Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

The are a lot of people protesting in the "No Kings" Rallies. This might negate the argument that Trump has a mandate from the american people to do all the things he is doing.

Fox:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/watch-no-kings-protesters-at-massive-nyc-rally-reveal-motivation-for-taking-to-the-streets-disgusting

NBC:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/no-kings-protests-trump-administration-live-updates-rcna238009

The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/oct/18/anti-trump-no-kings-protests-updates

and many more. Perhaps Trump needs to listen to all americans, not just MAGA people.

---

Once again the left rallies around that which makes them unpalatable to the majority of Americans. Illegal immigrants, LGBTQ, abortion, and how they "feel". Of all the things to go at Trump on, here they are wallowing in their same stool. It is them that continue not to listen.

---

First, your factual premise is incorrect.

The majority of Americans support legal abortion.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/13/broad-public-support-for-legal-abortion-persists-2-years-after-dobbs/

A majority of Americans believe that the the manner in whihc the administration is conducting its immigration policy is unfair.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/08/us/trump-deportation-illegal-immigrants-voters-poll.html

A majority of Americans believe in at least the "L" rights and the "G" rights. A significant minority believes in the "T" rights.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

Second, your argument misses the point of the rallies. The "No Kings" argument is about the use of the imperial presidency to effect legal, cultural, and economic change-the most dangerous of which is targeting people for their beliefs. The idea that being a "leftist" disqualifes one from being a professor, teacher, or government employee should be terrifying, but it is now celebrated.

When American citizens are detained because they look illegal; when the Department of Jusitce openly makes political retribution a priority through BS cases; when we elevate someone above the law through an immunity doctrine made out of whole cloth; when we convert our publicly funded education system to a religious training ground; when we use the military against our own people; when we use the military to blow small boats out of the water with no war-time declaration and without making any of the evidence supporting the decision public; when we use the federal budget as a bludgeon against those who we disagree with; when the president's family and friends treat the White House as the largest cash machine of all time; when we disregard facts abiut science and elections to please the whims of one man, we see a monarchy.

Third, some of that is admittedly hypocritical. Trump is the culmination of the imperial presidency, not the instigator. But he fully reveals its evils and people are right to speak out about it.

---

This is what I mean by wallowing in your own stool. The left's key political litmus tests have become how far the boundaries of abortion, homosexuality, and transsexualism can be pushed both culturally and through policy. Yet none of these are illegal as individual rights. So the opinion polling is a meaningless data point. Throw in the championing of illegal immigration and that's where you are as a core platform message.

You've lost all perspective. The cultural and policy pendulum already swung so far your way that to call the current moment a "religious training ground" is delusional. You're just angry that people are finally questioning the necessity of your extreme positions.

Then you bring up "political retribution," "targeting people for their beliefs," "BS cases," and "questionable immunity approaches"? Are you really going there after the past couple of decades of weaponized institutions, cancel mobs, and selective justice? The reality is you don't oppose kings, you just want your king back in power. You lost that, and now you're being confronted with the ideological contradictions of your own position. Welcome to "it's no fun since the rabbit's got the gun".

The irony is that I've long opposed the consolidation of executive authority, including much of what Trump has done and continues to do with it, even when I've agreed with his objectives. I've called it out so often that I've been accused of having "TDS," of hating Trump, or even being a "globalist liberal" lol. The truth is, I never thought I'd find myself arguing with "conservatives" over principles that once defined our side like limiting government power and defending individual and economic freedom. The principles that separated us from the left's long-standing habit of using government power to impose ideology on a free society through fear and division.

To see the left suddenly feign fear of authority simply because the machinery of societal autocracy is no longer working exclusively in their favor is the definition of hypocrisy. But go ahead, keep wallowing in the same agendas that make you look as unhinged as you think the hardcore MAGAs are.

---

America is made up of a broad spectrum of ideas, needs, and beliefs - founded upon democratic ideals. A significant number of Americans voting for Trump that gave him a majority this time were not cult followers who bought into his confidence schemes, but were voters who felt the alternative was likely worse. They didn't vote for a president who would rule by presidential fiat, ignore or work around established checks and balances, and who would set about laying the ground work for an autocracy, much like Putin or Orban did in their respective countries.

---

Why are we currently under a government shut down?

---

Senate unwillingness to compromise, presidential deference, and/or unwillingness of the Senate to eliminate the cloture rule, or override the presiding officer with a majority vote.

---

Because Schumer is scared of the extremists that run his party and facing a primary.

---

That may be, but they can override Schumer if they want to.

TexasScientist said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

The are a lot of people protesting in the "No Kings" Rallies. This might negate the argument that Trump has a mandate from the american people to do all the things he is doing.

Fox:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/watch-no-kings-protesters-at-massive-nyc-rally-reveal-motivation-for-taking-to-the-streets-disgusting

NBC:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/no-kings-protests-trump-administration-live-updates-rcna238009

The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/oct/18/anti-trump-no-kings-protests-updates

and many more. Perhaps Trump needs to listen to all americans, not just MAGA people.

---

Once again the left rallies around that which makes them unpalatable to the majority of Americans. Illegal immigrants, LGBTQ, abortion, and how they "feel". Of all the things to go at Trump on, here they are wallowing in their same stool. It is them that continue not to listen.

---

First, your factual premise is incorrect.

The majority of Americans support legal abortion.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/13/broad-public-support-for-legal-abortion-persists-2-years-after-dobbs/

A majority of Americans believe that the the manner in whihc the administration is conducting its immigration policy is unfair.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/08/us/trump-deportation-illegal-immigrants-voters-poll.html

A majority of Americans believe in at least the "L" rights and the "G" rights. A significant minority believes in the "T" rights.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

Second, your argument misses the point of the rallies. The "No Kings" argument is about the use of the imperial presidency to effect legal, cultural, and economic change-the most dangerous of which is targeting people for their beliefs. The idea that being a "leftist" disqualifes one from being a professor, teacher, or government employee should be terrifying, but it is now celebrated.

When American citizens are detained because they look illegal; when the Department of Jusitce openly makes political retribution a priority through BS cases; when we elevate someone above the law through an immunity doctrine made out of whole cloth; when we convert our publicly funded education system to a religious training ground; when we use the military against our own people; when we use the military to blow small boats out of the water with no war-time declaration and without making any of the evidence supporting the decision public; when we use the federal budget as a bludgeon against those who we disagree with; when the president's family and friends treat the White House as the largest cash machine of all time; when we disregard facts abiut science and elections to please the whims of one man, we see a monarchy.

Third, some of that is admittedly hypocritical. Trump is the culmination of the imperial presidency, not the instigator. But he fully reveals its evils and people are right to speak out about it.

---

This is what I mean by wallowing in your own stool. The left's key political litmus tests have become how far the boundaries of abortion, homosexuality, and transsexualism can be pushed both culturally and through policy. Yet none of these are illegal as individual rights. So the opinion polling is a meaningless data point. Throw in the championing of illegal immigration and that's where you are as a core platform message.

You've lost all perspective. The cultural and policy pendulum already swung so far your way that to call the current moment a "religious training ground" is delusional. You're just angry that people are finally questioning the necessity of your extreme positions.

Then you bring up "political retribution," "targeting people for their beliefs," "BS cases," and "questionable immunity approaches"? Are you really going there after the past couple of decades of weaponized institutions, cancel mobs, and selective justice? The reality is you don't oppose kings, you just want your king back in power. You lost that, and now you're being confronted with the ideological contradictions of your own position. Welcome to "it's no fun since the rabbit's got the gun".

