As They Have Done Unto Him
When Trump was running for President in 2016 he led led chants at his rallies of: “Lock her up!”.
After he was elected President he ruled out prosecuting Clinton because, as he said, it would be bad for the nation. He was right. His enemies have no concern. They are quite willing to burn down the Republic and risk civil war in order to destroy Trump and his followers. They see in their own reflections the Orange Man Tyrant they have created in their minds.
Won’t happen, but it is fun to think about
People will often think that other people will all think and act as they do…
Especially if they’ve acted badly with no deterrence.
The abuses of the current administration have been the work of partisan Democrats in robes in collusion with partisan Democrats in prosecutors offices. There are no partisan Republicans on the bench or in prosecutors offices, so nothing will happen to them.
Corporate bagmen seem to hold the gatekeeper positions in the Republican congressional caucus, Speaker Johnson the notable exception. It’s a reasonable wager they’ll block any proposed reform legislation even if the Republicans have satisfactory majorities in Congress.
Nothing happened to Clinton during Trump 1 because he thought the libs were just bad managers. Now that he understands that some of them actually want to destroy the place, Trump 2 will be different.
I believe Trump respects the Constitution, but there will be no attempts at a lib-conservative pot luck. Some of them are going to go down – hard.
Legally and constitutionally, but hard.
I’m not sad about it either.
I feel that pro life is very important, but as a cradle Catholic, I been taught to love God above all things with all of our hearts, mind, and soul, and our neighbors as ourselves. I also know that no one should we honor above God.
It appears to me that some religious are focused on one issue of pro life – reproduction. I feel that there are some many facets to pro life than reproduction. We need to love those little babies once they are born to the world by helping to provide a peaceful and supportive environment for all peoples.
“It appears to me that some religious are focused on one issue of pro life – reproduction.”
If a parent is to have the right to raise their child(ren) as they see fit, reproduction is the only issue wherein public interest CAN have an impact.
…Unless you want to confront teaching “safe” sex in schools….
If you provide anything of material support to the mother–government especially–you inherently undermine the mother and father being parents.
“It appears to me that some religious are focused on one issue of pro life – reproduction”
I don’t think it’s terribly valid to reduce the murder of innocent children, or even the contracepting of them out of existence, as a mere “reproduction” issue, do you? From where I sit, most religious are focused on anything BUT abortion and contraception. Usually, it’s all about immigration and just wages.
“We need to love those little babies once they are born to the world by helping to provide a peaceful and supportive environment for all peoples.”
I literally don’t know a single pro-life person who doesn’t do this. It’s all such a tired deflection.
Something needs to be done to them, or they will do it again.
For centuries much of American discourse has been led by what is acceptable. For example, there is no law to avoid prosecuting a political opponent in an election, but no one did it because we all knew where it would lead.
Now the dems are doing it, and as blatantly as it can be done. It’s clear that something being unacceptable is no longer something that concerns them. You can’t put the genie back into the bottle; no matter how reasonable Republicans act, it won’t change the minds of democrats, since they are long past caring about being reasonable.
There’s really only two options: 1.) making what was unacceptable flat out illegal. 2.) Hitting them back with every legal tactic available to us, no matter how distasteful.
“making what was unacceptable flat out illegal”
The current DoJ wouldn’t even prosecute.
<i>The current DoJ wouldn’t even prosecute.</i>
Then you repeat the game on THAT level. And there has been a step in the right direction on that in the House impeachment of Mayorkas, though of course the dems responded by denying a trial. So now we need to respond on THAT level too, i.e. make what they are doing a crime or hit them as hard as we can through other means.
Yes, eventually the only options remaining won’t be pretty ones. But that is what happens when you have one half of your government doing its best to dismantle the order of law at every level. To stop them, it will get messy. If you stop them early this will only mean breaking tradition to rub their noses in what they have done. If you stop them later, it will be worse. But the alternative is to simply allow them to completely destroy the idea of a rule of law.
But they can do this stuff because they have the DoJ and the media in their pockets! You’re suggesting conservatives abandon truth and justice and dive into their gutter with them?
… That couldn’t possibly accomplish our goals … but it’ll certainly accomplish theirs!
CAG, I fear we are at the point where jumping into the gutter with the Left may be required for our survival as a Republic. The events between now and next January 20 will prove that or disprove it, I believe. Hope I’m wrong.
