I've discovered that it's not merely pro-Trumpers who are targets. I've been opposed to him since he first came to prominence in the 1970s and he hasn't changed anything but his party affiliation. When I criticized Democrat Trump I was attacked. Funny.
Today, I write defending constitutional rights and calling out precedents with potentia…
I've discovered that it's not merely pro-Trumpers who are targets. I've been opposed to him since he first came to prominence in the 1970s and he hasn't changed anything but his party affiliation. When I criticized Democrat Trump I was attacked. Funny.
Today, I write defending constitutional rights and calling out precedents with potentially catastrophic consequences. It doesn't matter that I never support Trump; I'm accused of supporting him because I am insufficiently zealous in calling for his arrest and execution. Precedents are powerful, and we now have precedents that perjury is justified if the accused is on the wrong side of an issue, that weaponizing government is justified by being on the correct side of history, that an administration plotting the overthrow of its successor is acceptable, that fabricating evidence is acceptable, that spying on reporters is righteous, that using the tax code to silence dissent is admirable, and the list goes on.
Harry Reid established precedent doing away with almost all rights of the minority in the Senate, which wound up leaving Democrats in the hole. Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating an unconstitutional act of congress, but the real reason was his refusal to cooperate with the Radical Republicans and use Reconstruction to completely destroy all vestiges of the Democratic Party, and to reduce the entire South to a state of ruin from which it could never recover. That's the precedent now being used by the authoritarian left in efforts to abolish dissent. This is dangerous stuff.
«I am insufficiently zealous in calling for his arrest and execution. Precedents are powerful, and we now have precedents that perjury is justified if the accused is on the wrong side of an issue, that weaponizing government is justified by being on the correct side of history»
My usual quote from George Orwell, "As I Please", 1945-01-26:
“The Daily Worker disapproves of dictatorship in Athens, the Catholic Herald disapproves of dictatorship in Belgrade. There is no one who is able to say - at least, no one who has the chance to say in a newspaper of big circulation - that this whole dirty game of spheres of influence, quislings, purges, deportation, one-party elections and hundred per cent plebiscites is morally the same whether it is done by ourselves, the Russians or the Nazis. Even in the case of such frank returns to barbarism as the use of hostages, disapproval is only felt when it happens to be the enemy and not ourselves who is doing it.”
Blissex, you're suggesting that authoritarianism and all evil did not begin with Trump's election? You do know that Big Tech is watching, and they know where you live. That's only half in jest. I agree fully. We need some self-examination.
Yes to all this. And if we see an impeachment actually move forward despite zero evidence that of any incitement...then we’ll have a dangerous precedent for free speech...that you can be tried and convicted for...your tone? Imputed intent? Rather than for your words themselves.
I've discovered that it's not merely pro-Trumpers who are targets. I've been opposed to him since he first came to prominence in the 1970s and he hasn't changed anything but his party affiliation. When I criticized Democrat Trump I was attacked. Funny.
Today, I write defending constitutional rights and calling out precedents with potentially catastrophic consequences. It doesn't matter that I never support Trump; I'm accused of supporting him because I am insufficiently zealous in calling for his arrest and execution. Precedents are powerful, and we now have precedents that perjury is justified if the accused is on the wrong side of an issue, that weaponizing government is justified by being on the correct side of history, that an administration plotting the overthrow of its successor is acceptable, that fabricating evidence is acceptable, that spying on reporters is righteous, that using the tax code to silence dissent is admirable, and the list goes on.
Harry Reid established precedent doing away with almost all rights of the minority in the Senate, which wound up leaving Democrats in the hole. Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating an unconstitutional act of congress, but the real reason was his refusal to cooperate with the Radical Republicans and use Reconstruction to completely destroy all vestiges of the Democratic Party, and to reduce the entire South to a state of ruin from which it could never recover. That's the precedent now being used by the authoritarian left in efforts to abolish dissent. This is dangerous stuff.
«I am insufficiently zealous in calling for his arrest and execution. Precedents are powerful, and we now have precedents that perjury is justified if the accused is on the wrong side of an issue, that weaponizing government is justified by being on the correct side of history»
My usual quote from George Orwell, "As I Please", 1945-01-26:
“The Daily Worker disapproves of dictatorship in Athens, the Catholic Herald disapproves of dictatorship in Belgrade. There is no one who is able to say - at least, no one who has the chance to say in a newspaper of big circulation - that this whole dirty game of spheres of influence, quislings, purges, deportation, one-party elections and hundred per cent plebiscites is morally the same whether it is done by ourselves, the Russians or the Nazis. Even in the case of such frank returns to barbarism as the use of hostages, disapproval is only felt when it happens to be the enemy and not ourselves who is doing it.”
Blissex, you're suggesting that authoritarianism and all evil did not begin with Trump's election? You do know that Big Tech is watching, and they know where you live. That's only half in jest. I agree fully. We need some self-examination.
Yes to all this. And if we see an impeachment actually move forward despite zero evidence that of any incitement...then we’ll have a dangerous precedent for free speech...that you can be tried and convicted for...your tone? Imputed intent? Rather than for your words themselves.
The Trump-Johnson analogy is a good one.