Under the US Constitution...

[Diogenes]

I was here under the moniker "Solitary" for several years. I changed my moniker, as people often do. No biggie.

So my recollection was accurate. So noted. Did you not admit you lied about being "Solitary" when inquiries were made regarding your "other" identity?

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Rule of law isn’t some disposable component of democracy; it’s the foundation upon which democracy stands.

Then if the foundation has already crumbled there is no democracy and no law, only the intention to rebuild.

And yet, here you are, twisting it into a justification for breaking the system entirely.

If this breaks the system, the the system must be broken. The people have spoken. Their rights have been abused. If redress would shatter the government then the government needs shattering.

You’re not protecting the rule of law; you’re assaulting it under the guise of necessity. Because, make no mistake, when you treat laws as tools to be bent, stretched, and snapped at will, you’ve already replaced the rule of law with the rule of power.

Yes, but like war one side can unilaterally change the game; and when the deep state used laws as tools to be bent, stretched, and snapped they already replace the rule of the law with the rule of power.

I am saying that the game is currently "rule of power" and that democracy has given the free people of the united states one last chance at restoring rule of law, but that can only be done by using power to punish the aggressors. When those who initiated the abuse of the law through lawfare and deception pay, and when those who were fooled by them choose to leave them to their fate; then we will have peace and the rule of law again.

And frankly, the idea that your brand of chaos is preferable to "certain fascism" is as laughable as it is tragic.

So you prefer fascism, noted.

But let’s take your argument at face value. You claim this is all to save the "fabric of the country" -- by tearing it.

Risk tearing it. Risk is not certainty.

Do you hear yourself? You’re not just gambling with democracy; you’re throwing the dice while lighting the table on fire and calling it strategy. And the people you claim to protect? They’ll be the ones choking on the ashes of your so-called plan.

More like gambling with unity, but if that unity is an illusion better to remove the object of conflict (the federal government) from the playing field.

And for the "rest of humanity" -- the ones who, in your fever dream, benefit from watching this country tear itself apart -- don’t kid yourself. The world doesn’t need America reduced to a smoking ruin of its principles.

It wouldn't be ideal, but it would be a hell of a lot better than a thousand years of digital fascism where humanity are controlled by carefully tailored diet of state engineered information.

The deep state has consistently attacked any nation that refused their currency and "defense" demands. They see the whole world as their domain, not just the USA.

It needs America to stand firm, to prove that liberty and democracy can endure, even when tested by the likes of you and your reckless experiments.

Before exporting liberty we might want to have some ourselves. This is not a free country, not compared to others and not compared to the dawn of the 20th century USA.

So no, Liberty, your "plan" is neither noble nor necessary. It’s the desperate justification of someone who’s mistaken nihilism for strategy. And when the history books recount this era, they won’t remember you as a defender of liberty -- they’ll remember you as one of its most reckless saboteurs.

We'll see. "You're on the wrong side of history" is significantly more amusing as of late.

First, your claim that Congress paying dismissed bureaucrats amounts to sedition is a masterpiece of legal fiction.

Read more carefully.

Second, this nonsense about a "second executive branch" is a strawman so flimsy it collapses under the weight of its own absurdity.

If there is only one executive branch then Trump will be its elected chief. Dictator within that domain is the job description.

Bureaucrats aren’t a rogue army; they’re public servants operating under laws passed by Congress

I disagree.

upheld by the courts, and accountable to the American people.

Through what mechanism are they accountable to the American people?

See I have a theory about that. Something about elections.

If their authority is "unconstitutional," then every regulation, every policy, and every safeguard enacted over decades would be as well.

That sentence sent a warm tingle down my spine. Keep going.

Actually I'm saying their authority to enforce the laws passed by congress derives from POTUS and POTUS alone. With tyrannical presidents their tyranny could be argued to be constitutional as they were presumed to merely be carrying out the will of POTUS.

The only check on their actions would be the courts in that case.

If however POTUS has explicitly denounced them as his agents vested with his authority (the authority of the executive branch), they have nothing. They are like Jack Smith, random citizens pretending to be acting under color of law.

In that case anyone who suggests they have independent authority simply because congress has passed laws is supporting a seditious conspiracy. It would then be well within the president's right and duty to quell the insurrection by any means.

And, of course, that IS what you are saying, you guys on the right ever so foolishly equate 'government' with 'socialism', the right's favorite boogeyman when all arguments are failing. What you’re proposing isn’t clarity -- it’s anarchy, it's chaos.

Considering that you can't figure out that "10% (of the money) for the vice president" is corruption I don't think you'd do well debating the ethics of government in general.

And invoking the Insurrection Act? Oh, that’s rich. You’re suggesting that checks and balances -- the very system the Founders designed

The founders did not design the deep state. They had no concept of a legitimate arm of the government beyond the power of the president and congress. They designed no check to protect such an illegitimate arm of pretenders.

Finally, dragging Trump’s criminal indictments into this as though they’re remotely comparable is the rhetorical equivalent of a desperate Hail Mary.

