Did anyone’s political views change in last 6 months?

I agree, crimes were committed against everyone who was at a wrong place at a wrong time, but I’m yet to see a group of white thugs beating a black guy to near death during Floyd “protests”. I’ve seen quite a few cases where a group of black thugs nearly killed a few whites.
To me that looks like local governments allowing hate crimes to happen against whites. And I’m still outraged by what I’ve seen.

 

I'm just going to run with a simple answer to the OP.

"Nope"

 

Where? Sorry, but your stating something is so does not count as proof. I have heard nothing about police being asked to stand down during rioting, burning, and looting. Was it done to allow looting? Or was it done to protect the police from harm? Or, perhaps to protect the protesters who were not rioting?

 

I know about the cops lounging in Rep. Bobby Rush's office, but he didn't invite them, nor did their chief, or the mayor, or anyone else.

Who ordered the Seattle chief to leave what precinct?

And no, I'm not going to hunt through your other posts on other threads. Either you have links or you don't.

 

That's my point! You completely ignored the fact.

Aren't you paying attention? I'm against a president deciding their own powers! But that's the reason why Trump was acquited. Because his legal team held (and Republicans in the Senate agreed) that this President, and all Presidents from this moment henceforth, shall have that prerogative. Apparently I'm less confident than you are that a future Democrat in the presidency won't use this new precedent that Republicans have left for them

If you want to talk reality you might want to start by looking at it.

 

Constitution defines presidential powers. A president that cannot recall even a mayor is not a dictator.
My point about presidential powers wasn’t a point about Trump, it was a point about the powers of a (a as in any) US president and the power distribution between states and the federal government.
Reread my OP. Drink a cup of coffee and eat an omelette before you do that.

 

Good advice; might add that laying off some of the other things that are probably in use would help too.

 

And my point is that by you addressing presidential powers without including the events surrounding the Trump impeachment, most predominantly the reasons for his acquittal, you are cherry-picking the data that led you to come to your pre-established conclusion.

If you cherry-pick data, your "conclusion" is not a conclusion. It's a pre-established dogma that you are simply trying to find ways to justify and make appear as if it was the result of an unbiased examination of the facts.

So you are not fooling anybody other than yourself.

 

Please define changes that were made in presidential powers in the last 6 months.
Please list laws and constitutional amendments that were passed and signed into law that limit or expand presidential powers.

 

It's about the same. Republicans as a whole are weak weasels. Democrats are radical and want to fundamentally change America to a chaotic hell hole. And Trump is the center of sanity for regular Americans and is battling both.

 

Do you understand what "abuse of power" means? Just in case you don't, it means that somebody is trusted with the power to do something so they can... in this case, perform the duties of President. But they abuse this power to benefit themselves, their family, their friends: economically, politically, in some way that is not what the power was intended to accomplish.

In other words, the President already has the power. What has changed is that now there is precedent that allows them to abuse it any way they want.

Capice?

Now... one more time: you did not consider the fact that Republicans acquitted Trump on the premise (because that's what Trump's defense alleged) that a President could abuse power any way he wants. Even for personal benefit. One of the examples set forward by Trump's defense was that a President could abuse power to get themselves re-elected. Meaning they can do anything whatsoever: cheat, keep people from voting,... declare a national emergency in areas of states that lean Democrat and send the armed forces to not allow people to leave their homes on election day. He has the POWER to do that. The President has always had the power to do that. None in our history have done anything like that because they would be accused of "abuse of power" and they would be impeached But the Republican Senate has determined that that would not be motive for impeachment.

Which means that even if Trump doesn't do something like I described above, some other President might. The precedent is set that President's can abuse power and not be impeached. In practical terms, they would need to have more than one third of the Senate behind them. But in legal terms, any future Democratic or Republican President could do something like that without fear of being removed for it.

Now... It looks like you didn't know this. So I withdraw my statement that you cherry-picked. Looks like it was simply that you weren't aware. But now you know....

 

I’m struggling to understand what it is that you are talking about.
One of your claims that the president can send army to keep people home during elections to prevent them from voting is absurd.
Please post links from credible sources proving that the president can “abuse power” and that he can use armed forces to prevent people from voting.

 

No, I haven't and no, I'm not living under a rock somewhere and no, you've not proven your claim here or answered my reasonable and polite questions. Resorting to snarky insults doesn't make you right, just right wing.

I will assume that the Seattle mayor is your culprit. I looked it up for myself, since you're not willing to repost links you pasted into previous threads.

What I found was that although the mayor gave the order to close that precinct, it was a decision based on information that rioters intended to burn the building down, as was done in Minneapolis, and she didn't want it occupied if that were to happen. There was also the danger that in addition to burning it down, the cache of deadly weapons and other expensive equipment would have been vulnerable, so the order included that those be removed.

As it currently stands, they want to reopen that precinct peacefully after negotiating with protesters to leave it be, but there is no leadership among the protesters. She seems to be overly cautious to me, but I'm not in her shoes, and neither are you.

 

So, you agree to my point - the democrat mayor ordered police to leave the precinct and sacrifice all local residents in order to pander to a few extremists?
They didn’t even try to defend it. They just loaded up their trucks and left. And they left local residents and businesses at the mercy of unelected and unrepresentative forces. Would you be OK with your mayor ordering police to leave the area where your family lives and let lawless gang of White supremacists to enter and do anything they want with no one to call for help?

