- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

They no longer seem interested in maintaining the social contract
Posted on 8/15/23 at 3:41 am
Posted on 8/15/23 at 3:41 am
Something at some point in recent times has flipped with the left.
We used to live under the motto "E pluribus unum", which essentially meant the states agreed to give up some freedom to the federal government, in order perform some basic funtions they all agreed upon. But with the clear understanding that certain lines would never be crossed. This was not written on paper, just a general attitude we all lived under. That attitude is clearly gone.
This is a very real question some people might want to consider, at this point what is stopping some federal prosecutor or blue state DA from hauling you before court because of a tweet you sent out or even a vote you made for the wrong canidate, and putting you in prison for 10+years, or even worse sending a SWAT team to your home at 6AM with guns blazing. Don't say something like "durr, that isn’t the law, durr". The law is just ink on paper, in the end its nothing more than that, it has no ability to exist without men willing to enforce it.
I don’t mean this hyperbolicly. I am honestly asking, what is stopping something like that? And who would stop it? There was a time, where they would fear making overt actions like this, and therefor would simply not do it, even if they wanted it. But that fear no longer seems to exist, and they now feel completely emboldened to take all sorts of over the top drastic actions, even against their political opposition of ordinary Americans who disagree with their politics.
Ask yourself, and think about this, "who would stop them from doing virtually anythong imaginable?" Is there a threshold, a limit to their actions? And what is that, and how is that threshold enforced?
The Republican Party, the courts, red state AGs,any parties that may be able to provide some oushback all seem to be in on the entire scheme. Is there anyone else? Is there a limiting principle here at play, or will they keep turning it up to 11 without fear of repercussions?
We used to live under the motto "E pluribus unum", which essentially meant the states agreed to give up some freedom to the federal government, in order perform some basic funtions they all agreed upon. But with the clear understanding that certain lines would never be crossed. This was not written on paper, just a general attitude we all lived under. That attitude is clearly gone.
This is a very real question some people might want to consider, at this point what is stopping some federal prosecutor or blue state DA from hauling you before court because of a tweet you sent out or even a vote you made for the wrong canidate, and putting you in prison for 10+years, or even worse sending a SWAT team to your home at 6AM with guns blazing. Don't say something like "durr, that isn’t the law, durr". The law is just ink on paper, in the end its nothing more than that, it has no ability to exist without men willing to enforce it.
I don’t mean this hyperbolicly. I am honestly asking, what is stopping something like that? And who would stop it? There was a time, where they would fear making overt actions like this, and therefor would simply not do it, even if they wanted it. But that fear no longer seems to exist, and they now feel completely emboldened to take all sorts of over the top drastic actions, even against their political opposition of ordinary Americans who disagree with their politics.
Ask yourself, and think about this, "who would stop them from doing virtually anythong imaginable?" Is there a threshold, a limit to their actions? And what is that, and how is that threshold enforced?
The Republican Party, the courts, red state AGs,any parties that may be able to provide some oushback all seem to be in on the entire scheme. Is there anyone else? Is there a limiting principle here at play, or will they keep turning it up to 11 without fear of repercussions?
This post was edited on 8/15/23 at 3:44 am
Posted on 8/15/23 at 4:12 am to burger bearcat
Correct.
Fear of violence from men is what makes civilization possible.
Right now most adult men are still napping but many are waking up and don't like what they see.
Welcome to the rebellion my friend.
Fear of violence from men is what makes civilization possible.
Right now most adult men are still napping but many are waking up and don't like what they see.
Welcome to the rebellion my friend.
Posted on 8/15/23 at 5:30 am to burger bearcat
quote:
Something at some point in recent times has flipped with the left.
Maybe it was Trump’s dishonest efforts to keep the Presidency after he was voted out? He was unsuccessful, but had he had a VP not as wise as Pence, things could have gotten really bad.
I imagine if a Democrat tried to do something similar, you would say they had no legitimate basis and would want to hold them accountable.
Posted on 8/15/23 at 5:34 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Fear of violence from men is what makes civilization possible.
Lol what?
quote:
Right now most adult men are still napping but many are waking up and don't like what they see.
And they still aren't going to do anything.
quote:
Welcome to the rebellion my friend.
My fricking god this is the most amazing sentence.
Posted on 8/15/23 at 5:34 am to Jon Ham
quote:
Maybe it was Trump’s dishonest efforts to keep the Presidency after he was voted out?
You have no clue what you are talking about. You could start by staying off of the likes of CNN.