The irony is that I've long opposed the consolidation of executive authority, including much of what Trump has done and continues to do with it, even when I've agreed with his objectives. I've called it out so often that I've been accused of having "TDS," of hating Trump, or even being a "globalist liberal" lol. The truth is, I never thought I'd find myself arguing with "conservatives" over principles that once defined our side like limiting government power and defending individual and economic freedom. The principles that separated us from the left's long-standing habit of using government power to impose ideology on a free society through fear and division.

To see the left suddenly feign fear of authority simply because the machinery of societal autocracy is no longer working exclusively in their favor is the definition of hypocrisy. But go ahead, keep wallowing in the same agendas that make you look as unhinged as you think the hardcore MAGAs are.

---

America is made up of a broad spectrum of ideas, needs, and beliefs - founded upon democratic ideals. A significant number of Americans voting for Trump that gave him a majority this time were not cult followers who bought into his confidence schemes, but were voters who felt the alternative was likely worse. They didn't vote for a president who would rule by presidential fiat, ignore or work around established checks and balances, and who would set about laying the ground work for an autocracy, much like Putin or Orban did in their respective countries.

---

Exactly. That's why last November the rac/pist King was taken care of and democracy was restored. America saw the Hitler-esque figure before the sacred Independence Hall insanely claiming everyone that disagree with him was an enemy of the state and should be silenced or imprisoned. They got sick of the FBI being weaponized against school parents, journalists, Churches, and anyone else that disagreed with the regime. America sensed a dictatorial King and voted it out.

---

And voted it out with the result a more insidious king was chosen usurping democracy.

---

Did it take a while for you to think of that - do you know what it means?

Regardless, the corrupt old fool that used the FBI to target his political enemies is gone thanks to democracy.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

The are a lot of people protesting in the "No Kings" Rallies. This might negate the argument that Trump has a mandate from the american people to do all the things he is doing.

Fox:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/watch-no-kings-protesters-at-massive-nyc-rally-reveal-motivation-for-taking-to-the-streets-disgusting

NBC:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/no-kings-protests-trump-administration-live-updates-rcna238009

The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/oct/18/anti-trump-no-kings-protests-updates

and many more. Perhaps Trump needs to listen to all americans, not just MAGA people.

---

Once again the left rallies around that which makes them unpalatable to the majority of Americans. Illegal immigrants, LGBTQ, abortion, and how they "feel". Of all the things to go at Trump on, here they are wallowing in their same stool. It is them that continue not to listen.

---

First, your factual premise is incorrect.

The majority of Americans support legal abortion.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/13/broad-public-support-for-legal-abortion-persists-2-years-after-dobbs/

A majority of Americans believe that the the manner in whihc the administration is conducting its immigration policy is unfair.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/08/us/trump-deportation-illegal-immigrants-voters-poll.html

A majority of Americans believe in at least the "L" rights and the "G" rights. A significant minority believes in the "T" rights.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

Second, your argument misses the point of the rallies. The "No Kings" argument is about the use of the imperial presidency to effect legal, cultural, and economic change-the most dangerous of which is targeting people for their beliefs. The idea that being a "leftist" disqualifes one from being a professor, teacher, or government employee should be terrifying, but it is now celebrated.

When American citizens are detained because they look illegal; when the Department of Jusitce openly makes political retribution a priority through BS cases; when we elevate someone above the law through an immunity doctrine made out of whole cloth; when we convert our publicly funded education system to a religious training ground; when we use the military against our own people; when we use the military to blow small boats out of the water with no war-time declaration and without making any of the evidence supporting the decision public; when we use the federal budget as a bludgeon against those who we disagree with; when the president's family and friends treat the White House as the largest cash machine of all time; when we disregard facts abiut science and elections to please the whims of one man, we see a monarchy.

Third, some of that is admittedly hypocritical. Trump is the culmination of the imperial presidency, not the instigator. But he fully reveals its evils and people are right to speak out about it.

---

This is what I mean by wallowing in your own stool. The left's key political litmus tests have become how far the boundaries of abortion, homosexuality, and transsexualism can be pushed both culturally and through policy. Yet none of these are illegal as individual rights. So the opinion polling is a meaningless data point. Throw in the championing of illegal immigration and that's where you are as a core platform message.

You've lost all perspective. The cultural and policy pendulum already swung so far your way that to call the current moment a "religious training ground" is delusional. You're just angry that people are finally questioning the necessity of your extreme positions.

Then you bring up "political retribution," "targeting people for their beliefs," "BS cases," and "questionable immunity approaches"? Are you really going there after the past couple of decades of weaponized institutions, cancel mobs, and selective justice? The reality is you don't oppose kings, you just want your king back in power. You lost that, and now you're being confronted with the ideological contradictions of your own position. Welcome to "it's no fun since the rabbit's got the gun".

The irony is that I've long opposed the consolidation of executive authority, including much of what Trump has done and continues to do with it, even when I've agreed with his objectives. I've called it out so often that I've been accused of having "TDS," of hating Trump, or even being a "globalist liberal" lol. The truth is, I never thought I'd find myself arguing with "conservatives" over principles that once defined our side like limiting government power and defending individual and economic freedom. The principles that separated us from the left's long-standing habit of using government power to impose ideology on a free society through fear and division.

To see the left suddenly feign fear of authority simply because the machinery of societal autocracy is no longer working exclusively in their favor is the definition of hypocrisy. But go ahead, keep wallowing in the same agendas that make you look as unhinged as you think the hardcore MAGAs are.

---

America is made up of a broad spectrum of ideas, needs, and beliefs - founded upon democratic ideals. A significant number of Americans voting for Trump that gave him a majority this time were not cult followers who bought into his confidence schemes, but were voters who felt the alternative was likely worse. They didn't vote for a president who would rule by presidential fiat, ignore or work around established checks and balances, and who would set about laying the ground work for an autocracy, much like Putin or Orban did in their respective countries.

---

Exactly. That's why last November the rac/pist King was taken care of and democracy was restored. America saw the Hitler-esque figure before the sacred Independence Hall insanely claiming everyone that disagree with him was an enemy of the state and should be silenced or imprisoned. They got sick of the FBI being weaponized against school parents, journalists, Churches, and anyone else that disagreed with the regime. America sensed a dictatorial King and voted it out.

---

Biden's government may have been "weaponized" against school parents, journalists, and churches, but he didn't turn actual weapons against them. Imagine being naive enough to want to give future presidents that power.

---

Drunk posting or just a fever dream?

---

The evidence of reality - but you can't recognize or admit your error because it would cause you cognitive dissonance.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Covid definitely broke a few people on the right. I'm afraid some of y'all got debunked one too many times and never recovered.

---

I can certainly understand the suspension of Constitutional rights, as advocated by some such as yourself, as a legitimate concern that could have caused some consternation among actual conservatives. You got scared and went all in on govt. tyranny, which is what of course makes your current concerns about this administration so comedic.

You are a walking dichotomy.

---

Meaningless words. What you call a suspension of rights was based on long-settled law. You couldn't specify a right that was actually violated if someone held a flu shot to your arm.

There were a few acts of discrimination, which I was against and the courts rightly struck down. Otherwise, these "tyrannical" restrictions were almost universally upheld by judges of all stripes.

---

I understand why such words would be meaningless to a spineless coward so willing to cast aside our rights because of his fear of COVID, but they're not meaningless to most Americans who value our Bill of Rights.

