pace this is occurring than I would be. ... but I figure this is due to them being aware of facts that I am not.
Back when I was in the know... as an example... I knew we were going to invade Iraq almost a year before the reasons for that invasion were given to the American people.
So... if there is going to be a declared war of any sort... this has already been decided and pieces on the chessboard are being moved into position for it... long before we will hear anything about the 5 Ws.Ken, tyranny and despotism is a form of slavery for the masses. What master is ever enamored by the one he or she enslaves?
I resist Trump and all the he has stood for, does that make the enemy within? All means political and legal should be used to dislodge him.
Our differences now are more stark then they have ever been.
Willow, I thought that you just might find this link of interest on Trump polling numbers…
https://www.economist.com/interactive/t … al-tracker
This might be of interest:
Yes, Hitler required his military, the Wehrmacht, and civil servants to swear a personal oath of loyalty to him, which replaced the previous oath to the German Constitution. Introduced in August 1934 after the death of President Hindenburg, this "Führer Oath" demanded "unconditional obedience" and required soldiers to be prepared to risk their lives for Hitler.
Before 1934: Soldiers swore loyalty to the German Constitution and the state.
After 1934: The oath was changed to swear an oath to Adolf Hitler personally.
Oath details: The new oath included phrases like "I swear by God this sacred oath" and "I will render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler".
Impact: The oath symbolized the "Nazification" of the military and was intended to increase personal loyalty to Hitler and prevent dissent. It was a legal requirement for all members of the armed forces.
Compared with this……
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is using a new metric for assessing people’s job performance at the Department of Health and Human Services: whether they “clearly and demonstrably support implementation” of President Donald Trump’s policy agenda.
Tens of thousands of HHS employees have to fulfill four “critical elements” for their annual performance reviews, which take place at the end of the fiscal year. One of those elements, “Faithful Support of Administration of the Law and the President’s Policies,” lays out how workers now have to essentially prove their loyalty to Trump’s policies.
As a former civil servant, my loyalty was to the Constitution and prescribed from that, the American people. It was never intended to be given to any one man or woman.
So, when have i ever seen Trumps loyalty oaths applied anytime in the past, by any previous President? What does this portend?Not close to the same thing.
"Administration of the Law and the President’s Policies"
Is exactly what everyone that falls under the Executive Office should be required to do. Common Sense.
Far different than swearing allegiance to one individual OVER the Constitution and the Law.So, why does he need such an oath, no one else before him needed it?
Cred, I have been doing a bit of looking around regarding this oath requirement. No luck--- do you have a source on where you found this new commitment?
Surely, here it is
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hhs-empl … fddfbaf88c
Here is more
Based on recent news reports, the Trump administration has implemented new performance evaluation criteria at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that effectively function as a loyalty test for civil servants.
This is not a formal loyalty oath but a change in how performance is measured, with success tied to supporting the President's policy agenda.
Key details on the new HHS requirements
Performance metrics: An HHS employee shared details of the new performance review criteria, which state that "faithful administration" of one's role requires "commitment to the principles of the Founding" and that senior professionals must "clearly and demonstrably support implementation of the President's policy priorities".
Political allegiance: While federal workers typically swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and serve the public, this new standard effectively ties job performance and evaluation to a demonstrated allegiance to the President's political agenda.
Controversial impact: The requirement has been criticized for politicizing the nonpartisan civil service. Federal employees told Yahoo News that the change is damaging to morale and creates a culture of fear.
Context of broader efforts
This change at HHS is part of a wider effort by President Trump and his allies to assert greater control over the federal workforce. Other related initiatives include:
Schedule F: An executive order proposed during the previous Trump administration, which he intends to re-issue, would reclassify certain federal employees as political appointees, making them easier to fire. This is seen as a way to replace career civil servants with loyalists.
Project 2025: A broader conservative initiative to prepare for a new administration that includes plans for staffing the government with individuals aligned with a conservative policy agenda.