Nothing you could possibly say will ever get me to stop comparing circumstances separated by time, space, and other details.

Honest rational people are interested in the truth and the truth is universally consistent. If your principles don't survive a comparison they're false.

What you’re really saying is, "If we can’t win, we’ll burn it all down."

Crude but accurate. The very spirit that founded the nation.

Here it is in the opposite of "crude":
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

They chose to create rule of law using a new government rather than suffer under the false pretense of rule of law offered by the government of the UK.

And that, Liberty, isn’t defending the Constitution -- it’s betraying it.

No, heroes would rather burn than be used for evil. If all that the future holds is for the constitution to be an empty symbol which people fear to try and read and understand for themselves without a tech-priest (lawyer) around to tell them what it "really" means, that is a fate worse than death.

Better to be a noble prototype that ultimately failed than a twisted relic for authoritarian liars.

 

[Diogenes]

The very spirit that founded the nation.

Better to be a noble prototype that ultimately failed than a twisted relic for authoritarian liars.

​

 

[Publius]

Then if the foundation has already crumbled there is no democracy and no law, only the intention to rebuild.

If. But there is no 'if' that has been realized.

If this breaks the system, the the system must be broken. The people have spoken. Their rights have been abused. If redress would shatter the government then the government needs shattering.

so, if I bomb your house, then your logic says, the house must be broken. Nice logic,
People have spoken? A small majority and a very strong minority, both have spoken. No rights have been abused.
You're not getting the message, you're calling for the destruction of the American Government, that's anarchy, subversion, treason.
The governmeent does not need shattering, you are deluded.

Yes, but like war one side can unilaterally change the game; and when the deep state used laws as tools to be bent, stretched, and snapped they already replace the rule of the law with the rule of power.

I am saying that the game is currently "rule of power" and that democracy has given the free people of the united states one last chance at restoring rule of law, but that can only be done by using power to punish the aggressors. When those who initiated the abuse of the law through lawfare and deception pay, and when those who were fooled by them choose to leave them to their fate; then we will have peace and the rule of law again.

Rule of law already exists. Restoration is a moot point. Trump tried to break the law, but he got caught.

So you prefer fascism, noted.

Now you are making shit up.

Risk tearing it. Risk is not certainty.



More like gambling with unity, but if that unity is an illusion better to remove the object of conflict (the federal government) from the playing field.

You're deluded.

It wouldn't be ideal, but it would be a hell of a lot better than a thousand years of digital fascism where humanity are controlled by carefully tailored diet of state engineered information.

Pure delusion, the country doesn't need tearing down. You're talking nonsense.

The deep state has consistently attacked any nation that refused their currency and "defense" demands. They see the whole world as their domain, not just the USA.

your mind is a bucket of slogans and thought-terminating cliches. Snap out of it, you've been Trumped.

Before exporting liberty we might want to have some ourselves. This is not a free country, not compared to others and not compared to the dawn of the 20th century USA.

You have plenty of freedom. I wouldn't complain, you could be in Russia, or China, or places like that.

We'll see. "You're on the wrong side of history" is significantly more amusing as of late.

Your nihilism is the wrong side of history. Flatter yourself all you want, it's self-puffery, a sophomoric argument.

Read more carefully.

I'm not going to repeat myself.

If there is only one executive branch then Trump will be its elected chief. Dictator within that domain is the job description.

You're deluded. But, feel free to prove it.

I disagree.

Of course you disagree, delusion never agrees.

Through what mechanism are they accountable to the American people?

Democracy, remember? It's not perfect, but all the other systems are worse.

See I have a theory about that. Something about elections.

You have a theory? Wonderful.

That sentence sent a warm tingle down my spine. Keep going.

Actually I'm saying their authority to enforce the laws passed by congress derives from POTUS and POTUS alone. With tyrannical presidents their tyranny could be argued to be constitutional as they were presumed to merely be carrying out the will of POTUS.

The only check on their actions would be the courts in that case.

If however POTUS has explicitly denounced them as his agents vested with his authority (the authority of the executive branch), they have nothing. They are like Jack Smith, random citizens pretending to be acting under color of law.

In that case anyone who suggests they have independent authority simply because congress has passed laws is supporting a seditious conspiracy. It would then be well within the president's right and duty to quell the insurrection by any means.

Your claim that Jack Smith is a "random citizen pretending to act under color of law" is patently false and betrays either ignorance of or willful disregard for the law. Jack Smith is a Special Counsel appointed under federal statute (28 C.F.R. § 600.1) by the Attorney General of the United States, a position established by the Constitution and empowered by Congress to oversee criminal prosecutions. His appointment and authority are firmly grounded in the law and carry the full weight of the Justice Department, case law and the law itself, supports this, going back quite a few years.

Smith’s role is not a rogue exercise of power but a lawful execution of his mandate to investigate and prosecute specific criminal conduct. The notion that his actions are "pretending to act under color of law" is baseless. To claim otherwise ignores both his legal authority and the checks in place, including judicial oversight, that ensure his work adheres to the Constitution and federal statutes.

