As I have commented before to many people in many ways, the worst of this DOJ bunch as well as many in other Cabinet positions and even the White House should and must be held liable legally where possible. Forgiveness is one thing - continuing to have sand kicked in your face is another. A severe lesson must be taught to deter such a debacle from likely happening again.
Mr AR - am a loyal reader, and in respect ask you to give us facts that support the claim the people have rejected lawfare? We all can give points showing we made other points of support or rebuke from the election stats, what are you citing we rejected lawfare?
Lawfare: the use of legal action to cause problems for an opponent
Americans are extremely clear in their rebuke of lawfare as a political tactic. The majority of the voting public, some who voted knowing that Trump would go to jail if he lost, instead voted to put him back in power. Most Americans have an in-built sense of fairness. Maybe if there were 2 cases brought, things would have looked differently. What happened was a perversion of our justice system, a robbing of the taxpayer dollar, a divisive and corrosive use of time, and a breaking of 246 years of precedent. In other words, an abomination.
I left a note above to the author asking whether we should expand the def'n to include other things where the executive just interprets/executes everything in an aggressive manner to achieve their ends or exert subtle/covert influence.
Good question. Lawfare IS the subversion of the American way of life and of our form of government. These actions - the subversion of the things we hold dear - is the defining characteristic of the radical left. It is what they do. Americans have rejected that subversion. Now, people must be held to account. Then we can restore these institutions. Restoring these institutions will require that we "reset" the norms. One of those norms is that the law cannot be used to prosecute one's political enemies.
AR - still musing over this, whether the conservative citizen is able to rightly claim the mandates you assert (and I'm not saying you're wrong, just trying to cite to some firm evidence to assert the mandate position in good faith so it's sustainable and persuasive outside our bubble) or if ... other causes -- came across this today by Nate Silver, something to consider?
I’ve given a couple of presentations already on the election aftermath, listing what I consider to the most important factors in Trump’s win. The first is the global backlash against incumbent parties in an era of high inflation and failed promises for a quick return to normalcy after COVID. Compared to that, Harris’s performance looks decent. I don’t buy this as being dispositive, however, given that I’m something of a believer in American political exceptionalism — I think we often lead political trends rather than follow them. The second factor is inflation¹, the third is Biden’s assistance on seeking another term until he was 86, and the fourth is immigration. None of these are really Harris’s fault — well, maybe immigration to an extent.
I would add to this that there is definitely a cultural vibe shift going on, one which I wrote about months ago. That whooshing we all hear is the sound of tens of millions of Americans suddenly realizing that there is more to learn about the nature of reality from the far right side of the political spectrum than from anywhere else. Indeed, about the only unifying proposition on the right these days is a courageous willingness to confront reality, whatever may come. Musk and Rogan did not create this cultural change, though of course they amplified it. Those of us who have been on the far right for a long time are encouraged to see the shift. At its core, the left is the party of reality denial losers. It's blunt, but accurate. Nobody wants to be a loser. All the other points you wrote I agree with - particularly inflation, though I'd expand that to be a criticism of fiat currencies generally (though this is a different conversation).
thanks for the reply -- in my mind the clear lawfare was the unprecedented and tenuous legal prosecutions against DJT in Fla, Ga and NY (by state and fed authorities), as well as selected/aggressive prosecutions re all and any allies of DJT, thinking about J6 defendants, election-associated associates, and just friends of DJT who allegedly violated the law but in a super technical or never prosecuted manner (Bannon/Stone/Navarro (and others I've read about but not coming to mind); so clearly under the current admin the state/fed prosecutors have taken a unique, over-zealous and partisan approach.
What I'm asking is whether these other items would also be in your def'n of lawfare --
-extremely liberal border policies encouraged to bring 4X the amount of illegals into US and generally unsettle/divide neighborhoods via increased crime/poverty/chaos/anxiety/resentment
-express censoring of social media in online platforms
-seemingly direct control of MSM (ie, all other traditional media)
-imposition of mandates/coercion and demonizing of the unvaccinated
-pushing/applying title IX to weaponize transgender'ism and to endanger/divide young women
-replacement of PJB w KH via the wave of the hand/edict
there are likely many more examples (and many/most remain under the radar of most folks via the complicit media and other US institutions) -- and they all arguably have some connection to the law (what doesn't?) -- but are you including these more disconnected policies of the current admin?
Very nice. Now we have to see what happens. There are some really vicious rumors flying around, all meant to discourage (lit.: to 'dis/un-hearten', 'to remove the courage') or to demoralize us - like Rubio for State (God forbid!). But hope is the last item Pandora lost from her little box.
As a Floridian I am delighted to see Rubio’s senate position opened up for a real, fighting patriot. SoS assuages Rubio's ego, while allowing him to do what he does best…talk endlessly.
Well said.
As I have commented before to many people in many ways, the worst of this DOJ bunch as well as many in other Cabinet positions and even the White House should and must be held liable legally where possible. Forgiveness is one thing - continuing to have sand kicked in your face is another. A severe lesson must be taught to deter such a debacle from likely happening again.
