How Many People Think the Election was REALLY Stolen

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes, you are asleep in your bubble. That is evident in your toxic hate filled nightmares of an evil Putin loving orange monster and his covid coming to get us all.

My nightmares luckily are almost over, is it 29 days to go?

Just think in 1974, GOP Congressional leaders went to the WH to tell Nixon it was time to resign over Watergate.

Today, GOP leaders went to the WH to conspire with Trump to overturn a democratic election. From leaders to traitors.

The Republican Party is dead. All that remains is MAGA..............

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

My nightmares luckily are almost over, is it 29 days to go?

Just think in 1974, GOP Congressional leaders went to the WH to tell Nixon it was time to resign over Watergate.

Today, GOP leaders went to the WH to conspire with Trump to overturn a democratic election. From leaders to traitors.

The Republican Party is dead. All that remains is MAGA..............

Their intention is to preserve a democratic election. So long as they remain within the bounds of the Constitution, their intentions will be preserved.

Your nightmare is a false picture of reality. And reality won't end when your nightmare is over.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Their intention is to preserve a democratic election. So long as they remain within the bounds of the Constitution, their intentions will be preserved.

Your nightmare is a false picture of reality. And reality won't end when your nightmare is over.

Trump’s impeachment foreshadowed the damage he has wreaked in the six weeks since Biden beat him in the election and demonstrated his elevation of self over country, his willingness to subvert democracy, and the GOP’s refusal to constrain his behavior.

In his increasingly desperate bid to hang on to the White House, President Trump is reportedly contemplating invoking martial law to force the invalidation of the results of the election in four swing states, apparently inspired by remarks of the former and recently-pardoned National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. While we deem the chances that Trump will actually follow through with the attempt to spark a military coup between now and January 20th extremely low, Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen should be prepared for such a contingency and play out the legal and enforcement implications in advance. Shocking and unprecedented though it would be, Rosen should be ready to go so far as to order federal law enforcement officers to arrest anyone, including if necessary the president, who has conspired to carry out this illegal plan. Short of those steps, the Justice and Defense Departments should be ready to issue internal and public statements that the law clearly prohibits any such actions.

Senior U.S. Army officials felt the apparent need to issue a joint statement last week saying “there is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election.” This shows the dangerous place our country has reached due, in no small part, to extreme and erroneous views of the president’s Article II powers and immunity from criminal law.

* * *

Following Flynn’s public remarks, the idea of a military coup took shape in earnest last Friday, when the president met with Flynn and Flynn’s (and the Trump campaign’s) former lawyer, Sidney Powell, as well as with executive branch staff, to discuss various methods for overturning the results of the election, including the use of martial law. Trump reportedly asked Flynn to spell out his proposal during the meeting.

The legal vehicle the president would likely hope to use is the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law that allows the president to federalize the national guard in order to “suppress” an insurrection.

Last used in 1992 in response to unrest sparked by the Rodney King verdict, the Insurrection Act has never been invoked to overturn an election or to intervene in peaceful political events of any kind. Indeed, it has never been used in any context other than suppressing civil unrest. It was invoked in 1967 in response to the unrest following the death of Martin Luther King, and in 1957, 1962 and 1963 to help enforce civil rights laws in the face of local opposition to federal court orders requiring school integration. Ulysses S. Grant used it in 1871 to suppress the Ku Klux Klan, and it was used during the Civil War to impose a blockage of the ports of seven southern states. Only in rare instances has it been used against the wishes, and without the consent of, state and local officials. It has never been used to deny federal and state rights, such as the right to vote.

* * *

Any attempt to deploy the military to overturn the results of the 2020 election would violate multiple federal laws. First, it would violate the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law codifying the longstanding principle that the military may not engage in domestic law enforcement (18 U.S. Code 1385). The Insurrection Act is understood to provide a rare exception to posse comitatus, based on a civil emergency that requires the immediate restoration of law and order, conditions that would simply not be satisfied here, even if Trump’s allegations of election fraud were true. There are also specific laws designed to criminalize election interference by the military. Members of the Armed Forces, for example, who assist with the overthrow of a lawful election can be held criminally liable under 18 U.S. Code 593 and sentenced for up to five years imprisonment.