So, no, Liberty, Jack Smith isn’t a "random citizen" any more than a federal judge or an FBI agent is. He’s a duly appointed officer of the law, acting within his prescribed duties. Pretending otherwise doesn’t debunk his authority; it merely highlights your inability to confront the facts.

Let me remind you of a fundamental truth: the authority of executive agencies doesn’t "derive from POTUS and POTUS alone." It derives from the Constitution itself, through laws enacted by Congress, which the president is obligated to faithfully execute -- not rewrite, ignore, or selectively "denounce."

Your claim that the president can unilaterally strip agencies or individuals of their authority by "denouncing" them is as absurd as it is dangerous. Executive agencies are not mere extensions of the president's will; they are bound by the statutes that created them and the oversight mechanisms built into our system of checks and balances. Congress grants their authority, the courts interpret it, and the president oversees -- not owns -- it.

And calling lawful operations "seditious conspiracy" simply because they’re inconvenient to your preferred leader is breathtakingly authoritarian. You’re essentially arguing that anyone enforcing the law without the president’s personal blessing is committing sedition. That’s not constitutional governance; that’s the delusion of a would-be autocrat.

Finally, invoking the right to "quell insurrection by any means" against those enforcing congressionally mandated laws is a chilling embrace of tyranny. If you’re worried about seditious conspiracies, Liberty, you might want to take a hard look in the mirror. Because what you’re advocating isn’t preserving the Constitution -- it’s shredding it to serve one man’s whims.

Considering that you can't figure out that "10% (of the money) for the vice president" is corruption I don't think you'd do well debating the ethics of government in general.

It's only corruption of Biden agreed to it, and recieved it. Since you have no proof of it, one man's fantasizing about corrupting Joe Biden doesn't equal Joe Biden being corrupt.
Tell me, Liberty, are you really that stupid?

Honest rational people are interested in the truth and the truth is universally consistent. If your principles don't survive a comparison they're false.

'Honest rational people' are weasel words. You are not the arbiter of 'honest rational people' nor do you speak for them, nor do you belong in that group, you speak only for yourself, so knock it off.

Crude but accurate. The very spirit that founded the nation.

With one significant, very significant, difference, This is 2024, not 1776.

Here it is in the opposite of "crude":
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

They chose to create rule of law using a new government rather than suffer under the false pretense of rule of law offered by the government of the UK.

Yeah, nice history. But, once again, it's not 1776, so snap out of your fever dream.

No, heroes would rather burn than be used for evil. If all that the future holds is for the constitution to be an empty symbol which people fear to try and read and understand for themselves without a tech-priest (lawyer) around to tell them what it "really" means, that is a fate worse than death.

Better to be a noble prototype that ultimately failed than a twisted relic for authoritarian liars.

Yechhhh. The stench of your self-righteous indignation masquerading as nobility, that your verbiage reeks of it from top to bottom is nauseating. What, you didn't get the memo? Someone in the room has BO and it's you. This isn’t heroism -- it’s performative nihilism wrapped in florid language. All this high-falutin "burning for evil" and "noble prototypes," lingo is phony baloney. Bingo! You're a phony! So, let’s strip away the veneer: what you’re really advocating is tearing down a system you neither understand nor care to engage with, all in the name of some deluded, grandiose crusade.

The Constitution isn’t some "twisted relic," and it doesn’t need your self-appointed martyrdom to endure. It is, and always has been, a living framework -- complex, imperfect, but resilient -- designed to govern a nation of laws, not the whims of self-proclaimed "heroes" who think they know better than centuries of legal scholarship and democratic practice. Your disdain for lawyers interpreting the law, the very professionals tasked with ensuring its consistent application, only underscores your fundamental misunderstanding of how constitutional governance works.

This isn’t about preserving liberty or defending the Constitution. It’s about indulging your fantasy of noble rebellion, even if it means leaving chaos in your wake. But here’s the truth, Liberty: the Constitution isn’t fragile -- it’s stronger than your misguided crusade. And history will remember your so-called "heroism" for what it really is: self-indulgent destruction masquerading as principle

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

so, if I bomb your house, then your logic says, the house must be broken. Nice logic,

It's more like "if you bomb our house, then the house is broken" and yea that's about it. Like I'm not going to stop trying to shoot you with a shutgun after you do that for the sake of the house since you are the greater threat to the house.

Your claim that Jack Smith is a "random citizen pretending to act under color of law" is patently false and betrays either ignorance of or willful disregard for the law. Jack Smith is a Special Counsel appointed under federal statute (28 C.F.R. § 600.1) by the Attorney General of the United States, a position established by the Constitution and empowered by Congress to oversee criminal prosecutions. His appointment and authority are firmly grounded in the law and carry the full weight of the Justice Department, case law and the law itself, supports this, going back quite a few years.

Judge disagrees, get around that?

It's only corruption of Biden agreed to it, and recieved it.

Well payment was received and public policy was delivered so....

