It's not just the "Left of the Center"

[army judge]

I have read scores of articles on how that phrase has been interpreted over the years and, in addition to what your posted, there is a consensus that as a society, we should abandon our societal norms, morals, and mores. That, in the US, includes abandoning the Constitution.

You're on the path to the target.

Let's not forget, the hatred, contempt, and revulsion held by millions against those old, Caucasian dudes.

Despite what those old Caucasian dudes created, fought for, and built; their work must be destroyed, is as deep a belief as the rabble hold and and point to contemptuously.

 

[Tax Counsel]

A vote for Harris is a vote to destroy the Republic. People like stealthy1 will have to decide if that is what they want to do, destroy the Republic.

A lot of people say the same thing about Trump - he wants to destroy the republic and install himself as dictator. In both cases I think those claims are nothing more than fear mongering politics. Regardless of who wins in November I doubt very much that either one of them will destroy the republic. I think our nation is much too resilient for that. We must always be prepared to defend against attacks on our Constitution and the rights we have. Right now though I see no indication of any serious threat to the Constitution from either side.

However, how the elections turn out — and not just for president — will affect just how well our country does over the next four years. Will we prosper and lead the world, or will we be screwed up from being mired in petty political squabbles and the inability to get anything major done over the next four years? Recent history suggests that we may well be in for another four years of a largely do nothing federal government because Congress once again won't be united enough to enact any kind of major legislation.

With all the focus the media and the public put on the presidential race they mostly ignore the House and Senate races. Those races are more of an after thought. Yet the votes for Congress are, IMO, as important, if not more so, to where the nation ends up. That's more true today than it was four years ago because the Supreme Court recently weakened the regulatory power of executive agencies by scrapping the Chevron standard for court review of regulations. That decision shifts more responsibility and power back to Congress.

 

[Zigner]

A lot of people say the same thing about Trump - he wants to destroy the republic and install himself as dictator. In both cases I think those claims are nothing more than fear mongering politics.

It may be fear-mongering to some extent, but I'd like to point out that only one candidate has publicly stated it was his wish.

 

[welkin]

A lot of people say the same thing about Trump - he wants to destroy the republic and install himself as dictator.

Now you know that is not possible in the United States. He may try to clean up the swamp some and run a tight Executive branch but, a dictator? I don't think so. He would have no control over Congress or the Judicial branch. And Trump respects the Constitution and the people. If anything, he will strengthen the Republic.

On the other hand, Harris is a Marxist, who said in the CNN interview, that her values have not changed. You can't deny that she and Biden opened the boarder for three and half years and let millions of illegal immigrants into the country and is giving them our SS and Medicare benefits. She didn't enforce the immigration laws of our country, did she? She wants price controls, something that has never worked and only leads to more inflation, shortages, and black markets. She wants the US to be energy dependent on other countries (some of whom are enemies) that weakens our Republic. For three and half years she said she would end fracking and reduce the use of fossil fuels. I could go on, but what is the point. Now that she is running for President, she will say anything.

Any clear-minded (that doesn't suffer from TDS) person could see that, given the chance, Harris would weaken the Republic if not put it past the point of no return.

 

[welkin]

It may be fear-mongering to some extent, but I'd like to point out that only one candidate has publicly stated it was his wish.

Now, if you wanted to honest about what Trump said once in a January 2023 interview with Sean Hannity is that:

he wouldn't be a dictator "except on Day One" of a second administration.

Donald Trump said he'd be a dictator for one day. His supporters say they're not worried. | Department of Sociology

 

[Redemptionman]

Now, if you wanted to honest about what Trump said once in a January 2023 interview with Sean Hannity is that:


Donald Trump said he'd be a dictator for one day. His supporters say they're not worried. | Department of Sociology

He only meant that he would fire all the deep state people who deserve to be fired. Obama stated publicly (when he was rallying his young controllable idiots) that the constitution gets in his way.

NPR is partly government funded soon mainstream media like ABC, NBC, and CBS is and will be nothing more than government run propaganda media similar to Russia TV. It is obvious weak minded people like Tax Counsel believe their narrative which they only need a small percentage to believe their BS to make an impact. Remember usually the people who say you are something are themselves the ones who are that way.

