Danimal writes: If you are interested, I would like to ask for you to post something on it from a different life experience and also because you depend on electronic media for income. It seems as though Substack is more immune to censorship by government fiat.
IMO, this is the wrong mindset. It's whoever is in power that no longer believes in free speech. It's just like fiscal responsibility - the party out of power believes in being careful with government finances, but then quickly changes their mind once they have the power of the purse. The Democrats are going to learn this lesson the hard way.
I'm not sure we should read too much into them refusing to rule on the standing issue. The current court has been very strict with regard to standing. And they probably have other upcoming cases where it is important for them to maintain consistency on the issue. I'm curious who would have standing on this issue. I imagine it would be somebody who could prove an actual injury. Many people who were censored through government pressure on the tech companies have actually gained more exposure during the pandemic through Substack than they had before the pandemic. I had never even heard of Alex Berenson or Sharyl Atkisson before I came across them on Substack. I suspect Alex makes far more money now than he did as a New York Times reporter. RFK wouldn't have had the slightest chance of running for president without his continual presence on alternative media and podcasts. I'm not saying I approve of the governments behavior. I think it was a clear violation of the first amendment. However, perhaps a more viable case would be one where the plaintiffs were people whose businesses closed permanently due to lockdowns or were unable to visit their dying loved ones or parents of a teenage boy who died from myocarditis. Those are indisputable harms that could possibly have been avoided if there had been a free and open debate on these subjects.
I think it's interesting that Sasha was so easily able to find an authoritarian silver lining in that Trump would now supposedly be able remove posts that he disagreed with. 🤦🏻♂️
The censorship is quite prevalent and growing in every venue. I even had a post denied on the WSJ a week or two ago for including the term "Project Veritas" in my post. I was commenting upon the woman who taped Justice Alito surreptitiously. My comment was that I didn't see that what she had done differed markedly from what James O'Keefe does with Project Veritas. After I clicked on "Send" a message appeared immediately telling me that the comment was rejected. I wrote asking why and received a reply three days later telling me that "Project Veritas" was a forbidden term. WTF?!?!?!?
I haven't looked at the decision so I don't know how sweeping it might be. No, I'm not an attorney, but one of my favorite quotations is Einstein's "If you can't explain it simply you don't understand it well enough." I'll find someone who explains it simply. I find that Turley usually does a good job of making legalese understandable to laymen.
I no longer comment on WSJ articles since they censored a comment where I was asked if I was a Putin supporter. My (censored) reply was “” No, are you a Xi supporter.” Apparently any perceived criticism of Chairman Xi is a big no-no, which tells you a lot about the WSJ and who butters their bread.
WSJ is shooting themselves in the foot by over censorship. They have an intelligent readership who can provide insight and expertise on numerous topics. Many are in international private sector leadership and executive positions as well. They’ll fade out if it becomes an echo chamber.
Agreed. I am seeing more and more commentators noting the change over in format to more fluffy, puff pieces a la the NYTIMES. I believe this can be traced to the old man handing over the reins to the son. History repeats itself.
Like that twisted WSJ news" article the other day about Judge Cannon and how "more experienced jurists" are suggesting she withdraw from the Trump documents case.
Has a separate editor than the editorial section. The news articles could easily appear in The NY Times. They are straight up lefties. The editorial section is Trad Republican and occasionally conservative.
I did not renew the subscription I had for fifteen + years because of numerous stories without named sources and the puff pieces you mentioned. The MSM universally produces bad (or no) journalism.
There is evidently a subsidized band of trolls which stalk the Editorial Comments of the Journal. I've seen more than two dozen comments on one editorial posted by one of the lefty trolls. My rule is, "If I see more than a dozen posts by one person on one editorial, I mute him (or her but only men have been so pestiferous so far).
Saw and experienced similar at least 3-4 years ago, after which we cancelled our subscription. This was around the time when the whiny news side wrote some letter complaining about the opinion side.
Lately, even the opinion side, as represented on the WSJ show on Fox News on Saturday, has been way too hawkish for my taste. Regardless, it's only a matter of time until the opinion people are completely phased out and replaced with indoctrinated "journalism" graduates like the "news" side.
