I thought he took an oath the defend the Constitution.

Welcome to Popular Information, a newsletter dedicated to accountability journalism.

Share Popular Information

Trump’s "big, beautiful bill" buries a threat to free speech on page 380
Judd Legum and Noel Sims
May 15




READ IN APP


The Republican reconciliation legislation — which President Trump refers to as his "big, beautiful bill" — is winding its way through Congress. Trump is right about one thing: it's big. The tax and spending legislation, which is exempt from the filibuster and can therefore be passed without any Democratic votes, is 389 pages.

Tucked away on page 380 is a provision that would give the Trump administration a powerful new tool to silence dissent.

The provision would grant the Treasury Secretary the power to terminate the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit group they deem a "terrorist supporting organization." A "terrorist supporting organization" is any nonprofit that provides "material support" to a designated terrorist group. The term "material support" is broadly defined, and includes "any service," "expert advice," or "personnel" — regardless of whether that support is connected to violent acts. Nor is there any standard of evidence regarding what kind of information the Treasury Secretary can consider when deciding whether a nonprofit provided "material support."

The Treasury Secretary only needs to notify the nonprofit of the impending designation. They can decline to describe the "material support" the nonprofit allegedly provided if the Treasury Secretary decides "disclosure of such description would be inconsistent with national security or law enforcement interests."

The nonprofit would have 90 days to respond to the Treasury Secretary or challenge the designation in court. But it shifts the burden of proof onto the nonprofit to establish its innocence.

A similar provision passed the House as a standalone bill in November 2024 on a 219-184 vote. 15 Democrats and all but one Republican supported the bill, largely based on allegations that nonprofit groups were supporting Hamas after the October 7 attacks on Israel.

But the nonprofit world believed the legislation was overly broad and ripe for abuse. David L. Thompson, acting CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, warned that the legislation "could be used to target nonprofits that provide humanitarian support in areas where it is difficult to determine who is or isn’t a terrorist."

In a statement opposing the legislation, the National Council of Nonprofits, the Council on Foundations, and United Philanthropy Forum noted that, even if a nonprofit avoided a permanent designation, "designees would risk irreparable damage to their operations and reputation."

It is not hard to imagine this new power being abused by Trump. In his first term, for example, Trump called "Antifa," a loose coalition of anti-fascists, a terrorist group, and conflated them with the Black Lives Matter movement. Under this proposed new authority, the Treasury Secretary could then theoretically designate any nonprofit that assists with a Black Lives Matter protest as a "terrorist supporting organization." Or Trump could claim that a private university that failed to crack down on protests of Israel's military campaign in Palestine was providing "material support" to Hamas and, therefore, could be summarily stripped of its nonprofit status.

Earlier this year, Trump said publicly that he was exploring ways to strip the nonprofit status of "environmental groups and specifically the ethics watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW."

There are, of course, instances where nonprofits have provided meaningful support to terrorist groups. But there are existing legal mechanisms to revoke a nonprofit's tax-exempt status in those cases.

Supporting terrorism is already illegal
It is illegal for anyone in the U.S. — including nonprofit organizations — to provide material support to terrorist organizations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. And the IRS can revoke the tax-exempt status of a nonprofit which engages in illegal activity.

But the IRS cannot simply claim that a nonprofit has done something to violate the law and immediately revoke their tax-exempt status without notice. Instead, any question about tax-exempt eligibility must be addressed through an IRS audit. IRS auditors will investigate the forms submitted by the nonprofit and can examine their correspondence or send auditors to investigate the nonprofit in person.

If the IRS finds evidence that a nonprofit is in violation of the terms of its tax-exempt status, the IRS can allow it to keep its status while mandating operational changes or propose revocation. If the IRS revokes a nonprofit’s tax-exempt status, the nonprofit has 90 days to seek a declaratory judgement from a court about its tax-exempt status. If the court also finds that its tax-exempt status should be revoked, the nonprofit can appeal that decision in a higher court.

This process is lengthy, but it allows nonprofits a chance to defend themselves and requires that the IRS presents strong evidence for revoking tax exempt status — a process that is eliminated by the reconciliation bill.

The bipartisan opposition
Turning tax-exempt status into a political weapon for the executive branch has drawn opposition from a variety of directions.