More significantly, a series of criminal provisions in federal law prohibits attempts to overthrow the lawful authority of federal and state government. These laws could subject Donald Trump, Michael Flynn, or others involved in such a plan to criminal charges much in the way that the 1861 firing on Fort Sumter by confederate forces after the election of Abraham Lincoln was criminal. 18 U.S. Code 2383 criminalizes “rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof.” 18 U.S. Code 2384 criminalizes “Seditious Conspiracy,” which prohibits two or more individuals by force “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States,” and 18 U.S. Code 2385 makes it a crime to “knowingly or willfully advocate[], abet[], advise[], or teach[] the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State … by force or violence,” with additional penalties for conspiring to do the same with another person. The participation of multiple individuals in such a plan would constitute a conspiracy under federal law, thus enhancing the penalties for any of the above acts performed in conjunction with others, with the exception of the crime of “seditious conspiracy,” which is already a collective offense. Several of these provisions not only provide for jail time but also preclude employment in the federal government following conviction, which among other things would prevent Trump from running for president again in 2024 and anyone who assisted him from holding any federal office.

But do “seditious conspiracy” and similar offenses apply to a sitting president? There is no telling what President Trump’s informal advisors apparently suggested. One can imagine that they would try to claim that sedition is not a crime if it is ordered by the president under his extensive Article II powers. And since he is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the military would be bound to obey.

This is wrong on all counts and, indeed, White House Counsel Pat A. Cipollone reportedly tried to push back by telling the president that proposals raised during the Friday meeting were not within his constitutional authority. But this is not simply about constitutional authority. It also involves military and criminal law.

First, all well-trained military personnel understand that the duty to follow orders is limited to legal orders. Under Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the duty of obedience to the chain of command does not apply to orders the recipient knows to be illegal Thus even if Donald Trump were to issue an illegal order to overturn a lawful election, that order could not be obeyed by the officers and enlisted men and women, whose primary duty is to defend and uphold the Constitution. Second, active duty as well as retired military officers would be subject to the UCMJ, and as such they could be held criminally liable for “mutiny” or “sedition” under 10 U.S. Code 894, a provision that is broader than its civilian counterpart. This would apply to Michael Flynn, who, as a retired officer, could be charged and subject to courts-martial under this provision. What is more, civilians could be held liable (under 10 U.S. Code 2) for aiding and abetting Flynn’s violation of the UCMJ.

But second, not even the president would have immunity under Article II from criminal prosecution were he to attempt to overthrow the results of the election. Under Trump v. Vance, decided by the Supreme Court in July of 2020, Trump was unable to assert presidential immunity to repel a criminal subpoena for financial records of the Trump organization sought by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance. At oral argument in the Second Circuit, the president’s lawyers had presented one of the most extreme interpretations of presidential powers ever offered in a court of law, namely that under his Article II constitutional authority, the president could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without being either investigated or indicted until after he had left office.

Following the Second Circuit’s rejection of this extreme appeal to immunity, the Supreme Court had no difficulty agreeing that the president would not be immune to criminal process, including investigations and subpoenas. The Court thereby sent the powerful message that no president is above the law. Like ordinary citizens, the president is subject to generally applicable criminal laws, both state and federal. Although the Supreme Court did not address whether a sitting president can be indicted, even the Office of Legal Counsel’s (OLC) opinions that a president should not be indicted while in office accept that he could be indicted and prosecuted immediately following the end of his term. Existing OLC opinions also recognize that a sitting president can be criminally investigated by the Justice Department. Indeed, that is precisely what Robert Mueller did. There are some extreme scenarios that surely would cause even the OLC to rethink its own preference for deferred prosecution; for example, if the president is in the course of carrying out an ongoing violent crime (shooting people on Fifth Avenue) or a military coup, he should be subject to arrest.

Still, an expansive vision of presidential powers under Article II has made dangerous inroads on our constitutional democracy, fueled by a legal fiction known as the theory of the “unitary executive.” This theory was originally a thesis about the president’s power to remove upper level executive branch officials, but it has broadened over the years to justify virtually limitless use of presidential power. As President Trump once put it, “I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Law Professor John Yoo and other Justice Department lawyers used unitary executive theory during the Bush Administration to justify torture in the face of federal criminal statutes and international treaties forbidding torture. William Barr, as a private lawyer before he became Trump’s Attorney General, auditioned for the job with a 19-page memo in 2018 arguing that the president is constitutionally incapable of committing the crime of obstruction of justice under Article II if he fires an FBI Director or federal prosecutor specifically in order to impede an ongoing criminal investigation, even one investigating himself. Special Counsel Robert Mueller took the opposite stance in Part II of the Mueller Report, where he provided a roadmap for a possible indictment of President Trump for obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation after he leaves office, though Mueller acknowledged that he was bound by the prevailing DOJ practice forbidding indictment of a sitting president.