"Loyalty tests": Reports have also emerged about vetting processes for potential political appointees and job seekers that include probing for loyalty to the "Make America Great Again" agenda.Deleted
From the article - "Tens of thousands of HHS employees have to fulfill four “critical elements' for their annual performance reviews, which take place at the end of the fiscal year. One of those elements, “Faithful Support of Administration of the Law and the President’s Policies,” lays out how workers now have to essentially prove their loyalty to Trump’s policies.
I don't see this as proving loyalty to anything but what the author carefully added, which looks to be factual - "Tens of thousands of HHS employees have to fulfill four 'critical elements' for their annual performance reviews, which take place at the end of the fiscal year. One of those elements, “Faithful Support of Administration of the Law and the President’s Policies. "
This part of the sentence is conjecture -- " lays out how workers now have to essentially prove their loyalty to Trump’s policies."
Man-- this kind of skewing murder context, and many can walk away believing the opposite of what this new rule is.
“lays out how workers now have to essentially prove their loyalty to Trump’s policies”
This moves from reporting to interpretation or opinion. It adds a layer of conjecture by framing the requirement as “proving loyalty,” which is not explicitly stated in the policy itself. Instead, the wording of the actual directive (“Faithful Support of Administration of the Law and the President’s Policies”) could reasonably be understood as emphasizing professional compliance with the administration’s lawful directives, something common in executive-branch agencies.
I think this is a problem we see all too often.
The HHS requirement of "Faithful Support of Administration of the Law and the President’s Policies" is a loyalty and performance standard imposed on certain political appointees (typically Schedule C employees) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
In brief:
Faithful execution of law: Appointees must impartially and diligently implement statutes, regulations, and court orders under HHS jurisdiction (e.g., Medicare, FDA approvals, public health programs), without personal bias or obstruction.
Support of the President’s policies: They are expected to actively advance the sitting administration’s official priorities and agenda (e.g., drug pricing reforms, pandemic response strategies, or reproductive health initiatives), provided those policies are lawful. Dissent or sabotage can lead to removal.
This is NOT a blanket gag rule; it allows private disagreement but requires public alignment and proactive implementation in official duties.
The President has executive authority over the unitary executive branch which is enforced via performance plans and at-will employment status.
In other words... this is EXACTLY the way it should be. Common Sense.The notice did not delineate certain categories of employees at HHs. Still, why does he need to do this, there have been plenty of Presidential agendas before without the loyalty oath requirement?
Because there are Lunatic Leftists... "Resistance"... that are attempting to thwart the Trump Administration rather than doing their jobs.
Leftist perspective = resisting the Trump Administration is good... doing your job while Trump is President is bad... trying to undermine the Trump Administration in your official position is good.
Hence... they need to be thrown out... fired... with extreme prejudice.There has always been civil servants that do not necessarily agree with the policies of the administration that they serve under, but they still do their jobs as prescribed and do not need loyalty oaths to do them.
Perspectives, left or right, has nothing to do with loyalty oaths, a despotic reaction to what has always been an understanding between the federal work force and the President.You keep sticking that word oath in there...
My statement regarding performance standard...
Faithful execution of law: Appointees must impartially and diligently implement statutes, regulations, and court orders under HHS jurisdiction (e.g., Medicare, FDA approvals, public health programs), without personal bias or obstruction.
Support of the President’s policies: They are expected to actively advance the sitting administration’s official priorities and agenda (e.g., drug pricing reforms, pandemic response strategies, or reproductive health initiatives), provided those policies are lawful. Dissent or sabotage can lead to removal.
Those who do not adhere to the performance standards set forth by the Trump Administration need to be fired with extreme prejudice as is the RIGHT of the President.
The President has executive authority over the unitary executive branch which is enforced via performance plans and at-will employment status.
Every... single... person... who acts as, or declares themselves as "resistance"... gone... fired... no reason other than that necessary.What does “dissent” mean? Can i do my job without having to agree with the policies, as long as I carry them out. I am sure glad that i am retired and have life beyond the clutches of this dictator.
At will employment status of just a reintroduction of the “spoils system”, 19th century, Trump takes us back to the future.
We will get rid of him and his corrupt approaches soon enough….."At will employment status of just a reintroduction of the “spoils system”, 19th century, Trump takes us back to the future."