In November 2024, when the standalone bill was up for a vote, the ACLU said that it would create “a high risk of politicized and discriminatory enforcement” and that “the executive branch could use this authority to target its political opponents and use the fear of crippling legal fees, the stigma of the designation, and donors fleeing controversy to stifle dissent and chill speech and advocacy.”

Reason, a libertarian media outlet, published a piece last year saying the provision would grant the executive branch "unlimited power to destroy nonprofits." The outlet warned that it would allow the Treasury Department to target nonprofits based on "murky innuendo" and could easily be misused by future Democratic presidents to target right-wing groups.

When the November vote took place, Thomas Massie, a Tea Party conservative representative from Kentucky, broke with his party to vote against it. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a former constitutional law professor, called the bill a “werewolf in sheep's clothing” and said it would "capsize" the right to due process.

Trump maybe still has his brain-worm...

Well, if it’s in, big deal.

It’s not limiting speech, it’s taking away tax exempt status… which when the Dems take over they can remove all the repub tax exempt orgs.

I’m fine with that. We have too many folks who don’t pay.

Given that charity has become big business, we might as well tax it.

Especially political crap.

Again, AFAIC.

Well, Doc, offhand I can't think of a politically correct word to concisely give my opinion on your post above.

Stupid, asinine, blunderphuck, BS all fall short.

You weren't even clever at missing the point(s).

Threats of taking away exempt status is about limiting or quashing the declared mission of such orgs, including the saying and promoting such.

And there are rules and laws already that define the qualifications to be a tax exempt organization in the first place. Loyalty to Trump and or Rightist ideology ain't one of them as far as I know.

And it's about consolidating exec powers at the exclusion of judiciary and congress.

It's consistent with the goals of project 2025, and longstanding Rightist goals.

It's not about taxation. It's about crushing descent and liberal and goals deemed progressive. It's about screening tax exempt orgs for ideological compliance.

It's Orwellian.

And it's just one front in the Right's attacks on institutions, the principles, the law and more.

Here's a related front just as important:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...1066fa196779cd&ei=66

Supreme Court Torches Trump Administration During Birthright Citizenship Argument
Story by Aaron Parnas • 2h •
3 min read

Excerpt - the last three paragraphs:

As of now, it appears likely that there are at least five votes against the Trump administration’s position: Justices Gorsuch, Jackson, Barrett, Sotomayor, and Kagan. More may join. Chief Justice Roberts remains a wild card, but his pointed questioning suggests he is weighing a compromise approach rather than a full endorsement of the administration’s request. Now, anything is possible here, so we have to wait until the Supreme Court decides.

When will we know the outcome? The Court typically hands down decisions in argued cases by the end of June, and there’s no reason to believe this case will be an exception. Depending on how sharply the Court wants to signal its stance, we may even see a decision sooner.

What’s clear, however, is this: the Trump administration walked into the Supreme Court hoping to disarm one of the judiciary’s most powerful tools. Instead, it may walk out with a historic rebuke—and a precedent that affirms the court’s ability to check presidential overreach for years to come.

What if - GOPers and Trump decided that the medical practices and schools across the nation weren't loyal enough, political enough? And the admin decided to put some pressure on them to tow the line better, ideologically? Started proposing legislation, exec orders and lawsuits, etc. and challenging a few doc's license to practice directly, and the school's tax exempt status, to put a little fear where they deem it belongs?

What if criticism of RFKjr is deemed to be unamerican?

AS said before, to paraphrase, first they came for the socialists, then the communists, then the jews, etc., and I didn't speak up, and when they came for me there was no one left to speak for me.

Well, there is a long list of who and what they are coming for now. The arts are not exempt.

https://youtube.com/shorts/mgF...?si=pcshDb93ZgPwGboz

De Niro Slams Trump at Cannes

==========================================

Remember what Trump did to the Kennedy Center?

https://www.google.com/search?...uAd8&sclient=gws-wiz

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Well, if it’s in, big deal.

It’s not limiting speech, it’s taking away tax exempt status… which when the Dems take over they can remove all the repub tax exempt orgs.

I’m fine with that. We have too many folks who don’t pay.

