The Democrats: No Friends of Free Speech and the Constitution

 

Democrats and never-Trump Republicans assert that Trump must not be reelected because he threatens the Constitution.  Peggy Noonan goes so far as to say, in her most recent WSJ column, that Kamala Harris should move to a more centrist position on a range of issues in order to improve her chances of winning, thereby negating Trump’s perceived threat to constitutional government.

The problem with this formulation is that the Democrats don’t much like constitutional government, and indeed don’t much like the Constitution itself.  (And by “Democrats,” I mean not only the Democrat officeholders and politicians but also the larger party, including the academics, bureaucrats, and media people who are the party’s ideologues and the beneficiaries of its policies and who think themselves entitled to be the kingmakers or prince-electors of America.)

For example, here is Hillary Clinton calling for Americans to be civilly or even criminally charged for ‘misinformation.’  Here is Kamala herself, asserting that Trump has lost his free speech privileges and that his Twitter account (this is from 2019) should be taken down…and expressing dismay that social media sites can speak directly to millions of people without any level of oversight.  Tim Walz says, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech…” the definitions of which, of course, he surely expects to be edited by people ideologically aligned with himself.  Democrat Representative Jamie Raskin has been a leading figure in Congress opposing efforts to investigate and curtail massive censorship programs coordinated by the Biden administration.

Many academics and journalists—representing professions that are highly Democrat-aligned—have attacked the very foundations of free speech and constitutional government.  For example:  New York Times book critic Jennifer Szalai scoffs at what she calls “Constitution worship.”  In another New York Times piece, titled “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” two law professors (one from Harvard and one from Yale) call for America to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”  Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school, is the author of No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States, published last month. There are more examples at the link.

Democrats have also called for expanding the membership of the Supreme Court, for purposes of what used to be called court-packing, and have been extremely tolerant of the “heckler’s veto.” Indeed, often now, the thug’s veto to shut down speech which is considered Badthink.

This is not a matter of a few rhetorical excesses: there is clearly a very broad-based and multi-layered movement against free speech—and toward further centralization of power–among prominent and influential Democrats.

Particularly appalling:  This presentation excerpt and slide, the presentation being given at Harvard and apparently authored by a professor at George Washington University.  The phrase “Breaking Free from the First Amendment” reminded me of the young man who said, circa 1933:  “We Germans are so happy.  We are free of freedom.”

As long as we have free speech, other problems can be corrected.  When free speech is lost, the feedback loops of society are broken…and disasters can and will occur.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 35 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Nathanael Ferguson Contributor
    Nathanael Ferguson
    @NathanaelFerguson

    No one in the Never Trump crowd has ever made a compelling, or even credible, case to justify supporting Kamala Harris for president when it is obvious for all to see that she will do everything in her power to dispense with political norms and subvert the Constitution. Pick any major issue and ask a Never Trump cultist how they can possibly be ok supporting it. After all, they are not just supporting Harris, they are by extension supporting her policies and governing philosophy. 

    • #1
  2. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    David Foster: As long as we have free speech, other problems can be corrected.  When free speech is lost, the feedback loops of society are broken…and disasters can and will occur.

    Yes. There is a reason it is first.

    • #2
  3. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    I really like this post as an explanation for what we are seeing.

    I am keenly aware of the positions espoused by both side in the political campaign wordplay, but I cannot, for the life of me, identify the acts allegedly committed by Donald Trump that lead to an assertion that he is dictatorial and a threat to democracy.

    Can anyone here lay out what Trump behavior leads to this conclusion?

    • #3
  4. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    I really like this post as an explanation for what we are seeing.

    I am keenly aware of the positions espoused by both side in the political campaign wordplay, but I cannot, for the life of me, identify the acts allegedly committed by Donald Trump that lead to an assertion that he is dictatorial and a threat to democracy.

    Can anyone here lay out what Trump behavior leads to this conclusion?

    AFAIK, their justifications are limited to a few comments, either taken out of context or manufactured outright. But it could be anything.

    • #4
  5. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    I really like this post as an explanation for what we are seeing.

    I am keenly aware of the positions espoused by both side in the political campaign wordplay, but I cannot, for the life of me, identify the acts allegedly committed by Donald Trump that lead to an assertion that he is dictatorial and a threat to democracy.

    Can anyone here lay out what Trump behavior leads to this conclusion?

    AFAIK, their justifications are limited to a few comments, either taken out of context or manufactured outright. But it could be anything.

