It seems Tucker Carlson possibly does... And he goes even further...
And this Republican idiot seems to go even further into the crazy.
The Putin government hunts down Russian opponents and assassinates them where ever they live or travel. Are Conservative conspiracy theory believers really crazy enough to let Putin manipulate them into believing that the US Government does the same?
92 comments:
Putin uses cable tv tactics that don't even work on cable tv anymore.
--Hiram
Unfortunately I am pretty sure that folks like Jerry and my parents are eating it up... That is why Putin / Carlson is saying it... It is unfortunate...
It is not a far step for them to go from Jan 6 was just peaceful protestors going to visit their Reps, to one of them was assassinated by "the government".
No desire to play in this sandbox, but I think this shoots holes in your usual theory.
blame liberals
Jerry,
I agree that the Left has continued to move Left.
That does not excuse the Trump True Believer craziness.
Denying that Trump LOST the 2020 election
Down playing the Jan 6 insurrection at the Capitol
Comparing the US Law and Order system to Putin's system
Unfortunately many of the Romney voters of 2012 have lost their mind... :-(
That does not excuse the radical left craziness. 75 million people may have moved slightly right. 81 million have gone off the deep left end. Question: If someone commits a gross crime, like stealing an election, do the citizens have a right to object and seek justice?
Please describe "off the deep left end".
How can it be any worse than claiming that the USA's election system is fraudulent?
And then invading the US Capitol to disrupt the lawful actions of Congress.
And continuing to support "The Big Lie" even now.
Sorry but even BLM does not hold a candle stick to that kind of crazy...
And terribly destructive behavior.
I mean BLM wants to change things for the benefit of Black citizens by using the government.
Folks like yourself want to undermine faith in the US government, election system, judicial system, university systems, etc. That is some REALLY DANGEROUS stuff.
Ah, I see. We're all nuts because we happen to have witnessed, with our own eyes, the apparent outright theft of a Presidential election, and then demanded that our elected representatives take the constitutionally provided steps to correct that theft? Where in there do you find crazy? Is it akin to "defund the police" to curb crime? Is it ignoring the 99% of black-on-black murders to be concerned about a half-dozen white cop-on- black criminal deaths? And rioting, looting, and general mayhem in a "mostly peaceful" protest? The only really dangerous thing I see here is thinking like yours.
"How can it be any worse than claiming that the USA's election system is fraudulent?"
A) Because a claim, even a questionable one, is better than =widespread= murder and mayhem.
B) Because the system, especially in Minnesota, is set up to ENABLE widespread "voting irregularities." Calling it fraud is a deflection, since that is a specific legal crime requiring proof of intent. But when a candidate receives far more official votes than there are ballots to support that count, "improper voting" has taken place and the election result is, if not "fradulent," badly tainted and worthy of suspicion or even correction.
Jerry,
Your side is working to undermine the bed rock structure of our country, government and institutions through believing and spreading of unproven conspiracy theories.
That is pretty bad...
Without belief in our local, state and federal governments and courts, I am not sure where that leaves us as a country.
Some folks out there protesting the murder of unarmed black man by police officers seems more logical and less threatening.
Which is worse for "undermining the bed rock structure of our country," stealing an election, or NOTICING an election was stolen? "Unproven conspiracy theories"? I don't have to believe in a conspiracy to know that an election can be affected severely by a few bad actors, acting individually. And as we all know, absence of proof is not proof of absence. Until all of these allegations are proven wrong, despite the fits of nonsense spewed by those who do not WANT those allegations investigated, half of us are going to remain suspicious. THAT is pretty bad. Those who believe the election was all honest and beyond reproach have only to prove it. That they steadfastly refuse to do so, despite the MANY known opportunities for "improper voting," is what is damaging our trust in government.
Jerry,
The burden of proof rests on the people who think fraud occurred.
And so far that case has failed miserably...
Biden won by 4 states and 7+ million votes...
So yes it is your "tribe" working to destabilize our institutions.
It is very sad to see the GOP veer so far from supporting law and order. :-(
"The burden of proof rests on the people who think fraud occurred." How so? The massive amount of evidence already found but actively dismissed out of hand, is almost proof that something DID occur. The coverup constitutes proof.