Given that charity has become big business, we might as well tax it.

Especially political crap.

Again, AFAIC.

This is the first post you've ever made that disgusts and offends me. You don't understand the concept of free speech or the purpose of allowing tax exempt status at all.

Apparently you think tax laws ought to be run by political favoritism.

Please rethink your post. I had thought better of you.

Actually that sounds like beautiful bill Bill
It looks like Dems would come up with something like this
I agree with Doc and ultimately, you support any designated terrorists org, you’re out MF…we all 100% should applaud

I think we ought to declare Trumpism a terrorist org.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Well, if it’s in, big deal.

It’s not limiting speech, it’s taking away tax exempt status… which when the Dems take over they can remove all the repub tax exempt orgs.

I’m fine with that. We have too many folks who don’t pay.

Given that charity has become big business, we might as well tax it.

Especially political crap.

Again, AFAIC.

can we start with these "foundations" ? including trump's
speaking of world leaders giving gifts --

followed by any "charity" that doesn't give, say, 75% to the beneficiaries or purpose (thinking of United Way as an example of bad and MS Society (good) being examples of one and the other)

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Well, if it’s in, big deal.

It’s not limiting speech, it’s taking away tax exempt status… which when the Dems take over they can remove all the repub tax exempt orgs.

I’m fine with that. We have too many folks who don’t pay.

Given that charity has become big business, we might as well tax it.

Especially political crap.

Again, AFAIC.

It is punishing thought and expression. Thus, it is government action designed to chill speech. You are legally wrong.

Now, I am not arguing whether such an act of Congress would survive Strict Scrutiny. I do mot have enough information. However, it is a restriction applied to choke speech, expression by use of state power.

Get political?,lose tax exemption!!!!

Churches, schools, ngos.....all of the above!


Like was stated before. Too many, not paying any taxes! And no lefty will tell me what is my fair share.....


.

I will grant that it’s wrong to target only certain groups (although the Dems have done it before) but really, we shouldn’t be granting all these groups tax exempt status.

And yes, the medical groups paying their execs millions while it is a “tax exempt nonprofit” is nonsense.

A private practice physician isn’t “tax exempt nonprofit”

Churches shouldn’t be tax exempt.

Etc.

I mean I would love to take tax exempt status away from churches who engage in politics. The problem is I cannot rationalize my want with the 1st Amendment protections.

To tax a church is the government regulating a religion.

Two of the main factors of the non establishment clause was to prevent government from taxing churches or supporting a church w taxes.

Even church is a company that owns something
Tax everyone period even if they make hundred bucks
No more class warfare

Change the Constitution then.

There are exceptions to business practices of the a church that can be and are taxed.

Excerpt from the OP article:

quote:

The bipartisan opposition
Turning tax-exempt status into a political weapon for the executive branch has drawn opposition from a variety of directions.

It's a fascist maneuver.

There are laws, rules, regs supposedly controlling tax exempt status, applications, approval, revocations, etc.

Research results:

AI Overview

The primary law determining tax-exempt status for organizations in the United States is Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).

Here's a breakdown:
1. IRC Section 501(a):
This section generally exempts organizations described in subsections (c) or (d) from federal income tax.

It's important to note that this exemption can be denied under specific circumstances outlined in sections 502 and 503 of the IRC.

2. IRC Section 501(c):
This subsection lists various categories of organizations that can be granted tax-exempt status.
The most well-known is Section 501(c)(3), which covers organizations organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, among others.

Other subsections, such as 501(c)(4) for social welfare organizations and 501(c)(6) for business leagues, also provide exemptions for specific types of organizations.
3. IRC Section 501(d):

This section specifically addresses religious and apostolic organizations and outlines the criteria for their tax exemption.

Key Requirements for Tax-Exempt Status:

Exempt Purpose:
Organizations must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes, such as those listed in Section 501(c)(3).

Private Benefit Prohibition: No part of an organization's net earnings can benefit any private shareholder or individual.

Limited Political Activities: Organizations, particularly those under 501(c)(3), are restricted in their ability to engage in political or lobbying activities.

Additional Information:

IRS Publication 557: This publication provides detailed information on the rules and procedures for organizations seeking tax-exempt status.