Since you have no proof of it, one man's fantasizing about corrupting Joe Biden doesn't equal Joe Biden being corrupt.
Tell me, Liberty, are you really that stupid?

I sense your patience is wearing thin. Do your vacuous walls of text normally wear someone down by now?

With one significant, very significant, difference, This is 2024, not 1776.

Truth is eternal. If your progress is progressing to a society where securing liberty is not the overriding justification for government, then call me old fashioned because I'll fight that as I have. Seems I and 76 million allies won the battle if not the war.

Yeah, nice history. But, once again, it's not 1776, so snap out of your fever dream.

I think it was the people who thought Joseph Biden was sharp as a tac and nobody would vote for orange Hitler who need the wake-up call.

Yechhhh. The stench of your self-righteous indignation masquerading as nobility, that your verbiage reeks of it from top to bottom is nauseating. What, you didn't get the memo? Someone in the room has BO and it's you. This isn’t heroism -- it’s performative nihilism wrapped in florid language. All this high-falutin "burning for evil" and "noble prototypes," lingo is phony baloney. Bingo! You're a phony! So, let’s strip away the veneer: what you’re really advocating is tearing down a system you neither understand nor care to engage with, all in the name of some deluded, grandiose crusade.

Cry me a river? I didn't see anything in that entire paragraph that warrants the slightest consideration. It is the most verbose way to say "nah uh you're stupid" that I've seen in a long long time.

The Constitution isn’t some "twisted relic,"

When the deep state is running things it is.

and it doesn’t need your self-appointed martyrdom to endure. It is, and always has been, a living framework

Well it can "live" through a few recess appointments if that's what it takes to get the job done.

-- complex, imperfect, but resilient -- designed to govern a nation of laws, not the whims of self-proclaimed "heroes" who think they know better than centuries of legal scholarship and democratic practice.

You talking about Alvin Bragg or Leticia James?

Your disdain for lawyers interpreting the law

I have disdain for liars, especially the ones who pose as experts.

the very professionals tasked with ensuring its consistent application, only underscores your fundamental misunderstanding of how constitutional governance works.

Your idea of the constitution: listen to the lawyers, but not the ones the 65 project wants to disbar
My idea of the constitution: What the words of the piece of paper mean in the English language.

Nah I'm good.

This isn’t about preserving liberty or defending the Constitution. It’s about indulging your fantasy of noble rebellion

Who says you can't have both?

even if it means leaving chaos in your wake.

There are things much worse than chaos. Chaos is potential. The worst thing that could come out of chaos is ordered evil.

But here’s the truth, Liberty: the Constitution isn’t fragile -- it’s stronger than your misguided crusade. And history will remember your so-called "heroism" for what it really is: self-indulgent destruction masquerading as principle

Yea yea I'm on the wrong side of history. Heard that one before.

You know how many years people practiced slavery and human sacrifice before it was abolished? A lot longer than they have cared about liberty.

I don't think it's wise to base your morality about what people might think in the future. A study of history shows enlightenment is not permanent and it can get really bad.

I think I'll stick with the dictates of reason.

 

[WinterBorn]

So my recollection was accurate. So noted. Did you not admit you lied about being "Solitary" when inquiries were made regarding your "other" identity?

I do not deny it. I simply stated that I had a good reason for it.

So I guess we are done discussing the topic?

 

[Diogenes]

I do not deny it. I simply stated that I had a good reason for it.

So I guess we are done discussing the topic?

I am. You?

 

[Publius]

It's more like "if you bomb our house, then the house is broken" and yea that's about it. Like I'm not going to stop trying to shoot you with a shutgun after you do that for the sake of the house since you are the greater threat to the house.

Like I said, your logic sucks

Judge disagrees, get around that?

You mean wackadoodle Aileen Cannon who was revered twice already? Her ruling will be reversed as it defies law and precedent.

Well payment was received and public policy was delivered so....

No, it wasn't. You could provide evidence,, but, of course, you don't have it.

I sense your patience is wearing thin. Do your vacuous walls of text normally wear someone down by now?

I sense an irrelevant question. Please stay on point. If you have a problem with nuance, then you probably hate any text more than your short attention span can handle, such as the fed papers, the constitution, just about any book, etc.

Truth is eternal. If your progress is progressing to a society where securing liberty is not the overriding justification for government, then call me old fashioned because I'll fight that as I have. Seems I and 76 million allies won the battle if not the war.

Doesn't negate the fact that the 2024 is not 1776. You are confusing 'truth' with 'circumstances'. More specious logic. I am beginning to think you really are that stupid.

I think it was the people who thought Joseph Biden was sharp as a tac and nobody would vote for orange Hitler who need the wake-up call.

Biden got the infrastructure bill passed, bipartisan, in his first 300 days,and Trump, with both houses under his thumb, couldn't get it done in four years. Call him names, but he did better than Trump.

Cry me a river? I didn't see anything in that entire paragraph that warrants the slightest consideration. It is the most verbose way to say "nah uh you're stupid" that I've seen in a long long time.

My comment stands. You clearly have an over inflated ego.