No, a Trump administration should by NO Means suppress speech the way the Left does. That is antithetical to all that this country stands for. That’s just making the issue far worse than it already is.
Free Speech, the 1st Amendment, is absolute.
This decision is a tragedy for our nation.
But we must continue to fight for what’s right and true, or else what’s the point of anything.
If I know Sasha at all (and that's only through what she writes here), I'm sure she was being facetious when she said that Trump should turn around and use anti-free-speech tactics against his enemies. The only ethical (and in the end, effective) weapon against misinformation (or mal- or dis- or whatever word games they want to play) IS FREE SPEECH.
ACB, Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority. They ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case. I suppose you have to show individuals suffered with jail time or something similar to bring suit. Big win for government coerced censorship. Hopefully this is just a bump on the road to freer speech.
As long as it’s my side sending the FBI I’m fine. Not a very good way to split the baby. It’s sad that evidently 6 members of SCOTUS can’t read the Constitution
This country is finished, and anyone with an IQ higher than the maximum speed limits should be able to see that. The coming election will not change a thing, as there is absolutely no difference between the two parties--just two sides of the same coin, and that coin is not in your pocket,nor mine. Withdraw your consent, people--a true patriot is one willing to fight to save their country FROM it's government. The tree of liberty has been thirsty for a long time now. A free people cannot support the government this county has been "growing" for most of my lifetime ( 78 now). It cannot be allowed to exist any longer--withdraw your consent!!
I'm gonna beat my dead horse on this. Giving people devoted to worshipping themselves great power necessarily leads to great evil. If you think they will stop at blocking your exercise of former constitutional rights, you should count all the innocent Americans this ilk has illegally imprisoned.
Everyone is hoping Mr. Trump can correct all this. Maybe. Maybe not. The fact is if the nation continues its prancing march to hell on earth instead of turning with humbled hearts to the Creator, there's very little Mr. Trump can do. This is a national culture problem. Only a change in national culture can fix it.
Instead of reading some reporter's second hand interpretation of the decision, often it's a lot better to read the actual decision itself - here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf - and what the Court did makes sense. You have to show with particularity an actual injury which can be remedied by court action, not a speculative future injury - and you have to show direct causal relationships - and that wasn't done, either - or it's not in the pleadings. The states involved could perhaps enjoin social media services such as facebook or twitter from doing business in their states, until the social media platforms changed their business operations. Corporations must register in a state in which they are not incorporated as "foreign business entities" - revocation of this registration stops them from doing business in that state. That might be the most useful approach.
If states don't have standing to sue over national policy that has a negative impact on them, the remedy is secession. As in the run up to CW2, that is what the Court is flirting with.
Did you read Alito's dissent, where he showed conclusively (to me) that at least one plaintiff had standing, but the court utilized new requirements for plaintiffs to achieve standing. There were actual individual plaintiffs, not just two states. Do individuals have no remedy when denied their first amendment rights.
I've just gotten done reading the case and Justice Alito's dissent, and he got pretty close to what is going on, but missed the forest for the trees:
Here's where Zuckerberg gives up the game:
“But for Facebook and many other social media platforms, the situation is fundamentally different. They are critically dependent on the protection provided by §230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U. S. C. §230, which shields them from civil liability for content they spread. They are vulnerable to antitrust actions; indeed, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has described a potential antitrust lawsuit as an “existential” threat to his company." Murthy, Alito Dissent at 4.
Zuckerberg has been allowed by the government - the Federal Trade Commision - to aggregate unto himself a near monopoly over public discourse. And his monopoly is dangerous to free speech, as censorship of his platform would be very effective in limiting debate and censoring the free flow of ideas. But Zuckerberg's company has made him and his associates billions of dollars, so he is very sensitive to blackmail - hence the "existential threat" language. And the use of that blackmail - impossible if Zuckerberg's company were broken up under the antitrust laws, as it should be - is probably something a government intent on bad actions or other criminality or furthering corruption would find quite useful, a weapon that could easily be brought to bear in the curtailment of free speech. in this case, speech those in control of the government hate.
The whip gets cracked: “In the same breath, Psaki reminded the platforms that President Biden “‘supports . . . a robust anti-trust program.’” Id., at 25171 (emphasis deleted); May 5 Press Briefing.” Ibid. at 9.