    This is what it appears to be as far as I can tell and to avoid debate and a need to explain their positions, we get censorship followed by an obvious need to destroy the Constitution because there is no way for these crazies to repeal the First Amendment. Packing the Supreme Court would enable an interpretation that serves their purposes.

    • #5
  6. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways, in the most important time periods”  – Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson  to Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga.

     

    • #6
  7. Ray Gunner Coolidge
    Ray Gunner
    @RayGunner

    David Foster: This is not a matter of a few rhetorical excesses; there is clearly a very broad-based and multi-layered movement against free speech–and toward further centralization of power–among prominent and influential Democrats.

    This is right.  And it is why the Founders came up with the whole idea of a written constitution to begin with.  They believed it to be a law of politics that power will end up aggregating into a smaller and smaller number of ruthless people, and then tyranny.  The Constitution is a body of law whose entire purpose is to keep political power de-aggregated so that the would be tyrants are forever deprived of sufficient power to tyrannize.

    The people calling for the undoing of the Constitution are precisely the kind of  elitist power aggregators the Constitution exists to thwart.   So of course they want to be rid of it.

    And their sudden panic over free speech is rooted in their recognition that the internet, in its capacity to carry unlimited amounts of free political speech, makes their dreams of power aggregation much more difficult, because the rest of us remain free to call them out on it, and on a global scale.  So what have they come up with?  Their whole “misinformation/disinformation” schtick, which is their pretext for putting the internet-powered free speech genie back in its bottle.  It won’t work.

    Here’s what I know:  No freedom loving person is ever afraid of free political speech.  Tyrants are. 

    • #7
  8. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    I believe the title of this post speaks truth, so all Democrat Party  members who take oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution are lying.

    • #8
  9. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Bob Thompson: I am keenly aware of the positions espoused by both side in the political campaign wordplay, but I cannot, for the life of me, identify the acts allegedly committed by Donald Trump that lead to an assertion that he is dictatorial and a threat to democracy.

    Can anyone here lay out what Trump behavior leads to this conclusion?

    Exhibit A – Trump on Truth Social 9/25/23:

    “They are almost all dishonest and corrupt, but Comcast, with its one-side and vicious coverage by NBC NEWS, and in particular MSNBC, often and correctly referred to as MSDNC (Democrat National Committee!), should be investigated for its ‘Country Threatening Treason’

    “It’s the world’s biggest political contribution to the Radical Left Democrats who, by the way, are destroying our Country. Our so-called ‘government’ should come down hard on them and make them pay for their illegal political activity. Much more to come, watch!”

    Exhibit B – Trump on Fox & Friends after the debate with Harris:

    “ABC took a big hit last night. I mean, to be honest, they’re a news organization. They have to be licensed to do it. They ought to take away their license for the way they did that.”

    No, ABC doesn’t need a license to operate a news organization, only to run their owned and operated affiliates.

    Exhibit C – Trump on Truth Social 10/10/24 on Harris interview on 60 Minutes:

    “Her REAL ANSWER WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer in order to save her or, at least, make her look better. A FAKE NEWS SCAM, which is totally illegal. TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE.”

    So we’re three for four on Trump threatening to punish broadcast networks for exercising their First Amendment rights. And, no, @barfly these are not taken out of context or made up. Trump exhibits a consistent desire for the government to take action against his critics.

    Now let’s talk about Trump’s threats to violate Posse Comitatus and use the military as a police force:

    Exhibit D – Trump on Fox News 10/13/24:

    “I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

    Now, you can rationally think that the Democrats are radical left lunatics. But there is no scenario under the Constitution they can be dealt with militarily. He also suggests that the US Navy be used for drug interdictions. No, let the Navy be the Navy, the Coast Guard is already armed with police authority.

    Trump supporters have long ago convinced themselves that Trump isn’t to be taken literally. But if you’re complaining about dishonesty in the media and from the Democrats how do you give Trump a pass? And if Trump does get elected he’ll be a lame duck from Day One with absolutely nothing to lose if he can put enough loyalists in position to make good on his promises.

    • #9
  10. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson: I am keenly aware of the positions espoused by both side in the political campaign wordplay, but I cannot, for the life of me, identify the acts allegedly committed by Donald Trump that lead to an assertion that he is dictatorial and a threat to democracy.

    Can anyone here lay out what Trump behavior leads to this conclusion?