Application Process: Organizations seeking tax-exempt status typically must apply to the IRS for recognition using the appropriate forms, such as Form 1023 for 501(c)(3) organizations.

In summary, Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, along with its various subsections and related IRS guidance, establishes the legal framework for determining tax-exempt status for a wide array of organizations.

Interesting.

So we shouldn’t be taxing churches at all?

My church might be interested in that as they pay real estate taxes…

We all have free speech and religious rights (and thus could claim our individual beliefs as a religion) and we should thus get religious exemption.

Remember worship of Mammon was a religion back when…

It may be some sort of precedent, but it obviously wasn’t a very well thought out one.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I mean I would love to take tax exempt status away from churches who engage in politics. The problem is I cannot rationalize my want with the 1st Amendment protections.

To tax a church is the government regulating a religion.

Two of the main factors of the non establishment clause was to prevent government from taxing churches or supporting a church w taxes.

The proverbial saying of Dems and other wackos “ Tax the rich” is stupidest motto they ever came up with
If we are paying taxes, then everyone gotta pay
As simple as that
It don’t mean we like but…

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I mean I would love to take tax exempt status away from churches who engage in politics. The problem is I cannot rationalize my want with the 1st Amendment protections.

To tax a church is the government regulating a religion.

Two of the main factors of the non establishment clause was to prevent government from taxing churches or supporting a church w taxes.

i can't, and still can't, wrap my head around NOT RECOGNIZING an organized church and recognizing an organized church through government protections-- if we don't recognize (i know there's various meanings) an organized church, then it's just an organization, generally with property - who's income should be taxed in the spirit of "not recognizing" them

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
The proverbial saying of Dems and other wackos “ Tax the rich” is stupidest motto they ever came up with
If we are paying taxes, then everyone gotta pay
As simple as that
It don’t mean we like but…

the top 11% pay more than 80% of income taxes -- source? irs.gov

I think the funniest part is that after all this time, one side doesn't see their new authority being used against them when the other side return power and has that new authority.

It's a guarantee that the liberals will go after pro gun groups, conservatives Christian groups and other with the same zeal that MAGA feels and is using today.

You wait, gun owners will be Domestic Terrorists and Enemy Combatants and firearms will be GOD'S in our lifetimes and it'll because what we did.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
I think the funniest part is that after all this time, one side doesn't see their new authority being used against them when the other side return power and has that new authority.

It's a guarantee that the liberals will go after pro gun groups, conservatives Christian groups and other with the same zeal that MAGA feels and is using today.

You wait, gun owners will be Domestic Terrorists and Enemy Combatants and firearms will be GOD'S in our lifetimes and it'll because what we did.

I think I don't fully understand your post, especially the part "firearms will be GOD'S". That apostrophe and S is possessive.

Also I see that fear mongering has worked on you.

Do you have a suggestion as to how to avoid all that you predict? You are assuming that the "system" will continue to function as it has.

I'm sure that MAGA, Trump and all the GOPer makers and shakers have a dream plan. As far as I know from history and in general, there has never been an authoritarian wannabe and regime who didn't have a plan to avoid dissent and opposition from gaining or using reciprocal power.

I meant to say guns will be labeled WMD's.
The point is quite simple I think. In this case MAGA takes new authority and power that they don't seem to be able to imagine will be used against them when the liberals are running the show.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
The proverbial saying of Dems and other wackos “ Tax the rich” is stupidest motto they ever came up with
If we are paying taxes, then everyone gotta pay
As simple as that
It don’t mean we like but…

the top 11% pay more than 80% of income taxes -- source? irs.gov

What percentage of capital gains and dividends do the 11% collect?

How much of that income goes to Social Security and Medicare?

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
I meant to say guns will be labeled WMD's.
The point is quite simple I think. In this case MAGA takes new authority and power that they don't seem to be able to imagine will be used against them when the liberals are running the show.

I think your point is "simple".

In this case the GOP takes abuse of of authority and power to something new.

And, just like you imagine, they too imagine how their abusive precedence can be reciprocated IF liberals ever gain the ability to do so.

Their abusive precedence includes modifying the system to where that's a moot point.

Now, imagine that and see where it leads.

