What will history say about Trump?

[JaySecrets]

Thanks for the Sermon From the Mount. Will you be serving Loaves and Fishes later? I’m a little peckish.

You know nothing about my politics, so you can shut the fuck up about that.

I think spending a weekend on the streets of Chiraq might have some benefits in store for you. The school shooting at Afalachee was in GA. The last nightclub slaughter was in FL. If those are in hard left states you can take a big old lick of my starfish. You quote faction much like Orange Julius.
I may be off here, but somehow I’m not sure more lead flying in a school zone is the answer to our prayers. I guess we’ll just have to put body armor on every student’s school supplies list.
And as far as the government being terrified of your 2A right, think about that when you bring an AR-15
to a drone fight., pahdnah. Pa-POW!

But when you bring tanks and drones to a drone fight.....

 

[Politruk]

Tell that to the founders who founded America by... insurrection, as you call it now.

But then they created a government. Nobody does that and builds the possibility of insurrection into it. The "well-regulated [meaning well-armed] militia" is intended to be an arm of the state, not a countervailing force against the state -- that is why the Constitution expressly authorizes the President to command the militia.

 

[DukeofPaducah]

But when you bring tanks and drones to a drone fight.....

They call it Hellfire for a reason, Yakimoto.
ATF would be curious to know why you would need that kind of hardware, I reckon.
‘Pa-Pow!’

 

[AceDesSpades]

In response to Biden’s authorization for Ukraine to use longer range military hardware, Putin has announced a nuclear option. Live Now reports. That’s a big saber to be rattling..

Lets hope the Peace Prez can come up with a solution that doesn’t involve Chamberlainian style concession
of a democratically elected government to a plutocracy.
A bold statement from the leader of the free world.
Perhaps Trump and Putin can settle the matter over a competitive round of golf.

What is he thinking? Is he?
On their way out, do his people seek to thwart Trump?
We saw how they did everything they could to stop the wall construction, and did.

Then, after they defeated him with a successful propaganda campaign, they opened the borders while proclaiming them secure. Trump ran again and the serious charge was that he made a promise to build a wall and did not keep it, how can you vote for an (amoral) oath-breaker?

Now, the customary backbiting will begin because in the eyes of the vanquished, he can do no right.

How did he win? Nobody I know voted for him!

 

[AceDesSpades]

“Elections,” Barack Obama told a group of cowering Republican lawmakers early in 2009, “have consequences.” He then drove the point home by reminding them, “I won.”

In truth, Democrats tend to understand this law of the political universe more clearly than do Republicans.

The usual rule is this: when Democrats win elections, they wield power. When Republicans win elections, they seek, or at least agree to, compromise.

...

To the surprise of the inattentive, Donald Trump is not acting according to script. In 2017, he was allowed to assume office but not to take power. That was because the order of the universe had dictated that only Democrats were allowed to take power. Even before he turned the key at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, there were calls for his impeachment. He had hardly clicked on the lights in the Oval Office before the Russia Collusion Hoax—organized and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign—got underway.

...

Why do I think Gaetz will ultimately be confirmed? Because the public at large just elected Trump decisively, revealing a new spirit—what some commentators are calling a “spiritual shift”—in the body politic. The political weather has changed in America. As Mollie Hemingway put it on the same talk show Trey Gowdy participated in, “We don’t have a department of justice, we have a department of injustice, and that’s why you get Matt Gaetz as a nominee.” And that’s also why Gaetz will be confirmed. Elections have consequences.

Roger Kimball, American Greatness

https://amgreatness.com/2024/11/17/...ond-term-challenges-the-political-status-quo/

 

[AceDesSpades]

Had the Democrats won the 2024 election, we would have seen many more examples of this principle in action. Assuming the Dems had kept the Senate, we would have seen them dispense with the filibuster, thus turning that chamber into what outgoing West Virginian Senator Joe Manchin called “the House on steroids.” They would have packed the Supreme Court, adding a few new “progressive” members to the bench to counter the power of Justices like Clarence Thomas. They likely would have imposed term- or age-limits on the Justices as well.

Elsewhere, I endeavored to provide a brief inventory of the “consequences” of a Harris victory. Donald Trump would have been bankrupted and jailed. It is likely that the same thing would have happened to Elon Musk. Just as John Kerry promised, the First Amendment would have been gutted if not discarded altogether in order to further the censorship and surveillance regime of the woke, progressive elite. A virtual ban on fracking and the mining of coal would have been enacted, further depressing America’s prosperity. The trans insanity of the last decade would have been extended, destroying women’s sports and disfiguring, mentally as well as physically, many thousands of confused teenagers.