In 2020, Trump called upon John Yoo for advice on how he could use his power as president under Article II to skirt Congress and impose his own policies on matters such as DACA, healthcare, tax policy, and criminal justice. The same thinking may have helped devise the convoluted legal excuse that nominally allowed the Attorney General to send federal agents into Portland to protect federal courthouses and monuments against protestors seeking to exercise their right to free speech under the First Amendment. One of us wrote against the invocation of the Insurrection Act then; still more does the idea shock and trouble us now. Clearly it is time for the Justice Department to rethink its policy prohibiting indictment of a sitting president. An overly expansive interpretation of presidential powers under Article II has misled one administration after another into thinking that the president is above the law, and our democracy has increasingly paid the price. Having reached the point that a sitting president is seriously contemplating using the military to overturn an election, it should be clear that we need to rethink our approach to presidential power. The Court’s decision in Trump v. Vance, which tells us that no president is above the law, shows us where to begin.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump’s impeachment foreshadowed the damage he has wreaked in the six weeks since Biden beat him in the election and demonstrated his elevation of self over country, his willingness to subvert democracy, and the GOP’s refusal to constrain his behavior . . .

The Court’s decision in Trump v. Vance, which tells us that no president is above the law, shows us where to begin.

This is a long conjectural, speculative, exposition of possibilities and interpretations with the chance that it may all come to fruition being, as mentioned in the second paragraph, "extremely low." It is all based on the notion that there is an attempt to subvert the Constitution rather than an attempt to preserve it.

This paragraph from your post is interesting: Still, an expansive vision of presidential powers under Article II has made dangerous inroads on our constitutional democracy, fueled by a legal fiction known as the theory of the “unitary executive.” This theory was originally a thesis about the president’s power to remove upper level executive branch officials, but it has broadened over the years to justify virtually limitless use of presidential power. As President Trump once put it, “I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president.”


I don't know why the author considers the "unitary executive" to be a fiction. It was debated in the Constitutional Convention and decided that rather than having more than one executive it would be better to have only one. From Wiki:

In 1788, the letters of the Federal Farmer were published, generally considered among the most astute of Anti-Federalist writings. The pseudonymous Federal Farmer defended the proposed unitary executive, arguing that "a single man seems to be peculiarly well circumstanced to superintend the execution of laws with discernment and decision, with promptitude and uniformity."

Meanwhile, Federalists such as James Madison were emphasizing an additional advantage of a unitary executive. In Federalist No. 51, he wrote that an undivided executive would strengthen the ability of the executive to resist encroachments by the legislature: "As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided [into branches], the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified." Alexander Hamilton later pointed out that the Constitution grants executive power and legislative power in different ways, with the legislative powers of Congress being expressly limited to what is "herein granted," unlike executive powers which are not expressly limited by an enumeration. Hamilton wrote: In the article which gives the legislative powers of the government, the expressions are "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States." In that which grants the executive power, the expressions are "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States." The enumeration ought therefore to be considered, as intended merely to specify the principal articles implied in the definition of executive power. ...

So, Trump's simplistically artless "I have the right to do whatever I want as president” is a crude iteration of a President having the power to do whatever Article II says he can do as President.

And, so far, he has not abandoned the Constitution--except in your obsessive nightmare. But the growth of Presidential power, along with the expanded power of the whole central government, has long preceded Trump. And it has been a deliberate expansion toward the Progressive administrative state. Which is not constitutional.

[Pete F.]

"The left-wing outrage is predictably over the top. The request here is simple: bring a case before the Supreme Court that would end both democracy and federalism for all time. Why is everyone so mad?"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

"The left-wing outrage is predictably over the top. The request here is simple: bring a case before the Supreme Court that would end both democracy and federalism for all time. Why is everyone so mad?"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's not going to happen. "The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters"

[Pete F.]

Noted Rino Karl Rove called the advice given to Trump by the lawyer and the former national security adviser "idiotic" and "unbelievable."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Noted Rino Karl Rove called the advice given to Trump by the lawyer and the former national security adviser "idiotic" and "unbelievable."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good for swampman Rove. He gets a lot of things right. But remember, you don't think Trump listens to his lawyers and advisers. So you needn't obsess on your orange monster nightmare . . . unless its actually a pleasant dream.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Good for swampman Rove. He gets a lot of things right. But remember, you don't think Trump listens to his lawyers and advisers. So you needn't obsess on your orange monster nightmare . . . unless its actually a pleasant dream.

No, I think Tweety listens to those who parrot what he wants to hear, Rudy, Powell, Flynn and drives those that insist he follow the rule of law out.
Because it’s simple. You cannot honor your oath to uphold the constitution, even at the margins and simultaneously serve Tweety.

They’re mutually exclusive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

I saw that rove promptly branded a Rino for not being subservient to Trump and declaring total loyalty.. trump wants to be Kim Jong UN or his father add his name to anything below and its not to far off from what Trump and his supporters think already

North Korea claims that its leader Kim Jong-un is "too perfect to need to urinate or defecate" well we know Trumps full of #^&#^&#^&#^&

.
His trademark haircut is reportedly one of 28 approved cuts for men in North Korea

KIM COULD DRIVE BY AGE THREE

EVERYONE IN NORTH KOREA VOTED FOR HIM (LITERALLY) North America

Not one person voted against Kim Jong-un in his first electoral test - and EVERYBODY voted. 2nd electoral test for Trump

Kim Jong-il also had the best golfing record in history Kim Jong-il had scored five holes-in-one,

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I saw that rove promptly branded a Rino for not being subservient to Trump

,

keep a close eye on those right wing websites and please keep us informed as to what they are up to over there

[Pete F.]

The latest achievement the rightwing’s claiming for Tweety.

Only 4 presidents have been impeached or resigned. Only 5 presidents failed to win the popular vote. Only 13 presidents failed to get re-elected. Only 1 has done all 3!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No, I think Tweety listens to those who parrot what he wants to hear, Rudy, Powell, Flynn and drives those that insist he follow the rule of law out.
Because it’s simple. You cannot honor your oath to uphold the constitution, even at the margins and simultaneously serve Tweety.

They’re mutually exclusive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, so he does listen to his advisers. Naughty, naughty . . . you were fibbing about this for four years.

And he has been following the rule of law, as it has become under Progressive "evolution", all along. He has not disobeyed the courts if they determine that he is wrong about something (those decisions being mostly split) until he gets it right.

See, you're making it about Trump, which leads down the rabbit hole of personal animosity being applied to legal procedure. The degree of how "authoritarian" his personality is only becomes a threat if the system under which he operates is, in itself, authoritarian. We have had many, if not all, Presidents who have had authoritarian personalities to some degree. Some, who have been labeled "great," have been as, or more, authoritarian in nature than Trump, such as Jackson, Roosevelt (both), and LBJ. Some, mostly Democrats, have actually defied the Court and abandoned the Constitution.

It has been the Progressive orientation of politicians in concert with their Progressive cohort in the Courts that have brought about conditions in our governmental system that allow for a continuing degradation of the Constitution. The original Progressives even openly stated that the Constitution is an obstacle to their theory of what and how a government should be--which is a bureaucracy of experts who are unimpeded in legislative power to regulate us in what they consider the most equitable and beneficial way.

We are on the brink of removing what is left of the Constitution's system of protecting our "unalienable" rights, which precede government, and transforming that system into one which tells us what our rights . . .for the moment . . . are. A totally elastic system of "experts" appointed by authoritarian politicians who are mediocre in nature but charismatic or seemingly "appropriate" in every way, who we supposedly voted into office, but who actually are chosen to run by the rich and powerful, regardless of under which co-opted party banner they run.

The Constitution has become a quaint piece of history that has run its course.

We are on the brink of discarding a historically unexpected system in which the individual is the model that it protects, to a system of artificially created competing group behaviors which depend on it for their nurture and existence. A system that defines us instead of we defining ourselves. A system in which any semblance of individual rights resides only in those who hold the ultimate power. An ancient system which seems inherent in the nature of human interaction, and which has thrived in all cultures larger than tiny local tribes. A system, repeated under different names and structures, of the ruling class and its dependents who eventually become some sort of willing or unwilling slaves.

We are on the brink of discarding a system which constrains the inevitable authoritarians among us who will, by their nature, be those who we choose to be our public leaders, and trading that for a system which is, itself, authoritarian. In this particular instance, "we" throw out someone we call authoritarian, and replace him with a system that is authoritarian. But we somehow believe that this time around, it will finally be a good thing.

Of course, the "we" is not clearly defined. In our post modern way, "we" is a social construct. It is whatever we want it to be. And those who hold the power, naturally, define it for us. It is no accident we have those groups, competing at times violently and usually confrontationally, some of which never existed before and some that defy what we consider nature. It is no easy task to strip a nation of individuals from their identity as such. All the traditions, customs, laws, and religions that lead to and support an inviolable belief in the sovereignty of the individual must be destroyed if individuals are to be subsumed into pliable and dependent groups. And the groups must take precedence over the individual. And so we have that as an essential step toward our reincarnated form of "benevolent" dictatorship which we call Progressivism along with its elaborate system of regulatory agencies tasked with the real work of crafting for us what we can do and how.