Hillary paid a million bucks for a Russian Steele document. Hunter Biden and his laptop was censored by the FBI using media to block it as Russian propaganda. The Russian regime benefits from democrats as do Iraqis. The only hope we have is if enough people realize that they are being controlled by the democrats, they do not speak for the middle class but rather to a larger government dependent group of people who believe all the crap they tell them as long as the checks are good.

 

[Tax Counsel]

It is obvious weak minded people like Tax Counsel believe their narrative which they only need a small percentage to believe their BS to make an impact. Remember usually the people who say you are something are themselves the ones who are that way.

LOL. There you go again attacking me. You have heard the saying that insulting your opponent is the clearest sign that you've run out of substantive arguments, right? The idea behind the founding of this country was NOT for the public to be all like minded blindly following any leader like sheep. Yet your insult suggests that is exactly the kind of America you want: a country where everyone just follows Trump (and any other right wing candidate you support) whatever he or she says. I've never been so in love with any candidate that I'd stand behind them no matter what they say or do. Rather I focus on issues competent as my guidepost on whom I'll support. Just because somone is a Republican isn't enough to get my vote.

And what about your last sentence above: if you truly believe what your wrote then you must believe that you yourself are "weak minded. So do you believe what you wrote — that people who say what you are are themselves that way — or are you just engaging in more insult rather than raising real substantive argument? You can't have it both ways, so tell me which is it?

I hope you get concept that people who disagree with you may be just as smart but simply have a different view of things and a different sense of what is important. From the very start of this country we've had a lot of smart capable people who strongly disagreed about the policies the country should follow and the direction in which it should go. The founders wanted a nation in which people were free to disagree and they encouraged debate. That was the main impetus behing the First Amendment's free speech clause, and I assume you support the First Amendment, right?

I disagree with your support for Trump but I'm not going call you stupid or weak minded because of it. While I disagree with your choice of candidate, I respect your right to have a differing opinion than I do. I don't insist that everyone think the same way I do. I think its regrettable that you evidently don't feel the same way.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Now you know that is not possible in the United States.

At least as things stand now, I do agree with you on that. That's why I said that those who say either candidate will destroy this country are engaging in fear mongering. They'd need, at the very least, a Congress to enact their anti democratic policies and regardless of whether Trump or Harris wins it looks right now like the Congress will be very closely split again, making it all but impossible to enact either far left or far right policies let alone scrapping the Republic altogether. Indeed Congress has found itself barely able to do the most basic parts of its job, like passing an annual budget.

Trump might want to be dictator as some claim. I can't get inside his head to know either way. Even if that is what he wants he won't get it without a massive change in the public moving to support eliminating our democratic principles.

Any clear-minded (that doesn't suffer from TDS) person could see that, given the chance, Harris would weaken the Republic if not put it past the point of no return.

Once more you engage in personal attack even after saying we should not do that. So what's the deal? Is your view that you are entitled to attack me but I'm not allowed to attack you? If so I'm sorry to tell you that's not how it works. Do really you want a debate free of personal attacks as you told me earlier? I told you I'd agree to both us not attacking the other but so far you don't seem to want to go with that. If you truly believe in democracy and freedom of speech and debate then I'd think you wouldn't refer to those with different opinions from as somehow mentally deficient. But yet you've done that here, just as Redemptionman did today too.

You can support Trump without insulting and trying to degrade those who have a different opinion. Just because Trump has made insulting opponents a hallmark of his rhetorical style doesn't mean his followers need to adopt the same unflattering and degrading behavior.

 

[Redemptionman]

LOL. There you go again attacking me. You have heard the saying that insulting your opponent is the clearest sign that you've run out of substantive arguments, right? The idea behind the founding of this country was NOT for the public to be all like minded blindly following any leader like sheep. Yet your insult suggests that is exactly the kind of America you want: a country where everyone just follows Trump (and any other right wing candidate you support) whatever he or she says. I've never been so in love with any candidate that I'd stand behind them no matter what they say or do. Rather I focus on issues competent as my guidepost on whom I'll support. Just because somone is a Republican isn't enough to get my vote.

