ADVERTISEMENT

Do the democrats here support violence?

Just trying to followi ping72’s logic. Personally, its insanely stupid to try and encourage violence against someone who was elected by the people and is only a couple months into his term.

It’s insanely stupid to encourage violence. You could stop there.
 
Against Trump? Against Musk? Against Trump supporters?

Many of the people in the first 2/3 of this vid have gone off the deep end.

Democrat politician rhetoric isn't anything extreme. You should expect lots of heated rhetoric when a president decides to challenge/break law and norms at the level he is currently.

Obviously citizens calling for his assassination are extreme.

Supposing a president has gone rogue... I'd let the courts and congress take the first shots at reigning him in. If that doesn't happen... let the people take care of him.
 
Democrat politician rhetoric isn't anything extreme. You should expect lots of heated rhetoric when a president decides to challenge/break law and norms at the level he is currently.

Obviously citizens calling for his assassination are extreme.

Supposing a president has gone rogue... I'd let the courts and congress take the first shots at reigning him in. If that doesn't happen... let the people take care of him.
Just curious, what laws is the President breaking, be specific?
 
Absolutely. Logical fallacy is about the only thing these people are good at anymore.

Although I would say some of these people are fessing up and certainly seem to be for violence.

I'm curious who here would go on record and state they'd love to see a successful assassination.

Nothing in that video was a call for violence.
 
Absolutely. Logical fallacy is about the only thing these people are good at anymore.

Although I would say some of these people are fessing up and certainly seem to be for violence.

I'm curious who here would go on record and state they'd love to see a successful assassination.
Assassination, no, but I’d giggle like a school girl if he dropped dead today. Same for any of his cronies.
 
Wait, you've all been telling us for years that a bunch of dead kids was a fair price to keep our guns in case we ever had to defend our country from our own government. Now that it's people you like who are threatening it this is a bad idea? Do you suggest we start banning guns now?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CallingADeerAHorse
Just curious, what laws is the President breaking, be specific?
I wrapped the constitution into my usage of the word "law" there.

He's made a bunch of very bold and aggressive moves that would seem to be in conflict with the constitution. Couple examples would be the birthright citizen EO and cutting/ignoring congressionally appropriated spending. Whole bunch of items in the courts as we speak, can go look them up.

So the opposition naturally is going to question whether this guy cares at all about the constitution; whether his spirit is to just openly defy it. And that's always going to elicit some strong feelings.
 
I wrapped the constitution into my usage of the word "law" there.

He's made a bunch of very bold and aggressive moves that would seem to be in conflict with the constitution. Couple examples would be the birthright citizen EO and cutting/ignoring congressionally appropriated spending. Whole bunch of items in the courts as we speak, can go look them up.

So the opposition naturally is going to question whether this guy cares at all about the constitution; whether his spirit is to just openly defy it. And that's always going to elicit some strong feelings.
In other words, as of yet, nothing.
 
  • Love
Reactions: abby97
Yes, we prefer legitimate news sources over lunatic conspiracy nuts who shill garbage to idiots.
I don’t think there are many legitimate news sources left. AJ was just ahead of his time. Most need sources mirror him now with their partisan garbage and fear mongering.
 
In other words, as of yet, nothing.
Yes, he's obeyed court orders thus far. (well, mostly, few judges have had to get on their case for not completely following orders... but no open defiance from Trump admin)

But I don't think that's the heart of the issue...

What's driving the response is Trump admin behavior and then resultant questions regarding his state of mind where abiding something like constitutional law is concerned.

Trump is making a big bold assertion that he has executive power in a way that other presidents have not, in a way that often seems to be very much at odds with common understandings of the constitution. And he's taking many actions, all at once, on the basis of this position.

That's extremely aggressive and unusual. And so people will wonder what his state of his mind is, what's next, what will happen he receives some major setbacks in court.

In addition to heightened concern due to unusual behavior, you have Trump himself and everything we know about the man. Not exactly an exemplary play by the rules sort.
 
What would be your reason for forcefully removing Biden, it seems you had a reason but didnt?
Biden let in millions of illegal immigrants into this country. That should have been an impeachable offense as he wasn’t protecting the citizens of this country, which is a president’s #1 responsibility.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BelemNole
Biden let in millions of illegal immigrants into this country. That should have been an impeachable offense as he wasn’t protecting the citizens of this country, which is a president’s #1 responsibility.
I can’t believe Kamala didn’t succeed as border tzar.
 
Against Trump? Against Musk? Against Trump supporters?

Many of the people in the first 2/3 of this vid have gone off the deep end.

Democrats don't support free elections, so they go nuts when they are soundly defeated despite cheating. Violence? Maybe 4:1 antifa punks in their 20's on one 80 year old man for wearing a MAGA hat....other than that....they wouldn't dream of taking one for the team!
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalbornhawk
a couple days ago on NPR there was a program discussing doge cuts and the lady running the show ended the segment saying (i’m paraphrasing) that trump wants to take america back to the 19th century under president garfield who as we know was assassinated. then it went to ads but i was left stunned by the casual statement on public radio.
No no no, you got it all wrong. That observation about Garfield was astute as hell considering Trump's mass firings of professional, neutrally-hired employees in order to replace most with political supporter lackeys:

Garfield was assassinated by Charles J. Guiteau, a failed evangelist, insurance salesman, and attorney who believed he was owed a government job for his support of Garfield during the 1880 presidential campaign.

Our professional civil-service class was partly put in place to prevent violence and revenge-seeking by slighted political appointee wannabes.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT