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. 🙄
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. 🙄