President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[falafel]

Other presidents have made changes to the White House, some with public money and congressional approval, and some without. The situation room which PAC lovingly visited, used to be a bowling alley. There are other examples.

Are there other examples of demolishing a wing of the White House without Congressional approval (or even notification to ANYONE)? No.

I can't believe you compared the Trump Memorial Ballroom to a 2 lane bowling alley.

[Northwestcoug]

Very on brand that the limited edition passports have Trump’s picture obscuring the Declaration of Independence.

[Maximus]

Embedded Tweet

[BlueK]

Embedded Tweet

The only point here is to harass Trump's perceived political enemies. They know there's no chance the courts will take these prosecutions seriously.

[frank ryan]

The only point here is to harass Trump's perceived political enemies. They know there's no chance the courts will take these prosecutions seriously.

This is wildly unethical.

[Moliere]

This is wildly unethical.

Agreed

[Shaka]

The Comey indictment is dumb.

[Bo Diddley]

When the case is dropped, Comey should sue for malicious prosecution.

[frank ryan]

When the case is dropped, Comey should sue for malicious prosecution.

They keep doing this shit, which is why their prosecution of SPLC should be considered SUS. Kash Patel has an enemies list

Didnt think I'd come to admire Jeff Sessions so much.

[Omaha 680]

No. Did he say something about a poll question from 2025? If not, it's irrelevant to the point. You claimed that "young liberals have lost their minds." You supported that claim by posting a polling chart featuring the result of an absolute question - Is it ever justified for citizens to resort to violence.

If it is never justified, that means there are no exceptions. No possibility of rebellion against oppressive governments. Nope. Gotta appeal to their better nature by gently requesting they stop waging war against you. 18th century Americans needed to just shut up and take it.

Does extreme oppression justify the use of violence? I think most people would agree that it does. Not because they are bomb-throwing anarchists, but because it's a form of self-defense (and 71% of conservatives say violence is acceptable for self-defense). But if we can conceive of any circumstance in which it is permissible or even encouraged to use violence to overthrow oppressors, that means there is at least one circumstance in which it is justified. Which brings me back to my original point - it's a stupid question, and any conclusions drawn from it are suspect.

By your statements in this thread recently it appears you agree more with Jefferson's contention that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants than Lincoln's contention that ballots are the rightful successor to bullets and when ballots have been fairly decided we cannot allow a successful appeal back to bullets.

It is entirely consistent to believe that the American Revolution was justified and a great good for humanity and also believe that we should not have another one. I think Jefferson's quote that used to be regularly abused by the right is supporting continual revolution and is one of the worst things uttered by a founder. I think Lincoln's quote is one of the greatest by any US President. And yes he said it to argue for the "suppression" of a "revolution".

[Maximus]

Embedded Tweet

[LVAllen]

By your statements in this thread recently it appears you agree more with Jefferson's contention that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants than Lincoln's contention that ballots are the rightful successor to bullets and when ballots have been fairly decided we cannot allow a successful appeal back to bullets.

It is entirely consistent to believe that the American Revolution was justified and a great good for humanity and also believe that we should not have another one. I think Jefferson's quote that used to be regularly abused by the right is supporting continual revolution and is one of the worst things uttered by a founder. I think Lincoln's quote is one of the greatest by any US President. And yes he said it to argue for the "suppression" of a "revolution".

I am not in favor of violence, but I also acknowledge that there are instances in which citizens are entitled to resort to violence to achieve political goals. These instances are generally going to be after a long train of abuses and all attempts to address the abuses civilly have failed. The American revolution was one example. They didn't wake up one morning and decide that today was the day they were going at attack Iranian British soldiers. There was a long line of attempts to resolve differences diplomatically that happened before that, and violence was only resorted to after a long deliberative process. But if you accept that violence was justified and even necessary once, than the answer to the poll question is simple. Is it justifiable all the time? Of course not. Some of the time? Unlikely. In a rare set of circumstances that our modern system of government is designed to avoid through open, transparent, and fair democratic systems? Yeah. I agree that we shouldn't have another revolution. I disagree that it's an option that should ever be taken off the table.

Like Jefferson said - mankind will eat a lot of crap sandwiches before firing the cook. But if you eliminate the possibility of his firing entirely, the sandwiches will only contain more crap.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Lincoln's statement wouldn't affect a MAGA insurrectionist since one of their core beliefs is that in [pick any election in which a MAGAite lost] the ballots were't fairly decided.

This question of when/whether to revolt is interesting for me as I just sped through Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is within You which advocates for Christian anarchism, taking admonition's like turning the other cheek as an immutable moral imperative. Contrast that with MAGA's leader supreme who said his favorite scripture is "An eye for an eye."

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am not in favor of violence, but I also acknowledge that there are instances in which citizens are entitled to resort to violence to achieve political goals. These instances are generally going to be after a long train of abuses and all attempts to address the abuses civilly have failed. The American revolution was one example. They didn't wake up one morning and decide that today was the day they were going at attack Iranian British soldiers. There was a long line of attempts to resolve differences diplomatically that happened before that, and violence was only resorted to after a long deliberative process. But if you accept that violence was justified and even necessary once, than the answer to the poll question is simple. Is it justifiable all the time? Of course not. Some of the time? Unlikely. In a rare set of circumstances that our modern system of government is designed to avoid through open, transparent, and fair democratic systems? Yeah. I agree that we shouldn't have another revolution. I disagree that it's an option that should ever be taken off the table.

Like Jefferson said - mankind will eat a lot of crap sandwiches before firing the cook. But if you eliminate the possibility of his firing entirely, the sandwiches will only contain more crap.

Let’s cut to the chase.

So do you support the most recent assassination attempt? Charlie Kirk assassin? United healthcare assassin? Because they all basically made a similar argument.

None of your sophistry would seem to explain why liberals are more in favor of violence. It’s because they are out of power and they like who is being targeted at the moment.

[LVAllen]

Let’s cut to the chase.

So do you support the most recent assassination attempt? Charlie Kirk assassin? United healthcare assassin? Because they all basically made a similar argument.

None of your sophistry would seem to explain why liberals are more in favor of violence. It’s because they are out of power and they like who is being targeted at the moment.

I used logic to explore why your claim is bullshit. That's not sophistry Dude. Your assumptions are just based on faulty premises. Liberals aren't more in favor of violence.

Feel free not to celebrate the 250th anniversary of using violence in support of political objectives.