Biden won by 136,000 votes in five states. Care to claim the election was 99.909% accurate?
And don't give me that "law and order" crap. If the election laws we have already on the books, weak as they are, are broken by the Democrats to corrupt the election system to their advantage, then who are the "law and order" people?
Jerry,
Trump won in 2016 by less, does that mean that he cheated? NO.
You can either respect the USA and its institutions...
or
You choose to work to undermine them...
It is unfortunate that you are choosing to erode faith in our country.
Sorry, but that logic is bogus. I want to respect the US and its "institutions," which is why I want to make sure that other people do not undermine them. You must be one of those people that claims the way to reduce crime is to make things legal. Right now, some 50% of the population doesn't believe the election result. Those who "won" claim they did so honestly and fight ANY attempt to prove it, one way or the other. You don't cover up the truth, like you do with a crime. Somebody KNOWS they cheated.
Jerry,
Actually it is ~32% of Americans, which pretty much is the number of Americans who thought Trump was an honest and productive leader.
The majority of Americans believe that the system worked. I mean the unpopular President LOST. I never understand why people think he would win? I mean he had like a ~40% approval rating in Nov...
And it amazes me that Republicans want to deny that they are just plain old unpopular lately. Having to rely on the Electoral College to win to barely win elections is embarrassing to me. :-O
Depends on who you ask and how you ask, and polls are not geared towards those who actually know stuff. That works both ways, of course. Point being that the number who are concerned is significant and should not be dismissed out-of-hand, as Democrats are doing. They should be HELPING work through the issues raised, not fighting to keep them from ever seeing daylight. Every criminal says "I'm innocent." Some of them should not be believed.
Look at the polarization of the electorate. It is a wonder that close elections are not /less/ determinant of the popular will, or how the "winners" should govern. No way Biden should be president, or doing what (at least to appearances) he is doing.
Jerry,
You are denying reality again.
Biden has a 52% approval rating vs Trump's 42%.
That again is why Biden WON.
It has been a LONG time since we allowed POLL TESTS...
Or are you promoting that we go back to only allowing certain people to vote?
I'm only saying that there is no rational explanation for Biden being at 52% approval or for his "winning" the election. His very rare public appearances couldn't draw flies, while Trump was packing stadia across the country. Yet he got more votes than Obama? He has put the lie to the (heavily pitched) assumption of being a "moderate" since day one.
I've always said that somewhere less than 10% of the population actually makes a considered vote on the issues, at least for candidates near the top of the ticket (something I consider a major failing of our system), and the rest vote on some other basis-- strict party loyalty or manipulation by the media, or both. Are you familiar with the term "yellow dog Democrat"? I don't want poll tests, but I do not think "voter participation" should be a point of pride, either. If you don't know what you are voting for, stay home.
And you keep insisting Biden won? Contrary to all predictions and expectations? Can you prove the election was untainted by some sort of chicanery?
Jerry,
Joe won because he was NOT Trump.
Millions of people like myself voted DEM for the first time in their life.
The idea of 4 more years of lies, political attacks, etc was unacceptable.
All that, to allow your personal delusions about Trump to be sustained. I guess some of us are a little more clear-eyed than "Orange man bad."
I voted Dem once. Biggest [voting] mistake I ever made. You may quickly find the same.
I am not sure if Trump is bad, but I sure know HE LIES TOO MUCH.
Something that folks like yourself seem to be willing to accept.
There you go again, assuming your judgment is universal. It's not.
And that being the case, you really need to justify voting for a corrupt, senile leftist, on the merits.
Jerry,
That is not my judgment...
That is the judgment of every fact checking group in America.
Lying is just what Trump does... Not sure why you close your eyes to it.
It puzzles me to this day how smart capable people seem to be mesmerized into brainless idiots when he speaks.
Yeah... "Biden wants to end pre-existing condition coverage Whatever you say King Donald"...
It is YOUR judgment, because you agree with all those lying fact-checkers. And that accusation does NOT excuse your vote for a corrupt, senile leftist.
Jerry,
If you want to deny reality and believe Trump, that is your choice.
This is America where we all are free to be delusional.
This one is a classic...