When the deep state is running things it is.

Like I said, your brain is a bucket of thought-terminating cliches.

Well it can "live" through a few recess appointments if that's what it takes to get the job done.

The Constitution was written to prevent tyranny. Tyranny doesn't equal 'getting the job done'. Your idea is 'your way or the highway' which is tyranny, which is Anti-American, anti-democratic, and thus, subversive, and will be challenged, rightfully so.

You talking about Alvin Bragg or Leticia James?

Nice deflection. The comment stands.

I have disdain for liars, especially the ones who pose as experts.

As if you are the arbiter of such things. Sorry, you are fooling no one.

Your idea of the constitution: listen to the lawyers, but not the ones the 65 project wants to disbar
My idea of the constitution: What the words of the piece of paper mean in the English language.

Nah I'm good.

Sorry, what I'm seeing from you thus far is the antithesis of what our constitution stands for.

Who says you can't have both?

Do I have remind you that Stewart Rhodes, who rebelled, is in prison? No, you can't have both. the constitution authorizes the gov to suppress rebellion. Since it's not 1776, the ground you stand on is quicksand, not America of 1776.

There are things much worse than chaos. Chaos is potential. The worst thing that could come out of chaos is ordered evil.

Chaos is chaos. When it comes to governance, chaos invites foreign invasion. Wake the fuck up. that's just about the dumbest thing you've said yet.

Yea yea I'm on the wrong side of history. Heard that one before.

You know how many years people practiced slavery and human sacrifice before it was abolished? A lot longer than they have cared about liberty.

I don't think it's wise to base your morality about what people might think in the future. A study of history shows enlightenment is not permanent and it can get really bad.

I think I'll stick with the dictates of reason.

yeah yeah, your the self-styled philosopher king, armed with a half-baked grasp of history and a smug belief in his own infallibility. You invoke slavery and human sacrifice as though that somehow elevates your argument, but all it does is highlight the sheer absurdity of your rhetoric. Comparing the fight to preserve constitutional governance to ancient barbarism? That’s not reason; it’s a desperate reach for moral equivalence where none exists.

And spare me your hollow nod to "the dictates of reason." Reason doesn’t lead to tearing down a functioning system of checks and balances in favor of authoritarian chaos. Reason doesn’t dress up self-indulgent nihilism as some noble crusade. What you’re clinging to isn’t reason -- it’s a thinly veiled justification for destruction, wrapped in highfalutin language to give it the appearance of principle.

Your delusion is total, you've been Trumped and there is no cure.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

You mean wackadoodle Aileen Cannon who was revered twice already? Her ruling will be reversed as it defies law and precedent.

So it appears judges can be wrong in your opinion.

All you need to "overcome" a judge's ruling is calling them "wackadoodle", see it wasn't so hard after all.

Doesn't negate the fact that the 2024 is not 1776.

It was not meant to. It was meant to negate the only possible point that comment could have been making.

Biden got the infrastructure bill passed, bipartisan, in his first 300 days,and Trump, with both houses under his thumb, couldn't get it done in four years. Call him names, but he did better than Trump.

As if you are the arbiter of such things. Sorry, you are fooling no one.

The Constitution was written to prevent tyranny. Tyranny doesn't equal 'getting the job done'. Your idea is 'your way or the highway' which is tyranny, which is Anti-American, anti-democratic, and thus, subversive, and will be challenged, rightfully so.

The job is to prevent tyranny. Thinking your beliefs are right isn't tyranny. Everybody thinks they're right.

Do I have remind you that Stewart Rhodes, who rebelled, is in prison?

We'll have to get him out and punish the fascist thugs who put him there. Political prisoners are an aspect of tyranny.

No, you can't have both. the constitution authorizes the gov to suppress rebellion. Since it's not 1776, the ground you stand on is quicksand, not America of 1776.

Fighting fascist governments is always quicksand, but with the legitimacy of the popular vote and legal authority over the military and the entire executive branch it's a whole lot safer.

If we can free the political prisoners who rebelled against tyranny, restore liberty, restore democracy, restore the rule of law; all by constitutional means... well that seems like having the cake and eating it too.

Chaos is chaos. When it comes to governance, chaos invites foreign invasion.

Which is a good thing if your government is fascist. That's why good Italians killed Mussolini even as their country was being invaded.

yeah yeah, your the self-styled philosopher king

Philosopher yes, king no.

armed with a half-baked grasp of history and a smug belief in his own infallibility.

If I believed myself to be infallible I wouldn't solicit reasoning from others.

You apparently have none to give.

You invoke slavery and human sacrifice as though that somehow elevates your argument, but all it does is highlight the sheer absurdity of your rhetoric.

Reality is absurdity to the insane.

Comparing the fight to preserve constitutional governance to ancient barbarism? That’s not reason; it’s a desperate reach for moral equivalence where none exists.

I'm saying barbarism could come again, and then they would judge this whole "democracy & equal rights" thing as pompous blasphemy.