You mean the future as in 2026, right? All fifty states are "at will employment", which means (with some limitations) people can be laid off at will.Exactly... funny how people try and twist things to mean something they do not.
A bit of trivia. Did you know that pot is legal in Maryland?
Anyway, I had another Duh! moment last night that turned into a morning coffee chuckle. You're the perfect tag.
Here's how it happened:
I'm finishing the evening on the back deck with a good cup of coffee and a good frame of mind. And I'm mulling over the exchanges of this thread. It was great, a discussion, not an argument. My conflict with that 'necessary' thing is real. (*damn, just now, another ephiphany, any Asimov fans?)
Two exchanges stuck out; mine with Willowarber about the "Maybe," and the ones with Sharlee. This stuff usually doesn't gnaw at me in a negative way, I just enjoy the process of figuring out if I'm really as right as I think I am on 'stands' (poke, poke (breaktime is over)) I take. With some, I go to bed mulling something, and it's usually top-of-mind when I wake up.
Despite Sharlee's charitable compliment, I've taken some really wrong and dumb stands over the years.
Anyway, that's when the Duh! hit me. 'You dummy. You're always harping on basics and concepts first, details second. And here you've spent hundreds of words ignoring your own advice. What a dummy. What are the basics? What is the conflict?'
Bingo! Heart vs. head. Reason vs. emotion.
That's as basic as it gets. Both sides have emotional support (including ideological) in one of the 'public images' aspects, but the right answer must be decided by the head aspect (too cryptic?). Everybody starts there. And heaven help the folks who want to argue that major decisions should be made based on emotion instead of reason.
But, (you know I always have one), after some lashes for being dumb, came a sweet affirmation that I was right. Right to think that the "Is that necessary?" question must be answered first. I'll take a stand then.
It always has been a head vs. heart issue.
Anyway, that had nothing to do with your comment, just a cute story I thought (based on the trend of our usual exchanges) you might relate to.
*For the Asimov reference: In the ending books of the The Foundation series, Gaia and the Foundation's Mentalists (opponents) join forces to allow/force Trever to decide the fate of humanity. Individuality or Collectively? Planet or Galaxy?
He does. But thinking (feeling) he made the right decision wasn't enough; he had to know why he made the decision. So Gaia and the Mentalists let him keep his super advanced Gaia-enhanced (AI) spaceship and their promised support, as he spent a couple books-worth of expeditions of discovery through the universe.
The kicker was the ending. He found his answer, and it worked for him. Head vs. Heart works for me. The reference just popped up, all by itself. Must have been the good guy on the other shoulder.
GA ;-)I agree... wrong or illegal action is one thing.
The coverage of it... the context given, may be lacking the who is it actually, what were they are accused of, the 5 Ws...
This is where I don't bother with the minutia... the one off situation... the one bad cop that the Leftwing loves to single out and then turn in to a reason for revolution... like the George Floyd scenario where activists and billionaires funded what essentially was an Orange Revolution type of scenario with full Media coverage making a mountain range out of a mole hill.
Fortunately... a good 60-75% of the population has become tone deaf to the Main Stream Media and all the Leftwing lunacy... they have been beating the Hitler - Fascist drum for over a decade... before and after the Pandemic Lockdowns and the insanity in Blue States in particular.
Americans haven't had a break from this nonsense... so they are probably a lot more like me... they don't care about one offs... they don't care about the one bad cop... they want Law... they want Order... they want a government that isn't forcing Men pretending to be women on them.
Don't know what is going to come... because what is going on in CA and NY today is the type of stuff that is seen right before a nation goes full-retard like Venezuela did.
But neither NY or CA are nations... so it makes one wonder... when will the Federal government be used to restore Law and Order to a state that is essentially ignoring or refusing to enforce Federal laws and EOs?
And if it doesn't occur now... will it be TX and FL that feel the weight of it against them as they refuse to accept the extreme Progressive politics that are likely to come during a Democrat Presidency?
Writing "long" is not indicative of intelligence. Actually, making the same point in fewer words is.
