A warning from Biden

[Laniakea]

Have you noticed how modern Democrats today have absolutely no objections or reservations whatsoever to have open socialists now counted among them as being one of them, eagerly accepted into their party with open arms.

You can certainly tell a leopard by Its spots as they say.

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.

 

[flowerpower]

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?

I don't know if it is so much about blame as it is that the west got really spoiled by the consequences of WW2 and that lasted well into the 90s before the affluence hit a rapid decline.

Now 2nd and even 3rd world countries want their share of the pie and it's making things very uncomfortable for us. It'll probably just keep getting worse too.

 

[The Hammer]

They also like the word "democratic":

"Algeria and Laos are officially named "People's Democratic Republic of Algeria" and "Lao People's Democratic Republic" respectively, while North Korea's official name is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"

Oops, found some more:

These include states no longer in existence or who have changed their governmental systems and official names, (almost all Marxist-Leninist):
the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), the Somali Democratic Republic,[11] the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam), the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (South Yemen), the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and the People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.[12]

States which (as of 2022) use the term "Democratic Republic" in their official names also include many that do not hold free elections and have been rated as "undemocratic" or "unfree" by organizations that gave such ratings. Algeria,[13] Democratic Republic of the Congo,[14] Ethiopia,[15] North Korea,[16] Laos,[17] Nepal,[17] and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic[citation needed] do not hold free elections and are rated as undemocratic "hybrid regimes" or "authoritarian regimes" by the Democracy Index (The Economist).[18]

It's done to confuse the pot on what real democracy and a republic is, both for their citizens, and to confuse outsider perspectives. It's purposeful. DPRK comes to mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

No, that was not name calling. Reread the post. You made a claim that was the same sort of nonsense that conspiracy theorists were spouting if I had accused you of being one then you might be able to claim that. Once again you are still not reasoning rationally. The minor changes in voting regulations did not increase the number of fraudulent votes. There was no evidence for that at all. That is why Trump lost all of his voter challenges in court.

LMAO! There is a ton of evidence. The ostrich defense does not work

 

[Father Heathen]

And that's all you got for a rallying point--from 3 years ago?

By comparison, we've got 2 escalating wars that began during the Biden regime, an unsecured southern border that has let in around 10,000,000 illegals from every country around the world along with deadly drugs that have killed tens of thousands of Americans, an Afghanistan surrender that put the Taliban back in power, an Iran that is about to have nukes, North Korea that already has 50 of them AND the ability to deliver them wherever they want, a Leftist public that has somehow become instantly anti-Jewish and pro-terrorist, and the best chance to see World War 3 by the end of this year.

But yeah, let's forget all that because....January 6th!

"Regime"? "Pro-terrorist"? I can't take this post seriously.

 

[exchemist]

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.

The threat is that the institutions necessary for sustaining democracy will come under attack if Trump is elected. That includes public trust in the independence of the judiciary and the voting process, freedom of the press and more than likely the two term rule for presidents. The international standing of the USA will also be greatly diminished if not destroyed.

 

[Twilight Hue]

"Regime"? "Pro-terrorist"? I can't take this post seriously.

I see clearly you don't like facts. Especially those facts presented by @Laniakea that are against your arguments.

I'd say regime and pro terrorist is spot on.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

A vast majority of the left is the most openly anti-Semitic administration I've ever seen. Its totally disgusting and a complete disgrace to this nation.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The threat is that the institutions necessary for sustaining democracy will come under attack if Trump is elected. That includes public trust in the independence of the judiciary and the voting process, freedom of the press and more than likely the two term rule for presidents. The international standing of the USA will also be greatly diminished if not destroyed.

Pfft....

Like removing political opponents from the ballot to get an advantage?

Talk about threats to this country.

 

[tytlyf]

A vast majority of the left is the most openly anti-Semitic administration I've ever seen. Its totally disgusting and a complete disgrace to this nation.