 

I'm registered as an independent but am conservative and there's nothing conservative about the party that masquerades as Democrat. I understand their disappointment in having lost in 2016, but what it evolved into was beyond ridiculous. Whatever comes of the Durham investigation should become campaign material for every Republican election for the next couple of decades. Anyway the Dems didn't need to do anything, I wouldn't vote for any of them ever. I've been around long enough remember the real Democrat party, it was a time when the distinctions between parties were few and both parties were for the people, for America.

 

Why?

I'm not saying that it's not absurd. I just want to express why it's absurd because that would probably help you understand what I'm talking about.

Did you not follow the impeachment process?

Here
https://www.businessinsider.com/alan-dershowitz-trump-re-election-public-interest-2020-1
https://www.cato.org/publications/c...se-power-isnt-thing-when-it-comes-impeachment

 

I did change my views in the last 6 months. I have always had contempt for the Democrats. They are nothing but a safety valve for right wing toxicity. However, I assumed that the consensus was at least 'right wing' rational. I now realise I was pathetically optimistic. There is no constraint on US authoritarianism. They're lost.

 

I was once a strong leftist. It took me many years to get rid of it.
I'm now a liberal with conservative features.

 

A liberal can't be conservative. You mean you're a conservative pretending to care?

 

90% of conservatives were liberals at some point in their life.
That’s why liberals are usually young and conservatives usually older. And liberals always think conservatives will die off. They thought that for thousands of years. Read what Aristotle wrote about new generations.
Ever heard of the saying - if you are young and not liberal then you have no heart, and if you are old and liberal - you have no brain?

 

I know this cliche. They weren't. They pretended within consensus politics.

You don't lose principles. They typically strengthen

 

My views haven't changed but damn, my mother's have. She used to sneakily vote Democrat but after the last 6 months, she's went full blown Trump. She even bought a Trump banner...probably 6' long x 3' tall... and put it out in front of her house. The Democrats have got her so pissed off for continuously more-or-less branding her a racist, they have lost that vote from now until the end of time. She's absolutely sick of their ****.

 

Good question your OP poses !

1) agree that the Presidency has diminished power - but it has been like that for some time. Presidents are "selected" not elected - and Trump was vetted just like everyone else.
2) True
3) you conflate some stuff here ... no comment other than the mass media hysteria has been interesting.
4) like the idea of abolishing public sector unions "in their current form" ... Red has not seized some very good opportunities.

My vote was swayed - but not by any of the above. As a subject matter expert in some of the main environmental issues - and a harsh critic of Trump - my shift and rational might surprise you.

This is not the only factor - but Blue Environmental policy is bad for the environment. A political show - in part for some of the reasons that Moore pointed out in relation to biofuel - but the main reason is their stance against pipelines and sourcing our energy locally - rather than exporting our pollution problems to other nations - such as "Nigeria" .

So this is both an environmental and economic argument. If we don't build the Keystone - getting super cheap oil from Canada - some of which we run through the nation and sell at the Brent Price - we then have to get the product from somewhere else.

over 40% of US crude is imported from 70 different nations. Not building the Keystone does not change how much oil we will consume next year - it only changes where we get it from. There is no change to the carbon equation CO2.

I have been saying for decades that Ocean Pollution is the #1 enviro issue - industrialization and population growth being #2 and #3.
#1 is not controversial - and not debated in serious circles - #2 and #3 were stated by Moore - and that was part of the reason for some of the flak he got - but in this he was correct.

A barrel of Canadian Crude - the US or Mexico for that matter - shipped by pipeline - is by far the cleaner environmental solution. North America does not dump heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants into the Oceans ... like "Nigeria".

So we violate the NGD "we will not export our pollution problems to other nations" (one of the good things in that document) - and we also increase pollution to the oceans. Shipping by tanker is far more environmentally dangerous than Pipeline over land. Having cleaned up pipeline spills - I know this area well.

In addition - we incentivize industrialization - which dramatically increases global consumption.

In addition - we hurt ourselves economically - the US and Canadian Economies are integrated - when one does well .. so does the other. US companies are huge players in the Canadian oil patch.

It is not like we have Nigerians rushing across the border every weekend to buy "Cheap Shoes" and then smuggling them back to the US (One of Trumps more idiotic comments) I think Canada now owns Arizona do they not ? Try going there in the winter - mass exodus of Canadians from the Cold.

So we fk ourselves environmentally - fk ourselves economically.

So although I don't like Carrot Top much - and Red Establishment hates the principles of Republicanism and is taking us down a number of bad roads - often hand in hand with Blue - The above is what swayed my vote this time around.

 

Where did you get that from? I sure didn't hear that in the Senate deliberations.

 

I see that happening but it is not so much racial. I see race as an excuse. I harbor much more ill feelings toward those consumed with white guilt than I do skin color. You know, it would be so much easier to just go after a "skin color". Face it, we all wear a type of uniform, our skin! Guess that is why American slavery was racially motivated. Easy to separate and subjugate.
What we have now is not so easy. You've got rich kids in dreadlocks, geeks, pajamaboys, black gangstas, Antifa types all united in a move to destroy the American way of life. On the other hand I see honorable Americans of all colors who can speak in a calm deliberate manner and ready to defend in any manner as a last resort.

No, a race war would be much easier.