Same source

 

[JaySecrets]

But then they created a government. Nobody does that and builds the possibility of insurrection into it. The "well-regulated [meaning well-armed] militia" is intended to be an arm of the state, not a countervailing force against the state -- that is why the Constitution expressly authorizes the President to command the militia.

read the federalist papers. they are the best statement of the founders' intent you will ever read.

 

[AceDesSpades]

Bill Clinton said, “[W]e just have to keep showing up for work every day and analyzing why people blamed us for the cost of living problems that were very real, and still are for many people, but have crippled every big nation in the world, every big economy. And we were actually doing better than a lot of them. … I didn’t deny it. I think that, sometimes, Democrats read polls too much and only want to talk about the stuff that people agree with us on and not that they disagree with us on. The Republicans read the polls and try to attack us on where we’re strongest. And I think we should just talk about these cost-of-living issues. I spent an enormous amount of time when I was out there in these little rural areas saying, here’s what happened to the price of food, here’s what happened to housing, and you know gasoline prices are going down because we produce more energy of all kinds than any other country in the world and they want us to stop producing solar and wind and we can’t replace it all with oil and coal and gas. We can’t. So, the practical and the ideological and what’s good for our children’s future are kind of merging. But you have to make the argument. You can’t pretend like you’re scared to make it or that anybody that’s got reservations about your position is three bricks shy of a full load. In other words, you’ve got to treat people as if they are looking for answers and give them what your answers are.”

 

[HisArpy]

You know nothing about my politics, so you can shut the fuck up about that.

Lol.

The ONLY way no one would know about your personal brand of politics is if you'd never posted here.

With every snarky and progressiveism laden post you make, we know you. We don't even have to look very hard to see it because you're obsessed with ensuring that we know.

 

[HisArpy]

They call it Hellfire for a reason, Yakimoto.
ATF would be curious to know why you would need that kind of hardware, I reckon.
‘Pa-Pow!’

2 observations:

1. A free people doesn't support their government using their military to subjugate their own people. Those who cower and demand that their families and neighbors also cower before the mighty government hammer, aren't free and never will be because the chains of slavery are on their minds and spirit.

2. An armed citizenry ensures that the military won't or cannot comply with orders to subjugate the people. The people may die, and in huge numbers, but they'll die free.

 

[DukeofPaducah]

Lol.

The ONLY way no one would know about your personal brand of politics is if you'd never posted here.

With every snarky and progressiveism laden post you make, we know you. We don't even have to look very hard to see it because you're obsessed with ensuring that we know.

I’m an equal opportunity snark, Jethro. Whoever is the most imbecilic gets my personal brand of love.
You, at the moment are the apple of my eye. ‘Smooch.’

 

[DukeofPaducah]

2 observations:

1. A free people doesn't support their government using their military to subjugate their own people. Those who cower and demand that their families and neighbors also cower before the mighty government hammer, aren't free and never will be because the chains of slavery are on their minds and spirit.

2. An armed citizenry ensures that the military won't or cannot comply with orders to subjugate the people. The people may die, and in huge numbers, but they'll die free.

You have zero chance of success with that strategy. Although you will be going up against
Pete Henseth as SecDef so who can really say?
I guess if you’re dead at least your spirit is free.
Personally, I would adopt the tactics the Viet Cong used against us in the 60s. Fire a clip at a convoy,
Toss a frag in a crowded bar and fade into the bush or the crowd. I look good in a pair of black PJs.
Eventually the tide will turn.

 

[Politruk]

read the federalist papers. they are the best statement of the founders' intent you will ever read.

They do not discuss the Bill of Rights.

 

[Politruk]

2. An armed citizenry ensures that the military won't or cannot comply with orders to subjugate the people.

No, it doesn't. Hussein's Iraq had an armed citizenry.

 

[HisArpy]

I’m an equal opportunity snark, Jethro. Whoever is the most imbecilic gets my personal brand of love.
You, at the moment are the apple of my eye. ‘Smooch.’

You're an idjit without a clue who sails wherever the wind blows.

So, go ask the wind for a blow job and GTFO.