There is no guarantee that moral correctness increases with time and so appealing to the opinions of future generations, besides being totally unpredictable, is an unreliable proxy for objective morality.

And spare me your hollow nod to "the dictates of reason." Reason doesn’t lead to tearing down a functioning system of checks and balances in favor of authoritarian chaos.

You presume it's functioning, but if the deep state is so entrenched that the stazi like organization living inside the DOJ like a parasite can't be dismantled by the president of the united states then it is no longer functioning nor salvageable within "the rules".

The rules of war are not the rules of peace. Contracts which are broken no longer bind.

 

[Publius]

So it appears judges can be wrong in your opinion.

Well, this one, for sure

All you need to "overcome" a judge's ruling is calling them "wackadoodle", see it wasn't so hard after all.

She's been rebuked twice already by the 11th circuit. She's an outlier, going against the two conservatives on the court. She will be reversed, and if two rebukes isn't enough to assign her the status of wackadoodle, then 3 should do the trick.

It was not meant to. It was meant to negate the only possible point that comment could have been making.

Whatever, your fevered dreams of 'rebellion' being 'noble' are pure fantasy.

As if you are the arbiter of such things. Sorry, you are fooling no one.

I just gave you some facts, that's not arbiting anything, and if mockery is the best you can do, well, we already know your debate skills are piss poor.

The job is to prevent tyranny. Thinking your beliefs are right isn't tyranny. Everybody thinks they're right.

The following is not 'belief' it is fact: The constitution requires the Senate to 'advise and consent' on appointments, and the exceptions are not the primary rule. Trump is threatening to bypass the rule, which is to say, bypassing the constitution's exceptions via fiat, which IS tyranny, which is unconstitutional.

We'll have to get him out and punish the fascist thugs who put him there. Political prisoners are an aspect of tyranny.

You live in a bizarro world. Sorry, and No, Rhodes is the thug, and those who put him there were doing their constitutional duty to follow the law. The Constitution requires the government, under the militia clause, to suppress rebellions & insurrections. Sorry, that's' the rule of law, and those who follow the rule of law are the good guys, and guys like Rhodes, who is not following the rule of law, are the bad guys, so, Mr. (anti) Liberty (who dreams of fascism) you have it upside down and backwards. Your contention is the ZENITH OF DELUSION.

Fighting fascist governments is always quicksand, but with the legitimacy of the popular vote and legal authority over the military and the entire executive branch it's a whole lot safer.

If we can free the political prisoners who rebelled against tyranny, restore liberty, restore democracy, restore the rule of law; all by constitutional means... well that seems like having the cake and eating it too.

ZENITH OF DELUSION.

Which is a good thing if your government is fascist. That's why good Italians killed Mussolini even as their country was being invaded.

There is no 'if'.

Philosopher yes, king no.

Philosopher? No, pseudo-libertarian-sophist? Yes.

If I believed myself to be infallible I wouldn't solicit reasoning from others.

Well, let's agree on your fallibility.

You apparently have none to give.

As if you would know. How quaint.

Reality is absurdity to the insane.

Well, finally, you've accurately described yourself, 'tis about time. Congratulations!

I'm saying barbarism could come again, and then they would judge this whole "democracy & equal rights" thing as pompous blasphemy.

There is no guarantee that moral correctness increases with time and so appealing to the opinions of future generations, besides being totally unpredictable, is an unreliable proxy for objective morality.

Tsk tsk. Y'all on the right have been perpetuating this fevered dream for a long time, now. It's really getting old.

You presume it's functioning, but if the deep state is so entrenched that the stazi like organization living inside the DOJ like a parasite can't be dismantled by the president of the united states then it is no longer functioning nor salvageable within "the rules".

No one is saying the gov is perfect, but your contention is delusion. And the only reason you cling to it is because your guy is a criminal, sex abuser, pervert, convicted felon, fraudster, con man, an all around despicable human being and you can't admit it.

The rules of war are not the rules of peace. Contracts which are broken no longer bind.

Pure delusion.

 

[Publius]

View attachment 36004​

You''ve elected a criminal, fraudster, con man, sex abusing pervert for President, and now you want Trump to install a pedophile as AG? And this, to you, equals saving the country? My gawd you guys are deluded. The only thing Trump is going to to is keep his sorry ass out of jail, which is the reason he became president in the first place, that and retribution, using the DOJ as a weapon, which makes you guys colossal hypocrites since y'all have been accusing the left of it.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

sex abusing pervert for President

I thought evidence needed to be corroborated?

 

[Walt]

Not of cabinet members. Go read Article II again.

Cabinet members need to be confirmed also. The one exception is the VP, if elected. If appointed, even the VP needs to be confirmed.

 

[Publius]

I thought evidence needed to be corroborated?

I thought the evidence was widely known, so much so I didn't actually believe you would even ask for it?
What, you haven't been paying attention in the last 8 years?

26 women have accused him of sexual abuse
he's bragged about it twice
on tape and in a deposition ...
He was ordered to pay $5 (raised to $88 million later, for repeating the defamation) restitution
for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll.

what are the odds he did the deed?