    Exhibit A – Trump on Truth Social 9/25/23:

    “They are almost all dishonest and corrupt, but Comcast, with its one-side and vicious coverage by NBC NEWS, and in particular MSNBC, often and correctly referred to as MSDNC (Democrat National Committee!), should be investigated for its ‘Country Threatening Treason’

    “It’s the world’s biggest political contribution to the Radical Left Democrats who, by the way, are destroying our Country. Our so-called ‘government’ should come down hard on them and make them pay for their illegal political activity. Much more to come, watch!”

    Exhibit B – Trump on Fox & Friends after the debate with Harris:

    “ABC took a big hit last night. I mean, to be honest, they’re a news organization. They have to be licensed to do it. They ought to take away their license for the way they did that.”

    No, ABC doesn’t need a license to operate a news organization, only to run their owned and operated affiliates.

    Exhibit C – Trump on Truth Social 10/10/24 on Harris interview on 60 Minutes:

    “Her REAL ANSWER WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer in order to save her or, at least, make her look better. A FAKE NEWS SCAM, which is totally illegal. TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE.”

    So we’re three for four on Trump threatening to punish broadcast networks for exercising their First Amendment rights. And, no, @ barfly these are not taken out of context or made up. Trump exhibits a consistent desire for the government to take action against his critics.

    Now let’s talk about Trump’s threats to violate Posse Comitatus and use the military as a police force:

    Exhibit D – Trump on Fox News 10/13/24:

    “I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

    Now, you can rationally think that the Democrats are radical left lunatics. But there is no scenario under the Constitution they can be dealt with militarily. He also suggests that the US Navy be used for drug interdictions. No, let the Navy be the Navy, the Coast Guard is already armed with police authority.

    Trump supporters have long ago convinced themselves that Trump isn’t to be taken literally. But if you’re complaining about dishonesty in the media and from the Democrats how do you give Trump a pass? And if Trump does get elected he’ll be a lame duck from Day One with absolutely nothing to lose if he can put enough loyalists in position to make good on his promises.

    you know he was president from 2016-2022 – what did he do to free speech during those years – did he try to create a ministry of truth like FJB? 

    • #10
  11. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    GlennAmurgis: you know he was president from 2016-2022 – what did he do to free speech during those years – did he try to create a ministry of truth like FJB?

    I’ve been told over and over again by Trump supporters that he was thwarted repeatedly in his first term by “disloyal” RINOs and bureaucrats and they promise a second Trump Administration will be unrestrained. So that past is absolutely meaningless, isn’t it?

    • #11
  12. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson: I am keenly aware of the positions espoused by both side in the political campaign wordplay, but I cannot, for the life of me, identify the acts allegedly committed by Donald Trump that lead to an assertion that he is dictatorial and a threat to democracy.

    Can anyone here lay out what Trump behavior leads to this conclusion?

    Exhibit A – Trump on Truth Social 9/25/23:

    “They are almost all dishonest and corrupt, but Comcast, with its one-side and vicious coverage by NBC NEWS, and in particular MSNBC, often and correctly referred to as MSDNC (Democrat National Committee!), should be investigated for its ‘Country Threatening Treason’

    “It’s the world’s biggest political contribution to the Radical Left Democrats who, by the way, are destroying our Country. Our so-called ‘government’ should come down hard on them and make them pay for their illegal political activity. Much more to come, watch!”

    Exhibit B – Trump on Fox & Friends after the debate with Harris:

    “ABC took a big hit last night. I mean, to be honest, they’re a news organization. They have to be licensed to do it. They ought to take away their license for the way they did that.”

    No, ABC doesn’t need a license to operate a news organization, only to run their owned and operated affiliates.

    Exhibit C – Trump on Truth Social 10/10/24 on Harris interview on 60 Minutes:

    “Her REAL ANSWER WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer in order to save her or, at least, make her look better. A FAKE NEWS SCAM, which is totally illegal. TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE.”

    So we’re three for four on Trump threatening to punish broadcast networks for exercising their First Amendment rights. And, no, @ barfly these are not taken out of context or made up. Trump exhibits a consistent desire for the government to take action against his critics.

    Now let’s talk about Trump’s threats to violate Posse Comitatus and use the military as a police force:

    Exhibit D – Trump on Fox News 10/13/24:

    “I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

    Now, you can rationally think that the Democrats are radical left lunatics. But there is no scenario under the Constitution they can be dealt with militarily. He also suggests that the US Navy be used for drug interdictions. No, let the Navy be the Navy, the Coast Guard is already armed with police authority.