As for rights that were actually violated, well, let's begin with the First Amendment, which was repeatedly violated by states throughout the union. Contrary to your false assertions, several of those restrictions were indeed struck down. There was the Nov. 25, 2020 Supreme Court ruling wherein the Court prevented the application of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's executive order that limited the number of individuals who could gather in places of worship. There was the Feb. 5, 2021 order, wherein the Court granted a major portion of injunctive relief requested in the California case in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. The court prohibited the state from enforcing its prohibition against indoor worship services. And there was the April 9, 2021 order wherein the Court again weighed in on California's gathering restrictions, granting an injunction in Tandon v. Newsom against a state pandemic-related regulation that had the effect of restricting at-home Bible studies and prayer meetings by limiting all gatherings in private homes to no more than three households at a time. And then of course, while not a First Amended issue, there was NFIB v. Department of Labor, wherein the Court struck down the ridiculous OSHA mandate. And of course, these are just the Supreme Court rulings. There were a number of lower court rulings that were similar.

All of that debunking aside, I didn't actually say the Courts didn't rule in favor of some of the suspension of rights. They did indeed, but that doesn't mean such rights were not suspended. And of course, there wasn't a one of them you didn't support. I recall you saying you would have forced businesses to shut down even longer. But I can understand why you are now attempting to deflect.

---

That's a longer and more dramatic way of saying what I just said. The Covid deniers won a few discrimination cases and lost most of the rest.

The pandemic was a unique situation which didn't lend itself to neat, ideological answers. There's no conservative principle that says how long or short a lockdown should be. It's a judgment call. But the principle that cities and states have the right to take emergency action is undeniable.

Bottom line, Biden wasn't disappearing people without due process or deploying troops in American cities. If the only way to justify such policies is to harp on about masks and social distancing, it shows you have a pretty poor defense.

---

Nobody said or suggested cities didn't have a right to suspend certain fundamental rights. Again, try to read closer. What I said is that rights were suspended, and you were on board with same. In fact, for you, they weren't onerous enough.

So you can point to the legal victories all you want, but that is completely irrelevant to my point.

As for whether Trump deporting illegals and deploying national guard to cities is unconstitutional, I'll wait to see what the Supreme Court says on those things before declaring them unconstitutional. But it is correct that I generally don't have a problem with enforcing our immigration laws, nor with stepping in to protect the citizenry in lawless cities.

---

Then what is your point?

---

Re-read the last post on page 4 of this thread, where we began discussing why actual conservatives were "broken," as you called them, regarding Covid. No need to repeat it.

That reminds me: gotten your booster?

---

Sooo…lockdowns are government tyranny, but cities have the right to impose them?

If there's a dichotomy, it would seem to be that.

---

Abortion was once legal in every state. Slavery was once legal. Do you believe that such practices are not heinous merely because they were legal?

What a ridiculous argument.

Governments have a "right" to do a lot of things that are tyrannical in nature.

---

No one really believes that temporary lockdowns during a legitimate emergency are tyrannical. What you believe is that Covid wasn't a genuine emergency. That isn't, or shouldn't be, a question of ideology. The fact that I listened to mainstream scientists and you listened to whomever doesn't make one of us more "conservative."

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Covid definitely broke a few people on the right. I'm afraid some of y'all got debunked one too many times and never recovered.

---

I can certainly understand the suspension of Constitutional rights, as advocated by some such as yourself, as a legitimate concern that could have caused some consternation among actual conservatives. You got scared and went all in on govt. tyranny, which is what of course makes your current concerns about this administration so comedic.

You are a walking dichotomy.

---

Meaningless words. What you call a suspension of rights was based on long-settled law. You couldn't specify a right that was actually violated if someone held a flu shot to your arm.

There were a few acts of discrimination, which I was against and the courts rightly struck down. Otherwise, these "tyrannical" restrictions were almost universally upheld by judges of all stripes.

---

I understand why such words would be meaningless to a spineless coward so willing to cast aside our rights because of his fear of COVID, but they're not meaningless to most Americans who value our Bill of Rights.

As for rights that were actually violated, well, let's begin with the First Amendment, which was repeatedly violated by states throughout the union. Contrary to your false assertions, several of those restrictions were indeed struck down. There was the Nov. 25, 2020 Supreme Court ruling wherein the Court prevented the application of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's executive order that limited the number of individuals who could gather in places of worship. There was the Feb. 5, 2021 order, wherein the Court granted a major portion of injunctive relief requested in the California case in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. The court prohibited the state from enforcing its prohibition against indoor worship services. And there was the April 9, 2021 order wherein the Court again weighed in on California's gathering restrictions, granting an injunction in Tandon v. Newsom against a state pandemic-related regulation that had the effect of restricting at-home Bible studies and prayer meetings by limiting all gatherings in private homes to no more than three households at a time. And then of course, while not a First Amended issue, there was NFIB v. Department of Labor, wherein the Court struck down the ridiculous OSHA mandate. And of course, these are just the Supreme Court rulings. There were a number of lower court rulings that were similar.

All of that debunking aside, I didn't actually say the Courts didn't rule in favor of some of the suspension of rights. They did indeed, but that doesn't mean such rights were not suspended. And of course, there wasn't a one of them you didn't support. I recall you saying you would have forced businesses to shut down even longer. But I can understand why you are now attempting to deflect.

---

That's a longer and more dramatic way of saying what I just said. The Covid deniers won a few discrimination cases and lost most of the rest.

The pandemic was a unique situation which didn't lend itself to neat, ideological answers. There's no conservative principle that says how long or short a lockdown should be. It's a judgment call. But the principle that cities and states have the right to take emergency action is undeniable.

Bottom line, Biden wasn't disappearing people without due process or deploying troops in American cities. If the only way to justify such policies is to harp on about masks and social distancing, it shows you have a pretty poor defense.

---

Nobody said or suggested cities didn't have a right to suspend certain fundamental rights. Again, try to read closer. What I said is that rights were suspended, and you were on board with same. In fact, for you, they weren't onerous enough.

So you can point to the legal victories all you want, but that is completely irrelevant to my point.

As for whether Trump deporting illegals and deploying national guard to cities is unconstitutional, I'll wait to see what the Supreme Court says on those things before declaring them unconstitutional. But it is correct that I generally don't have a problem with enforcing our immigration laws, nor with stepping in to protect the citizenry in lawless cities.

---

Then what is your point?

---

Re-read the last post on page 4 of this thread, where we began discussing why actual conservatives were "broken," as you called them, regarding Covid. No need to repeat it.

That reminds me: gotten your booster?

---

Sooo…lockdowns are government tyranny, but cities have the right to impose them?

If there's a dichotomy, it would seem to be that.

---

Abortion was once legal in every state. Slavery was once legal. Do you believe that such practices are not heinous merely because they were legal?

What a ridiculous argument.

Governments have a "right" to do a lot of things that are tyrannical in nature.

---

No one really believes that temporary lockdowns during a legitimate emergency are tyrannical. What you believe is that Covid wasn't a genuine emergency. That isn't, or shouldn't be, a question of ideology. The fact that I listened to mainstream scientists and you listened to whomever doesn't make one of us more "conservative."

---

I agree that no reasonable person believes temporary lockdowns during a legitimate emergency are tyrannical. I do not fault the govt. for the initial lockdown orders, as we didn't have any clue what we were dealing with. I didn't fault the govt. for the initial mask mandates. Again, we didn't know how the disease spread, and were learning things on the fly. But that's not what was tyrannical.