I found the document that started the stir regarding the rumor that one must sign an oath to Trump. I read the 30 pages, and here is what I felt it mainly shared
What the document factually does include
The memo states that hiring should be based on “merit, practical skill, and dedication to our Constitution.”
It directs recruitment of “individuals committed to … upholding the rule of law and the United States Constitution.”
It sets out new hiring reforms (essay questions for applicants, focus on “patriotic Americans,” etc.).
The memo addresses the hiring process for applicants; it does not mandate any “oaths" to be signed.
What the document does not appear to do
I found no explicit language in the memo that states “all federal workers must sign an oath of loyalty” or “new sworn oath required” as a condition of employment.
The memo is about hiring criteria and processes.
The term “oath” (in the sense of a new loyalty/pledge to a person) does not appear in the text of the memo.
It focuses on “how you will help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities”.
After reading the memo, I’m confident in saying that no, the May 29 2025 Merit Hiring Plan memo does not include a provision that requires federal employees or job applicants to sign a new loyalty oath (to the President or otherwise) based on the publicly available text.
https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/ … hatgpt.com
If anyone has a link that can confirm the rumor circulating is factual, I would very much appreciate it if yoy would share it.That is not how the left works... certainly not sources like Salon or the HuffPost. They make an accusation, typically false, and then move on to the next item to stir outrage.
That is the job of most American media these days... as false as the fabricated dossier used to try and frame Trump as a Russian Conspirator that they ran with.
Some people swallow that stream of crap hook, line and sinker.Are your sources or intuition any better, Ken? I doubt it. As long as Trump is in office, outrage can be expected as surely as a sunrise.
I have to agree, I’ve spent a lot of time looking into the “oath” rumor, and I really don’t understand why it circulated in the first place. There appears to be no truth to it at all. It’s frustrating how the media can spread stories with little or no factual basis. This feels very unfair to the Trump presidency. Even when solid information is presented, it often gets ignored. It has really become a strange phenomenon.
Look at the reaction Credence had to it... despite the facts he still chooses to believe the BS... he chooses to believe things like Trump will bring back slavery...
That is why.
They need as many Americans as they can to buy into all their BS... and as soon as one is debunked they have created 2 more to be outraged about... that way those people believe ANY action taken by the Leftist extreme is justifiable...
From assassinations to letting murderers walk free and all the other insanities the Left now supports... that is the sickness... that is the enemy within.
Credence is a great example... there is most likely a time when he would have been repulsed by the idea of pedophilia being accepted, of men pretending to be women being forced upon women to accept, of minors being mutilated and fed irreversible poisons that destroy their sex organs.
But "his side" supports those things... so as he has explained himself, these things are now acceptable compared to the alternative the Leftist media has convinced him Trump will bring into existence.For all practical purposes, Trump is bringing back slavery in every way with the exception of the actual practice. This, from a person who advocates declaring war on Greenland to take its sovereignty away against its will. Is that stuff from a credible person?
What about the nonsense of your reactionary right with the insane idea that a 34 count felony billionaire with a record like Trump can ever be a “man of the people”.
How do you know what Credence would be repulsed by? Why don’t you ask me first? I don’t care about all of this cross dressing stuff you endlessly harp about, when I am witnessing traditions and protocol prescribed by the Constitution and adhered to by previous Presidents shredding into confetti.
You put the same blanket on left leaning supporters that all the conservatives accuse me of saying that they all believe the same things and there really isn’t any daylight of a difference between or among any of you, but am I right?You’ve really captured the mindset that’s been created. It’s amazing how people can turn a blind eye to extreme policies or actions just because they’ve been convinced that the alternative is somehow worse. Credence is a perfect example of this, once the media paints something as an existential threat, people start rationalizing things they would have otherwise found completely unacceptable.
I also think this shows how dangerous it is when media and cultural forces manipulate fear. Once fear becomes the lens through which every decision is judged, even the most radical or harmful actions can start to feel “necessary” or justifiable. It’s like a slow erosion of common sense, and it affects all of us, not just the people being targeted with the messaging.Credence is a perfect example of this, once the media paints something as an existential threat, people start rationalizing things they would have otherwise found completely unacceptable.