Trump Rape Lawsuit: Jury Finds Trump Liable for Sexual Abuse and Defamation (Published 2023)

A jury of six men and three women awarded the writer E. Jean Carroll $5 million in damages. Donald J. Trump called the verdict a “disgrace.”

www.nytimes.com

On Howard Stern show;

Trump: “My daughter is beautiful, Ivanka."

Stern: “By the way, your daughter…”

Trump: “ - she’s beautiful"

Stern: “Can I say this? A piece of ass.”

Trump: “Yeah.”


On The View, Trump said:

Donald and Ivanka appeared together on The View while promoting Season Three of The Apprentice.

" I've said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her." --DJT

Men like Trump date women for one big reason, to have sex with them.

On a TV show with Trump and Ivanka, a host asks a question to Ivanka:

"What's the favorite thing you have in common with your father?" , the Host, asks.

"Either real estate or golf" -- Ivanka replied....

She then looks at her dad, who retorts:

"Well, I was going to say sex," (emphasis Trump's), then Ivanka, looking startled, Trump then said. "But I can't relate that"

Creepy Trump.......

Trump admitted on Howard Stern that he, as the teen pageant owner, likes to barge in while teens are dressing to "inspect" them in various stages of undress during pageants.

Here is the actual recording and quote:

"I'll go backstage during a show and everyone is getting dressed, getting ready and everything else,
and, you know, no men are anywhere, and I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and
therefore I'm 'inspecting it', "Is everyone okay" you know, they are standing there with no clothes,
"is everybody okay" and you see these incredible looking women and so I get away with things like that."

If that isn't proof he is a pervert, then I don't know what is.

"I moved on her like a bitch....grab them by the p*ssy" The access Hollywood tape

21 Things Trump Has *Actually* Said About Women | marie claire

Donald Trump has been elected president once again. Why is this an issue for women? His own quotes say it all, really.

www.marieclaire.com.au

It's one thing when 14 year old boys talk like this, but for a President of the United States?

Yeah, that's who America is, anyone who voted for him, it's who YOU are, now.

And don't give me any crap that this isn't evidence of a perverted sex abuser.

If this were a male democrat, you guys would be shouting through bullhorns' on roof tops across america.

I mean, with only scant evidence, look what you guys tried to do to Biden?

Scant evidence.

So don't give me any crap you imagine you have on Biden, none of the so-called evidence on Biden is of a sexual nature, and those of you who make that claim, are projecting your sick imagination into it which doesn't exist in reality. Tara Reade? She tried to defect to russia and praised Putin on Russian TV, she's a wackadoodle. All of the other women, their only complaint was 'uncomfortable touching'. Biden is a toucher, an overly affectionate male, which is a bad habit in the 'me,too' era, (I've known men and women who were like that) but none of it was sexual, it's just that's his nature, it's all very innocent, and Biden has modified his behavior.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

I thought the evidence was widely known, so much so I didn't actually believe you would even ask for it?
What, you haven't been paying attention in the last 8 years?

26 women have accused him of sexual abuse

None of them corroborated

Where is that hard evidence you claim to require?

he's bragged about it twice

No he hasn't.

He was ordered to pay $5 (raised to $88 million later, for repeating the defamation) restitution
for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll.

Begging the question fallacy.

what are the odds he did the deed?

Oh now all the legal formality is out the window, all you care about is odds.

No need for corroboration. No need for hard evidence. A single witness is good enough. What a hypocrite you are.

I mean, with only scant evidence, look what you guys tried to do to Biden?

Scant evidence.

So where is the corroboration of sexual abuse/rape hypocrite?

So don't give me any crap you imagine you have on Biden, none of the so-called evidence on Biden is of a sexual nature

"New rule" no corroboration or hard evidence required if it's of a "sexual nature".

I seem to recall something in the last four hundred years of English common law that said the opposite. It goes something like this: Accusation of sexual misconduct are defamation per se, malice need not be established. So for example when Jean Carroll accused Trump of rape that's defamation per say, truth is her only defense, and she has no hard evidence and no corroboration.

Of course in the clown world of kangaroo courts created by TDS all precedence get's inverted and somehow the accused is liable for denying the crime. How did you put it? What they're doing is tearing down a system they neither understand nor care to engage with, all in the name of some deluded, grandiose crusade to GET TRUMP.

Tara Reade? She tried to defect to russia and praised Putin on Russian TV, she's a wackadoodle.

Yes yes all the witnesses, judges, juries, prosecutors, lawyers, news outlets, podcasts, and people who pose a threat to deep state interests are wackadoodle.

Biden is a toucher, an overly affectionate male

How sweet

 

[Diogenes]

Just in case you don’t understand what’s going on here, President Trump may be the greatest civics teacher in our country’s history.

Read and learn.

Silly Swampers shrilly screeching the "unqualified" mantra are trying to pretend they are champions of “Senate confirmation”, without considering whether or not it is constitutional.

This is purposeful.