"Donald Trump
stated on March 17, 2020 in a White House news conference:
“I've always known this is a real, this is a pandemic. I've felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.”
"In a Feb. 2 interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Trump repeated the idea that transmission was unlikely.
"We pretty much shut it down coming in from China," he said. "We’re going to see what happens, but we did shut it down."
Trump also suggested that warmer weather in April would beat back the virus. As late as Feb. 24 and Feb. 25, Trump continued to paint a picture of a virus corralled.
He tweeted that the virus was "very much under control in the USA," and added "Stock Market starting to look very good to me!"
In India, he said "we have very few people with it," and they were getting better."
Or this classic...
On Feb. 26, when there were 15 reported cases of the novel coronavirus in the United States, President Trump predicted the number of cases would soon be “down to close to zero.”
Or this one...
"His proposal to erase the national debt was revealed in an interview with the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward during the 2016 presidential primaries.
Trump: “We’ve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt.”
Woodward: “How long would that take?”
Trump: “I think I could do it fairly quickly, because of the fact the numbers —”
Woodward: “What’s fairly quickly?”
Trump: “Well, I would say over a period of eight years.”
I am still waiting to hear a lie-- a deliberate attempt to deceive-- that justifies putting a corrupt, senile, radical leftist into the WH. Other than the ones told to PUT that corrupt, senile, radical leftist into the WH.
You really do not want to accept how terrible Trump was as a President... :-O
Well hopefully the GOP starts supporting honest sane transparent candidates like Romney, Kasich, Sasse, Cheney, etc before they lose too many voters.
And yes Biden is a moderate Democrat who is Left of center. Who did you expect the DEMs to nominate?
There you go again, assuming your blinkered assessment is universally held, and it is not. Do I need to remind you again of the long, long list of President Trump's positive accomplishments? Then you could go through and explain why Joe Biden (or whatever radical liberal is pulling his strings) seems determined to undo every last one of them.
Judging by the "Harris-Biden administration" so far, I expected them to nominate a radical "2 out of 10" liberal. Instead they pushed Biden forward as a moderate, knowing they could get most of their radical wish list out of the old fool.
Yes. Please share these...
"long, long list of President Trump's positive accomplishments?"
Record high deficits, record high national debt, 600,000 dead citizens, etc.
Now I know he got conservative judges installed, a slight modification to NAFTA adopted, and a big unnecessary tax cut passed.
What else did he accomplish other than writing a ton of executive orders that were likely never implemented, and easy to reverse?
Well, you could do a simple web search. I quickly found a list of the "top 25" and the complete list of 603.
And "easy to reverse" is a criticism? Being unable to get stuff through Congress, isn't that what Obama's "pen and phone" was for? And why should reversing them, as Biden has done indiscriminately, be a good idea? So much of the left is driven by raw Trump-hate, the nation be d**d.
I think you can summarize the top 10 for us if they were so important?
Trump was so useless and ineffective that he had more <a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders</a>Executive Orders per Year</a> than any President since Carter... How is that for a comparison? :-O
I think you can single out the top 10 for yourself. Out of 603, surely there is something of which you approve? Or are you so deep in Trump-hate that you must deny everything that 75 million other people saw?
Trump was ineffective? Then why 603 accomplishments? He was elected to do certain things and he did them. That it required EOs is more a measure of the depth of The Swamp than of the guy sent to drain it. And if EOs were the measure of failure, Biden is on track to vastly exceed Trump on that scale.
Apparently they are really useless and minor if you can not name them.
Only time will tell.
I have named them. They are on the internet, 603 of them, easily found. No need to copy them here. "Time will tell"? What the heck does that mean? Biden has already made a short career out of reversing some of Trump's most desirable EOs, and it has not made our lives better. And forgiving him because he's a senile old fool is NOT the way to run a country.
Again, Trump accomplished little.
There was an early surge in Biden EO's to undo Trump's...
Now we will see if it continues.
I think you bias is showing. Many of us agree that those 603 accomplishments were real and beneficial, and some of them significant. We believe those Biden has undone have made things worse. There IS a viewpoint other than yours.
Then just list 10 of these "Very Important" things that Trump accomplished.
