gatomontes99

Not in the context of the ad, no. That is the point. The ad makes it seem like Reagan was a free trade absolutionist. He was not.

You didn't read the article. The ad misrepresented Reagan's views. Not that Reagan is the holy grail, but the ad is a lie.

...and... It is not the people, it is the policy. What kind of people knowingly violate the law to get a benefit? It ain't the honest people. And! They are the kind of people that will drive a truck with a CDL that is not valid for the person that was awarded it and is not theirs. And! The company they work for is not licensed. All that happens because the policy of not enforcing the law attracted them. The policy is the problem. Thank God that policy is gone. Thank God He moved Trump's head just enough.

Krugman has not made a single correct prediction about Trump or Biden's policies. So, in so much as he is wrong 100% of the time, he is extremely reliable in predicting what won't happen.

As usual, the lefty loonies lied: BBC: "He says in the original speech: "Imposing such tariffs or trade barriers and restrictions of any kind are steps that I am loath to take. And in a moment I'll mention the sound economic reasons for this: that over the long run such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer." Reagan says some companies had been "engaging in unfair trade practices" and going against an agreement with the US - and that this was therefore a "special case". This sets the tone for the rest of the address, which he dedicates to making clear his commitment to free trade and the dangers of high tariffs." The truth is that Reagan mostly agreed with Trump.

No. You claimed this EO made groups DTOs. It does not and you proved that to be true. It is your contention that the President shouldn't direct law enforcement to stop people from killing each other over politics? Are you saying the president can't pursue terrorism groups just because they are in our borders? Is that what you want hang your ideological identity on? https://cdn.mrc.org/2023-05/DHSTVTPReport.pdf I missed the part where they listed a specific group. Thanks for proving me correct...again.

You proved me correct. This EO had nothing to do with declaring ANTIFA a DTO. This EO recognized that DTOs and other groups are using hatred, vitriol and violence. That is a massive threat to our republic. As such, law enforcement should not ignore such actions in the event that they are a violation of the law. All I got from this is that you are mad that I found the authority. Biden did it before Trump. Bush considered it. The only thing that is new is your outrage. When did ideas need bank accounts, handbooks and donars? Nope. Read the action items in sections 2 and 3.

I don't think he was drunk. He may have been but I don't think anyone has said he was. He was carrying someone else's CDL and that CDL was suspended. To make matters worse, the company he was working for wasn't licensed either.

Man, that is bad, but they are a net positive and they only do jobs Americans won't do! Of course, if you were in those cars you probably don't think they are a net positive. And, if you are out of work and can't find a job, you probably don't consider a six figure job as a truck driver as a bad thing.

Except, ANTIFA has already over thrown a portion of the government in the past. Remember CHAZ? CHOP? Whatever they called it.

Look at what he's inspired:

I found a digital mock up of the Trump Ball Room I like it!

Yes there is, but this EO has nothing to do with that. This EO covers incitement of violence. As for the claim that he doesn't have the power in the Constitution, that is not true. He is required, by oathe, to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Within that mandate to protect and defend the Constitution is the implication that actions to protect voters from political violence and voter suppression are warranted. In so doing, identifying and targeting groups that engage in such activities is not only authorized, but mandatory. FYI, Biden designated several groups as domestic terrorists, including the catholic church. Link Just because a group is labeled a DTO, doesnt means they lose rights or that new laws are in play. Like I said above, this EO tells the FBI and others law enforcement entities, to enforce the laws if a DTO is involved. You have heard of prosecutorial discretion? This removes that. If someone calls for people to kill or harm another group of people, they must be prosecuted, per the EO. In this EO, the section that talks about ANTIFA (and other groups) is not policy forming. Rather, it is defining the need for the EO. Starting with section 2, the what is prescribed. The what says "any" political violence, intimidation, voter suppression, etc. This EO is not targeting the left or political enemies of the administration. This EO targets those that are trying to change election outcomes through voter suppression and intimidation. I'm sprry your side is going to be disproportionately targeted, but that is only because your side has become bat shit crazy. What? How did....what? Are you mental? The police are the enforcement mechanism to the law. They are literally the government. Overthrowing the police is over throwing the government. There is no authority given to just seek out a single entity. Those are examples used in section 1 to illustrate the need for the EO. What law enforcement can do is laid out in the subsequent sections. In those section they use words like any and all to describe acts and people that must be prosecuted.

If the left were honest, it would be because he makes them feel stupid, so they lash out. But they will say all pf the above because they think their emotional arguments are rational.

What you typed was not a contradiction. It was a diatribe of code words that expressed feelings. It did not accurately depict my position or any realistic description of an EO. You said the worst insurrection since the Civil War. I would say burning down a police station, driving out all government officials and holding that ground for days is for worse that a couple of hours of rioting in the capitol. In fact, the second worst would be the day Antifa tried to over take the Whitehouse and managed to set a church on fire. Once would be good. Formatting is at your discretion. I already read the whole thing. It is short and not that wordy. I, however, didn't use my biases to prescribe intent. I read it for the actual intent. You should do the same.

You aren't a b proctologist, but you spend so much time with your head up your ass we let you quote shit all the time. We figure you are an expert on shit.

You clearly don't know what an executive order is. WTF are you talking about? The CHAZ was a left wing thing. Prove it. I literally quoted the entire EO in the second post. Your lazy ass doesn't even have to click on a link. Just quote the part that proves your statement. You need help.

Every policy the Democrats pursue benefits them, personally, and hurts Americans.

EOs do not create laws. They create policies. The new policy is to not gloss over violent rhetoric. We have in the past and now the left has NORMALIZED hatred and violence in their party. That will not end until they pay real, material consequences. If it does not end, more people will die. In the worst case scenario, the vitriol and violence of the left will drive some on the right to react in kind, sparking a tit for tat civil war. It is best to prosecute speech that crosses the line to specifically calling for violence. Like when Don Lemon told illegal aliens to get a gun and defend themselves from ICE.

Y'all are just mad because you can't attack the source.

9 The police said it was half of that. Still impressive, but it is lefty looney Cali, so meh. Grok says this picture has 5,000 to 7,000 people in it. If the police are right and we use that to correct the organizers' over estimates, it was more lok 3.5 million. If we take Grok at his word, it was more like 1 million.

They don't. That isn't the belief.

There is no second amendment right to shoot federal, state or local officials.

No he isn't. We went over this. I cited Hamilton in Federalist 29 and the actual amendment. You cited some rando's comment you saw on the web some where. I win.