That’s the sort of double speak that enables liberals/dems to evade moral principles.
What I am proposing is that we take legal and moral actions against them, but ones which were traditionally avoided.
For example, Joe Biden should have already have been impeached. He certainly has done impeachable offenses. It is moral and just to call out those who are criminals and immoral as criminal and immoral.
Traditionally we have avoided bringing forth impeachments in times when there was no chance to get a conviction (due to the composition of the senate) and it was also traditional to avoid tasking legal action against political opponents during election years. But those traditions are now dead, because the democrats killed them. The only purpose for those traditions was to avoid the appearance of law being used for political reasons, even in situations where it was justified by actual legal argument. However, there is no longer any expectation that the law will be used in a neutral political manner, thanks to the democrats, and hence the appearance of the law cannot be maintained.
What do you propose to do instead? To simply allow the democrats to continue abusing the law for their own ends without consequence? They clearly don’t give a damn about what Republicans do, and they don’t care about tradition, and by your own argument even the law as written won’t stop them. If we also throw out giving them a taste of their own medicine and creating new laws to stop them, then there is literally nothing that can be done to prevent them from continuing. I propose fighting, you propose surrendering. I say that fighting can be done in a moral and legal way, it will just be a dirty one.
The situation is kind of like if you are of the opinion that doing things like using a designated hitter in baseball or using bunts is “not real baseball.” Even if that were the case, there is nothing immoral about those tactics and they are currently part of the rules of the game. If you refuse to use them due to personal distaste, you will just lose. Similarly there are plenty of legal and moral recourses that conservatives have, even if they find them distasteful, and if they do not use them then they will lose.
Let’s look at a specific tactic: prosecuting political opponents during an election year. This is something that was not done previously, but it was not illegal to do and certainly it isn’t immoral to prosecute someone of something where there is plentiful legal action against them (what the dems are doing is immoral, but this is because the charges are manufactured, not just because they happened in an election year.)
So how do we get back to the old status quo of no charges brought up against political opponents in an election year?
I say that there are two solutions:
1.) Explicitly give political candidates from major parties legal immunity during election years, though obviously they would be able to be prosecuted afterwards. If a DoJ allows actions to be taken against one party by refusing to uphold this new law, then the second you gain the power to do so you hit every single person in the DoJ involved for dereliction of duty.
2.) The Republicans also abandon the tradition. That is, if they have enough evidence to bring a dem to court, they do so, regardless of whether it is an election year or not. At minimum this means that we are not at a disadvantage compared to the left, but I do believe that if this tactic was used as much as it could be (remember, I’m only proposing going after people who actually look guilty) then after a few election cycles the dems would be eager to implement a new truce where election years were off limits.
I don’t see “continue doing what we are doing and hope that the dems stop what they are doing” as a viable strategy.
RH-
While I agree that taking actions that are legally and morally licit is advisable, it it is the Devil’s sucker punch to do what is illicit for a good end.
Unfortunately, even doing all that is permissible requires the Republicans to “grow a pair” and I don’t see that happening – not in the numbers required for legislative action. Yes, it takes fewer people to take legal actions via the courts and that would at least be useful.
“For example, Joe Biden should have already have been impeached. He certainly has done impeachable offenses.”
Have you been paying attention? Apparently, now all the Senate Majority Leader has to say is “That’s not a high crime and misdemeanor” and the evidence can’t even be brought to the floor of the Senate. (No evidentiary hearings … hasn’t that happened recently?)
Honestly! People have been held in solitary confinement without due process for months or years, handed pre-written “confessions” to sign every week or two, for walking through the Capital talking selfies after being waved in by the police! Prison sentences of 17 years being handed down for shaking a fence on January 6th. People convicted of election interference and sentenced to 10 years for posting memes on Facebook. Machine gun toting swat teams conducting pre-dawn raids on the houses of people who pray outside abortion clinics. What part of “double standard” don’t you get?
These are the two options you proposed:
1.) making what was unacceptable flat out illegal.
2.) Hitting them back with every legal tactic available to us, no matter how distasteful.
Both of these options would require action by the DoJ … Why on Earth do you think they would oblige us?
CAG,
Pretty interesting how quickly you went from a stance of fighting back being immoral (since it will make us just like the left) to fighting back being pointless (since the left controls everything.)
The only thing consistent about those two arguments is that they both make sure that the right accomplishes nothing.
RH, You’re not paying attention.