He did pretty good at breaking things... Paris accord, Iran deal, Trans Pacific Partnership, NATO, etc... But man he was terrible when it came to making new agreements.
I knew you could do it if you tried. Some of his greatest accomplishments were getting us out of the Paris accords, the Iran deal, and TPP. Then improving NATO and creating the new USMCA. I might throw in creating the "Stay in Mexico" agreement, which Biden promptly "broke."
Again... USMCA / Tweaking NAFTA was the only real accomplishment.
The rest were just stopping / breaking things. Which is easy.
Breaking BAD things. That seems important, and if it was "easy" then why the huge pushback, and why Biden's rush to "unbreak" them? Again, there are viewpoints other than your own.
Because "there are different viewpoints than yours". :-)
OK, but should not a viewpoint different than mine be supported by something rational people might find compelling, rather than just "orange man bad" and therefore everything he did must be undone?
There is solid rationale for the reversals that have occurred, you just disagree with it.
And not everything has been reversed, just the illogical things.
Perhaps you can help me, then. WHAT, pray tell, is the "solid rationale" for Biden's EO reversals? I don't just disagree, I don't see it at all.
No point spending the time...
I would explain the rationale and you would deny it...
If you want to pick one example I may be tempted.
Reversing the "stay in Mexico" policy.
Halting the border wall.
Rejoining the Paris Accords.
Cancel the Keystone pipeline and green light the Russians'
"Stay in Mexico Policy" was likely illegal. Mexico was not a certified safe third nation.
The border wall was really expensive and easy to get around.
Since you do not believe humans are negatively impacting our environment... No point discussing.
Keystone is in our country and Trump had over ruled the courts. Biden through it back to where it was. Not sure why you think the USA should try to control Europe?
The Wall Is Not Working
More regarding Remain in Mexico Legality
Emperor Trump regarding Keystone Pipeline
1. "Stay in Mexico" was the correct legal action, since border crossing is illegal. International law requires asylum-seekers to seek it in the first country they enter. For most, that was Mexico, not the US.
2. The wall wasn't finished but where it was it was highly effective. Where it wasn't, Trump's other policy had illegal immigration down about 90%. Biden has it worse than ever. Great plan.
3. What I believe is that the Paris Accords will have at best a negligible effect on the climate. The IPCC and EPA models prove it, and the economic damage to the US would be substantial.
4. Keystone is now suing the Harris-Biden administration for $15B, and is likely going to prevail in court. If you claim Trump had no authority to approve it, then Biden had no authority to stop it. And Biden's reason-- climate--is silly. If the pipeline isn't built, trucks and trains will carry some of the oil here, while a pipeline sends the rest to the coast and to China. It's not like the oil will never be burned. It is "empty virtue signaling" that costs 10s of 1000s of US jobs and raises our gas prices. So if the US should not "control Europe," why is Biden approving their/Russia's pipeline? And doesn't that make a mockery of his "climate change" concerns?
1. I am not a lawyer, but if they are standing on the US side of the border... Then the US laws apply, which means they can not be sent back to an "non-approved" / "not safe" third country.
2. Proof that it was highly effective? My source showed that ladders, torches, catapults, drones, etc can defeat it easily.
3. We have 4% of the population and use 15% of the power. I think we have room for cost effective improvement. But since you deny man made climate change, of course you see no pay back.
4A. Actually Trump not having authority is an excellent reason for cancelling his over reach. If the cost of transport is higher, the oil sands may stay where they are... I keep wondering why they do not refine it there, so they can keep their pollution. The number of long term jobs was much lower.
4B. Biden is not approving the Russia pipeline. He is removing questionable sanctions. What would you think if the EU tried to sanction / stop a US project?
Border wall costs $20 Million per Mile.
1. Actually, they can only stay until their asylum claims (90% phony) are adjudicated, and unless they are from Mexico (where asylum is NOT a valid claim), US law should not be perverted to protect them. Instead, Biden is simply doing a catch-and-release, and paying tax dollars to drop these people all over the country, never to be heard from again.
2. Proof is that illegal immigration was down 80%. Combination of factors, all Trump, but the wall was one piece and should be bigger. Even bringing a ladder is more difficult than simply driving across.