Incorrect. The anti-Jewish people are Republicans and their voters. Take congress for example.
There are 34 Jews in congress that are Democrats. Only 2 that are Republican. Republican voters are very anti-Semitic. Their conservative media also targets Jews and people like George Soros all the time.

34-2. Why do Republicans and conservatives hate Jews so much?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Incorrect. The anti-Jewish people are Republicans and their voters. Take congress for example.
There are 34 Jews in congress that are Democrats. Only 2 that are Republican. Republican voters are very anti-Semitic. Their conservative media also targets Jews and people like George Soros all the time.

34-2. Why do Republicans and conservatives hate Jews so much?

Link outdated (2017) but can't find more recent data, but it does show an interesting picture.

8. U.S. Jews’ political views

Pew Research Center surveys, including the 2020 study, show that Jews are among the most consistently liberal and Democratic groups in the U.S.

www.pewresearch.org

It should be noted however that Jews switch sides all the time , so you may have one where it's more left leaning, and another time it'll be more conservative towards the right.

American Jews in politics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You might be correct if you're using metrics but certainly not long term as religious affiliation and politics is all over the board.

 

[Father Heathen]

I see clearly you don't like facts. Especially those facts presented by @Laniakea that are against your arguments.

Okay, so what were my arguments?

I'd say regime and pro terrorist is spot on.

How is Biden even remotely despotic? And how is opposing the killing of civilians "anti Jewish" or "pro terrorist"?

 

[exchemist]

Pfft....

Like removing political opponents from the ballot to get an advantage?

Talk about threats to this country.

Removing criminals from eligibility, using due legal process, seems unobjectionable. But I suppose the issue with Trump is that he has yet to be convicted. They need to bring these numerous trials forward to resolve that, one way or the other, it seems to me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Removing criminals from eligibility, using due legal process, seems unobjectionable. But I suppose the issue with Trump is that he has yet to be convicted. They need to bring these numerous trials forward to resolve that, one way or the other, it seems to me.

Exactly. That's what it's all about.

Trump needs to have his day in court on the charge that is being used proper. He needs to be convicted first of a crime. Otherwise it's always innocent until proven guilty.

If guilty, then kick him from the ballot.

His trial is in March so there's plenty of time before the election to see if he's guilty or innocent of the crime.

 

[George Washington]

The threat is that the institutions necessary for sustaining democracy will come under attack if Trump is elected. That includes public trust in the independence of the judiciary and the voting process, freedom of the press and more than likely the two term rule for presidents. The international standing of the USA will also be greatly diminished if not destroyed.

So your argument is that Trump will re-write a new constitution for the United States if he is elected... Since everything you just scared us about is constitutional.

You should try writing novels.

 

[exchemist]

So your argument is that Trump will re-write a new constitution for the United States if he is elected... Since everything you just scared us about is constitutional.

You should try writing novels.

No, that is not so. Trump will continue the process he has been already heavily engaged in for several years, of destroying public trust in (i) the integrity of the voting process and (ii) the independence of the judicial system. You don't need to rewrite the Constitution to do that.

Trump has abundantly signalled his intention to exact retribution against those who have been critical of him. He has already said this will include political opponents, and has even suggested the former head of the US Armed Forces is guilty of treason. I consider it likely, given his previous form, that vendettas may extend to political commentators and media outlets unsympathetic to him. The Constitution gives little protection against that, as is shown by the experience of the McCarthy era in the US in the 1950s. The same, or similar, weapons can easily be deployed, Constitution notwithstanding.

My understanding is that the 2 term rule was only introduced into the Constitution in 1947 and that there have been several attempts already to repeal it. Trump has previously said he would like to see that set aside:

Donald Trump questioned presidential term limits on multiple occasions while in office, and in public remarks talked about serving beyond the limits of the 22nd Amendment. During an April 2019 White House event for the Wounded Warrior Project, he suggested he would remain president for 10 to 14 years.[31][32]

(From: Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

My expectation would be that, provided ill health or death does not intervene, Trump may well decide to try to change the Constitution so he can stand for further terms, as Putin has done. Or he might try to bypass its provisions in some way. Declaring a state of emergency is a popular route in other countries, where a would be autocrat wants to stay in office, but there may be other ways.