This refurbished form of power over the masses, the Progressive administrative state, is one of the most seductive sounding ones. It has the smack of logic, intelligence, and power all geared toward making the lives of "the people" comfortable and secure. But it is an ancient story molded to suit the transformation of plucky, resistant, individually oriented people who have strayed from the expected obeisance of the masses, and have a willingness to fight for freedom, into pliable, weak groups who threaten one another so that they must turn toward government for protection and existence.

But even the benevolent, though authoritarian, idea of Progressive government is, inevitably, corruptible. And that has been happening as well. Those unavoidable, predictable, indomitable power seekers among us are going to ply their might no matter the system. Our constitutional system was one of the best, if not the best, way to defend against them. But as we have lost our taste for the hard way of freedom, it has become easier for them to make inroads into our powers of government. They have found it easier to do so as we have become more Progressive and less constitutional--naturally since an authoritarian system is more amenable to their quest for power.

And the power seekers are even using the ancient tactic of creating an empire which conquers as much territory as they can. Most of the supposedly "known" world was captured by the Romans and the Mongols. The Muslims came close to repeating that. This time the target is the globe. We refer to them as globalists--disparagingly by some, admiringly by others.

Trump was an outlier. He didn't, nor did he seem to desire to do so, fit into any category. He was an outlier. A threat to the direction of globalist plans and policies and to the Progressive destruction of the Constitution. A threat to what was steadily and more easily achievable globalist aspirations and totally authoritarian governance. So he had to be removed. And no governmental obstacle could stand in the way of his removal.

Fait accompli, we can now look forward to an authoritarian system of government being the handmaiden of our new age crony corporate ruling class in its quest for global economic power. China will be back in the fold, with its own desires for global power. Somehow, that is supposed to work itself out.

Probably more revolutions coming. Don't know if we can repeat our constitutional one. Maybe a better one. Or . . . our human quest for something or other goes on until the earth explodes.

[Pete F.]

Well, that’s a dark view of the world
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Well, that’s a dark view of the world
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The world is a place where living things struggle and fight one another to exist. A place where lifeless matter must be harnessed in some way so that life continues. A place where human life has somehow managed to not yet fall into what seems inevitable extinction. To a great degree, we have done so by creating various civilizations, small to great.

We humans have our competitions. For sport or for existence. They seem to be a necessary trait for that survival. However it came about, in order to escape the existential "darkness" of survival, we have strived to create some form of Shangri la. Some place of peace, security, and joy. In this war against the threats to life, we became dominant among living things to the point that we were our greatest threat to each other.

In a unique circumstance in the annals of created civilizations, an advanced people discovered a place where they could be free from the tyrannies of the ruling class model. They were permitted by their isolation from that model to experience what individual freedom was like. And they liked it enough to fight to keep it. And they created a marvelous plan for government that would protect that freedom. As Franklin said, a republic if you can keep it.

It was probably only a matter of time, as the Founders predicted, that the "new world" would succumb to the old pattern. And that plan of government would go the way of the world and become extinct.

You may call that "dark." It is what it is.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Oh, so he does listen to his advisers. Naughty, naughty . . . you were fibbing about this for four years.

And he has been following the rule of law, as it has become under Progressive "evolution", all along. He has not disobeyed the courts if they determine that he is wrong about something (those decisions being mostly split) until he gets it right.

See, you're making it about Trump, which leads down the rabbit hole of personal animosity being applied to legal procedure. The degree of how "authoritarian" his personality is only becomes a threat if the system under which he operates is, in itself, authoritarian. We have had many, if not all, Presidents who have had authoritarian personalities to some degree. Some, who have been labeled "great," have been as, or more, authoritarian in nature than Trump, such as Jackson, Roosevelt (both), and LBJ. Some, mostly Democrats, have actually defied the Court and abandoned the Constitution.

It has been the Progressive orientation of politicians in concert with their Progressive cohort in the Courts that have brought about conditions in our governmental system that allow for a continuing degradation of the Constitution. The original Progressives even openly stated that the Constitution is an obstacle to their theory of what and how a government should be--which is a bureaucracy of experts who are unimpeded in legislative power to regulate us in what they consider the most equitable and beneficial way.