 

[HisArpy]

You have zero chance of success with that strategy. Although you will be going up against
Pete Henseth as SecDef so who can really say?
I guess if you’re dead at least your spirit is free.
Personally, I would adopt the tactics the Viet Cong used against us in the 60s. Fire a clip at a convoy,
Toss a frag in a crowded bar and fade into the bush or the crowd. I look good in a pair of black PJs.
Eventually the tide will turn.

Well, at least you've outed yourself so that the FBI/CIA/NSA will know who to start looking for first.

Good job!

 

[DukeofPaducah]

You're an idjit without a clue who sails wherever the wind blows.

So, go ask the wind for a blow job and GTFO.

You talk like I give a shit what the likes of you thinks.

Don’t bother drinking your bathwater like you did the last time. You can’t recycle electrolytes that way.
I don’t care what your butt-Buddy Hulk Hogan told you the last time he jugged your bum, Wendell

 

[DeluxAuto]

He's now peddling American Flag Eagle guitars. Most likely made in China or Mexico.

 

[JaySecrets]

But then they created a government. Nobody does that and builds the possibility of insurrection into it. The "well-regulated [meaning well-armed] militia" is intended to be an arm of the state, not a countervailing force against the state -- that is why the Constitution expressly authorizes the President to command the militia.

Some quotes here from and about the Constitution... They take space, so please read all of it.

The Militia Clauses​

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
Annotations

Calling Out the Militia
The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1784 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.1785 The act of February 28, 1795,1786 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.1787 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not “employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war,” but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.1788

Regulation of the Militia
The power of Congress over the militia “being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. . . . The power of the state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Constitution, and not having been prohibited by that instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate nevertheless to the paramount law of the General Government. . . .”1789 Under the National Defense Act of 1916,1790 the militia, which had been an almost purely state institution, was brought under the control of the National Government. The term “militia of the United States” was defined to comprehend “all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,” between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. The act reorganized the National Guard, determined its size in proportion to the population of the several States, required that all enlistments be for “three years in service and three years in reserve,” limited the appointment of officers to those who “shall have successfully passed such tests as to . . . physical, moral and professional fitness as the President shall prescribe,” and authorized the President in certain emergencies to “draft into the military service of the United States to serve therein for the period of the war unless sooner discharged, any or all members of the National Guard and National Guard Reserve,” who thereupon should “stand discharged from the militia.”1791

The militia clauses do not constrain Congress in raising and supporting a national army. The Court has approved the system of “dual enlistment,” under which persons enlisted in state militia (National Guard) units simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of the United States, and, when called to active duty in the federal service, are relieved of their status in the state militia. Consequently, the restrictions in the first militia clause have no application to the federalized National Guard; there is no constitutional requirement that state governors hold a veto power over federal duty training conducted outside the United States or that a national emergency be declared before such training may take place.1792

1784 Moore v. Houston, 3 S. & R. (Pa.) 169 (1817), aff’d, Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1 (1820).
1785 Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869); Tyler v. Defrees, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 331 (1871).
1786 1 Stat. 424 (1795), 10 U.S.C. § 332.
1787 Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 19, 32 (1827).
1788 Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1 (1820); Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 19 (1827).
1789 Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1, 16 (1820). Organizing and providing for the militia being constitutionally committed to Congress and statutorily shared with the Executive, the judiciary is precluded from exercising oversight over the process, Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1 (1973), although wrongs committed by troops are subject to judicial relief in damages. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 233 (1974).
1790 39 Stat. 166, 197, 198, 200, 202, 211 (1916), codified in sections of Titles 10 & 32. See Wiener, The Militia Clause of the Constitution, 54 Harv. L. Rev. 181 (1940).
1791 Military and civilian personnel of the National Guard are state, rather than federal, employees and the Federal Government is thus not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for their negligence. Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41 (1965).
1792 Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 434 (1990).

 

[HisArpy]

You talk like I give a shit what the likes of you thinks.

Don’t bother drinking your bathwater like you did the last time. You can’t recycle electrolytes that way.
I don’t care what your butt-Buddy Hulk Hogan told you the last time he jugged your bum, Wendell

The problem you have is that you don't understand that being an asshole in public isn't winning you any friends except those who are ALSO assholes in public.

But of course this is Lit where we expect such trash from drama queers like yourself.

 

[JaySecrets]

But then they created a government. Nobody does that and builds the possibility of insurrection into it. The "well-regulated [meaning well-armed] militia" is intended to be an arm of the state, not a countervailing force against the state -- that is why the Constitution expressly authorizes the President to command the militia.

