Executive Powers

[Icarus]

If it comes to bullets,there are those among us who have already decided upon the targets ....................... 

[Recusant]

So no one can find where Trump exceeded the constitution.

That's a pathetic lie. I provided a number of adjudicated violations of the US Constitution. You discard three instances because you don't like the politics of the judge, but that doesn't change the fact that a duly appointed judge has ruled the president violated three different amendments in the Bill of Rights.

I also cited (and you've ignored) the fact that Trump attempted via executive order to invalidate Article 1 of the 14th Amendment. That tyrannical move has been blocked by three different judges. Two of the judges were appointed by Republicans and are by no means "leftist." For example, Judge Coughenour (appointed by Ronald Reagan) said that Trump's action was "clearly unconstitutional." From the ruling:

Citizenship by birth is an unequivocal constitutional right. It is one of the principles that makes the United States the great nation that it is. The president cannot change, limit or qualify this constitutional right via an executive order.

Feeble handwaving and lying doesn't change the facts. If I had not had previous experience with the nonsense you post, I'd consider your blatant lie about what has been posted in this thread to be nothing more or less than trolling.

I can't find one either.

Giving the benefit of the doubt, this is simply motivated myopia. It looks more like smug mendacity.

However, from my neutral perch I prefer Trump over any other at the moment. You may not agree but I am neutral which allows insight in many directions. To me Trump is a preference not a liking. But, we have a problem you're not seeing- maybe. You can choose a republican tyrant or a democrat tyrant, or Civil War, pick one.

Your posting history doesn't support your assertion of neutrality. In fact, I consider that another lie.

How about we simply have a president who doesn't repeatedly attempt to violate the US Constitution? You may not "prefer" that, but in four years the administration of the previous president had a much better record than Trump in just the first few months of his second term.

Trump may be forced to overstep the constitution to preserve the country, or in the next presidential election the military industrial system retake control that consists of a a tyrannical cadre, and we all lose our freedoms and country - result, civil war. I won't explain as it would be a long one. You'll have to research it for yourselves to find why I came to this conclusion. All the information needed exists and can be found.

There is an unwritten specification  by the founders that government may at some circumstances be abolished, and I,m assuming ---reset. Back in the early 90's I predicted this will come to bullets. 

It looks to me like you're saying it's OK for Trump to violate the US Constitution because you believe his cause is righteous. That's an authoritarian point of view and you'll not be surprised to learn I vehemently disagree. Elsewhere I strongly condemned Obama for using military force to carry out the extrajudicial killing of a US citizen but given your position I believe you'd support Trump doing the same.

Right-wingers in America and elsewhere are infamous for threatening and in some instances carrying out deadly violence in pursuit of their political goals. From the Oklahoma City bombing, to the jerk in Norway who indiscriminately killed a large number of teenagers, to righteous assholes who shoot up discount stores, churches, synagogues, and mosques. The list goes on, and on.

That's nothing new, and shit-for-brains fascist goobers like the Boogaloo Boys have been champing at the bit for "civil war" for years. I expect that various campaigns of deadly right wing violence will be a part of life in the United States for the foreseeable future, but I sincerely hope you are as wrong about civil war as you have been about so many other things.

[Icarus]

  Some of us have the unique ability to create our own political reality.

[Recusant]

Some of us have the unique ability to create our own political reality.

Most of the MAGA crowd have had plenty of help. Fox News (and lately other more extreme "news" channels like One America News) and rabid right-wing talk radio have done a job on them. To hear them tell it, these propaganda-spewing media are the only sources of truth, everything else is "leftist" garbage.

Fox News is infamous for knowingly propagating clearly partisan lies and then if they're called on it, they claim it was "an inadvertent error." The viewers don't see much if any of that because it's called out in outlets they don't pay any attention to and Fox News often doesn't air retractions or even lame excuses, leaving other outlets (shunned by the Fox News viewership) to report on them. I say this as somebody who up until a couple of years ago was a regular viewer of Fox News. Not for factual information but to keep myself familiar with the drivel that so many Americans consider vital reporting.

[Icarus]

Do you suppose that commentators like Laura Ingraham actually believe the content of their programs?

[Dark Lightning]

Yee, I hope not. That's in the neighborhood of that Tucker Carlson joker. I think that it's all farce. It's fun to joke around, but their audience takes it face value. It's morally wrong to even present that shit, to my mind. It's like  "The Onion" pretending to be real. Uhhh...

[Recusant]

Do you suppose that commentators like Laura Ingraham actually believe the content of their programs?

We only have solid evidence of knowing mendacity from a few sources (for instance regarding the "election was stolen" narrative in 2020). That tells us that they don't always believe the things they're saying, but we don't know the extent of that sort of lying.

[Recusant]

I should have qualified my statement above. I was talking about evidence that unequivocally substantiates an accusation of knowingly lying on the part of Fox News. However, that particular issue was outstandingly significant.

We know that they put out falsehoods and half-truths on a regular basis. It's been a running joke for a couple of decades. If they'll knowingly lie about such an important issue, to me it indicates that knowingly lying to favor their chosen political position is something they do regularly. It's not something that's against internal company culture, despite their public-facing position of being truth-tellers.

That's what I think and believe to be the case. In the previous post I was thinking about really solid evidence (useful in a lawsuit, for instance).

Personally, I think Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity (for instance) are sincere in their political affiliation. Their dishonesty is in propagating falsehoods to push the agenda they support.