HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » lees1975 » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Tucson, Arizona
Current location: Chicago, Illinois
Member since: Wed Dec 25, 2019, 01:02 AM
Number of posts: 3,163

Journal Archives

A responsible Senator would advocate against political violence

or resign.


The responsible, patriotic thing for United States Senators to do, instead of warning of "violence in the streets" resulting from indictments of former President 45, would be to point out that in this country, violence committed with the intention of overturning the rule of law is illegal, unpatriotic, seditious and makes those who advocate it the enemy of the people. It is unfortunate that some states seem to have elected a few who have no sense of their responsibility as a Senator, and are more loyal to a former President than they are to the Constitution or to the democracy that it establishes and sustains.

It's become pretty clear, through all of the whole saga of Trump's failure to follow constitutional law, and attempts to overturn a legitimate election, that all of this was planned in advance. It's also pretty clear that if the labels were different, and this was a Democrat who was doing this, the same Republicans now warning of potential violence would be up front and center demanding that the rule of law be followed and that the perpetrators of this gigantic fraud and sedition be prosecuted immediately to the full extent of the law. Their silence is actually sending a loud and clear message about where their loyalty really lies, their selfish ambition and their lack of respect for the American people, representative democracy, and the whole foundation of values and principles on which this country was founded.

I remember from the Vietnam War era, a bumper sticker that was a slap in the face to draft dodgers and those opposed to the war, which read, "America: Love It or Leave It." Any United States Senator, representative or elected official who is not willing to take a stand against political violence should not be in office and should resign immediately. Otherwise, they are betraying their oath of office and the American people.

We've heard plenty of criticism from Republicans about how the left incites riots and violence

but now they're threatening it if the criminal they are protecting gets indicted for his crimes? How is that being "the party of law and order?"

We are seeing who these hypocrites really are and what they are willing to do to stay in power in spite of being voted out.

I'm hoping this Missouri Republican Attorney General and Senate candidate is right ;)


He's campaigning for the Missouri senate seat and warning Republicans that America is just two votes away from "federalized elections" and packing the Supreme Court.

Thank goodness. I hope he is right.

Federal elections should have been placed under control of the federal government when the Constitution was ratified. The hodge-podge of ridiculous, pernicious, convoluted election systems in the states is an embarrassment to American democracy and makes us look like a third world country. It's long, long past the time when a real federal election commission with authority to draw congressional district lines and run congressional elections was created by Congress, leaving state legislatures and elected officials powerless to affect the outcome of federal elections, especially the Presidential election.

Pack the court? When can we get started on that? I'm all for it and I think the mood has shifted enough since this current court has demonstrated a lack of integrity and a strong, partisan spirit, to make this a genuine vote-getter for Democrats.

Republican rhetoric sounds like it's 1930 again


Bits and pieces of quotes from Republicans who are upset over the Inflation Reduction Act, and over the President's announcement that some refunds are forthcoming on student loans floating around the media today remind me of the same mindset and perspective they exhibited when Hoover couldn't wrap his mind around how to help people after the stock market crash of 1929. The only thing that's missing from their rhetoric today that was there during the Depression is some misplaced sympathy and some sad faces for those hardest hit, though the same stone-walled unwillingness to actually do something to help, and the same protectionism for the riches of the super wealthy, made most of that look hypocritical.

But there's no sympathy for those who endure economic hardship because some aspect of the economy, like exorbitant and unreasonable tuition costs for college, or ridiculously high medical and health care costs, get way out of proportion to the level of competition in the marketplace that is theoretically supposed to keep things balanced. That's gone, and the racism that was there during the Depression is now more vicious and rabid than it was back then.

It doesn't matter what it is, whether it is crushing student loan debt or crushing prescription drug costs due not to scarcity or supply, but to the greed of corporations who profiteer off of people's pain and suffering, Republicans don't want to do anything for anyone who isn't in their billionaires' club. They've used veterans for their purposes for a long time, trying to claim that Democrats would rather send billions in foreign aid than spend it on veterans. But it is Republicans who beat down every attempt to improve the Veteran's Administration, especially access to its health care. Who led the opposition to the burn pit bill which was aimed at helping veterans? In fact, who has voted down, ever single time it comes up, any legislation aimed at improving the financial condition of American veterans?

It's been a great month for President Joe Biden...

...which translates into it being a great month for the American people.


The Biden Presidency has never been "off the rails," at least, not from my perspective. It has functioned as the Presidency should function, reacting, responding, negotiating with legislators, issuing executive orders and managing the business of the executive branch with competence. It has responded to crisis, including the war in Ukraine, the temporary spike in inflation and the Afghanistan exit, exactly as it should have. I continue to insist, in the face of pundits and prognosticators, that the Afghanistan withdrawal was one of the great logistical achievements of the U.S. military, under the orders of the Commander in Chief. And it has achieved legislative accomplishments many pundits thought were impossible to achieve.

