A warning from Biden

[exchemist]

Nope, you mentioned "Freedom of the Press" which is protected by the 1st amendment of the constitution.

How does the Constitution prevent a president from having a hand-picked Attroney General mount prosecutions against individual political commentators or others with a media presence? How does it prevent the president himself from mounting costly civil lawsuits, e.g. for defamation, which commentators cannot afford to defend?

 

[George Washington]

How does the Constitution prevent a president from having a hand-picked Attroney General mount prosecutions against individual political commentators or others with a media presence? How does it prevent the president himself from mounting costly civil lawsuits, e.g. for defamation, which commentators cannot afford to defend?

Who wants to prevent those things? Are you suggesting Alex Jones should not have to pay the Sandy Hook families those millions of dollars he can't afford?

Jury orders conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to pay Sandy Hook families nearly $1 billion

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has been ordered to pay nearly $1 billion for the lies he spread about the Sandy Hook school massacre in 2012. Jones falsely claimed the attack was a hoax and accused a grieving parent of being an actor in the days after the murders. Attorney Jesse Gessin joined...

www.pbs.org

 

[exchemist]

Who wants to prevent those things? Are you suggesting Alex Jones should not have to pay the Sandy Hook families those millions of dollars he can't afford?

Jury orders conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to pay Sandy Hook families nearly $1 billion

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has been ordered to pay nearly $1 billion for the lies he spread about the Sandy Hook school massacre in 2012. Jones falsely claimed the attack was a hoax and accused a grieving parent of being an actor in the days after the murders. Attorney Jesse Gessin joined...

www.pbs.org

I'm just pointing out such methods can be used to persecute opponents in the media in order to stifle criticism, and that the Constitution does not prevent that from happening, even though it inhibits freedom of the press.

And you have yet to address the 2 most glaring threats I mentioned: the destruction of public trust in integrity of the voting system and of the justice system. In the end, holy documents don't keep a society democratic. Public institutions have to retain the trust of the public, whether that be law enforcement, the justice system, or the electoral process. Once that trust has been eroded away - and Trump has been working hard at it - you have the danger of mob rule - or rule by an autocrat who can make rules as he sees fit.

 

[George Washington]

I'm just pointing out such methods can be used to persecute opponents in the media in order to stifle criticism, and that the Constitution does not prevent that from happening, even though it inhibits freedom of the press.

And you have yet to address the 2 most glaring threats I mentioned: the destruction of public trust in integrity of the voting system and of the justice system. In the end, holy documents don't keep a society democratic. Public institutions have to retain the trust of the public, whether that be law enforcement, the justice system, or the electoral process. Once that trust has been eroded away - and Trump has been working hard at it - you have the danger of mob rule - or rule by an autocrat who can make rules as he sees fit.

That's why the courts throw out cases, and even penalize people for filing unjustified lawsuits.

These fears you seem to be promoting are not realistic.

 

[exchemist]

That's why the courts throw out cases, and even penalize people for filing unjustified lawsuits.

These fears you seem to be promoting are not realistic.

It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses to defend yourself. Many journalists, or other critics, will have neither the resources nor the psychological fortitude to engage, for months if not years, in a legal defence against batteries of expensive lawyers acting for someone like Trump. In the UK we now have a new legal principle being discussed, known as a SLAPP, which stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. This has become a recognised legal tactic by the rich and powerful, to snuff out investigations and criticism in the media. Details here: Factsheet: strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs)

The US Constitution does not prevent such practices.

More importantly, though, you have yet to engage with the points I have made about the two most glaring threats in my list.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'd say allowing the borders of this country to be overrun by foreigners with impunity is extremely destructive and despotic toward its actual citizens.

Assuming this was true, that would be anarchy, which is the opposite of despotic.

There's no question that the overlords of YouTube do not want anybody seeing Joe Biden as a senator. They just want to see him now as a lovable old man who cares about people.

Always with the convoluted, cockamamie conspiracy theories.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Assuming this was true, that would be anarchy, which is the opposite of despotic.

Always with the convoluted, cockamamie conspiracy theories.

No. Its despotic as in couldn't care less about the citizens but will support and protect foreigners better

Always as usual, continuing with the I'm so really dumb and need to ask the same stupid questions over time and time again.

 

[wellwisher]

The more I reflect on recent history, I can't help but wonder whether the USA has ever really been a democracy or even a "free country" whatever that means - both seem like rhetoric to me a lot more than usual these days.

"Affluent neo-imperialist state" seems more fitting to me. Everything else just seems like it's a smoke and mirror show.

I don't think we're witnessing a decay in democracy so much as we are experiencing a loss of affluence. People are really pissed off about it.

When America was founded it was a very large mostly undeveloped place, getting larger by the day. This was at a time when communication was local newspaper and snail mail, There was no TV, Radio, internet and social media like we have today. There was no welfare state, so everyone had to work to earn a living and survive; farming. There was no good way to get everyone together enough times to work as a Democracy. People had to work hard to live.