What I fault the govt. for is continuing with lockdowns and mandates indefinitely when the fact is they did little good, and ruined businesses, ruined education, and ruined lives. I fault the govt. for lockdown orders in places like NY that allowed many elderly people to die alone in nursing homes or hospital wards where their loved ones couldn't see them or say final goodbyes. I fault lockdown orders like those in CA which prevented people from practicing their religion (even outdoors), but allowed mass protests on the streets. I fault the govt. for masks in classrooms and virtual school that did great damage to kids in public schools. I fault lockdown orders that ruined many businesses, while leaving places like Home Depot open for business.

In short, I fault the govt. for orders that went way beyond what would have been reasonable, and instead ruined many people. And of course, there are all things you supported. I recall you arguing that you would have shut down businesses indefinitely, despite the severe financial repercussions. You let cowardice control your thought process. And then of course you subjected your poor kids to an experimental vaccine without the data on long term repercussions. God help them.

And no, your position is on these issues is in no way conservative.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Covid definitely broke a few people on the right. I'm afraid some of y'all got debunked one too many times and never recovered.

---

I can certainly understand the suspension of Constitutional rights, as advocated by some such as yourself, as a legitimate concern that could have caused some consternation among actual conservatives. You got scared and went all in on govt. tyranny, which is what of course makes your current concerns about this administration so comedic.

You are a walking dichotomy.

---

Meaningless words. What you call a suspension of rights was based on long-settled law. You couldn't specify a right that was actually violated if someone held a flu shot to your arm.

There were a few acts of discrimination, which I was against and the courts rightly struck down. Otherwise, these "tyrannical" restrictions were almost universally upheld by judges of all stripes.

---

I understand why such words would be meaningless to a spineless coward so willing to cast aside our rights because of his fear of COVID, but they're not meaningless to most Americans who value our Bill of Rights.

As for rights that were actually violated, well, let's begin with the First Amendment, which was repeatedly violated by states throughout the union. Contrary to your false assertions, several of those restrictions were indeed struck down. There was the Nov. 25, 2020 Supreme Court ruling wherein the Court prevented the application of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's executive order that limited the number of individuals who could gather in places of worship. There was the Feb. 5, 2021 order, wherein the Court granted a major portion of injunctive relief requested in the California case in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. The court prohibited the state from enforcing its prohibition against indoor worship services. And there was the April 9, 2021 order wherein the Court again weighed in on California's gathering restrictions, granting an injunction in Tandon v. Newsom against a state pandemic-related regulation that had the effect of restricting at-home Bible studies and prayer meetings by limiting all gatherings in private homes to no more than three households at a time. And then of course, while not a First Amended issue, there was NFIB v. Department of Labor, wherein the Court struck down the ridiculous OSHA mandate. And of course, these are just the Supreme Court rulings. There were a number of lower court rulings that were similar.

All of that debunking aside, I didn't actually say the Courts didn't rule in favor of some of the suspension of rights. They did indeed, but that doesn't mean such rights were not suspended. And of course, there wasn't a one of them you didn't support. I recall you saying you would have forced businesses to shut down even longer. But I can understand why you are now attempting to deflect.

---

That's a longer and more dramatic way of saying what I just said. The Covid deniers won a few discrimination cases and lost most of the rest.

The pandemic was a unique situation which didn't lend itself to neat, ideological answers. There's no conservative principle that says how long or short a lockdown should be. It's a judgment call. But the principle that cities and states have the right to take emergency action is undeniable.

Bottom line, Biden wasn't disappearing people without due process or deploying troops in American cities. If the only way to justify such policies is to harp on about masks and social distancing, it shows you have a pretty poor defense.

---

Nobody said or suggested cities didn't have a right to suspend certain fundamental rights. Again, try to read closer. What I said is that rights were suspended, and you were on board with same. In fact, for you, they weren't onerous enough.

So you can point to the legal victories all you want, but that is completely irrelevant to my point.

As for whether Trump deporting illegals and deploying national guard to cities is unconstitutional, I'll wait to see what the Supreme Court says on those things before declaring them unconstitutional. But it is correct that I generally don't have a problem with enforcing our immigration laws, nor with stepping in to protect the citizenry in lawless cities.

---

Then what is your point?

---

Re-read the last post on page 4 of this thread, where we began discussing why actual conservatives were "broken," as you called them, regarding Covid. No need to repeat it.

That reminds me: gotten your booster?

---

Sooo…lockdowns are government tyranny, but cities have the right to impose them?

If there's a dichotomy, it would seem to be that.

---

Abortion was once legal in every state. Slavery was once legal. Do you believe that such practices are not heinous merely because they were legal?

What a ridiculous argument.

Governments have a "right" to do a lot of things that are tyrannical in nature.

---

No one really believes that temporary lockdowns during a legitimate emergency are tyrannical. What you believe is that Covid wasn't a genuine emergency. That isn't, or shouldn't be, a question of ideology. The fact that I listened to mainstream scientists and you listened to whomever doesn't make one of us more "conservative."

---

I agree that no reasonable person believes temporary lockdowns during a legitimate emergency are tyrannical. I do not fault the govt. for the initial lockdown orders, as we didn't have any clue what we were dealing with. I didn't fault the govt. for the initial mask mandates. Again, we didn't know how the disease spread, and were learning things on the fly. But that's not what was tyrannical.

What I fault the govt. for is continuing with lockdowns and mandates indefinitely when the fact is they did little good, and ruined businesses, ruined education, and ruined lives. I fault the govt. for lockdown orders in places like NY that allowed many elderly people to die alone in nursing homes or hospital wards where their loved ones couldn't see them or say final goodbyes. I fault lockdown orders like those in CA which prevented people from practicing their religion (even outdoors), but allowed mass protests on the streets. I fault the govt. for masks in classrooms and virtual school that did great damage to kids in public schools. I fault lockdown orders that ruined many businesses, while leaving places like Home Depot open for business.

In short, I fault the govt. for orders that went way beyond what would have been reasonable, and instead ruined many people. And of course, there are all things you supported. I recall you arguing that you would have shut down businesses indefinitely, despite the severe financial repercussions. You let cowardice control your thought process. And then of course you subjected your poor kids to an experimental vaccine without the data on long term repercussions. God help them.

And no, your position is on these issues is in no way conservative.

---

Yet another gross mischaracterization of my views. I will leave you to your hysteria.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Covid definitely broke a few people on the right. I'm afraid some of y'all got debunked one too many times and never recovered.

---

I can certainly understand the suspension of Constitutional rights, as advocated by some such as yourself, as a legitimate concern that could have caused some consternation among actual conservatives. You got scared and went all in on govt. tyranny, which is what of course makes your current concerns about this administration so comedic.

You are a walking dichotomy.

---

Meaningless words. What you call a suspension of rights was based on long-settled law. You couldn't specify a right that was actually violated if someone held a flu shot to your arm.

There were a few acts of discrimination, which I was against and the courts rightly struck down. Otherwise, these "tyrannical" restrictions were almost universally upheld by judges of all stripes.

---

I understand why such words would be meaningless to a spineless coward so willing to cast aside our rights because of his fear of COVID, but they're not meaningless to most Americans who value our Bill of Rights.