We are on the brink of removing what is left of the Constitution's system of protecting our "unalienable" rights, which precede government, and transforming that system into one which tells us what our rights . . .for the moment . . . are. A totally elastic system of "experts" appointed by authoritarian politicians, mediocre in nature but charismatic or seemingly "appropriate" in every way, who we supposedly voted into office, but who actually are chosen to run by the rich and powerful, regardless of under which co-opted party banner they run.

The Constitution has become a quaint piece of history that has run its course.

We are on the brink of discarding a historically unexpected system in which the individual is the model which it protects, to a system of artificially created competing group behaviors which depend on it for their nurture and existence. A system that defines us instead of we defining ourselves. A system in which any semblance of individual rights resides only in those who hold the ultimate power. An ancient system which seems inherent in the nature of human interaction, and which has thrived in all cultures larger than tiny local tribes. A system, repeated under different names and structures, of the ruling class and its dependents who eventually become some sort of willing or unwilling slaves.

We are on the brink of discarding a system which constrains the inevitable authoritarians among us who will, by their nature, be those who we choose to be our public leaders, and trading that for a system which is, itself, authoritarian. In this particular instance, "we" throw out someone we call authoritarian, and replace him with a system that is authoritarian. But we somehow believe that this time around, it will finally be a good thing.

Of course, the "we" is not clearly defined. In our post modern way, "we" is a social construct. It is whatever we want it to be. And those who hold the power, naturally, define it for us. It is no accident we have those groups, competing at times violently and usually confrontationally, some of which never existed before and some that defy what we consider nature. It is no easy task to strip a nation of individuals from their identity as such. All the traditions, customs, laws, and religions that lead to and support an inviolable belief in the sovereignty of the individual must be destroyed if individuals are to be subsumed into pliable and dependent groups. And the groups must take precedence over the individual. And so we have that as an essential step toward our reincarnated "benevolent" dictatorship which we call Progressivism along with its elaborate system of regulatory agencies tasked with the real work of crafting for us what we can do and how.

This refurbished form of power over the masses, the Progressive administrative state, is one of the most seductive sounding ones. It has the smack of logic, intelligence, and power all geared toward making the lives of "the people" comfortable and secure. But it is an ancient story molded to suit the transformation of plucky, resistant, individually oriented people who have strayed from the expected obeisance of the masses, and have a willingness to fight for freedom, into pliable, weak groups who threaten one another so that they must turn toward government for protection and existence.

But even the benevolent, though authoritarian, idea of Progressive government is, inevitably, corruptible. And that has been happening as well. Those unavoidable, predictable, indomitable power seekers among us are going to ply their might no matter the system. Our constitutional system was one of the best, if not the best, way to defend against them. But as we have lost our taste for the hard way of freedom, it has become easier for them to make inroads into our powers of government. They have found it easier to do so as we have become more Progressive and less constitutional--naturally since an authoritarian system is more amenable to their quest for power.

And the power seekers are even using the ancient tactic of creating an empire which conquers as much territory as they can. Most of the supposedly "known" world was captured by the Romans and the Mongols. The Muslims came close to repeating that. This time the target is the globe. We refer to them as globalists--disparagingly by some, admiringly by others.

Trump was an outlier. He didn't, nor did he seem to desire to do so, fit into any category. He was an outlier. A threat to the direction of globalist plans and policies and to the Progressive destruction of the Constitution. A threat to what was steadily and more easily achievable globalist aspirations and totally authoritarian governance. So he had to be removed. And no governmental obstacle could stand in the way of his removal.

Fait accompli, we can now look forward to an authoritarian system of government being the handmaiden of our new age crony corporate ruling class in its quest for global economic power. China will be back in the fold, with its own desires for global power. Somehow, that is supposed to work itself out.

Probably more revolutions coming. Don't know if we can repeat our constitutional one. Maybe a better one. Or . . . our human quest for something or other goes on until the earth explodes.

It’s about progressive’s and their evil doings

as if we have never had a Republican President or a Republican house or senate or in your world they are progressives Prinos
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

It’s about progressive’s and their evil doings

as if we have never had a Republican President or a Republican house or senate or in your world they are progressives Prinos
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know exactly what you're trying to say here. And I suspect you don't fully know what I'm saying in the post to which you are responding. Your world of Democrats and Republicans has become a fiction propagated to make us think we have more than a skin deep choice. We apparently live in different worlds and never the twain shall meet.

[Pete F.]

