PDJT isn't God or a dictator or tyrant and can't simply wave a magic wand to make all the bs go away; that's not how our government works. (Reminder, if PDJT could do this, so could anyone else - even someone not as freedom-friendly - who might someday be president.)
PDJT and his administration must operate legally and have legally cut funding to many NGOs that fund this nonsense, but congress controls the purse (subject to presidential veto but overridable with required # of votes, and subject to constitutionality as determined by the judiciary if/when challenged), those "protestors" still have access to public-funded and private-funded $, and do have 1st amendment rights to free speech.
Change IS happening - and we have to make our voices heard (via contact with legislators, social media, conversations, campaigning, voting and such) - but it won't be as rapid or as complete (there will always be differences of opinion) as some might like.
He's not a God or tyrant or dictator, but he is the President. Why is it that he can write EOs for so many things, but nothing to put a stop to this type of thing.
If Congress is really the ones holding the pursestrings, then where is that $2,000 tax rebate or whatever it is they're calling it coming from? Congress hasn't approved that. At least, nowhere I can find. Do you see where Congress has approved it?
Why is it that leading up to the election, everyone was over the moon, going on and on about how Trump was going to put a stop to so much of this BS on Day One for much of it, but a year later, we're still dealing with so much of this BS?
How much longer are we expected to watch them kick their cans down the street?
So, PDJT (or any other president) should be able to ban/censor public protests by certain groups he/we don't like? It's frustrating, but we can't have that. (The Buydan abomination was going down that path and it was not good.) If groups show themselves to be true threats and are declared "terrorist organizations", things change; until then, they’ll be able to continue their shenanigans.
EVERYTHING PDJT and his team do MUST be legal/constitutional to be legitimate, to set precedent, and to be understood and accepted by us and the world now and in the future.
Part of the outcry and legal challenges to PDJT's EOs and other actions is to better define presidential, congressional and judicial roles - for now and the future.
For example, PDJT alledgedly despises past presidents' undertaking of military actions like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan et al, which were, in actuality, wars but weren't declared by Congress (the body constitutionally-tasked with the declaration of war) to be "wars". If/when Congress acts to prevent presidential undertaking of such military actions, that would be a (desired) refinement and limitation on unchecked presidential power/overreach.
Similarly, challenges to executive/presidential power to hire and fire personnel in organizations within the executive branch have clarified the president's role and power.
As to why Congress hasn't acted: Dems aren't the only ones who are installed/put in office. MANY Republicans are RINOs ("Republicans In Name Only") who are establishment (do-nothing) GOP (GOPe); compromised; blackmailed; bribed; or Libertarians, Democrats, Socialists, or Communists who run as Republicans and "turn" after taking office. It seems their current tactic is to "do nothing", try to "outlast Trump" and hope to "return to (corrupt) business as usual" after PDJT leaves office.
We are being shown who is corrupt, and who is America-First and who isn't. (Not a small number of Congress people "for one reason or another" are retiring or not seeking re-election -- some corrupt may be forced/"given a deal" [Q said 60%-80% of happenings would occur behind the scenes], and some non-corrupt to seek governorships or secretary of state positions to facilitate the America first agenda - including election changes - within their states. Some may be arrested and prosecuted for their corruption. And, disclosure may effectively take out others [or even most of the Dem party].)
TRULY "free and fair" elections would enable The People to elect person who - for once - represent their interests. A good number of those changes are also in progress.
My concern isn’t about whether Trump or anyone else should be audited. It’s whether the rules being suggested can work without turning into “whoever’s in charge decides who gets punished.”
If things like complicated businesses, foreign money, lawsuits, or campaign donations are treated as automatic proof of corruption, then the rules don’t separate actual wrongdoing from normal politics or business anymore. At that point it’s not about evidence, it’s about who’s enforcing the rules. Yeah, it's all fine and great if it's the rules we want. But switch this all around to where liberals are the ones making the rules. Then these same points will suddenly be "unconstitutional and unreasonable".
That’s why clear definitions and due process matter more to me than good intentions. Without those limits, “rules first” stops being neutral.
Everyone cheers for this type of thing when they think they're going to be the ones making and enforcing all those rules. But the second that there is the slightest disagreement with any of those rules, the same people cheering it will suddenly start screaming to end it.
Just remember that the next Democrat or liberal president that comes into office will be using everything Trump has done to justify their own power grabs. But then everyone here will suddenly be talking about how the Democrat president is being a dictator. 🙄
You know that liberals have boards they hang out in where they exchange ideas, such as protest signs, right?
And there are 24 hour printing places like Kinkos, FedEx, UPS stores, and all sorts of local, non-chain print shops all over the country thar can make these signs in less than an hour.
Everything doesn't have to be some huge conspiracy.
If you try to redpill a normie with this, they'll just point to MAGA having the same signs all over the country, too.
100% , the reality is they organize very far in advance and this means the digital files are on their main web pages. They give the order and moblize. They take the thumb drive to the 24hr print shop and DONE. People need to understand their every move is PRE PLANNED. They have lawyers drafting documents for the next ten years yesterday. They have Trump impeachment doctrines done and character actors in place for all events, paid. So many do indeed need to wake up. They are master organizers and brain washers of teachers and children in all the public schools and universities, so mobilization is decades mature.
Honest question, not trying to start a fight:
If these groups are as coordinated, funded, legally protected, and institutionally embedded as people here are saying, NGOs, lawyers lined up, long-term planning, nationwide logistics, then how exactly is any president supposed to “just stop it” without violating the Constitution and handing the courts an instant shutdown?
At the same time, if the President does have that kind of unilateral power, then why would anyone ever want that precedent set, knowing it would apply to the next administration too?
Same issue with the $2,000 rebate people keep mentioning, if Congress controls the purse and hasn’t authorized it, who is legally allowed to cut those checks?
I’m not saying there aren’t organized groups or bad actors. I’m saying some of these expectations contradict each other. Either the system has limits, or the enemy is omnipotent, but it can’t be both.
Its a great question and intuitive observation. I agree with your position. My observation has been the magnitude of fraud is shocking. Its almost to the point of or beyond control, ever. The $$ has created such an addictive fervor that it has become multi generational theft gangs. Often cloaked in charity work or good will.
Overall we need to have Judicial Reform, however the problem seems to be infiltration and steering committees with agenda driven power deeply ingrained.
Generally what I see is a massive population in plain view involved in organized crime supported by a system that is taking money for its position of support. Nobody is being prosecuted , for the most part. You have to pull on the sweater and eventually dismantle the organization. Guidelines are in place but for example we let $$ fund campaigns that lead to dirty election hires on top of dirty elections themselves.
I believe in the rules first. My first position revolves around auditing a candidate or existing government employee operating with term limits. If we find corruption or $$ from a dirty source, we confiscate assetts, prosecute and clean the position. Using all information to increase productivity and furnish further auditing.
We have to inspect what we expect, hold accountability and clean house. This recovers $$ and weakens the dirty influence. Our national debt represents all the fraud that has taken place. So the question becomes. . . What could you do or influence with all that money. . . Everything.
I agree corruption should be prosecuted wherever it exists, but that’s actually why I keep coming back to scope and authority.
Once the claim becomes “the entire system is captured and nobody can be trusted,” then audits, courts, and reforms inside that system can’t logically work either. 🤷‍♀️ This is what I have an issue with. If everything is as corrupt as claimed, then what is the point of pushing for things like voter ID and paper ballots? If the results of those don't turn out the way we want, people would just go back to "everything/everyone is corrupt!" For example, look at all the blue states that do have voter ID laws. Does anyone trust the vote results because of that? I know that VA also does paper ballots, because I live and vote here. Does that make any difference in trusting the vote results?
At that point we’re no longer talking about enforcement, but about replacing the entire system outright and that’s a very different conversation.
I’m trying to understand where the line is between corruption we can prove and prosecute now, vs. assumptions that explain everything but can’t be tested.
EDITED TO ADD:
I want to stress this isn’t an attack on Trump, but a consistency question.
If we applied the same audit first, confiscation if tainted, zero tolerance standards being described here uniformly, I’m not sure Trump himself would pass without explicit carve Outs.
Public record shows he’s had decades of complex business structures, extensive litigation over valuations and taxes, foreign financing through major banks, and campaign funding that used the same PAC and donor mechanisms every major candidate relies on. None of that proves criminal guilt but under a framework where complexity, foreign capital, or campaign money itself is treated as presumptive corruption, those factors would trigger the same scrutiny being proposed for everyone else. And remember that Trump was a self declared Democrat for many years, donating to a lot of different democrats.
That’s the part I keep coming back to: either the standards are narrow, evidence based, and applied through due process or they become so broad that no modern political figure, including Trump, could realistically clear them. 🤷‍♀️
I’m less concerned with who gets audited than whether the rules being
suggested can be applied consistently without exceptions, because once exceptions are required, we’re no longer talking about neutral enforcement. That's when people start yelling about dictatorship and tyranny, when the rules are not applied to everyone, equally and consistently.
Your tax dollars at work . . .
Then why is our government, run by our president still allowing this to happen?
We elected him to end this sort of bullshit. Right?
PDJT isn't God or a dictator or tyrant and can't simply wave a magic wand to make all the bs go away; that's not how our government works. (Reminder, if PDJT could do this, so could anyone else - even someone not as freedom-friendly - who might someday be president.)
PDJT and his administration must operate legally and have legally cut funding to many NGOs that fund this nonsense, but congress controls the purse (subject to presidential veto but overridable with required # of votes, and subject to constitutionality as determined by the judiciary if/when challenged), those "protestors" still have access to public-funded and private-funded $, and do have 1st amendment rights to free speech.
Change IS happening - and we have to make our voices heard (via contact with legislators, social media, conversations, campaigning, voting and such) - but it won't be as rapid or as complete (there will always be differences of opinion) as some might like.
He's not a God or tyrant or dictator, but he is the President. Why is it that he can write EOs for so many things, but nothing to put a stop to this type of thing.
If Congress is really the ones holding the pursestrings, then where is that $2,000 tax rebate or whatever it is they're calling it coming from? Congress hasn't approved that. At least, nowhere I can find. Do you see where Congress has approved it?
Why is it that leading up to the election, everyone was over the moon, going on and on about how Trump was going to put a stop to so much of this BS on Day One for much of it, but a year later, we're still dealing with so much of this BS?
How much longer are we expected to watch them kick their cans down the street?
So, PDJT (or any other president) should be able to ban/censor public protests by certain groups he/we don't like? It's frustrating, but we can't have that. (The Buydan abomination was going down that path and it was not good.) If groups show themselves to be true threats and are declared "terrorist organizations", things change; until then, they’ll be able to continue their shenanigans.
EVERYTHING PDJT and his team do MUST be legal/constitutional to be legitimate, to set precedent, and to be understood and accepted by us and the world now and in the future.
Part of the outcry and legal challenges to PDJT's EOs and other actions is to better define presidential, congressional and judicial roles - for now and the future.
For example, PDJT alledgedly despises past presidents' undertaking of military actions like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan et al, which were, in actuality, wars but weren't declared by Congress (the body constitutionally-tasked with the declaration of war) to be "wars". If/when Congress acts to prevent presidential undertaking of such military actions, that would be a (desired) refinement and limitation on unchecked presidential power/overreach.
Similarly, challenges to executive/presidential power to hire and fire personnel in organizations within the executive branch have clarified the president's role and power.
As to why Congress hasn't acted: Dems aren't the only ones who are installed/put in office. MANY Republicans are RINOs ("Republicans In Name Only") who are establishment (do-nothing) GOP (GOPe); compromised; blackmailed; bribed; or Libertarians, Democrats, Socialists, or Communists who run as Republicans and "turn" after taking office. It seems their current tactic is to "do nothing", try to "outlast Trump" and hope to "return to (corrupt) business as usual" after PDJT leaves office.
We are being shown who is corrupt, and who is America-First and who isn't. (Not a small number of Congress people "for one reason or another" are retiring or not seeking re-election -- some corrupt may be forced/"given a deal" [Q said 60%-80% of happenings would occur behind the scenes], and some non-corrupt to seek governorships or secretary of state positions to facilitate the America first agenda - including election changes - within their states. Some may be arrested and prosecuted for their corruption. And, disclosure may effectively take out others [or even most of the Dem party].)
TRULY "free and fair" elections would enable The People to elect person who - for once - represent their interests. A good number of those changes are also in progress.
There IS hope. NCSWIC.
My concern isn’t about whether Trump or anyone else should be audited. It’s whether the rules being suggested can work without turning into “whoever’s in charge decides who gets punished.”
If things like complicated businesses, foreign money, lawsuits, or campaign donations are treated as automatic proof of corruption, then the rules don’t separate actual wrongdoing from normal politics or business anymore. At that point it’s not about evidence, it’s about who’s enforcing the rules. Yeah, it's all fine and great if it's the rules we want. But switch this all around to where liberals are the ones making the rules. Then these same points will suddenly be "unconstitutional and unreasonable".
That’s why clear definitions and due process matter more to me than good intentions. Without those limits, “rules first” stops being neutral.
Everyone cheers for this type of thing when they think they're going to be the ones making and enforcing all those rules. But the second that there is the slightest disagreement with any of those rules, the same people cheering it will suddenly start screaming to end it.
Just remember that the next Democrat or liberal president that comes into office will be using everything Trump has done to justify their own power grabs. But then everyone here will suddenly be talking about how the Democrat president is being a dictator. 🙄
You know that liberals have boards they hang out in where they exchange ideas, such as protest signs, right?