As for rights that were actually violated, well, let's begin with the First Amendment, which was repeatedly violated by states throughout the union. Contrary to your false assertions, several of those restrictions were indeed struck down. There was the Nov. 25, 2020 Supreme Court ruling wherein the Court prevented the application of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's executive order that limited the number of individuals who could gather in places of worship. There was the Feb. 5, 2021 order, wherein the Court granted a major portion of injunctive relief requested in the California case in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. The court prohibited the state from enforcing its prohibition against indoor worship services. And there was the April 9, 2021 order wherein the Court again weighed in on California's gathering restrictions, granting an injunction in Tandon v. Newsom against a state pandemic-related regulation that had the effect of restricting at-home Bible studies and prayer meetings by limiting all gatherings in private homes to no more than three households at a time. And then of course, while not a First Amended issue, there was NFIB v. Department of Labor, wherein the Court struck down the ridiculous OSHA mandate. And of course, these are just the Supreme Court rulings. There were a number of lower court rulings that were similar.

All of that debunking aside, I didn't actually say the Courts didn't rule in favor of some of the suspension of rights. They did indeed, but that doesn't mean such rights were not suspended. And of course, there wasn't a one of them you didn't support. I recall you saying you would have forced businesses to shut down even longer. But I can understand why you are now attempting to deflect.

---

That's a longer and more dramatic way of saying what I just said. The Covid deniers won a few discrimination cases and lost most of the rest.

The pandemic was a unique situation which didn't lend itself to neat, ideological answers. There's no conservative principle that says how long or short a lockdown should be. It's a judgment call. But the principle that cities and states have the right to take emergency action is undeniable.

Bottom line, Biden wasn't disappearing people without due process or deploying troops in American cities. If the only way to justify such policies is to harp on about masks and social distancing, it shows you have a pretty poor defense.

---

Nobody said or suggested cities didn't have a right to suspend certain fundamental rights. Again, try to read closer. What I said is that rights were suspended, and you were on board with same. In fact, for you, they weren't onerous enough.

So you can point to the legal victories all you want, but that is completely irrelevant to my point.

As for whether Trump deporting illegals and deploying national guard to cities is unconstitutional, I'll wait to see what the Supreme Court says on those things before declaring them unconstitutional. But it is correct that I generally don't have a problem with enforcing our immigration laws, nor with stepping in to protect the citizenry in lawless cities.

---

Then what is your point?

---

Re-read the last post on page 4 of this thread, where we began discussing why actual conservatives were "broken," as you called them, regarding Covid. No need to repeat it.

That reminds me: gotten your booster?

---

Sooo…lockdowns are government tyranny, but cities have the right to impose them?

If there's a dichotomy, it would seem to be that.

---

Abortion was once legal in every state. Slavery was once legal. Do you believe that such practices are not heinous merely because they were legal?

What a ridiculous argument.

Governments have a "right" to do a lot of things that are tyrannical in nature.

---

No one really believes that temporary lockdowns during a legitimate emergency are tyrannical. What you believe is that Covid wasn't a genuine emergency. That isn't, or shouldn't be, a question of ideology. The fact that I listened to mainstream scientists and you listened to whomever doesn't make one of us more "conservative."

---

I agree that no reasonable person believes temporary lockdowns during a legitimate emergency are tyrannical. I do not fault the govt. for the initial lockdown orders, as we didn't have any clue what we were dealing with. I didn't fault the govt. for the initial mask mandates. Again, we didn't know how the disease spread, and were learning things on the fly. But that's not what was tyrannical.

What I fault the govt. for is continuing with lockdowns and mandates indefinitely when the fact is they did little good, and ruined businesses, ruined education, and ruined lives. I fault the govt. for lockdown orders in places like NY that allowed many elderly people to die alone in nursing homes or hospital wards where their loved ones couldn't see them or say final goodbyes. I fault lockdown orders like those in CA which prevented people from practicing their religion (even outdoors), but allowed mass protests on the streets. I fault the govt. for masks in classrooms and virtual school that did great damage to kids in public schools. I fault lockdown orders that ruined many businesses, while leaving places like Home Depot open for business.

In short, I fault the govt. for orders that went way beyond what would have been reasonable, and instead ruined many people. And of course, there are all things you supported. I recall you arguing that you would have shut down businesses indefinitely, despite the severe financial repercussions. You let cowardice control your thought process. And then of course you subjected your poor kids to an experimental vaccine without the data on long term repercussions. God help them.

And no, your position is on these issues is in no way conservative.

---

Yet another gross mischaracterization of my views. I will leave you to your hysteria.

---

LOL. Sure, bud. Pretend these aren't things you said.

BTW, a drama queen that asserts that Trump is turning actual weapons against school parents, journalists and churches shouldn't be calling anyone hysterical. You're unhinged.

---

You misunderstood. A president has as much right to blow up a boat full of accused drug smugglers as he has to blow up a church full of accused hatemongers. It's just a question of who he thinks the real criminals are.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

fullCovid definitely broke a few people on the right. I'm afraid some of y'all got debunked one too many times and never recovered.

---

I can certainly understand the suspension of Constitutional rights, as advocated by some such as yourself, as a legitimate concern that could have caused some consternation among actual conservatives. You got scared and went all in on govt. tyranny, which is what of course makes your current concerns about this administration so comedic.

You are a walking dichotomy.

---

Meaningless words. What you call a suspension of rights was based on long-settled law. You couldn't specify a right that was actually violated if someone held a flu shot to your arm.

There were a few acts of discrimination, which I was against and the courts rightly struck down. Otherwise, these "tyrannical" restrictions were almost universally upheld by judges of all stripes.

---

I understand why such words would be meaningless to a spineless coward so willing to cast aside our rights because of his fear of COVID, but they're not meaningless to most Americans who value our Bill of Rights.

As for rights that were actually violated, well, let's begin with the First Amendment, which was repeatedly violated by states throughout the union. Contrary to your false assertions, several of those restrictions were indeed struck down. There was the Nov. 25, 2020 Supreme Court ruling wherein the Court prevented the application of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's executive order that limited the number of individuals who could gather in places of worship. There was the Feb. 5, 2021 order, wherein the Court granted a major portion of injunctive relief requested in the California case in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. The court prohibited the state from enforcing its prohibition against indoor worship services. And there was the April 9, 2021 order wherein the Court again weighed in on California's gathering restrictions, granting an injunction in Tandon v. Newsom against a state pandemic-related regulation that had the effect of restricting at-home Bible studies and prayer meetings by limiting all gatherings in private homes to no more than three households at a time. And then of course, while not a First Amended issue, there was NFIB v. Department of Labor, wherein the Court struck down the ridiculous OSHA mandate. And of course, these are just the Supreme Court rulings. There were a number of lower court rulings that were similar.

All of that debunking aside, I didn't actually say the Courts didn't rule in favor of some of the suspension of rights. They did indeed, but that doesn't mean such rights were not suspended. And of course, there wasn't a one of them you didn't support. I recall you saying you would have forced businesses to shut down even longer. But I can understand why you are now attempting to deflect.

---

That's a longer and more dramatic way of saying what I just said. The Covid deniers won a few discrimination cases and lost most of the rest.

The pandemic was a unique situation which didn't lend itself to neat, ideological answers. There's no conservative principle that says how long or short a lockdown should be. It's a judgment call. But the principle that cities and states have the right to take emergency action is undeniable.

Bottom line, Biden wasn't disappearing people without due process or deploying troops in American cities. If the only way to justify such policies is to harp on about masks and social distancing, it shows you have a pretty poor defense.