    Trump supporters have long ago convinced themselves that Trump isn’t to be taken literally. But if you’re complaining about dishonesty in the media and from the Democrats how do you give Trump a pass? And if Trump does get elected he’ll be a lame duck from Day One with absolutely nothing to lose if he can put enough loyalists in position to make good on his promises.

    So, No Action, Talk Only. Oh, that’s NATO, I forgot.

    Seriously, I have no fear created from any of these words but complete confidence that any action taken by Trump in a second term will be Constitutional and the American people support the Constitution,  even while so many elected Democrats openly state that they don’t.  And they are very obviously serious and ready to act on “packing the Supreme Court”, for example. Why do you not take issue with that talk?

    • #12
  13. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Bob Thompson: Seriously, I have no fear created from any of these words but complete confidence that any action taken by Trump in a second term will be Constitutional and the American people support the Constitution, even while so many elected Democrats openly state that they don’t.

    That makes no sense. Democrats openly state what they want to do and you fear them. Donald Trump and his surrogates openly state what unconstitutional actions he wants to do and you don’t. As I said to Glenn above, this time we’re promised a different Trump and more competent execution of his wishes.

    And they are very obviously serious and ready to act on “packing the Supreme Court”, for example. Why do you not take issue with that talk?

    Because that’s not how one answers the question, “Can anyone here lay out what Trump behavior leads to this conclusion?” Don’t ask questions you don’t want answered.

     

     

    • #13
  14. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson: Seriously, I have no fear created from any of these words but complete confidence that any action taken by Trump in a second term will be Constitutional and the American people support the Constitution, even while so many elected Democrats openly state that they don’t.

    That makes no sense. Democrats openly state what they want to do and you fear them. Donald Trump and his surrogates openly state what unconstitutional actions he wants to do and you don’t. As I said to Glenn above, this time we’re promised a different Trump and more competent execution of his wishes.

    And they are very obviously serious and ready to act on “packing the Supreme Court”, for example. Why do you not take issue with that talk?

    Because that’s not how one answers the question, “Can anyone here lay out what Trump behavior leads to this conclusion?” Don’t ask questions you don’t want answered.

     

     

    You seem to be supporting the “October Surprise” calling Trump “Hitler” while ignoring real efforts to undermine the Constitution by lawmakers like Raskin.

    Flurry of Stories Against Trump Become Focus of ‘October Surprise’

    • #14
  15. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Bob Thompson: You seem to be supporting the “October Surprise” calling Trump “Hitler” while ignoring real efforts to undermine the Constitution by lawmakers like Raskin.

    There’s an old saying associated with lawyering that goes, “Don’t ask a question you don’t already know the answer to or don’t want answered in the first place.”

    Answers you don’t like, and the facts behind them, don’t support any other position of Trump’s opponents. It only answers the question asked.

     

    • #15
  16. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson: You seem to be supporting the “October Surprise” calling Trump “Hitler” while ignoring real efforts to undermine the Constitution by lawmakers like Raskin.

    There’s an old saying associated with lawyering that goes, “Don’t ask a question you don’t already know the answer to or don’t want answered in the first place.”

    Answers you don’t like, and the facts behind them, don’t support any other position of Trump’s opponents. It only answers the question asked.

     

    All you gave us was things Trump said not while in the office and with little context. Not convincing at all when compared to a VP in an Administration with a four-year performance record and a promise of more to come.

    Are you serious?

    • #16
  17. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Bob Thompson:  All you gave us was things Trump said not while in the office and with little context. Not convincing at all when compared to a VP in an Administration with a four-year performance record and a promise of more to come.

    Are you serious?

    More serious than you. You asked a question. I answered it. I gave you dates, places and circumstances. In the case of Trump’s social media postings they are complete and void of further “context.”

    Whether or not Trump was in office or running for office when he said these things doesn’t change the material facts. When things don’t go his way and he doesn’t receive the reaction he desires he lashes out and expresses a desire to unconstitutionally punish others using the levers of power to do so. In his first term he was surrounded by people who more often than not prevented him from following through.

    His DOJ didn’t prosecute Hillary Clinton precisely because Jeff Sessions (and later Bill Barr) stopped it. Now Trump and his campaign promise a second term will filled with revenge-minded sycophants. Not everyone has their head in the sand.

    • #17
  18. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    EJHill (View Comment):
    But there is no scenario under the Constitution they can be dealt with militarily.

    Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to enforce a Supreme Court decision.

    • #18
  19. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    One point I think is important: Given that 90% of media and academia are fully in bed with the Democratic Party, there will be very little pushback against the anti-free-speech and anti-Constitution move of a potential Harris administration.  

    The opposite is the case with Trump.

     

    • #19
  20. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    David Foster: Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to enforce a Supreme Court decision.

    He did and the state of Arkansas did not sue so the constitutionality or the legality of what Ike did was never established. Getting away with something is not the same as it being right. And it also says something to the trust between the American people and the man who led them to VE Day. Eisenhower pegged on the meter compared to Trump.

    George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act after the Rodney King riots in LA. But California Governor Pete Wilson and Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley asked for federal assistance. Trump has promised that he will not care.

    At an Iowa campaign stop Trump on November 27, 2023 was talking about the “crime dens” of New York and Chicago and said, “And one of the other things I’ll do — because you’re supposed to not be involved in that — you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in. The next time, I’m not waiting. One of the things I did was let them run it and we’re going to show how bad a job they do. Well, we did that. We don’t have to wait any longer.”

    But we’re not allowed to acknowledge the truth if it means that the truth might pose a benefit to the Harris campaign. It is weaponizing willful ignorance.

    • #20
  21. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis

    EJHill (View Comment):

    GlennAmurgis: you know he was president from 2016-2022 – what did he do to free speech during those years – did he try to create a ministry of truth like FJB?

    I’ve been told over and over again by Trump supporters that he was thwarted repeatedly in his first term by “disloyal” RINOs and bureaucrats and they promise a second Trump Administration will be unrestrained. So that past is absolutely meaningless, isn’t it?

    as opposed to Biden Amin which actually tried to regulate speech with a bureaucrat 

    • #21
  22. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    GlennAmurgis: as opposed to Biden Amin which actually tried to regulate speech with a bureaucrat

    Let’s try this again. The actions of the Biden Administration do not change the material facts that people also look at Trump and see an authoritarian in waiting because of things he has promised he will do and the campaign promising a second Trump Administration unshackled by “back-stabbing RINOs.”

    Your argument might as well be, “Look, you’re either going to be stabbed or shot. I think you should be stabbed. And don’t argue with me because there will be pain and there will be blood because I’m giving you this binary choice.

    • #22
  23. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    EJHill (View Comment):

    GlennAmurgis: as opposed to Biden Amin which actually tried to regulate speech with a bureaucrat

    Let’s try this again. The actions of the Biden Administration do not change the material facts that people also look at Trump and see an authoritarian in waiting because of things he has promised he will do and the campaign promising a second Trump Administration unshackled by “back-stabbing RINOs.”

    Your argument might as well be, “Look, you’re either going to be stabbed or shot. I think you should be stabbed. And don’t argue with me because there will be pain and there will be blood because I’m giving you this binary choice.

    I don’t accept your argument here as following the facts as I interpret their implications:

    We have four years of observable Biden/Harris Administration performance, endorsed by candidate Harris saying she would not change anything they have done. This includes deliberate and total contempt for immigration law, not by merely failing to enforce existing law, but actually aiding and abetting commission of crimes, White House involvement in influencing bogus criminal and civil cases against former President Trump, deliberate acts to avoid appropriate Secret Service security protection for former President and candidate Trump resulting in assassination attempts, extensive actions by federal intelligence and law enforcement entities to coerce corporate social media platforms to censor information originating from certain named sources, and numerous additional cases of actual proven actions, not just words. This doesn’t even touch on the economic performance of the Biden/Harris four years where replication can be expected.

    Your argument against Trump is all based on only his words, although we have had four years of his leadership that offered nothing approaching what you forecast he might do if re-elected and in those four years we had good economic performance and no new expanding military actions or commitments.

    Tell me what I said in the above that is inaccurate. 

    • #23
  24. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Bob Thompson: Tell me what I said in the above that is inaccurate.

    It is inaccurate because Trump revealed a lot about himself after his loss. As a lame duck he will not be tempered or restrained. He will not be surrounded by old Washington hands who he perceives have no personal loyalty to him. He is going to be driven by his demons. Even on the personal front it’s going to be less of the Kushners and more Don, Jr.

    Trump supporters have to be the first political base in history whose argument is, don’t listen to what our candidate is saying. “Elect Trump! We promise you he’s lying! Or at least we hope he’s lying! Yeah, we’re pretty sure.”