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
The proverbial saying of Dems and other wackos “ Tax the rich” is stupidest motto they ever came up with
If we are paying taxes, then everyone gotta pay
As simple as that
It don’t mean we like but…

the top 11% pay more than 80% of income taxes -- source? irs.gov

What percentage of capital gains and dividends do the 11% collect?

How much of that income goes to Social Security and Medicare?

talk about mixing up the field -
the VAST majority of stocks are owned by mutual funds... meaning that, collectively, the common joe/jane own most of the stocks

none of "that", capital gains, goes to SSi or Medicare, BY LAW - gains aren't wages --

oh, and just to put a burr in your saddle, most of the 11% max out the ceiling for SSi, but continue to pay medicare on their wages--

that part should be fixed, SSi should be on every cent of wages

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
I meant to say guns will be labeled WMD's.
The point is quite simple I think. In this case MAGA takes new authority and power that they don't seem to be able to imagine will be used against them when the liberals are running the show.

I think your point is "simple".

In this case the GOP takes abuse of of authority and power to something new.

And, just like you imagine, they too imagine how their abusive precedence can be reciprocated IF liberals ever gain the ability to do so.

Their abusive precedence includes modifying the system to where that's a moot point.

Now, imagine that and see where it leads.

M.E.,
Your imagination runs far wider and wilder than mine.
Again, I think Tom said 160 million voters didn't vote for Trump.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
I meant to say guns will be labeled WMD's.
The point is quite simple I think. In this case MAGA takes new authority and power that they don't seem to be able to imagine will be used against them when the liberals are running the show.

I think your point is "simple".

In this case the GOP takes abuse of of authority and power to something new.

And, just like you imagine, they too imagine how their abusive precedence can be reciprocated IF liberals ever gain the ability to do so.

Their abusive precedence includes modifying the system to where that's a moot point.

Now, imagine that and see where it leads.

M.E.,
Your imagination runs far wider and wilder than mine.
Again, I think Tom said 160 million voters didn't vote for Trump.

and ~165 million didn't vote for quemala -- is there a point in this?

NO president, EVER, with the parlor trick of counting the unvoting, has EVER won the majority -- run the math backwards

as for Tom, I've Repeatedly asked where a plebiscite shows up in the constitution - I suspect it's right after a national POPULAR vote

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

M.E.,
Your imagination runs far wider and wilder than mine.
Again, I think Tom said 160 million voters didn't vote for Trump.

I'm trying to provide a "simple" explanation. It's not easy to nail it. It's certainly not about my imagination.

The central fact is that democracies, or democratic republics, liberal democracy, whatever, have been transformed to a form of authoritarianism by means provided by the constitutional democracy. It's happened before, countries such as Hungary and Turkey. It's suicide at the ballot box.

There are numerous articles on the goal of disassembly of the administrative state. The better articles require subscription.

But this one isn't blocked:

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22...-political-scientist

Hundreds of scholars say U.S. is swiftly heading toward authoritarianism
April 22, 2025 5:01 AM ET

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...ccd5ccdb2507a6&ei=44

‘It Seems Foreign, I’m Bringing It Back’: Speaker Mike Johnson Claims He Will Single-Handedly Destroy Separation Of Church and State

=================================================================

This isn't about freedom. It's about subjugation.

https://youtu.be/QHBAHLHmrx4?si=XtbRdgFBNMdrYEr0

Pete Hegseth: 'There's A Reason We're Gonna Have A Big Old Army Parade On June 14th Of 2025'

There's a reason alright. It's because Trump wanted it, and that's why he hired Pete to spin it. It's part of Trump's reality shit-show. Fascists love a nice military parade.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
I think the funniest part is that after all this time, one side doesn't see their new authority being used against them when the other side return power and has that new authority.

It's a guarantee that the liberals will go after pro gun groups, conservatives Christian groups and other with the same zeal that MAGA feels and is using today.

You wait, gun owners will be Domestic Terrorists and Enemy Combatants and firearms will be GOD'S in our lifetimes and it'll because what we did .

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
I meant to say guns will be labeled WMD's.
The point is quite simple I think. In this case MAGA takes new authority and power that they don't seem to be able to imagine will be used against them when the liberals are running the show.

Who's "we"? Did is past. What about now and in the future?