---

Nobody said or suggested cities didn't have a right to suspend certain fundamental rights. Again, try to read closer. What I said is that rights were suspended, and you were on board with same. In fact, for you, they weren't onerous enough.

So you can point to the legal victories all you want, but that is completely irrelevant to my point.

As for whether Trump deporting illegals and deploying national guard to cities is unconstitutional, I'll wait to see what the Supreme Court says on those things before declaring them unconstitutional. But it is correct that I generally don't have a problem with enforcing our immigration laws, nor with stepping in to protect the citizenry in lawless cities.

---

Then what is your point?

---

Re-read the last post on page 4 of this thread, where we began discussing why actual conservatives were "broken," as you called them, regarding Covid. No need to repeat it.

That reminds me: gotten your booster?

---

Sooo…lockdowns are government tyranny, but cities have the right to impose them?

If there's a dichotomy, it would seem to be that.

---

Abortion was once legal in every state. Slavery was once legal. Do you believe that such practices are not heinous merely because they were legal?

What a ridiculous argument.

Governments have a "right" to do a lot of things that are tyrannical in nature.

---

No one really believes that temporary lockdowns during a legitimate emergency are tyrannical. What you believe is that Covid wasn't a genuine emergency. That isn't, or shouldn't be, a question of ideology. The fact that I listened to mainstream scientists and you listened to whomever doesn't make one of us more "conservative."

---

I agree that no reasonable person believes temporary lockdowns during a legitimate emergency are tyrannical. I do not fault the govt. for the initial lockdown orders, as we didn't have any clue what we were dealing with. I didn't fault the govt. for the initial mask mandates. Again, we didn't know how the disease spread, and were learning things on the fly. But that's not what was tyrannical.

What I fault the govt. for is continuing with lockdowns and mandates indefinitely when the fact is they did little good, and ruined businesses, ruined education, and ruined lives. I fault the govt. for lockdown orders in places like NY that allowed many elderly people to die alone in nursing homes or hospital wards where their loved ones couldn't see them or say final goodbyes. I fault lockdown orders like those in CA which prevented people from practicing their religion (even outdoors), but allowed mass protests on the streets. I fault the govt. for masks in classrooms and virtual school that did great damage to kids in public schools. I fault lockdown orders that ruined many businesses, while leaving places like Home Depot open for business.

In short, I fault the govt. for orders that went way beyond what would have been reasonable, and instead ruined many people. And of course, there are all things you supported. I recall you arguing that you would have shut down businesses indefinitely, despite the severe financial repercussions. You let cowardice control your thought process. And then of course you subjected your poor kids to an experimental vaccine without the data on long term repercussions. God help them.

And no, your position is on these issues is in no way conservative.

---

Yet another gross mischaracterization of my views. I will leave you to your hysteria.

---

LOL. Sure, bud. Pretend these aren't things you said.

BTW, a drama queen that asserts that Trump is turning actual weapons against school parents, journalists and churches shouldn't be calling anyone hysterical. You're unhinged.

---

You misunderstood. A president has as much right to blow up a boat full of accused drug smugglers as he has to blow up a church full of accused hatemongers. It's just a question of who he thinks the real criminals are.

---

Ah, so you are now claiming that targeting drug smugglers in international waters off of South America is tantamount to or laying the groundwork for turning weapons against a church full of Americans within the domestic United States.

LOL. You are a hysterical hoot.

---

I'm just happy I only had to explain it twice.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Covid definitely broke a few people on the right. I'm afraid some of y'all got debunked one too many times and never recovered.

---

I can certainly understand the suspension of Constitutional rights, as advocated by some such as yourself, as a legitimate concern that could have caused some consternation among actual conservatives. You got scared and went all in on govt. tyranny, which is what of course makes your current concerns about this administration so comedic.

You are a walking dichotomy.

---

Meaningless words. What you call a suspension of rights was based on long-settled law. You couldn't specify a right that was actually violated if someone held a flu shot to your arm.

There were a few acts of discrimination, which I was against and the courts rightly struck down. Otherwise, these "tyrannical" restrictions were almost universally upheld by judges of all stripes.

---

I understand why such words would be meaningless to a spineless coward so willing to cast aside our rights because of his fear of COVID, but they're not meaningless to most Americans who value our Bill of Rights.

As for rights that were actually violated, well, let's begin with the First Amendment, which was repeatedly violated by states throughout the union. Contrary to your false assertions, several of those restrictions were indeed struck down. There was the Nov. 25, 2020 Supreme Court ruling wherein the Court prevented the application of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's executive order that limited the number of individuals who could gather in places of worship. There was the Feb. 5, 2021 order, wherein the Court granted a major portion of injunctive relief requested in the California case in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. The court prohibited the state from enforcing its prohibition against indoor worship services. And there was the April 9, 2021 order wherein the Court again weighed in on California's gathering restrictions, granting an injunction in Tandon v. Newsom against a state pandemic-related regulation that had the effect of restricting at-home Bible studies and prayer meetings by limiting all gatherings in private homes to no more than three households at a time. And then of course, while not a First Amended issue, there was NFIB v. Department of Labor, wherein the Court struck down the ridiculous OSHA mandate. And of course, these are just the Supreme Court rulings. There were a number of lower court rulings that were similar.

All of that debunking aside, I didn't actually say the Courts didn't rule in favor of some of the suspension of rights. They did indeed, but that doesn't mean such rights were not suspended. And of course, there wasn't a one of them you didn't support. I recall you saying you would have forced businesses to shut down even longer. But I can understand why you are now attempting to deflect.

---

That's a longer and more dramatic way of saying what I just said. The Covid deniers won a few discrimination cases and lost most of the rest.

The pandemic was a unique situation which didn't lend itself to neat, ideological answers. There's no conservative principle that says how long or short a lockdown should be. It's a judgment call. But the principle that cities and states have the right to take emergency action is undeniable.

Bottom line, Biden wasn't disappearing people without due process or deploying troops in American cities. If the only way to justify such policies is to harp on about masks and social distancing, it shows you have a pretty poor defense.

---

Nobody said or suggested cities didn't have a right to suspend certain fundamental rights. Again, try to read closer. What I said is that rights were suspended, and you were on board with same. In fact, for you, they weren't onerous enough.

So you can point to the legal victories all you want, but that is completely irrelevant to my point.

As for whether Trump deporting illegals and deploying national guard to cities is unconstitutional, I'll wait to see what the Supreme Court says on those things before declaring them unconstitutional. But it is correct that I generally don't have a problem with enforcing our immigration laws, nor with stepping in to protect the citizenry in lawless cities.

---

Then what is your point?

---

Re-read the last post on page 4 of this thread, where we began discussing why actual conservatives were "broken," as you called them, regarding Covid. No need to repeat it.

That reminds me: gotten your booster?

---

Sooo…lockdowns are government tyranny, but cities have the right to impose them?

If there's a dichotomy, it would seem to be that.

---

Abortion was once legal in every state. Slavery was once legal. Do you believe that such practices are not heinous merely because they were legal?

What a ridiculous argument.

Governments have a "right" to do a lot of things that are tyrannical in nature.

---

No one really believes that temporary lockdowns during a legitimate emergency are tyrannical. What you believe is that Covid wasn't a genuine emergency. That isn't, or shouldn't be, a question of ideology. The fact that I listened to mainstream scientists and you listened to whomever doesn't make one of us more "conservative."