    Holding on to Trump version 1.0 is liking holding on to 10 lbs of hamburger for months after its sell by date. “Yeah, it looks rancid but I ate a quarter pound of it when I bought it new and I didn’t get sick then. It’ll be fine! And besides, what about that E. coli outbreak linked to chicken sold in Sacramento!?! Why don’t you talk about that!?!”

    • #24
  25. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson: Tell me what I said in the above that is inaccurate.

    It is inaccurate because Trump revealed a lot about himself after his loss. As a lame duck he will not be tempered or restrained. He will not be surrounded by old Washington hands who he perceives have no personal loyalty to him. He is going to be driven by his demons. Even on the personal front it’s going to be less of the Kushners and more Don, Jr.

    Trump supporters have to be the first political base in history whose argument is, don’t listen to what our candidate is saying. “Elect Trump! We promise you he’s lying! Or at least we hope he’s lying! Yeah, we’re pretty sure.”

    Holding on to Trump version 1.0 is liking holding on to 10 lbs of hamburger for months after its sell by date. “Yeah, it looks rancid but I ate a quarter pound of it when I bought it new and I didn’t get sick then. It’ll be fine! And besides, what about that E. coli outbreak linked to chicken sold in Sacramento!?! Why don’t you talk about that!?!”

    I’m doing a comparison based on four years each of hard evidence. Your expected Trump behavior is speculative, I’m  counting on more of what I saw before only better.

    • #25
  26. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Bob Thompson: I’m doing a comparison based on four years each of hard evidence. Your expected Trump behavior is speculative, I’m counting on more of what I saw before only better.

    But you’re speculating, too. You’re speculating that Trump, surrounded by an entirely different cast, is going to produce the same results as the first administration pre-Covid. And we’re not voting on whether or not we liked that. We’re voting on the future Trump, a post-election loss, post-riot-inducing Trump, the he’s-surrounded-by-nothing-but-sycophants Trump. But this isn’t a restaurant where you get to order your president à la carte and choose the version of Trump you like. 

    • #26
  27. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson: I’m doing a comparison based on four years each of hard evidence. Your expected Trump behavior is speculative, I’m counting on more of what I saw before only better.

    But you’re speculating, too. You’re speculating that Trump, surrounded by an entirely different cast, is going to produce the same results as the first administration pre-Covid. And we’re not voting on whether or not we liked that. We’re voting on the future Trump, a post-election loss, post-riot-inducing Trump, the he’s-surrounded-by-nothing-but-sycophants Trump. But this isn’t a restaurant where you get to order your president à la carte and choose the version of Trump you like.

    Meanwhile, do you have any reason to believe that what amounts to second-term Biden would be better than what we already know about first-term Biden?

    • #27
  28. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    kedavis: Meanwhile, do you have any reason to believe that what amounts to second-term Biden would be better than what we already know about first-term Biden?

    The question was not, “Would you compare these two candidates?” The question was, “Why do people feel Trump has an authoritarian streak?” And then it became, “Yes he talks like a Free Speech opponent but we just tell people to ignore it and why can’t you?” And then it always circles back to “There are million ways to die so just shut up and be grateful for the method we’ve chosen and while you’re waiting for death please compare it to the equally painful ways on this list.” Willful ignorance.

     

    • #28
  29. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis

    EJHill (View Comment):

    GlennAmurgis: as opposed to Biden Amin which actually tried to regulate speech with a bureaucrat

    Let’s try this again. The actions of the Biden Administration do not change the material facts that people also look at Trump and see an authoritarian in waiting because of things he has promised he will do and the campaign promising a second Trump Administration unshackled by “back-stabbing RINOs.”

    Your argument might as well be, “Look, you’re either going to be stabbed or shot. I think you should be stabbed. And don’t argue with me because there will be pain and there will be blood because I’m giving you this binary choice.

    and yet you never complain about Biden Harris being autocrats – how many times has FJB tries to push this payoff of student loans despite the ruling of the SC

    • #29
  30. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    GlennAmurgis : and yet you never complain about Biden Harris being autocrats – how many times has FJB tries to push this payoff of student loans despite the ruling of the SC

    Because that’s like complaining New Year’s Day is in January. The Democratic Party has had an authoritarian streak since 1933 and the introduction of the New Deal. What’s new is the Republican Party’s embrace of it. I can’t fight the tide of history on the left but I can fight against it on the right.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.