Honestly, i can make the same observation regarding “your side”.Which is why I always stress... have for years now... UNPLUG FROM AMERICAN NEWS MEDIA...
First... there is no law that states News has to be fair, impartial or factual.
Second... In its Terms of Use, CNN describes its content as "presented for the purpose of providing entertainment, news and/or information."
With no FCC accreditation distinguishing "news" from "entertainment" for cable networks like CNN they can claim pretty much anything they want.
So... they cater to ideology (Political), companies (IE - Pfizer) and whatever they think will get them more views.
There is nothing forcing them to be factual or fair. There is plenty of incentive to fabricate and be hyperbolic.
If you are tuning in to echo-chamber sources daily... your head is filled with nonsense and your ability to think critically, your ability to come to conclusions based on facts and reality, is compromised.
It is OK to peak in when something of note happens... but whether you are watching FOX or CNN... reading Salon or the National Review... all of it is biased to one side or the other, and all of it is hiding truths that American media sources just do not cover.
So consuming it non-stop... watching it every day... reading it every day... its like putting your mind on Crack... with the resulting changes to your personality that drug would produce.“If you are tuning in to echo-chamber sources daily... your head is filled with nonsense and your ability to think critically, your ability to come to conclusions based on facts and reality, is compromised.”
And yet somehow your viewpoints and opinions are free of bias and are sacrosanct? Really? I wasnt born yesterday.I don't consume any source daily...
I don't trust any news source to be factual.
My biases are my own, not fed to me by the "news".
Ken, the media landscape today feels more like a business model built on outrage than an honest pursuit of truth. It’s amazing how many people don’t realize that these networks thrive on keeping viewers emotionally charged because that’s what keeps the ad dollars flowing. I unplugged from mainstream media a while ago, and it’s incredible how much clearer everything becomes when you step back and start comparing sources, even international ones. Once you see how differently the same event is reported elsewhere, it really exposes how slanted and manipulative American outlets have become.
Yup...
It literally is like quitting a drug...
And like a drug that you have been addicted to for a long period... it takes time for the mind to heal... for perspective and balance to return.
And like many drug addicts, there are those that don't believe they are addicted, there are those that think they can control it, there are those that think they can't live without it.
The only way to a clear mind is to quit... completely... cold turkey...
The two times I have watched "news" in the last two years was the Trump Assassination attempt and Election night.
It doesn't get turned on in my house... there are no "news" sources I rely on via the internet either. I do use Grok quite a bit these days... and even he is slanted towards trusting left leaning news sources, forget using Google or Bing... might as well just go to CNN for your facts.
I am not running or hiding, Sharlee.
Here is the result based on why Trump insists on bend knee and eternal loyalty. That is conditional and I do not give that to anyone. So, without saying it, Trump is preening the federal workforce to participation by only whites, since blacks generally do not support Trump and his agenda. Blacks have seen federal employment as providing equal opportunity and advancement never found in the private sector. I know what he is doing and I hold that against him and Republicans, as well. I wont forgive them for this “Wilsonian Retrenchment” on the principles of equality and merit based evaluation in employment. Are you required to be a MAGA Republican to be considered loyal to the President’s Agenda? So, i ask this question
‘The debate centers on whether federal employees' primary allegiance should be to the president's political agenda or to the U.S. Constitution and the apolitical principles of the civil service.”
————-
Trump has not required a new, separate oath, his reinstatement of "Schedule F" is part of a plan to ensure the loyalty of federal employees to the presidential agenda rather than the nonpartisan civil service.
———
Critics argue the goal is to make a larger portion of the federal workforce serve the president's interests instead of the public's.
Crucial point is with Trump it is guaranteed not to be one in the same
=========
Schedule F and the loyalty requirement
What it does: In October 2020, Trump signed an executive order creating "Schedule F," a new employment category for federal employees in "policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating" roles. In January 2025, his administration reinstated and amended this order, renaming the category to
"Schedule Policy/Career".
The goal: The reinstatement allows the administration to reclassify tens of thousands of career civil servants and strip them of their employment protections. They can then be fired more easily and replaced with individuals perceived as loyal to the president's agenda.