3. Absolutely. And if somebody comes up with an energy source that is equally reliable and costs less, we will all happily use it. If it also emits less CO2 and you think that is important, we're happy for you. But the effect on climate is out in the third decimal place, according to the official climate models. Why you want to deny the actual science AND economics is beyond me.
4A. The cost of transport to the U.S. is higher than a pipeline (and less safe), but those tar sands WILL be mined and the oil burned, somewhere. Even if they weren't, again, effect on climate ~= zero.
4B. What would you think if Biden stopped the US from using oil to fight "climate change" but then enabled the EU to create climate change by using Russian oil? Besides, it is the EU that wants to eliminate fossil fuels. I sense hypocrisy here, somewhere.
1. Biden is following our law... For better or worse...
2. Remember that it also increased under Trump... And likely COVID had a lot to do with last years slow down. And probably a lot to do with this years increase as desperate people have nothing to lose.
3 & 4A. Only time will tell.
4B. If you read the sources I provided... Germany is shutting down their coal and nuclear, therefore they want natural gas for when renewables are not running.
And Biden "enabling"? You think the USA should control Europe like Trump was trying to do?
1. Tell me what law allows Biden to move illegal aliens, with no claim whatsoever to presence in the US, at taxpayer expense all over the country?
2. Increased under Trump until it went way down. And if COVID is the reason for the recent increase, we ought to ask why Biden is not checking ANY of these people for it, or for other diseases. And keeping them in confined spaces that he hides from the press.
3 and 4A. If "time will tell" then let us allow time to tell. So far, the alarmist predictions have failed miserably against the real data. Why are we rushing to do something very expensive, which not even our discredited climate models say will not matter?
4B. See previous. Why shut down nuclear if it is a CO2-free energy? When should truth and common sense enter into public policy
1. I always try to assume you are a compassionate "what would Jesus do" Christian. But sometimes you make it really hard. What would you do with the desperate kids and families on the border?
2. Proof please.
3. Proof please
4B. That is Germany's choice... Not the USA's.
A different thought.
So everything you listed was done via Executive Order / Powers.
Did he accomplish anything important in the way of long term policy improvements?
I mean he had control of the House and Senate for 2 years...
He must have made deals and passed laws? I just can't think of any other than reducing taxes, increasing spending, a bi-partisan crime bill, USMCA, ...
I thought his claim to fame was his ability to make deals?
1. First of all, you make every effort to keep them from coming. Work with Mexico on THEIR southern border (so the US can enforce international law). Work with Mexico to police their northern border and STOP encouraging Mexicans to cross illegally. Work with all the countries to improve economic and social conditions so people could stay where they are. We do them no favors "inviting" them here. We certainly do nobody any good by encouraging human and child and narco traffickers. Unfortunately, a strong border is the best deterrent to that misery. The less it is enforced, the more misery Biden creates.
2. Common knowledge, news stories.
3. Three parts here needing proof?
--A. Your assertion time will tell, yet we are madly rushing off to curb fossil fuels. Totally illogical, QED
--B. I've pointed you to Roy Spencer's OFFICIAL satellite-model chart several times. You've always denied the science.
--C. That the official climate models show little effect from manmade CO2. The rest is an arbitrary assumed increase, plus massive unknown "feedback." Your choice: believe me (I'll give you the numbers again on request), look it up, or do the math yourself.
4. You said Germany was making those stupid decisions to fight climate change, the same reason Biden used to shut down the pipeline. You have made a miserable attempt to rationalize Biden's policy. Try again.
1. Yes Biden / Harris are working with the source countries, where as Trump ignored that end of the problem. Why again would Mexico watch their Northern border?
2. "Common Knowledge"? Really :-)
3. Roy Spencer... Really...
Source Check
4. Nordstream is Europe / Germany's issue... Not sure why you think the USA / Trump should interfere?
1. So was Trump, to a greater degree. But you won't believe it.
2. Really.
3. Check your sources. The truth is not in them. The satellite data record is clear, and the predictions of the models are higher than the real data, at the 95% confidence level. Not only that, those predictions vary by a factor of at least 3:1, yet policies are being made based only on the top numbers, FAR from any reality. Believe me (numbers on request), look it up, or do the math yourself.