A Representative Republic was the best you could do in terms of those times and logistics. It reduced things to local people periodically choosing someone of like mind, based on town meetings and foot stomping. These would be send to Washington and hope for the best. It would occur in the fall with summer farming over.

Today, social media and the internet have taken care of the original logistics bottlenecks that once prevented a full Democracy. Today the Representatives are no longer for the people, but they serve themselves, seeing themselves as overlords instead of public servants; forced inflation recession.

It may be time to add a fourth branch of Government; Popular Branch. This branch would be the popular vote of the democracy, added onto what we already have, This branch would vote on issues and then the Representatives, as good public servants, would implement the will of the people. Right now this ideal is limited to a Convention involving 60% of the states, which is easily disrupted by partisan overlords, that divide the spoil, so it hard to break 50% vote. The Popular Branch will break that rigged stalemate so we can unleash Democracy within the Representative Republic.

I would include a proficiency and/or an objectivity test to vote in the Popular Branch. This is to help demonstrate objectivity to all sides of the issue, so the Democracy does not regresses into a two zombie armies of one eyed partisans. That is not Democracy. Democracy needs informed people with critical thinking skills or else the crooked representatives and the con artist propaganda would still be in charge. Representatives can also vote in the Popular Branch.

When the Constitution was written only property owners could vote. These had the largest stick in the fire, being tied down to the land, having things to lose and gain. Today we have a massive welfare state that is not exactly objective to the bigger picture due to self preservation and not enough self reliance. Today, the Democrat Party banks on inciting fear in such people so they cannot be objective. This tactic of triggering blind fear vote is easiest with the dependent classes.

One work around, which can still accommodate the dependency classes, is for the tax payers of the country; stick in the fire, within the Popular Branch, will set the budget. One way to do this is, at tax time, everyone who pays paid federal taxes will get an empty pie chart along with their tax filling. They will use the amount of money that they will pay in taxes, and proportion that amount on their pie chart. This defines how they wish their taxes to be spent. This is true Democracy.

We can also include a pie chart of the past year's expenditure breakdown, so they can see the trends and social needs of a previous year so adjustments can be made if need be. Lastly, we add up all the tax payers pie charts and give this giant pie chart, plus all the detail data, to the Representatives as a balanced budget; total tax revenue all allocated in democratic detail. If non tax payers also could vote of the budget, many would be adding to the debt, money that is not real. However, there will still be many charitable tax payers and corporations who will allocate for the needy.

To make the Government and Bureaucratic state more Democratic, we should set term limits for the leaders. Term limits should also apply to all government jobs. This latter allows more citizen to get those good paying government jobs; rotation of jobs to include more citizens. I would make government job term limits set to seven years, with each year, we turn over 1/7 of the jobs, to new people. This rotation also opens up pockets throughout the hierarchy, so the best of each seven year class, can climb the ladder.

 

[Father Heathen]

No. Its despotic as in couldn't care less about the citizens but will support and protect foreigners better

Always as usual, continuing with the I'm so really dumb and need to ask the same stupid questions over time and time again.

So is it "despotic" when a city fails to fill potholes? What's "really dumb" is ignoring actual definitions. Your accusations are examples of incompetence, not tyranny. I wouldn't be surprised if dictionaries were among the books that conservatives are trying to ban.

 

[George Washington]

More importantly, though, you have yet to engage with the points I have made about the two most glaring threats in my list.

Sorry, but I'm tired, bud. I've already jumped through a few hoops, you'll need to feed me a few peanuts or a banana first.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So is it "despotic" when a city fails to fill potholes? What's "really dumb" is ignoring actual definitions. Your accusations are examples of incompetence, not tyranny. I wouldn't be surprised if dictionaries were among the books that conservatives are trying to ban.

Potholes? Are you actually that desperate?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you even define that?

dictatorship​

noun​

dic·ta·tor·ship dik-ˈtā-tər-ˌship
ˈdik-ˌtā-

Synonyms of dictatorship
1: the office of dictator

2: autocratic rule, control, or leadership
people suffering under his dictatorship


3a: a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique
Communism and dictatorship

b: a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated
rising up against a military dictatorship

c: a despotic state

Definition of DICTATORSHIP

the office of dictator; autocratic rule, control, or leadership; a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[SkepticThinker]

The people he hires and advocates for (including VP) are based on skin color, and it shows. He's even admitted it openly when saying he wanted the next SCOTUS justice to be a black woman, and that his VP would be a black woman. Of course, his press secretary is a black woman. Oh well, he got his choices according to skin color, but not content of character. But who cares? After all, the important thing is January 6th, right?

Since we're defining words:

racism​

noun​

1: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2a: the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
specifically

b: a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles

Definition of RACISM

a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; also : behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Can you explain how your claims above show that Biden is racist?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh no! Name-calling! I guess you won this one!



Or maybe it just took democrats a long time to find anything they could use since they had no evidence.

There is so much evidence of Trump's crimes in public already. I can only imagine how much they have that we haven't even seen yet.

Perhaps you were thinking about the Republicans trying to impeach Biden based on absolutely zero evidence of any wrongdoing?