And there are 24 hour printing places like Kinkos, FedEx, UPS stores, and all sorts of local, non-chain print shops all over the country thar can make these signs in less than an hour.
Everything doesn't have to be some huge conspiracy.
If you try to redpill a normie with this, they'll just point to MAGA having the same signs all over the country, too.
100% , the reality is they organize very far in advance and this means the digital files are on their main web pages. They give the order and moblize. They take the thumb drive to the 24hr print shop and DONE. People need to understand their every move is PRE PLANNED. They have lawyers drafting documents for the next ten years yesterday. They have Trump impeachment doctrines done and character actors in place for all events, paid. So many do indeed need to wake up. They are master organizers and brain washers of teachers and children in all the public schools and universities, so mobilization is decades mature.
Honest question, not trying to start a fight: If these groups are as coordinated, funded, legally protected, and institutionally embedded as people here are saying, NGOs, lawyers lined up, long-term planning, nationwide logistics, then how exactly is any president supposed to “just stop it” without violating the Constitution and handing the courts an instant shutdown?
At the same time, if the President does have that kind of unilateral power, then why would anyone ever want that precedent set, knowing it would apply to the next administration too?
Same issue with the $2,000 rebate people keep mentioning, if Congress controls the purse and hasn’t authorized it, who is legally allowed to cut those checks? I’m not saying there aren’t organized groups or bad actors. I’m saying some of these expectations contradict each other. Either the system has limits, or the enemy is omnipotent, but it can’t be both.
Its a great question and intuitive observation. I agree with your position. My observation has been the magnitude of fraud is shocking. Its almost to the point of or beyond control, ever. The $$ has created such an addictive fervor that it has become multi generational theft gangs. Often cloaked in charity work or good will.
Overall we need to have Judicial Reform, however the problem seems to be infiltration and steering committees with agenda driven power deeply ingrained.
Generally what I see is a massive population in plain view involved in organized crime supported by a system that is taking money for its position of support. Nobody is being prosecuted , for the most part. You have to pull on the sweater and eventually dismantle the organization. Guidelines are in place but for example we let $$ fund campaigns that lead to dirty election hires on top of dirty elections themselves.
I believe in the rules first. My first position revolves around auditing a candidate or existing government employee operating with term limits. If we find corruption or $$ from a dirty source, we confiscate assetts, prosecute and clean the position. Using all information to increase productivity and furnish further auditing.
We have to inspect what we expect, hold accountability and clean house. This recovers $$ and weakens the dirty influence. Our national debt represents all the fraud that has taken place. So the question becomes. . . What could you do or influence with all that money. . . Everything.
I agree corruption should be prosecuted wherever it exists, but that’s actually why I keep coming back to scope and authority.
Once the claim becomes “the entire system is captured and nobody can be trusted,” then audits, courts, and reforms inside that system can’t logically work either. 🤷‍♀️ This is what I have an issue with. If everything is as corrupt as claimed, then what is the point of pushing for things like voter ID and paper ballots? If the results of those don't turn out the way we want, people would just go back to "everything/everyone is corrupt!" For example, look at all the blue states that do have voter ID laws. Does anyone trust the vote results because of that? I know that VA also does paper ballots, because I live and vote here. Does that make any difference in trusting the vote results?
At that point we’re no longer talking about enforcement, but about replacing the entire system outright and that’s a very different conversation.
I’m trying to understand where the line is between corruption we can prove and prosecute now, vs. assumptions that explain everything but can’t be tested.
EDITED TO ADD:
I want to stress this isn’t an attack on Trump, but a consistency question. If we applied the same audit first, confiscation if tainted, zero tolerance standards being described here uniformly, I’m not sure Trump himself would pass without explicit carve Outs.
Public record shows he’s had decades of complex business structures, extensive litigation over valuations and taxes, foreign financing through major banks, and campaign funding that used the same PAC and donor mechanisms every major candidate relies on. None of that proves criminal guilt but under a framework where complexity, foreign capital, or campaign money itself is treated as presumptive corruption, those factors would trigger the same scrutiny being proposed for everyone else. And remember that Trump was a self declared Democrat for many years, donating to a lot of different democrats.
That’s the part I keep coming back to: either the standards are narrow, evidence based, and applied through due process or they become so broad that no modern political figure, including Trump, could realistically clear them. 🤷‍♀️
I’m less concerned with who gets audited than whether the rules being suggested can be applied consistently without exceptions, because once exceptions are required, we’re no longer talking about neutral enforcement. That's when people start yelling about dictatorship and tyranny, when the rules are not applied to everyone, equally and consistently.