---

I agree that no reasonable person believes temporary lockdowns during a legitimate emergency are tyrannical. I do not fault the govt. for the initial lockdown orders, as we didn't have any clue what we were dealing with. I didn't fault the govt. for the initial mask mandates. Again, we didn't know how the disease spread, and were learning things on the fly. But that's not what was tyrannical.

What I fault the govt. for is continuing with lockdowns and mandates indefinitely when the fact is they did little good, and ruined businesses, ruined education, and ruined lives. I fault the govt. for lockdown orders in places like NY that allowed many elderly people to die alone in nursing homes or hospital wards where their loved ones couldn't see them or say final goodbyes. I fault lockdown orders like those in CA which prevented people from practicing their religion (even outdoors), but allowed mass protests on the streets. I fault the govt. for masks in classrooms and virtual school that did great damage to kids in public schools. I fault lockdown orders that ruined many businesses, while leaving places like Home Depot open for business.

In short, I fault the govt. for orders that went way beyond what would have been reasonable, and instead ruined many people. And of course, there are all things you supported. I recall you arguing that you would have shut down businesses indefinitely, despite the severe financial repercussions. You let cowardice control your thought process. And then of course you subjected your poor kids to an experimental vaccine without the data on long term repercussions. God help them.

And no, your position is on these issues is in no way conservative.

---

Yet another gross mischaracterization of my views. I will leave you to your hysteria.

---

LOL. Sure, bud. Pretend these aren't things you said.

BTW, a drama queen that asserts that Trump is turning actual weapons against school parents, journalists and churches shouldn't be calling anyone hysterical. You're unhinged.

---

You misunderstood. A president has as much right to blow up a boat full of accused drug smugglers as he has to blow up a church full of accused hatemongers. It's just a question of who he thinks the real criminals are.

---

Biden likely was contemplating ... I mean he did label Christians as domestic terrorists.

You would have cheered that of course.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

The are a lot of people protesting in the "No Kings" Rallies. This might negate the argument that Trump has a mandate from the american people to do all the things he is doing.

Fox:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/watch-no-kings-protesters-at-massive-nyc-rally-reveal-motivation-for-taking-to-the-streets-disgusting

NBC:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/no-kings-protests-trump-administration-live-updates-rcna238009

The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/oct/18/anti-trump-no-kings-protests-updates

and many more. Perhaps Trump needs to listen to all americans, not just MAGA people.

---

So do you want open borders ?

More fentanyl ?

More dead Israelis ?

Higher gasoline prices ?

Open season on Christian speakers ?

---

There you go again. Accusing me of things I have not ever supported. I do not support most of the Democrat issues. I merely pointed out that a large number of people are protesting. That is a fact.

If you would like to hear the real issues that concern me, here are a few:
1. I do not think the government should be sending troops into multiple Us cities. Especially during a government shutdown. I am guessing the States will get the bill for their National Guards.
2. The ICE roundup is something on a huge scale. ICE is burning a lot of money during this shutdown. I do not believe that All of these ICE agents are essential.

Meanwhile Kristi Noem has purchased 2 new luxury jets for ICE. Air Traffic Controller are working but not getting paid.
3. Trump is spending a lot of money saber rattling for Venezuela. I think Trump needs to end the government shutdown before blowing money on B52 flight close to Venezuela.

I have stated numerous times before this that my number one issue is balancing the budget. That is where the President's focus needs to be.

---

Bull**** I simply asked you some questions. You did not answer a single one. As usual.

Ridiculous to expect a balanced budget is a pipe dream and will always remain so. Because it is political suicide to do whats needed, and you should understand that by now.

---

Your questions were quite pointed. Meaning you asked them to make a point. They were also rhetorical. Of course i support some cations on the issues in questions, It is the scale annd expense of operation that I question.

I do support a balanced budget and maybe it is a pipe dream, but I believe a financial crisis looms on the horizon if we do not balance the budget soon. That is not a pipe dream.

I do not think voters approved the scale of Trumps actions(Sending troop to US cities, Huge ICE actions, War with Venezuela) at the scale in which it is being done. I think this is true especially with a government shutdown in play

---

Totally disagree


The people want these illegals out of our country. Too many were criminals in their host countries.

You choose to forget the US brings in over one million immigrants legally every year. The most in the world.

The people want our cities to be safe again. Too many killings every day. Collectively it is a travesty.

Dems are single handedly shutting down the government to bail out Obamacare and provide taxpayer paid 'free' medical care for illegals .

Meanwhile putting our country at risk.

**** them.

---

Originally the ICE action was to remove "the worst of the worst". I agreed with that. However that action morphed into an effort to remove all illegal immigrants. I don't believe people voted for action this size. I also do not believe that you speak for the general US population as implied in your post.

---

even polling from left leaning firms (those who have missed the last several elections by 4 or more points to the left) show that a majority of voters support deportation of all illegals.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/majority-americans-support-deporting-immigrants-who-are-us-illegally

---

The word "all" is noticeably absent from your source. What it actually says is that 2/3 of Americans support deportation of some illegals. Only about 1/3 support deporting them all.

---

lol the title of the article is "Majority of Americans support deporting immigrants who are in the US illegally."

So if you are making a point on style and grammer, that the word "all" was superfluous, fine. Guilty as charged.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

The are a lot of people protesting in the "No Kings" Rallies. This might negate the argument that Trump has a mandate from the american people to do all the things he is doing.

Fox:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/watch-no-kings-protesters-at-massive-nyc-rally-reveal-motivation-for-taking-to-the-streets-disgusting

NBC:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/no-kings-protests-trump-administration-live-updates-rcna238009

The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/oct/18/anti-trump-no-kings-protests-updates

and many more. Perhaps Trump needs to listen to all americans, not just MAGA people.

---

So do you want open borders ?

More fentanyl ?

More dead Israelis ?

Higher gasoline prices ?

Open season on Christian speakers ?

---

There you go again. Accusing me of things I have not ever supported. I do not support most of the Democrat issues. I merely pointed out that a large number of people are protesting. That is a fact.

If you would like to hear the real issues that concern me, here are a few:
1. I do not think the government should be sending troops into multiple Us cities. Especially during a government shutdown. I am guessing the States will get the bill for their National Guards.
2. The ICE roundup is something on a huge scale. ICE is burning a lot of money during this shutdown. I do not believe that All of these ICE agents are essential.

Meanwhile Kristi Noem has purchased 2 new luxury jets for ICE. Air Traffic Controller are working but not getting paid.
3. Trump is spending a lot of money saber rattling for Venezuela. I think Trump needs to end the government shutdown before blowing money on B52 flight close to Venezuela.

I have stated numerous times before this that my number one issue is balancing the budget. That is where the President's focus needs to be.

---

Bull**** I simply asked you some questions. You did not answer a single one. As usual.

Ridiculous to expect a balanced budget is a pipe dream and will always remain so. Because it is political suicide to do whats needed, and you should understand that by now.

---

Your questions were quite pointed. Meaning you asked them to make a point. They were also rhetorical. Of course i support some cations on the issues in questions, It is the scale annd expense of operation that I question.

I do support a balanced budget and maybe it is a pipe dream, but I believe a financial crisis looms on the horizon if we do not balance the budget soon. That is not a pipe dream.

I do not think voters approved the scale of Trumps actions(Sending troop to US cities, Huge ICE actions, War with Venezuela) at the scale in which it is being done. I think this is true especially with a government shutdown in play

---

Totally disagree


The people want these illegals out of our country. Too many were criminals in their host countries.