 

[SkepticThinker]

They might include them in the interest of "diversity", even though the fact that they can all comfortably exist under the same label (democrat) proves that there's really no difference between them at all. When "The Squad" members (democrats) can openly support Hamas terrorism while at the same time condemning our closest Middle-East ally, and then not be expelled from Congress, it's an indication that the party has allowed itself to be degraded for the sake of diversity and inclusion.

You sound like one of those people who seems to think that not blindly supporting every single action Israel takes against Palestinian civilians is the same thing as supporting Hamas. I hope that's not the case.

 

[Father Heathen]

Potholes? Are you actually that desperate?

What reeks of desperation are the straws you're grasping for.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What reeks of desperation are the straws you're grasping for.

Lol. Yea right.

 

[wellwisher]

I usually think of the adage that Trump puts out, which is actually quite good which is," Make America Great Again", but in retrospect, I wonder if we really did have a "great" period.

The only time I can think of prosperity was after World War II during the 50s and 60s, where industry was strong, and one income could support a whole family , and not to mention the patriarchal anmatriarchal roles contributed to rearing up healthy mentally stable children into mentally stable young adults. Government at that time had notable decorum and professionalism even though the disputes were pretty intense.

A lot has changed since with what comes across as an entirely new mentality of the American people, which certainly does not fit in with traditional roles that were once played out marking the difference between the disastrous results we see today and the stability we saw in the past.

Who's the blame for it all? Somebody? Everybody?

It has to do with Liberalism, Feminism and all the other Liberal shallow "isms and phobics". Up to that point above, we had a meritocracy; best team wins. The USA and the Allies beat two very solid teams; Japan and Germany, in WW2. It was not yet a rigged game, where something besides merit decided the outcome, like we have today; industrial complex and Viet Nam. The merit was strong on both sides of the war, but the best team won. After the war, the winner did not take over but rebuilt their rival for the needs of Democracy.

Liberalism opened the door to a downgrade in attitude away from merit. For example, there was little home owner default after WW2, since the surviving soldiers, who got homes via the VA bill, were trained to get any tough job done. That was part of male soldier's world at that time. Men could argue but still be on the same team; Team USA. They were each other's keeper. I remember it was OK for a neighbor to yell at you for screwing up. Often, they would not tell your parents, since they also liked you. It was a safe time and easy to stay on course.

Liberalism introduced emotional thinking where it was more about feeling instead of merit or common sense. Less common sense led to con artists games and scams, designed to manipulate the emotional thinkers, who lacked common sense and critical thinking skills. The result was a steady decline, such as the ever increasing national debt, due to less than qualified crooks in power, who were elected based one sentiment or fear, and not logic.

Biden is a disaster but since he is like a grandfather, he has to be forgiven; papa. Back after WW2, men in charge would see what was needed to win, and they knew had to work together; tough soldiers on the same team on battle day.

The breakdown of the nuclear family and undermining religion were both part of the Liberal led decline. Religion develops the conscience and character, which does not need Big Brother, but can self censor in freedom. The breakdown of the family led to an explosion in the need for social services; single parent families, and the rise of crime and drug addiction, with the soft on crime of liberalism making both of these problems worse and worse; feels right but was a disaster. Liberalism does not tech merit; self sufficiency, but stalls the poor at dependency, since it is scary and rigged out there; emotional thinkers. You are a victim so look over your shoulder, fear and hate.

To the Liberal propaganda, Trump is called the dictator. Name me something tangible that dictator Trump did from 2016-2020? After the Russian Collusion Coup failed did Dictator Trump pull a Biden and bring the herd of crooks to court? No. Biden and the Democrats were spying, infiltrated social media, like a dictator above the law, even before he was elected.

Democrats project to hide their behavior in plain sight. The emotional thinkers common to the Left lack critical skills to see this. Democrats know merit is not key anymore. It is more about fear mongering, lying and cheating, with all the dual standards learned from Liberalism, like two tier injustice and election tampering, and now using injustice to take out the lead candidate. This feels right? It is a dictator paradise.

We may need to get rid of the Department of Education and Liberal Propaganda, and replace it with old lessons of meritocracy. This may require getting rid of the Teacher's Unions since this is a contaminate. MAGA was about system restore to the 1950's, but with the systemic racism of the Democrats, created after losing the Civil War, gone for good. We are all on the same team. They are back to reverse racism and corruption, since they know no better; old habits and playbooks.

 

[metis]

I understand completely… but there is a big difference and wording is very important.

It's not a matter of difference because "democracy" is a general category whereas "republic" is a specific type of democracy. However, if you meant that "democracy" and "republic" are not synonymous, that is correct.

See this: Democracy - Wikipedia

 

[metis]

I am more concerned that we will not be a Constitutional Republic by the removing of a political opponent by the use of twisted legislation.

It's the courts that will likely decide this one way or the other based on the Constitution and what Trump allegedly has done.

However, with that being the case, one shouldn't ignore what he has repeatedly said he would do if reelected.