Mr AR - am a loyal reader, and in respect ask you to give us facts that support the claim the people have rejected lawfare? We all can give points showing we made other points of support or rebuke from the election stats, what are you citing we rejected lawfare?
Lawfare: the use of legal action to cause problems for an opponent
Americans are extremely clear in their rebuke of lawfare as a political tactic. The majority of the voting public, some who voted knowing that Trump would go to jail if he lost, instead voted to put him back in power. Most Americans have an in-built sense of fairness. Maybe if there were 2 cases brought, things would have looked differently. What happened was a perversion of our justice system, a robbing of the taxpayer dollar, a divisive and corrosive use of time, and a breaking of 246 years of precedent. In other words, an abomination.
I left a note above to the author asking whether we should expand the def'n to include other things where the executive just interprets/executes everything in an aggressive manner to achieve their ends or exert subtle/covert influence.
Good question. Lawfare IS the subversion of the American way of life and of our form of government. These actions - the subversion of the things we hold dear - is the defining characteristic of the radical left. It is what they do. Americans have rejected that subversion. Now, people must be held to account. Then we can restore these institutions. Restoring these institutions will require that we "reset" the norms. One of those norms is that the law cannot be used to prosecute one's political enemies.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/when-lawfare-becomes-lawful/
AR - still musing over this, whether the conservative citizen is able to rightly claim the mandates you assert (and I'm not saying you're wrong, just trying to cite to some firm evidence to assert the mandate position in good faith so it's sustainable and persuasive outside our bubble) or if ... other causes -- came across this today by Nate Silver, something to consider?
I’ve given a couple of presentations already on the election aftermath, listing what I consider to the most important factors in Trump’s win. The first is the global backlash against incumbent parties in an era of high inflation and failed promises for a quick return to normalcy after COVID. Compared to that, Harris’s performance looks decent. I don’t buy this as being dispositive, however, given that I’m something of a believer in American political exceptionalism — I think we often lead political trends rather than follow them. The second factor is inflation¹, the third is Biden’s assistance on seeking another term until he was 86, and the fourth is immigration. None of these are really Harris’s fault — well, maybe immigration to an extent.
I would add to this that there is definitely a cultural vibe shift going on, one which I wrote about months ago. That whooshing we all hear is the sound of tens of millions of Americans suddenly realizing that there is more to learn about the nature of reality from the far right side of the political spectrum than from anywhere else. Indeed, about the only unifying proposition on the right these days is a courageous willingness to confront reality, whatever may come. Musk and Rogan did not create this cultural change, though of course they amplified it. Those of us who have been on the far right for a long time are encouraged to see the shift. At its core, the left is the party of reality denial losers. It's blunt, but accurate. Nobody wants to be a loser. All the other points you wrote I agree with - particularly inflation, though I'd expand that to be a criticism of fiat currencies generally (though this is a different conversation).
thanks for the reply -- in my mind the clear lawfare was the unprecedented and tenuous legal prosecutions against DJT in Fla, Ga and NY (by state and fed authorities), as well as selected/aggressive prosecutions re all and any allies of DJT, thinking about J6 defendants, election-associated associates, and just friends of DJT who allegedly violated the law but in a super technical or never prosecuted manner (Bannon/Stone/Navarro (and others I've read about but not coming to mind); so clearly under the current admin the state/fed prosecutors have taken a unique, over-zealous and partisan approach.
What I'm asking is whether these other items would also be in your def'n of lawfare --
-extremely liberal border policies encouraged to bring 4X the amount of illegals into US and generally unsettle/divide neighborhoods via increased crime/poverty/chaos/anxiety/resentment
-express censoring of social media in online platforms
-seemingly direct control of MSM (ie, all other traditional media)
-imposition of mandates/coercion and demonizing of the unvaccinated
-pushing/applying title IX to weaponize transgender'ism and to endanger/divide young women
-replacement of PJB w KH via the wave of the hand/edict
there are likely many more examples (and many/most remain under the radar of most folks via the complicit media and other US institutions) -- and they all arguably have some connection to the law (what doesn't?) -- but are you including these more disconnected policies of the current admin?
I’d sure hate to see a lot of overpaid, corrupt lawyers out on their a$$es.
Only a$$holes use the good will of the American People against them/us. It is the worst thing you can do.
Very nice. Now we have to see what happens. There are some really vicious rumors flying around, all meant to discourage (lit.: to 'dis/un-hearten', 'to remove the courage') or to demoralize us - like Rubio for State (God forbid!). But hope is the last item Pandora lost from her little box.
As a Floridian I am delighted to see Rubio’s senate position opened up for a real, fighting patriot. SoS assuages Rubio's ego, while allowing him to do what he does best…talk endlessly.
Yes. Discovery, accountability, deterrence.
Start with DC Field Office.
Start at the bottom and make deals until you reach the too if the dung heap.
in other words prosecute it like other organized crime
*Too = top