Governmental power should only ever be exercised on behalf of the people. President Trump just received a massive mandate from the people of America.

President Trump wants this fight and he wants it to be very public.

Why?

All of nis nominees will now be contrasted with the “preferred” candidates of the DC establishment, and the Swampers suffer by comparison.

But it’s more than that.

This fight is over whether or not a president gets to choose his own cabinet to run the Executive Branch.

For too long, the Senate has encroached on the Executive Branch's powers in regards to appointments.

The framers of the Constitution granted the Senate and the president shared power to appoint judges and civil officers. That shared power remains in place, but the way in which the Senate has exercised that power has changed over the course of its history.

In its first decade, the Senate established the practice of senatorial courtesy, in which senators expected to be consulted on all nominees to federal posts - within their states.

This influence over filling federal jobs empowered senators, and many became leaders of the political parties that emerged in the early 19th century. That's when the Democrats invented the Spoils System that poisoned American government with partisan political patronage.

By the late 19th century, in the Boss Tweed/Tammany Hall era, Republican presidents and Democrat senators began to clash over control of these positions, prompting some to push the notion of "advice and consent" of the Senate beyond the scope of the Constitution, while also expanding the federal bureaucracy that was beholden to the party.

What started as Senatorial “courtesy" morphed into Senate “approval".

As the federal government grew in size in the 20th century, the number of appointments subject to Senate confirmation continued to grow until the 1980s, when a Republican majority in Congress passed legislation that has gradually reduced the number of positions supposedly subject to Senate confirmation.

President Trump is taking us back to the Constitution.

As the founders intended, Congress will no longer be able to prevent a president elected by the people from fulfilling his promises by appointing the people he wants.

This is the beginning of reining in Congressional encroachment on the Executive Branch and re-establishing the separation of powers.

U.S. Senate: About Executive Nominations | Historical Overview​

www.senate.gov

 

[Litmus]

Yes, he is President.

But the dems rolling over for him? You think so? I have my doubts. There are plenty of people who dislike Trump.

especially neocon globalist David frum pnac never Trumper fuckfaces.

 

[Publius]

None of them corroborated

Where is that hard evidence you claim to require?

Corroborated? just watch the videos and listen to the tapes.

Clearly, you're totally ignorant. I mean, I put the turds right on your plate and you can't smell them.

In other words, I gave you hard evidence.

So, I'm putting you on ignore, which is the appropriate place for ignorant people.

If you respond, it will not appear in my browser. This is the only recourse for ignorant people.

I've been patient with you, but your comment above, in face of the evidence, is about as much ignorance as I can tolerate.

Congratulations, you've earned it.

 

[Publius]

Just in case you don’t understand what’s going on here, President Trump may be the greatest civics teacher in our country’s history.

Read and learn.

Silly Swampers shrilly screeching the "unqualified" mantra are trying to pretend they are champions of “Senate confirmation”, without considering whether or not it is constitutional.

This is purposeful.

Governmental power should only ever be exercised on behalf of the people. President Trump just received a massive mandate from the people of America.

President Trump wants this fight and he wants it to be very public.

Why?

All of nis nominees will now be contrasted with the “preferred” candidates of the DC establishment, and the Swampers suffer by comparison.

But it’s more than that.

This fight is over whether or not a president gets to choose his own cabinet to run the Executive Branch.

For too long, the Senate has encroached on the Executive Branch's powers in regards to appointments.

The framers of the Constitution granted the Senate and the president shared power to appoint judges and civil officers. That shared power remains in place, but the way in which the Senate has exercised that power has changed over the course of its history.

In its first decade, the Senate established the practice of senatorial courtesy, in which senators expected to be consulted on all nominees to federal posts - within their states.

This influence over filling federal jobs empowered senators, and many became leaders of the political parties that emerged in the early 19th century. That's when the Democrats invented the Spoils System that poisoned American government with partisan political patronage.

By the late 19th century, in the Boss Tweed/Tammany Hall era, Republican presidents and Democrat senators began to clash over control of these positions, prompting some to push the notion of "advice and consent" of the Senate beyond the scope of the Constitution, while also expanding the federal bureaucracy that was beholden to the party.

What started as Senatorial “courtesy" morphed into Senate “approval".

As the federal government grew in size in the 20th century, the number of appointments subject to Senate confirmation continued to grow until the 1980s, when a Republican majority in Congress passed legislation that has gradually reduced the number of positions supposedly subject to Senate confirmation.

President Trump is taking us back to the Constitution.

As the founders intended, Congress will no longer be able to prevent a president elected by the people from fulfilling his promises by appointing the people he wants.

This is the beginning of reining in Congressional encroachment on the Executive Branch and re-establishing the separation of powers.

U.S. Senate: About Executive Nominations | Historical Overview​

www.senate.gov

Please separate quoted text from your own writing, that's internet courtesy.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

In other words, I gave you hard evidence.

rofl, really what was it?

So, I'm putting you on ignore, which is the appropriate place for ignorant people.

Understandable, I am the bane of hypocrites everywhere.