Well your man who’s saving the world as you like it just pardoned a guy, Charles Kushner, who in case you needed reminding, hatched a plot that involved hiring a prostitute to lure his brother-in-law into having sex in a Bridgewater, New Jersey, motel room as a hidden camera rolled. A tape of the encounter was then sent to Kushner’s sister.
Talk about family values
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Well your man who’s saving the world as you like it just pardoned a guy, Charles Kushner, who in case you needed reminding, hatched a plot that involved hiring a prostitute to lure his brother-in-law into having sex in a Bridgewater, New Jersey, motel room as a hidden camera rolled. A tape of the encounter was then sent to Kushner’s sister.
Talk about family values

He's not my man. You keep trying to pawn him off on me. It's just another of your never ending flow of lies. I don't care who he pardoned. It's constitutional. And if a liar like you is trying to make some negative story about it, there's probably more to the story and no incentive you've given me to believe anything you say.

And I don't know why a lying snake like you thinks he has any creds to talk about or support family values. You want to pile the blame on Trump for leading us into fascism, or authoritarianism, or a Nazi state? Yeah, well its people like you who prefer giving more power over to the political movement that has actually been leading us into anti freedom, anti family values, anti individual agency, groupism, and the general destruction of the republic that was founded--all in order to give us over to a softly despotic government that is cousin to all the isms that you want to lay on Trump because you hate him and have to tell lie after lie to convince the rest of us to hate and fear him and that he had to go.

He's been your nightmare, not mine. I hope him well, considering what the likes of you has done to him. Other than that, I don't care about him. Whatever little temporary barrier he stood against the Progressive swarm is gone. Maybe the Republican party has learned how to fight against it, if there are enough members to take up that fight with the fearlessness that Trump showed. Or they can just go cowering back into their me too corner with their thumbs in their mouth, McCain or Romney-like with their smug, mealy mouthed, politically correct version of "presidential" so they can get a few nods of approval from the NYT or NBC. And maybe even your vote every now and then. But only if they keep moving along with the rest of the Progressive movement which is making it easier for the ruling class to herd us into the little niches they give us space to inhabit.

And, yeah, they will have to give us the impression that they are creating the little Shangri la of pleasant distractions made available to us via the IT control it is harnessing to replace the outdated notion of self worth with an endless array of entertainment at our fingertips. And whatever government created job or subsidy that is enough to keep us in a robotic state of satisfaction. Maybe more golf courses. Fishing may get more and more regulated.

The regulators will make it easier to depend on them rather than family, especially make it easy not to keep producing too many babies that family folks are prone to do. That sort of thing creates too many problems for an authoritarian state. The larger the population, the more difficult to control without physical force. Soft despotism requires a smaller, softer, pliant, population.

[Pete F.]

Putin smiles. Success beyond his wildest dreams. Surely he thought this useful idiot could not destroy this much this fast.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

He's not my man. You keep trying to pawn him off on me. It's just another of your never ending flow of lies. I don't care who he pardoned. It's constitutional. And if a liar like you is trying to make some negative story about it, there's probably more to the story and no incentive you've given me to believe anything you say.

And I don't know why a lying snake like you thinks he has any creds to talk about or support family values. You want to pile the blame on Trump for leading us into fascism, or authoritarianism, or a Nazi state? Yeah, well its people like you who prefer giving more power over to the political movement that has actually been leading us into anti freedom, anti family values, anti individual agency, groupism, and the general destruction of the republic that was founded--all in order to give us over to a softly despotic government that is cousin to all the isms that you want to lay on Trump because you hate him and have to tell lie after lie to convince the rest of us to hate and fear him and that he had to go.

He's been your nightmare, not mine. I hope him well, considering what the likes of you has done to him. Other than that, I don't care about him. Whatever little temporary barrier he stood against the Progressive swarm is gone. Maybe the Republican party has learned how to fight against it, if there are enough members to take up that fight with the fearlessness that Trump showed. Or they can just go cowering back into their me too corner with their thumbs in their mouth, McCain or Romney-like with their smug, mealy mouthed, politically correct version of "presidential" so they can get a few nods of approval from the NYT or NBC. And maybe even your vote every now and then. But only if they keep moving along with the rest of the Progressive movement which is making it easier for the ruling class to herd us into the little niches they give us space to inhabit.

And, yeah, they will have to give us the impression that they are creating the little Shangri la of pleasant distractions made available to us via the IT control it is harnessing to replace the outdated notion of self worth with an endless array of entertainment at our fingertips. And whatever government created job or subsidy that is enough to keep us in a robotic state of satisfaction. Maybe more golf courses. Fishing may get more and more regulated.

The regulators will make it easier to depend on them rather than family, especially make it easy not to keep producing too many babies that family folks are prone to do. That sort of thing creates too many problems for an authoritarian state. The larger the population, the more difficult to control without physical force. Soft despotism requires a smaller, softer, pliant, population.