New patriotism tests: As part of this effort, a federal job-seeker testing process includes essay questions intended to measure an applicant's alignment with the president's priorities. One question asks how the applicant would "help advance the President's Executive Orders and policy priorities".
The justification: Proponents frame the policy as a way to increase accountability and improve government efficiency by removing poorly performing or "recalcitrant" officials.
Allegiance to the president vs. the Constitution
The debate centers on whether federal employees' primary allegiance should be to the president's political agenda or to the U.S. Constitution and the apolitical principles of the civil service.
Critics' view:
Opponents argue that Schedule F undermines the foundation of a nonpartisan civil service by turning career positions into political appointments based on allegiance to one person. They see loyalty tests and the threat of termination as hallmarks of authoritarianism.
(I do as well, man, do Republicans suck!!!)
Traditional view: Traditionally, the public service oath is a reminder that federal workers serve the public and Constitution, not a specific president or party.
Broader context: This action is part of a broader agenda, often associated with Project 2025, that aims to centralize control of the federal bureaucracy in the hands of the executive branch.I get why Schedule F (or Schedule Policy/Career) raises alarms — it does blur the line between career civil service and political priorities. I also understand the concern about how this could affect Black federal employees who have historically relied on civil service protections for opportunity and advancement that weren’t always available in the private sector. That’s a very real concern and worth watching.
I think some of the conclusions about race or loyalty tests might be overstated. From what I’ve seen, there’s no new oath, and the essay questions mostly apply to new applicants, not career employees already in their roles. Proponents frame this as improving accountability and efficiency, whether or not you agree, it’s not officially about excluding anyone by race or party.
I also think the broader debate is about balance: how do you make sure a president can implement the agenda voters elected them for without undermining the nonpartisan civil service? Sure, the risks of overreach are real, but there’s also a legitimate argument that some career bureaucrats resist implementing policies for political reasons, which can slow down government.
So while I agree the changes are concerning and need scrutiny, I’d argue the reality may not be quite as extreme as “loyalty to one party above all else”; it’s more about how much influence the executive should have over federal operations, and that’s a debate that can be had without immediately assuming racial or authoritarian intent.
One more bit of good news too good to pass on sharing:
House Oversight Committee just released a damning 100 page report deeming all Biden’s autopen actions NULL AND VOID
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1983153596779901140
Related Discussions
- 50
The Great American Divide: Gratitude vs. Bitterness
by Sharlee 76 minutes ago
There was once a time, not so long ago, when Americans disagreed over policy but shared a common love for country. That time has passed. Today, it feels as though we are not simply two parties or political factions, we are two different nations coexisting uneasily within the same borders. The...
- 17
The Right, Conservatives, Republicans prefer Autocracy over Democracy?
by Credence2 4 months ago
I find this topic most disturbing as it is a reflection of the goals and aspirations of the American Right wing movement. There is no such thing as it being "fringe" as Trump, Carlson and many Republican Senators avoided direct answers or said that the Orbanz authoritarian regime in...
- 40
Jan. 6 committee finalizes criminal referral plan for Trump
by Sharlee 2 years ago
December 18, 2022, 6:16 PMWASHINGTON — The House Jan. 6 committee met Sunday to finalize its plans to issue at least three criminal referrals for former President Donald Trump, NBC News has learned exclusively.The committee, gathering publicly Monday, is expected to vote on referrals asking the...
- 263
Why do people in America support authoritarians in 2022?
by Scott Belford 4 months ago
It is a given that politicians like Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis of Florida are authoritarians. In fact, they are wannabe dictators. Many millions of Americans have bought into their unAmerican, anti-democratic message and give full-throated support for their take-over of government...
- 73
Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities in Virginia
by Readmikenow 5 years ago
The liberals seem okay with “Sanctuary Cities” where they protect illegal aliens against federal law. It's time liberals realize two can play that game. Many counties and cities around the country declared themselves “2nd Amendment Sanctuaries.” These are places that refuse to follow...
- 135
Trump's Fitness for Office
by Willowarbor 5 days ago
Whether it be cognitive decline moral depravity, open corruption or blatant lies...put your examples, thoughts here.