And what about your last sentence above: if you truly believe what your wrote then you must believe that you yourself are "weak minded. So do you believe what you wrote — that people who say what you are are themselves that way — or are you just engaging in more insult rather than raising real substantive argument? You can't have it both ways, so tell me which is it?

I hope you get concept that people who disagree with you may be just as smart but simply have a different view of things and a different sense of what is important. From the very start of this country we've had a lot of smart capable people who strongly disagreed about the policies the country should follow and the direction in which it should go. The founders wanted a nation in which people were free to disagree and they encouraged debate. That was the main impetus behing the First Amendment's free speech clause, and I assume you support the First Amendment, right?

I disagree with your support for Trump but I'm not going call you stupid or weak minded because of it. While I disagree with your choice of candidate, I respect your right to have a differing opinion than I do. I don't insist that everyone think the same way I do. I think its regrettable that you evidently don't feel the same way.

Who is running the country right now? It isn't Donald Trump. If or when he wins this November, which I hope he does. He will only be given 4 years. I said you buy into the narrative depicted by the MSM, of which you do. Then you get triggered and point the finger at the other side just like everyone who supports your narrative. You can not have it both ways, it is all emotional, and you sir are very emotional about your hatred of Trump. Your right to do so; I guess but what policies of Harris/ Walz do you like or are there any? I have yet to hear from anyone supporting the Donkey party what is it they like most about the policies other than they hate Trump. From you or Stealthy, or Justblue. When you have no policy or you have no plan you tend to just attack your opponent.

I didn't see Trump prosecuting Hillary Clinton for her emails, Nancy Pelosi for insider trading, Hunter Biden for just being a felon idiot. I do however see the Donkeys through their conscription agencies and agents prosecuting Trump, a former president.

 

[welkin]

Once more you engage in personal attack even after saying we should not do that. So what's the deal? Is your view that you are entitled to attack me but I'm not allowed to attack you? If so I'm sorry to tell you that's not how it works. Do really you want a debate free of personal attacks as you told me earlier? I told you I'd agree to both us not attacking the other but so far you don't seem to want to go with that. If you truly believe in democracy and freedom of speech and debate then I'd think you wouldn't refer to those with different opinions from as somehow mentally deficient. But yet you've done that here, just as Redemptionman did today too.

You can support Trump without insulting and trying to degrade those who have a different opinion. Just because Trump has made insulting opponents a hallmark of his rhetorical style doesn't mean his followers need to adopt the same unflattering and degrading behavior.

That was not a personal attack on any specific person and certainly not on you. Why you chose to take it as such, I don't understand.

Any clear-minded (that doesn't suffer from TDS) person could see that, given the chance, Harris would weaken the Republic if not put it past the point of no return.

Because of what is at stake for the Republic in this election, I was addressing that to a person that would vote for Harris because they just hated Trump and couldn't vote for him but not because of his policies but because he is Trump. That is often called TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).

The policy differences between Trump and Harris are miles apart. A clear-minded person, in my opinion, would look to policies, track records in office, and what would benefit the people, who would support the Constitution, keep the Country safe, etc. rather than hatred or personal feelings.

I really don't care who you vote for or what your views are on the candidates. You could write in your aunt Millie if you think she would make a good President. And I would respect that. I wouldn't understand it but, I would respect it. I'm not degrading or insulting anyone. I make my arguments on logic, verifiable facts, and my own comparison of the Trump and Biden administrations.

I would love to debate policies of the candidates with you but, despite me asking you many times over the last year what policies or actions of the Trump administration are you at odds with, you have never answered that question. That speaks for itself.

 

[Redemptionman]

That was not a personal attack on any specific person and certainly not on you. Why you chose to take it as such, I don't understand.


Because of what is at stake for the Republic in this election, I was addressing that to a person that would vote for Harris because they just hated Trump and couldn't vote for him but not because of his policies but because he is Trump. That is often called TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).

The policy differences between Trump and Harris are miles apart. A clear-minded person, in my opinion, would look to policies, track records in office, and what would benefit the people, who would support the Constitution, keep the Country safe, etc. rather than hatred or personal feelings.