You could be all set with the government of your dreams in Hungary, Poland or Turkey
Good strong leaders not putting up with all the globalist baloney.
Remember this statement “I thought Orban was fulfilling the wishes of the majority of the Hungarian people. He was duly elected wasn't he? What is the undemocratic power that he has developed? Is hungry no longer a democracy?”

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Putin smiles. Success beyond his wildest dreams. Surely he thought this useful idiot could not destroy this much this fast.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Further continuation of your idiotic lies. Putin doesn't have the leverage to control or influence us. China does. And China, not Trump, nor even our bumbling state governors and legislators, are responsible for the destruction you speak of. Trump's policies, BTW, are creating a faster recovery than thought possible. Oh, oh, that's right, it's all a continuation of Obama's economy.

No doubt Biden will see to it that China will be appropriately punished. Mabey with more lucrative deals there for hunter and the Biden family.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You could be all set with the government of your dreams in Hungary, Poland or Turkey
Good strong leaders not putting up with all the globalist baloney.
Remember this statement “I thought Orban was fulfilling the wishes of the majority of the Hungarian people. He was duly elected wasn't he? What is the undemocratic power that he has developed? Is hungry no longer a democracy?”

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, with your lies. The only government of my dreams at this point is the one created by our Founders. Never said that Hungary, Poland, or Turkey had the government of my dreams.

My question re Orban was sarcastic. Constantly referring to "our democracy" rather than our Republic is a small piece of the way our system of government is transformed. We are not a democracy. Although, we are trending more and more to be one. The notion is certainly implanted in our brains by our ruling class politicians who really don't like our republican form of democratic constitutionalism. It's one of the plethora of verbal tricks and redefinitions our Progressive ruling class foists on us to help ease the mental transition to an administrative form of government.

So, yes Hungary is a "democracy," not necessarily in the mode that the EU would like, but one, nonetheless, where elections are held to determine the government leaders. There may be, however, various forms of rigging, which democracies are prone to, and which occur in the U.S. and it's various states. So there's your precious "democracy." As we become more and more of one, not constrained by constitutional checks and balance (you know--like how Progressive government theory detests the notion that government can be checked) we can expect things like Orban. I know you think Trump is an American version of Orban, or Hitler, but that's a stretch. Being nationalistic is not being dictatorial. And it wasn't Trump who shut the country down a la Orban. That was not his wish. He worked to open up the economy which frees up our individual initiatives. It's the left who demanded and keeps demanding shutdowns, lockdowns, bans on individual and even group behavior, who can stay in business and who goes bankrupt. It is our Progressive element that mimics "democratic" authoritarian regulators. Covid provided them with an opportunity to further acclimate us to unchecked, unlimited government.

[Pete F.]

Freedom in America 2020:

In our Very Serious Country Full of Real Grownups, a strip club was open during a pandemic and people can own AK-47 rifles so that when they have a temper tantrum over having to wear masks, they can make a run at a mass killing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Freedom in America 2020:

In our Very Serious Country Full of Real Grownups, a strip club was open during a pandemic and people can own AK-47 rifles so that when they have a temper tantrum over having to wear masks, they can make a run at a mass killing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, that’s a dark view of the world

[Pete F.]

“Do you believe a president can lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient’s promise to not incriminate him?” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont asked during Barr’s January 2019 confirmation hearing.

“No, that would be a crime,” Barr said in response.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

“Do you believe a president can lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient’s promise to not incriminate him?” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont asked during Barr’s January 2019 confirmation hearing.

“No, that would be a crime,” Barr said in response.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You don't like Barr and I don't like Leahy, so that's a wash. The commission of a crime has to be proven. If your insinuating Trump committed a crime, that's all it is, an insinuation. You do that (insinuate, conjecture, create innuendo) maybe even more than you lie. But, then, insinuation in order to make it seem that something is real, is a sort of lie.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

“Do you believe a president can lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient’s promise to not incriminate him?” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont asked during Barr’s January 2019 confirmation hearing.

“No, that would be a crime,” Barr said in response.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just a historical quote, for the record.
We’ll see what happens with a new AG and the evidence, won’t we.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just a historical quote, for the record.
We’ll see what happens with a new AG and the evidence, won’t we.

There are a lot of "histsorical quotes" made by you re Mueller report and impeachment . . . and we saw what happened.

[Pete F.]

Tweety obstructed justice and then rewarded his accomplices with pardons?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device