Aside from Trump and team and MAGA's abuse of authority, which is disturbing enough, IMO there is a rationale about it all that is disturbing too, as demonstrated in the postings of opinions from you and Doc Butler, for example. I'm not including either of you in the category of True Believers or MAGA radicals, but more as rationalizing complicit conservatives who can't come to terms with the reality of Trumpism.

Two, three, maybe four years ago on this forum I wished that GOPers would go ahead and show their true character out in the open for everyone to see and evaluate. From that I later reminded myself that one ought to be more careful of what he wished for.

Now, my wish has been realized, in part but not to the fullest, which is yet to unfold, predictably. Trump hasn't yet called out the military to quell the uprising, assuring his grip on power.

I don't believe Liberals, if they return to power, will reciprocate in-kind to Trump(ism)'s abuses of the constitutional system. IMO, Liberals are about honoring the constitution and institutions, where Trumpism is about destroying them. In large part, Trumpism is plotting to fix it all so that Liberals can never win an election again.

There is a lot of drama to happen in the country before the Toxic Red Tide turns.

You imagine some ugly stuff about Liberals, which IMO isn't reality.

There are many with active imaginations:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...00e8833bfdbcdf&ei=50

There will be a reckoning as the sleeping giant awakens from this nightmare
by Robert Reich • 4h • 3 min read

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
I think the funniest part is that after all this time, one side doesn't see their new authority being used against them when the other side return power and has that new authority.

It's a guarantee that the liberals will go after pro gun groups, conservatives Christian groups and other with the same zeal that MAGA feels and is using today.

You wait, gun owners will be Domestic Terrorists and Enemy Combatants and firearms will be GOD'S in our lifetimes and it'll because what we did .

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
I meant to say guns will be labeled WMD's.
The point is quite simple I think. In this case MAGA takes new authority and power that they don't seem to be able to imagine will be used against them when the liberals are running the show.

Who's "we"? Did is past. What about now and in the future?

Aside from Trump and team and MAGA's abuse of authority, which is disturbing enough, IMO there is a rationale about it all that is disturbing too, as demonstrated in the postings of opinions from you and Doc Butler, for example. I'm not including either of you in the category of True Believers or MAGA radicals, but more as rationalizing complicit conservatives who can't come to terms with the reality of Trumpism.

Two, three, maybe four years ago on this forum I wished that GOPers would go ahead and show their true character out in the open for everyone to see and evaluate. From that I later reminded myself that one ought to be more careful of what he wished for.

Now, my wish has been realized, in part but not to the fullest, which is yet to unfold, predictably. Trump hasn't yet called out the military to quell the uprising, assuring his grip on power.

I don't believe Liberals, if they return to power, will reciprocate in-kind to Trump(ism)'s abuses of the constitutional system. IMO, Liberals are about honoring the constitution and institutions, where Trumpism is about destroying them. In large part, Trumpism is plotting to fix it all so that Liberals can never win an election again.

There is a lot of drama to happen in the country before the Toxic Red Tide turns.

You imagine some ugly stuff about Liberals, which IMO isn't reality.

There are many with active imaginations:

The most active imagination here by far is yours.
This idea that Trumpismcan fix it so liberals never hold office again is pure fantasy.
Again, double the voters didn't vote for Trump. Those 160 million people won't support Trumpism and the goals you imagine.

Anyone here thinking rationally that is aware of my opinions posted here would agree when I say I have squarely opposed Trump. That's really all there is to it.

As for my post above that is still in question, you need to take a few calm deep breaths. My side, The Right, continues to seek additional power and authority that when out of authority will be used against us by the liberals. We, The Right are setting precedence without any consideration for the future. 20 years ago "W" was labeling our fellow Americans "Enemy Combatants ". Im quite certain that even back then people like Hillary would have happily used that label on some of the Right. It is worse today.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
I meant to say guns will be labeled WMD's.
The point is quite simple I think. In this case MAGA takes new authority and power that they don't seem to be able to imagine will be used against them when the liberals are running the show.

I think your point is "simple".

In this case the GOP takes abuse of of authority and power to something new.

And, just like you imagine, they too imagine how their abusive precedence can be reciprocated IF liberals ever gain the ability to do so.