Note: The president has the pawer to CALL UP the militia, not to REGULATE. That power belongs to congress, and only that of training and extra arming for the purpose of national defense, and the power to call up has to be APPROVED by Congress. The STATE reps. Because it was the individual states that provided the militia, and that militia was made up of individually armed citizens, ergo the right to bear arms. The ultimate power of military might was to be left in the hands of the people. THAT is what the founders gave us.

They did this BECAUSE of what had just happened. The military, in the hands of an out-of-control government, had been turned against the people. The government had become overbearing and was ignoring the Magna Carta. The people took up arms, threw off the bonds of that government (insurrection), established a government that was clunky and slow and unwieldy by design, created internal separations of powers, making it even more clunky, then enumerated its very limited role, leaving ALL other power to the states and citizens. THEN they mace sure the people had the means to take up arms against that government if need be. They wanted the government SCARED to violate its very limited roles. People needed governance, and government had to be a government by the people, for the people, able to be destroyed and replaced by the people if need be, THAT was the founders' express intent. To ignore that is to ignore history and the founders own express words in their written documents about intent.

 

[JaySecrets]

Thanks for the Sermon From the Mount. Will you be serving Loaves and Fishes later? I’m a little peckish.

You know nothing about my politics, so you can shut the fuck up about that.

I think spending a weekend on the streets of Chiraq might have some benefits in store for you. The school shooting at Apalachee was in GA. The last nightclub slaughter was in FL. If those are in hard left states you can take a big old lick of my starfish. You quote faction much like Orange Julius.
I may be off here, but somehow I’m not sure more lead flying in a school zone is the answer to our prayers. I guess we’ll just have to put body armor on every student’s school supplies list.
And as far as the government being terrified of your 2A right, think about that when you bring an AR-15
to a drone fight., pahdnah. Pa-POW

One point at a time. Illinois in general and Chi Town in particular had been a liberal and Socialist stronghold for DECADES. THEY have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Yet they have some of the worst gun violence. This is a Dem and a Leftist problem. Texas doesn't have this problem. Why? Because bad guys will always be able to get guns and other weapons. If they can't buy them, they will steal or build them. It's not hard to do. You know what stops them? Conservatives have known the answer since the Conservatives that make up most of the founding fathers gave us this country: GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS! THAT is what much of Chicago is lacking.

Orlando is a DEMOCRAT stronghold in the middle of a Republican held state, and the city's gun free zone laws reflect those leanings. The GA shooting was stopped because a school resource officer, a GOOD GUY WITH A GUN, was there to stop him. It was otherwise A GUN FREE ZONE, something Conservatives have opposed for a VERY long time. What if a teacher, trained and armed, had been able to pull on the man? The shooting WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED! When the school officer drew on the guy, he dropped his weapon and got on the ground!

An armed citizenry has always been the safest and freest in the world. That is why Socialism (ergo you leftists) has always hated guns. You can't control a nation of people who can pull arms on you and warn you to back the hell off. Then again you seem to have a penchant to celebrate tyranny, as demonstrated in your celebration of China's culture over America's.

 

[DukeofPaducah]

The problem you have is that you don't understand that being an asshole in public isn't winning you any friends except those who are ALSO assholes in public.

But of course this is Lit where we expect such trash from drama queers like yourself.

Then we pair nicely fuckfist.
Youk’re the micropeen that told me to ask the wind to blow me.

 

[JaySecrets]

They call it Hellfire for a reason, Yakimoto.
ATF would be curious to know why you would need that kind of hardware, I reckon.
‘Pa-Pow!’

Ever question whether or not the ATF itself is a constitutional department, or if its very existence violates the express intent of the founders as expressed in the very clear words "Congress shall not"?

 

[DukeofPaducah]

Ever question whether or not the ATF itself is a constitutional department, or if its very existence violates the express intent of the founders as expressed in the very clear words "Congress shall not"?

I have not.
I try to stay in stealth mode around that lot.
I got a cold call from an agent one day for asking a dealer with an FFL Class iii license how to buy a shotgun with a barrel less than 18.”
He was very curious why I felt the need for a destructive device. I was sweating bullets until I told him I was a hunter and need something to keep the bears out of camp.
He knew so much of my personal info.. it gave me the Willies. Still does.