4. Not sure why you want the Europeans to burn fossil fuels and deny the US the same, both in the name of "climate change." It's at least logically inconsistent, with the US on the short end of that stick.
Well that is going no where... How about this?
A different thought.
So everything you listed was done via Executive Order / Powers.
Did he accomplish anything important in the way of long term policy improvements?
I mean he had control of the House and Senate for 2 years...
He must have made deals and passed laws? I just can't think of any other than reducing taxes, increasing spending, a bi-partisan crime bill, USMCA, ...
I thought his claim to fame was his ability to make deals?
The Art of the Deal includes being willing to walk away from a bad deal. Democrats were in serious obstruction mode, so only bad deals were on offer and the EO was the way to get it done in spite of outrageous opposition. Besides, many of those things were entirely within the purview of the Executive branch.
You don't really HAVE a different thought, it is all about denying that Trump did good things and defending Biden for furiously reversing them. All I am asking is for a RATIONAL explanation for Biden's actions. Not a legal one, but a sensible, rational defense. From what we can see, they have made "things" worse at every turn.
For 2 years he had the House and Senate. And I am not sure we want our President just walking away when he does not get his way? Though that did seem to be Trump Modus Operandi
I mean the GOP was in Obstruction mode with Obama and he still made some deals to move our nation forward.
I am not sure if helping the poor and desperate, and protecting the environment would necessarily be "making things" worse?
I think Trump did accomplish things as I said when this string started. I just think the bad overwhelmed the good.
"forward"? There's your far-left opinion again.
Please explain exactly how curbing our energy use arbitrarily to "reduce CO2" does ANYTHING for the environment. let alone the economy.
I've picked a few things Biden has done, but I am still waiting for that rational explanation for any one of them.
If you think I am "Far Left", your perception of reality is very skewed.
You always say such perceptions are based on "where you sit in the theater." You always say I sit far right, so.... And since I rate almost dead center on your chart....
As I also say... You can tell where you are by how many folks are to your right and left...
I disagree with many people on the Left and Right regularly.
How often do you find people more right than yourself?
On what topic?
Quite often, actually, depending on the issue. There are few fundamental disagreements, mostly a matter of degree, emphasis, and tactics. I tend to be very pragmatic, I think.
And on that basis I expect policy decisions to be made on some rational basis, something you have not offered for the Biden Presidency to date.
Yes, as I said. You see many more people as Liberals than I do...
Including myself... To which Sean, Laurie Moose and Hiram would insist I am a conservative.
And support Far Right Concepts and conspiracy theories, therefore you are on the Far Right. Which is fine as long as you can accept that truth.
I am curious if you are one of the Happy Americans like me who thinks this country is great the way it is?
Or one of those Unhappy Americans who thinks our country is terribly screwed up and needs to change massively?
Interesting phraseology. Conservatives by definition think the country is or was fine just as it always was, and liberals (especially "progressives" think we have to tear down the whole country and replace it Utopia.
I subscribe to the theory that modern liberals are screwing up the country, and conservatives need to stop them from doing it. Calling me "far right" is great for you, but based on the issues I am a dead-center moderate.
You can not be a dead center moderate if the majority of American citizens are to the Left of you.
Why are you resistant to admitting you are in the right quartile of American citizens?
Now the following is telling and concerning... Given our history of civil rights violations against minorities. Including making it hard for them to vote, limiting their choice of homes, limiting who they could marry, etc.
"Conservatives by definition think the country is or was fine just as it always was."
And "is fine" certainly is not correct. Conservatives want to go back in tax rates, women's rights, LGBT rights, pollution laws, voting rights, welfare programs, etc, etc, etc
Given our history of CORRECTING our civil rights violations, the country is FINE as it was, say, 20 years ago. Conservatives want to "go back" only because "progressives" keep wanting to push their weird ideas forward and down our throats. Progressives are the ones trying to RAISE taxes, erase women's rights (to compete in athletics), create LGBT rights (to sue bakers and florists who want religious rights), create pollution laws (crazily classifying CO2 as a pollutant), legalize voting rights for dead and non-existent and non-citizen voters, and to increase welfare with no accountability. So depending on how you phrase the issue, progressives are LESS than 50% of the people to my left. For example, 50% said they would be willing to spend less than $10/month to fight climate change, with 2/3 of those saying they would spend less that $1. So who is closer to center, me, or Joe Biden?