Their abusive precedence includes modifying the system to where that's a moot point.

Now, imagine that and see where it leads.

M.E.,
Your imagination runs far wider and wilder than mine.
Again, I think Tom said 160 million voters didn't vote for Trump.

and ~165 million didn't vote for quemala -- is there a point in this?

NO president, EVER, with the parlor trick of counting the unvoting, has EVER won the majority -- run the math backwards

as for Tom, I've Repeatedly asked where a plebiscite shows up in the constitution - I suspect it's right after a national POPULAR vote

Of course. We have a Republic. But there is still no MAGA Mandate, nor one for liberal causes either.
Neither Harris nor Trump got as many voters as those who didn't feel that the choice was worth their time.

In one sense, Trump is doing us a favor, exposing the ideas of Project 2025 to light and air.
Show us who you are, and we'll take it from there...

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
I meant to say guns will be labeled WMD's.
The point is quite simple I think. In this case MAGA takes new authority and power that they don't seem to be able to imagine will be used against them when the liberals are running the show.

I think your point is "simple".

In this case the GOP takes abuse of of authority and power to something new.

And, just like you imagine, they too imagine how their abusive precedence can be reciprocated IF liberals ever gain the ability to do so.

Their abusive precedence includes modifying the system to where that's a moot point.

Now, imagine that and see where it leads.

M.E.,
Your imagination runs far wider and wilder than mine.
Again, I think Tom said 160 million voters didn't vote for Trump.

and ~165 million didn't vote for quemala -- is there a point in this?

NO president, EVER, with the parlor trick of counting the unvoting, has EVER won the majority -- run the math backwards

as for Tom, I've Repeatedly asked where a plebiscite shows up in the constitution - I suspect it's right after a national POPULAR vote

Of course. We have a Republic. But there is still no MAGA Mandate, nor one for liberal causes either.
Neither Harris nor Trump got as many voters as those who didn't feel that the choice was worth their time.

In one sense, Trump is doing us a favor, exposing the ideas of Project 2025 to light and air.
Show us who you are, and we'll take it from there...

tell me it's not in the constitution withing telling me ....

you made up, more like are repeating, that we should count EVERYONE that COULD vote, then the results?

by YOUR "measure", 1984, Reagan winning 49 states, nearly 60% of the vote, wasn't elected by the MAJORITY of POSSIBLE voters?

167M eligible voters, 117M didn't vote for Reagan? The largest blow-out mandate election, with the possible exception of Washington (data unavailable) that Reagan didn't have a mandate?

THAT's the hill you are going to try and stand on?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...esidential_elections

okay, i think we are done with this whackado election theory, unless you can show me where it's in the constitution

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

The most active imagination here by far is yours.
This idea that Trumpismcan fix it so liberals never hold office again is pure fantasy.
Again, double the voters didn't vote for Trump. Those 160 million people won't support Trumpism and the goals you imagine.

Anyone here thinking rationally that is aware of my opinions posted here would agree when I say I have squarely opposed Trump. That's really all there is to it.

As for my post above that is still in question, you need to take a few calm deep breaths. My side, The Right, continues to seek additional power and authority that when out of authority will be used against us by the liberals. We, The Right are setting precedence without any consideration for the future. 20 years ago "W" was labeling our fellow Americans "Enemy Combatants ". Im quite certain that even back then people like Hillary would have happily used that label on some of the Right. It is worse today.

Well, Scott, It's a pleasure to argue with you.

In case you don't know already, I value your opinions. Mostly, the reason I argue with you, or exchange views, is for two reasons. One is to attempt to make my case and sway you. Second, is to invite (prod) you to sway me.

Your opinions are somewhat calming. In particular: "This idea that Trumpismcan fix it so liberals never hold office again is pure fantasy."

I hope you are correct. But as you know hope is a product of faith in substance not seen. Trump's words and deeds say a different story, in addition to project 2025. Granted, the real fantasy could be Trump's fascism dream.

The fact is that Trump has no personal constraints by morals or ethics re seeking power by whatever means, and he has lots of support. His only constraints are found in the constitutional system which he exploits max, and we see how that has worked out, and he continues to attack, and will never pivot.