Posted on 8/15/23 at 5:35 am to Jon Ham
You have serious issues Jon Ham.
Posted on 8/15/23 at 5:38 am to Marco Esquandolas
Trump tried to keep the Presidency when the official results had voted him out. Yes or no?
He may not have violated any criminal laws, but whether it was criminal or not, if you try to ignore the votes and remain in power you are inviting your opposition to hold you accountable in whatever way they can find.
He may not have violated any criminal laws, but whether it was criminal or not, if you try to ignore the votes and remain in power you are inviting your opposition to hold you accountable in whatever way they can find.
Posted on 8/15/23 at 5:46 am to Jon Ham
quote:
Trump tried to keep the Presidency when the official results had voted him out. Yes or no
This is actually a false statement. He challenged the legality of the election. In a real "democracy", this should be common practice. In fact all of our elections should always be challenged and brought into the upmost scrutiny at every level.
We should never trust the process, and it should always be made as transparent as possible.
quote:
He may not have violated any criminal laws, but whether it was criminal or not, if you try to ignore the votes and remain in power you are inviting your opposition to hold you accountable in whatever way they can find.
Itnis obvious you are a fraud. I hate the fact you seem to support DeSantis (which I think even that is an act). People like you supporting RDS makes me question my support.
Was it criminal what he did or not? If not, then what else is there to discuss? Anything else is up to the people to decide, not the courts you clown.
This post was edited on 8/15/23 at 5:48 am
Posted on 8/15/23 at 6:01 am to burger bearcat
quote:
He challenged the legality of the election.
He didn’t just file for recounts and file lawsuits. When those didn’t work, he tried to keep the Presidency without winning the election. His team knew going into it he was going to claim victory no matter the actual results. Again, maybe it wasn’t criminal, but to think you can make a serious attempt at that with no blowback is naive.
Posted on 8/15/23 at 6:02 am to burger bearcat
quote:
Itnis obvious you are a fraud.
It’s obvious you are an NPC.
Posted on 8/15/23 at 6:03 am to burger bearcat
quote:
There does not seem to exist any "mutually assured destruction", which is normally the guiding principle to allow civilizations to govern themselves (since we are all flawed sinners).
What is happening is not the fault of the democrats, democrats are gonna do what democrats do : break the law, and then protect those who have broken the law for them against repercussions. This is the fault of republicans, who, forever, and SPECIFICALLY since 2016, have watched the lawbreaking, and done nothing about it because it served their purpose: get rid of people who vote Republican that they HATE.
They are in on it. The only person punished for all of the violence and broken laws since 2016 was Reality Winner.
Posted on 8/15/23 at 6:09 am to Jon Ham
quote:
Trump tried to keep the Presidency when the official results had voted him out. Yes or no?
Your premise is that the 'official results' were generated by a credible system.
I challenge that premise.
Posted on 8/15/23 at 6:11 am to burger bearcat
It’s quite simple when you reduce it.
Enough people aren’t desperate enough yet. You aren’t desperate enough. I’m not desperate enough.
Only when enough people are desperate enough will force be leveraged against risk.
Enough people aren’t desperate enough yet. You aren’t desperate enough. I’m not desperate enough.
Only when enough people are desperate enough will force be leveraged against risk.
Posted on 8/15/23 at 6:12 am to Jon Ham
quote:
I imagine if a Democrat tried to do something similar,
Al Gore?
Posted on 8/15/23 at 6:13 am to LuckyTiger
quote:
Only when enough people are desperate enough will force be leveraged against risk.
That's when adult men decide to act.
Posted on 8/15/23 at 6:18 am to Jon Ham
You're getting worse daily.
Posted on 8/15/23 at 6:33 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
My fricking god this is the most amazing sentence.
Well thank you but I can't take all the credit.
Dan Bongino is saying it on his radio show.
Posted on 8/15/23 at 6:34 am to burger bearcat
They demand subservience.
That is the new social order.
Obey…or else.
That is the new social order.
Obey…or else.
Posted on 8/15/23 at 6:35 am to burger bearcat
We should have burnt the country down over the COVID mandates but too many people wanted to "trust the plan."
Posted on 8/15/23 at 6:38 am to Jon Ham
quote:
I imagine if a Democrat tried to do something similar, you would say they had no legitimate basis and would want to hold them accountable.
Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama literally accused him of being a Russian agent and used the full force of government power to spy on him, set him up, and delegitimize his presidency in an attempted coup to get rid of him….
Are you serious?
Popular
Back to top