You choose to forget the US brings in over one million immigrants legally every year. The most in the world.

The people want our cities to be safe again. Too many killings every day. Collectively it is a travesty.

Dems are single handedly shutting down the government to bail out Obamacare and provide taxpayer paid 'free' medical care for illegals .

Meanwhile putting our country at risk.

**** them.

---

Originally the ICE action was to remove "the worst of the worst". I agreed with that. However that action morphed into an effort to remove all illegal immigrants. I don't believe people voted for action this size. I also do not believe that you speak for the general US population as implied in your post.

---

even polling from left leaning firms (those who have missed the last several elections by 4 or more points to the left) show that a majority of voters support deportation of all illegals.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/majority-americans-support-deporting-immigrants-who-are-us-illegally

---

The word "all" is noticeably absent from your source. What it actually says is that 2/3 of Americans support deportation of some illegals. Only about 1/3 support deporting them all.

---

lol the title of the article is "Majority of Americans support deporting immigrants who are in the US illegally."

So if you are making a point on style and grammer, that the word "all" was superfluous, fine. Guilty as charged.

---

The word isn't superfluous, but false. A majority of Americans do support deporting illegal immigrants. So do I. Contrary to your claim, only a minority support deporting all of them.

historian said:

---

The majority of Americans want all illegals deported. All.
That's been the consistent theme of multiple polls for months.

---

Indeed. But Sam is superior to ordinary people. Like a King, almost.

Polls indicate majority wants all illegal immigrants deported, with a significant minority disagreeing, apparently due to the term "all".

BUDOS said:

---

Polls indicate majority wants all illegal immigrants deported, with a significant minority disagreeing, apparently due to the term "all".

---

Federal immigration law ……learn it, love it, live it.

Obama enforced the law.
So is Trump.

Yes, there are plenty who don't mind their pool guy, yard crew, nanny, etc remaining here illegally. Some people will make exceptions for selfish reasons. Some might even think they are being compassionate, rationalizing away the crime without thinking through the hidden costs and other implications.

historian said:

---

The majority of Americans want all illegals deported. All.
That's been the consistent theme of multiple polls for months.

---

No, it has not.

The consistent theme is that it depends on work and criminal history, family and community ties, length of time residing here, methods of enforcement, etc.

"Rapid Response 47?"

LOL

Quote:

---

Rapid Response 47 is not a reputable independent polling organization. It is a social media account operated by the Trump White House, primarily used to promote administration talking points, attack critics, and amplify claims beneficial to President Trump's agenda. Numerous credible news outlets have noted that Rapid Response 47 often shares unverified or misleading poll numbers to hype support for the president, especially when these figures contradict established, nonpartisan polling sources.
[url=https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/2/21/2305338/-Oh-look-the-White-House-is-using-social-media-to-smear-reporters][/url]
Purpose and Operations

• Rapid Response 47 was created by the White House as an official rapid response account, designed specifically to counter what it describes as "fake news" and to support Trump's America First agenda.[url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-white-house-rolls-out-social-media-account-hold-fake-news-accountable][/url]
• The account primarily disseminates posts on social media platformsincluding polls that display unusually favorable results for President Trump, which often lack third-party corroboration.[url=https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1975548217095037343][/url]

Reputation and Independence

• There is no evidence that Rapid Response 47 conducts independent, methodologically sound polling or that its results are vetted by professional polling firms.[url=https://www.ntd.com/white-house-unveils-rapid-response-team-to-hold-fake-news-accountable_1044444.html][/url]
• Major media outlets and polling analysts classify polls from Rapid Response 47 as partisan propaganda rather than reputable public opinion research.[url=https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/2/21/2305338/-Oh-look-the-White-House-is-using-social-media-to-smear-reporters][/url]
• Reliable polling data about national approval ratings and policy support is generally provided by established organizations such as Pew, Gallup, YouGov, CBS News, Marquette University, and Rasmussen Reportsnot by partisan social media accounts.[url=https://www.newsweek.com/americans-think-country-right-track-rasmussen-poll-2031393][/url]

Polling claims made by Rapid Response 47 should be viewed as partisan messaging, not objective measures of public opinion.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"Rapid Response 47?"

LOL

Quote:

---

Rapid Response 47 is not a reputable independent polling organization. It is a social media account operated by the Trump White House, primarily used to promote administration talking points, attack critics, and amplify claims beneficial to President Trump's agenda. Numerous credible news outlets have noted that Rapid Response 47 often shares unverified or misleading poll numbers to hype support for the president, especially when these figures contradict established, nonpartisan polling sources.
[url=https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/2/21/2305338/-Oh-look-the-White-House-is-using-social-media-to-smear-reporters][/url]
Purpose and Operations

• Rapid Response 47 was created by the White House as an official rapid response account, designed specifically to counter what it describes as "fake news" and to support Trump's America First agenda.[url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-white-house-rolls-out-social-media-account-hold-fake-news-accountable][/url]
• The account primarily disseminates posts on social media platformsincluding polls that display unusually favorable results for President Trump, which often lack third-party corroboration.[url=https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1975548217095037343][/url]

Reputation and Independence

• There is no evidence that Rapid Response 47 conducts independent, methodologically sound polling or that its results are vetted by professional polling firms.[url=https://www.ntd.com/white-house-unveils-rapid-response-team-to-hold-fake-news-accountable_1044444.html][/url]
• Major media outlets and polling analysts classify polls from Rapid Response 47 as partisan propaganda rather than reputable public opinion research.[url=https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/2/21/2305338/-Oh-look-the-White-House-is-using-social-media-to-smear-reporters][/url]
• Reliable polling data about national approval ratings and policy support is generally provided by established organizations such as Pew, Gallup, YouGov, CBS News, Marquette University, and Rasmussen Reportsnot by partisan social media accounts.[url=https://www.newsweek.com/americans-think-country-right-track-rasmussen-poll-2031393][/url]

Polling claims made by Rapid Response 47 should be viewed as partisan messaging, not objective measures of public opinion.

---

---

oh ye of little reading comprehension. It's citing a Harvard/Harris poll, page 23:

https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/HHP_Sep2025_KeyResults.pdf

For the record, an example of what actual research looks like:

Quote:

---

Roughly one-third of U.S. adults (32%) say all immigrants living in the country illegally should be deported, while 16% say none should be deported. About half (51%) say at least some should face deportation.

U.S. adults who say some immigrants living in the country illegally should be deported have varying views of who should be removed. Nearly all (97%) support deporting those who have committed violent crimes.

Those who favor some deportations are more evenly divided when it comes to deporting those who have committed nonviolent crimes (52%) or have arrived in the U.S. during the past four years (44%).

By contrast, far fewer say those with family ties in the U.S. should be deported, according to a Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults conducted Feb. 24 to March 2, 2025.

https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/03/26/americans-views-of-deportations/

---

BUDOS said:

---

Polls indicate majority wants all illegal immigrants deported, with a significant minority disagreeing, apparently due to the term "all".

---

I can say I don't want "all" illegal immigrants deports.

Many have been contributing for multiple decades and are really good folks. They have a family structure often superior to anybody else I know.

Obama was actually very good at deportation, his party agreed with what he did of course,
even though he was a very prolific "deporter in chief" as he was called.

The 4 years of Biden when the border was an unvetted free for all, all of those folks need to be
deported, unless they legally entered.

Otherwise, they need to leave and start the process over, legally this time.