Due Process is a two sided coin. Trump got his due process which now he wants to deny it to others.

You are correct that "My side, The Right, continues to seek additional power and authority". But I think you are not correct in: "that when out of authority will be used against us by the liberals". My hope is that liberals will use the Right's abuse of power to GAIN power, rejecting the MAGA cult forever, through the next election, not to abuse it likewise.

I also think you are wrong about: "We, The Right are setting precedence without any consideration for the future". This authoritarian movement from the Right is 50 years in the making. This IS the future. The only question now is how far will they go. Given the evidence and the surprises so far, that should not be underestimated, which is exactly what you do.

Hillary wouldn't have trashed the constitution. But she was correct about the deplorable thing.

I always enjoy corresponding with you to M.E., but I'd ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth.
I try to speak very plainly and truthfully, meaning what I say and saying what I mean.

I have tried to make my disapproval of trump plain and obvious, not for any malicious reason, but rather to make obvious my position in this discussion forum.

I didn't know or consider myself putting words in your "mouth".

To avoid that, I used quotes of your specific words and sentences, and broke them down into two or more parts when more than one opinion or POV was stated.

I think this is true, BTW: "I try to speak very plainly and truthfully, meaning what I say and saying what I mean". The caveat is "try", but good enough since intent is good.

Also, you have been "plain and obvious" in your disapproval of Trump, and as I recollect I haven't argued that.

I re-read my post above, specifically the quoted parts from your post, and my responses. I was careful to not attack your character, only your ideas and conclusions.

Granted, I don't watch Fox for affirmation, nor do I watch or read other sources for affirmation of stuff I already think is true.

It is true, however, that much of the journalism I partake is cumulative in the ongoing narrative, perspective of what's happening, past, present and future.

I have my own perspective and that's why I take exception to the points you made, abuse of power and authority, future, and liberal's reaction.

To make it "simple", Trump(ism) is saying right out in the open what their intent is, has been, and for the future. All we need to do is listen, and decide which side we're on - approve explicitly or complicitly, or disapprove passively or expressly.

If you read between the lines of my posts, I include within the complicit category those who rationalize or miss the point of what Trumpism is about. It's not so much how they got to where they are ideologically or their justifications, and lies, but what they want to do to the country and us.

To put it simply, they want authoritarianism, which Trump offers, to perpetuate far right causes and ideology, to transform the nation in his image. You know darn well that Trump is as illiberal as it gets, which is the basis of his appeal.

There is no way Trump will seek traditional peaceful unity or an end to or subsiding of the polarization. It's one of his primary fascist tools. If No not if, but since unity through loyalty compliance is one of his goals it will be through force, fascist style, domination, and use of the military. He's going to force that to happen too.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Well, if it’s in, big deal.

It’s not limiting speech, it’s taking away tax exempt status… which when the Dems take over they can remove all the repub tax exempt orgs.

I’m fine with that. We have too many folks who don’t pay.

Given that charity has become big business, we might as well tax it.

Especially political crap.

Again, AFAIC.

Right. Oh, well.

https://youtu.be/5EpzI9-4wkA?si=hkuSiWPtEgioV0O2

(BTW, I think the heading to this video is misleading, but the content is good. Weissmann does not advocate jail for Trump.)

What happens when the most powerful people in America aren’t held accountable? In this compelling interview, a former federal prosecutor breaks down why Donald Trump never faced trial — and why that decision may have shaken the foundations of American democracy.

======================================

https://youtu.be/CLuYA0VJ3zc?si=4ETKze17cNYoXOHo

Big Donald Is Watching You: Sliding into autocracy under Trump 2.0

======================================

Has anyone ever watched a White House press briefing by Secretary Karoline Leavitt without getting nausea - or on second thought, a hard-on by the MAGA men, perhaps women too?

And we used to think Kellyanne Conway was over the top.

https://youtu.be/8A0PVh4PuQQ?si=h0LlPADVCZ4oFqq0

‘It’s not my first rodeo’: James Comey speaks out after controversial social media post

https://youtu.be/YZhpqMWjsD0?si=dgLiqSIZ2ucwwkDL

MAGA crackdown: Ari Melber on Comey’s chilling warning about mob tactics, free speech