Your Constitution gives a lot less protection against autocracy than some people seem to think.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Okay, so what were my arguments?

How is Biden even remotely despotic? And how is opposing the killing of civilians "anti Jewish" or "pro terrorist"?

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.

I saw a few of those disgusting videos.

The amount of lives he destroyed with the **** he pulled in his earlier years is unfathomable.

The Truth in Sentencing trash from the 90s was unforgivable.

People will be suffering for decades to come because of the unmitigated damage he did to society back then.

It's funny because a lot of those videos have actually magically disappeared from YouTube and other sources since he was elected.

The fact that he postures as this knight in shining armor these days really annoys me. Trump is a dangerous lunatic and a piece of **** but at least he's honest about it - some days I actually wonder whether that actually makes him better than Biden as far as character goes - the two headed monster that the US political system is and all that. The exact reason why Trump (a Washington outsider) was elected in the first place is a direct consequence of Americans being totally fed up with politicians like Biden - some to the point where they were actually willing to sacrifice their own lives and freedom just to fight against it. It's a big deal - and it says a lot about where people are as far as US politics go.

That's why I really like AOC - young and doesn't seem too corrupted yet. She might be a little full of herself but that's par for the course in federal politics. There's a few like her - seems like an up and coming breed of politician. As much as I hate identity politics, I think a young female POTUS would be really good for the USA. Other western allies seemed to have benefitted from it over the last decade.

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.

 

[George Washington]

No, that is not so. Trump will continue the process he has been already heavily engaged in for several years, of destroying public trust in (i) the integrity of the voting process and (ii) the independence of the judicial system. You don't need to rewrite the Constitution to do that.

Trump has abundantly signalled his intention to exact retribution against those who have been critical of him. He has already said this will include political opponents, and has even suggested the former head of the US Armed Forces is guilty of treason. I consider it likely, given his previous form, that vendettas may extend to political commentators and media outlets unsympathetic to him. The Constitution gives little protection against that, as is shown by the experience of the McCarthy era in the US in the 1950s. The same, or similar, weapons can easily be deployed, Constitution notwithstanding.

My understanding is that the 2 term rule was only introduced into the Constitution in 1947 and that there have been several attempts already to repeal it. Trump has previously said he would like to see that set aside:

Donald Trump questioned presidential term limits on multiple occasions while in office, and in public remarks talked about serving beyond the limits of the 22nd Amendment. During an April 2019 White House event for the Wounded Warrior Project, he suggested he would remain president for 10 to 14 years.[31][32]

(From: Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

My expectation would be that, provided ill health or death does not intervene, Trump may well decide to try to change the Constitution so he can stand for further terms, as Putin has done. Or he might try to bypass its provisions in some way. Declaring a state of emergency is a popular route in other countries, where a would be autocrat wants to stay in office, but there may be other ways.

Your Constitution gives a lot less protection against autocracy than some people seem to think.

It's physically impossible for one man's vote to change the constitution of the United States, if a majority disagrees.

Your fear mongering is not reality based.

 

[exchemist]

It's physically impossible for one man's vote to change the constitution of the United States, if a majority disagrees.

Your fear mongering is not reality based.

The Constitution issue is only relevant to my point on the 2 term rule. And that can be overturned with control of Congress, or possibly by other means.

As I have explained, the other threats I mention are not mitigated by the Constitution. You have not addressed those.

 

[George Washington]

The Constitution issue is only relevant to my point on the 2 term rule. And that can be overturned with control of Congress, or possibly by other means.

As I have explained, the other threats I mention are not mitigated by the Constitution. You have not addressed those.

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

It looks like a scare tactic, but not based in reality.