I really don't care who you vote for or what your views are on the candidates. You could write in your aunt Millie if you think she would make a good President. And I would respect that. I wouldn't understand it but, I would respect it. I'm not degrading or insulting anyone. I make my arguments on logic, verifiable facts, and my own comparison of the Trump and Biden administrations.

I would love to debate policies of the candidates with you but, despite me asking you many times over the last year what policies or actions of the Trump administration are you at odds with, you have never answered that question. That speaks for itself.

and I doubt they ever will, don't have any policies, don't have any other platform. Other than you aren't black unless you vote D--- guess what Donkeys, I have seen more LGBT and Black people with Trump stickers on their rides than ever before. This is the south but regardless of who or what you are. True Americans are going to vote for Trump.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

A lot of people say the same thing about Trump - he wants to destroy the republic and install himself as dictator.

Yet he didn't do so during his 4 year term as President.

On the other hand the Biden/Harris administration has ignored multiple SCOTUS rulings.

 

[Redemptionman]

Yet he didn't do so during his 4 year term as President.

On the other hand the Biden/Harris administration has ignored multiple SCOTUS rulings.

and he refused to weaponize his DOJ like little Napoleon man in there now. Who prosecuted their political enemies? It was the elephants.

 

[army judge]

Now, if you wanted to honest about what Trump said once in a January 2023 interview with Sean Hannity is that:


Donald Trump said he'd be a dictator for one day. His supporters say they're not worried. | Department of Sociology

Declaring to the masses is a far cry from actually becoming one.

The residents and citizens of the USA wouldn't tolerate it, which explains why it hadn't been attempted.

However, one might argue to the contrary, if FDR and his four successful elections to the presidency are considered. Prior to FDR, every president stepped aside after securing the 2nd election.

Before the presidential term limit, Franklin D. Roosevelt secured four presidential election victories: 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. George Washington established the precedent of serving only two terms when he left office in 1797. This was tradition, but not the law of the land.

In 1940, FDR broke with tradition and ran for a third term. At the time, the U.S. was dealing with the Great Depression and the possibility of entering World War II. As Eleanor Roosevelt said at the 1940 Democratic National Convention, "This is no ordinary time."

Them darn, mischievous, donkeys!!!

FDR not only won the 1940 election, but the 1944 election as well.

How many times was FDR elected? - Periodic Presidents

Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected president four times: 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944.

periodicpresidents.com

 

[Tax Counsel]

On the other hand the Biden/Harris administration has ignored multiple SCOTUS rulings.

It did? Exactly which ones and what did they do? And are you sure the Trump was himself always faithful to the Constitution during his administration? Specifically which order of the Court do you claim it violated? Or is just your opinion that the administration didn't following a holding of the Court? Finally, if what you say is true, why didn't the aggreived parties go to the federal courts to correct it? Surely the Supreme Court would be interested in seeing the orders of the court obeyed, right?

The knee jerk reactions of some Trump supporters to any criticism of Trump is disheartening. Trump is not God. Trump is not perfect; he has a lot flaws. Yet to listen to some of the MAGA crowd Trump is nothing less than the second coming of Christ. That's the kind of blind devotion that dictators love to see. Fortunately, I don't see Trump actually succeeding in trashing the Constitution, but his followers ought to have a more realistic view of the man. But if Trump tried to do it, I have no doubt a large part of the MAGA movement would be right behind him.

 

[Tax Counsel]

FDR not only won the 1940 election, but the 1944 election as well.

And as you correctly pointed out, there was no rule in the Constitution at the time preventing him from doing it. There were reasons for the tradition, which is why the Constitution was amended after Roosevelt died to elevate that tradition to a Constitutional requirement. Whatever you think of the man for ditching tradition, it can't be said that his four times taking the Presidential oath of office was in any way illegal.

By the way, tradition should not be followed just for the sake of tradition. Some traditions outive their usefulness and when that happens those traditions should be chucked out.

 

[army judge]

Whatever you think of the man for ditching tradition, it can't be said that his four times taking the Presidential oath of office was in any way illegal.

I offered no commentary regarding FDR's choice to seek a third and fourth term.

Res ipsa loquitor...

 

[adjusterjack]

Thread locked at the request of the Original Poster.