Jerry,
Stopping further movement to the Left is one thing, and I am fine with that.
However folks like yourself are not satisfied with that. :-(
You want to undo existing court rulings, make it harder to vote, cut taxes, cut spending, cut government services, limit abortions, cut pollution regs, etc.
Remember that your ideal government spending level would put us back in the 1950's...
Please stop telling me what I "want." I support court rulings that advance liberty and common sense, oppose others. I want it harder to RAISE taxes and raise spending. I think unnecessary government regulation should be eliminated where possible, abortion limited (per Roe v. Wade, at least), and that cutting manmade CO2 to alter the climate is foolishness on a grand scale.
And what was wrong with the 50s or 60s, other than civil rights (an improvement), free love, the war and the Great Society? Government spending does NOT necessarily (usually the opposite) create wealth--economic or social.
Back to the original topic, are you sure our modern socialists are different from Putin, in intent or fervor?
Putin is a dictator who works to consolidate wealth/power through lies, assassinations, etc.
He supports punishing minority groups in his country and manipulating the vote.
So he seems more like the GOP of late, than the socialists.
I mean the socialists want to protect everyone from everyone and everything with someone else's money. :-)
Trump was definitely wanted to be Putin Thankfully we have laws preventing it.
OK, where do you see Putin in that story? If States will not enforce the law, should not SOMEBODY (the Federal government being the obvious fallback) enforce the law, in defense of the people? Why are we issuing serious punishment to those who "trespassed" in the Capitol, for a couple hours, while not prosecuting anybody that burned down and looted whole stretches of Minneapolis, for days? Zero financial damage vs. over 1/2 billion $?
They have prosecuted arsonists from last Summer.
You would be okay if Biden ordered the US military into Conservative cities against the will of their local governments. Really?
Apparently 7 people died and hundreds were injured in those "couple of hours". As well as it was an act of insurrection. Seems a good reason to charge them.
insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
Would you really be okay if citizens broke into the Congress to disrupt / stop the legal certification of a Conservative President?
Their act was to UPHOLD the authority of the government, and I cannot find anywhere near the amount of damage, death and injury that even one night in Minneapolis created, WITHOUT a valid reason. You keep making false equivalencies as if they made perfect good sense, and then proposing equally ridiculous "what if" scenarios. Just prove to me that there was no significant "improper voting" in the 2020 election.
Yes you are officially delusional.
"Their act was to UPHOLD the authority of the government"
That is why they broke through barricades, harmed police, etc?
How many people do you think were killed or injured during months of protests in MN?
Again, the right of the people to assemble and demand their representatives follow the constitutional provisions. Disagree if you want. On the other hand, by what authority did BLM and Antifa destroy 1/2 billion dollars worth of downtown Minneapolis, and join in the killing of numerous innocents, not to mention touching off unprecedented death and mayhem over the following months. "In early June, news accounts reported the number of people killed during the Floyd protests at roughly a dozen, or as many as 19." Go ahead, justify that.
Or would you prefer Putin-style rule (not that the US has anything like it) rather than anarchy?
Jerry,
We have elected officials who were following the rule of law.
Support anarchists and insurrectionists if you wish, but you are losing all credibility as a supporter of law and order.
I am waiting for you to identify the dead and injured.
George Floyd Mpls Protests
Following the law, yes, one version of it. But election results tainted by fraud should not be certified. Those who believed there was massive fraud (and it is becoming more and more obvious) wanted proper procedure followed, rather than to allow a sham election. No "insurrection" in any sense, certainly not anarchy-- that is the BLM/Antifa people.
Dead and injured, total property damage, all a matter of public record, and it is unjustifiable on both sides. But it is not proportional, either. 1 day of riot at the Capitol, months of it in several major cities, including Minneapolis. count up the total deaths from anarchy, including "defund the police," and your comparison is ridiculous.
Continued at comment 4 over here
Post a Comment