But the criminal activity of the former, failed President dominates the news cycle.

I'd probably be completely satisfied, and very optimistic, if the justice department decided to pounce, hand down some indictments and let the chips fall where they may with regard to the failed former President. I expect that this administration is well prepared for the possibilities of any kind of violence that might be stirred up as a result of his arrest and indictment. Frankly, most of those people are brainwashed followers and cowards, though some of them are dangerous thugs. Deal with it, let him have a quick, speedy trial and put him out of sight, out of mind.

Christianity was never intended to be a tool for achieving political ends


Attempts to make it a political party, or achieve political ends make those who attempt it antichrists according to the Biblical definition of the term.

"A free church in a free state" was the result of American constitutional religious liberty. There was no state church, and churches were not dependent on the state for financial support or for filling their pews with people required to be there by law. As a result, the church entered into another period of virtually unprecedented evangelistic activity. But, as Christianity became the overwhelmingly predominant religious expression in the United States, it also became the recipient of favors, exceptions to the establishment clause and in some places, a dominant force that could not resist becoming engaged in politics. And when Christians push their churches to side with partisan politics, it subverts its mission and purpose and waters down the content of the gospel to the point where principles of faith become indistinguishable from political agendas, or they get pushed aside altogether.

Christian faith loses its essence and meaning if it becomes nothing more than obedience to a set of commands out of fear of punishment. It requires spiritual conviction in order to be brought to confessing Jesus as the Christ. And it also requires spiritual conviction to exhibit the virtues of Christian faith as a lifestyle. Those things can't be enforced either by threats of violence, military power or coercion. They must be willingly accepted and genuinely practiced.

There's a way for Democrats to call out and rally against white Christian nationalism


Christian nationalism "poses a very real threat to our freedoms and our democracy," says MSNBC Opinion Columnist Dean Obeidallah. "Yet Democrats have still not found a way to call out and rally against this xenophobic radical, religious movement even though the answer is staring them in the face: This is yet another example of the GOP's dangerous embrace of extremism."

I believe there is a way for Democrats to call it out, rally against it and then put themselves in a position to defeat it.

One of the reasons Democrats have difficulty calling this movement out, and finding a way to defeat it is that the approach that is taken excludes much of the direct evidence which undermines the basic premises and assertions made by Christian nationalists, and some of the most effective voices capable of arguing against it. The main argument against it is that it isn't Christian. That's the approach that Democrats need to take.

By embracing Christians who believe that their political expression is best represented by the Democratic party, who understand and hold strong convictions about the constitutional separation of church and state protecting their religious freedom which enables the unhindered practice of their faith, the party has both the means and the evidence to call out white, Christian nationalists as pseudo-Christian and anti-Christian, and help the party save American democracy from destruction by their fascist, racist ambitions. It gives Democrats the credibility to call out this aberration that is dangerous to democracy and religious liberty, as well as to the church itself, because it is an invasive heresy that is hijacking the mission and purpose of the church and using Christianity as a means to achieve political ends.

Opinion piece in Newsweek advocates Pres. Biden "unconditionally pardoning" Trump to avoid violence


This is wrong on multiple levels.

Creel suggests that President Biden should immediately offer Trump an unconditional pardon. But here's how he worded that statement in the piece:

"To head off the disaster of being criminally prosecuted by his political opponent, President Joe Biden should offer Trump an unconditional pardon immediately--and announce that he will not seek re-election,"

Are professors of business law not required to pass English, or be able to write coherently? Is he saying that Biden runs the risk of being criminally prosecuted by his political opponent, or is that a reference to Trump? And if that's the case, President Biden isn't going to prosecute his political opponent, the justice department will be doing that and it's a judicial matter, not an executive branch prosecution. Or, is he suggesting that Trump will win re-election, and then turn around and criminally prosecute Biden? I'll just tell you, there's no chance of that happening under any circumstance.

First of all, it would not be a "disaster" for Trump to be criminally prosecuted by the Justice Department. It would be justice under the rule of law. If he committed crimes, and I'm pretty certain that he did, then he should be criminally prosecuted, regardless of who is in the White House, because both the Justice Department and the President represent the people, and we are the ones against whom the crimes were committed. Why would President Biden use the power of the pardon to bypass the rule of law? And I'll answer that question, too. He wouldn't. Not ever.

Newsweek editorial floats the idea of Biden pardoning Trump and then announcing that he will not

seek re-election. You can read the Newsweek piece, and then determine what you think of this idea.


So let's see how this idea floats....

Why does the news media keep focusing on Truth Social?

So what? Let it die.

Let's focus on the excellent economic news, the political gains made by the Democrats, and the fact that there are a whole lot of Americans who don't give a flip about an orange headed buffoon in an aging, seaside resort on the Florida coast who's going to prison for multiple crimes he committed.

Sheesh. Enough already. Who cares? It's pig slop for idiots. Nothing he does matters.

Go to Page: 1 2 Next »