And Zuckerberg cringes like a whipped cur dog, seeking to lick the hand of his master, looking for that oh-so-conditional approval: “And Facebook’s reactions to these efforts were not what one would expect from an independent news source or a journalistic entity dedicated to holding the Government accountable for its actions. Instead, Facebook’s responses resembled that of a subservient entity determined to stay in the good graces of a powerful taskmaster. Facebook told White House officials that it would “work . . . to gain your trust.” Id., at 9365. When criticized, Facebook representatives whimpered that they “thought we were doing a better job” but promised to do more going forward. Id., at 9371. They pleaded to know how they could “get back to a good place” with the White House. Id., at 9403. ...The picture is clear.” Ibid. at 14-15.
The person who has actual standing to sue is Zuckerberg, because he was victimized by unconstitutional and illegal blackmail - which indirectly affected others, such as the plaintiffs in this case - so the chief victims are Zuckerberg and his company and its reputation, which isn't going to be worth much if it gets to be seen as a government toady.
Now, if Facebook were broken up, this blackmail of a centralized monopoly would be very much more difficult, and there would be at least a freer marketplace of ideas (with say 50 or so different companies) - and that sort of antitrust action is the best answer to this problem, of the stifling and censorship of controversial speech by the Government. So Justice Alito gets close to the answer, but not quite to it, in my opinion. But I certainly agree with what he has done so far.
As you said, this is a horrible ruling. It further sends us towards 1984 territory and emboldens the tyrants who want to rule us. Roberts has already proven to be their asset and I immediately lost trust in Coney-Barrett when she gushed all over Mitch McConnell in that Minnie Mouse voice at her confirmation ceremony.
I am an Englishman living in England but I'd back my love for the USA against anyones. And I value it x100 against kinzingers.
This is my opinion. In 1938 a man called Chamberlain brought a piece of paper back from Germany shouting "Peace in our time". And the country went to sleep, apart from one man. Winston Churchill warned everyone that it was too far along for peace and we should be preparing to build armaments. Few listened and the rest is a mirror of today...you see it wouldn't have mattered what decision the cowardly 6 in SCOTUS made...the uni party is too far down the road of Marxist takeover to turn back.
A 6-3 decision the other way would have just meant the enemy reverts to Plan E on the take down.
Republicans would have praised the Court and carried on...as it is the Republicans will denounce the decision and carry on.
The democrats have their lawyers in place, their ballot harvesters in place, their broken machines in place, but now they have 12 million empty ballots in place. They have 12 million illegal mercenaries in place and these aren't privileged kids from white suburbs. These are fighting age men and women from war torn shitholes where life was cheap.
These are the spearhead of the riots coming this year. These are the goons they will send in before the FBI/DOJ goons.
When you all talk about fighting...just how far are you willing to go? And where do you think they will send the conscripts?
Good history and insight, Ernie. I am a veteran and from a family and neighbor of veterans. I think you are correct that we’re unlikely to resort to violence this year in reaction to another stolen election. We’ve been informed just how easy the Uniparty can bankrupt and imprison us by witness of Trump, Bannon, Navero, Assage and all J6ers. However, I think the story changes in 2025 because I think the Dems are intentionally tanking the election by keeping Biden in; their goal is to leave Trump holding the bag when inflation hits 20% and people really go hungry and homeless, when Ukraine surrenders, and Russia is forced to retaliate for US orchestrated killing of their civilians. Then they will conscript the remainder of the young white males and turn them loose on the older ones. Ipso facto white men no more.
Total agreement. How many people I see on Quora, Medium and social media who are veterans against President Trump. I mean, these people weren't necessarily subject to the woke Generals and Admirals we see now soo how the hell do they not see what we see?
Mwork in the field throughout the war.roke out because my Jewish girlfriend had gone out to a kibbutz the week before and I was meant to join her.
As it was she was in the north and I was sent south near Eilat and, although we were never attacked during that time I did have to do my guard duty on rota and work 9in the fields throughout the war.
I saw what happens to Israel when it's attacked from all directions. I know what will happen to American citizens, particularly white, suburban Americand who voted for the open border.
I remember a couple of privileged white lads in an appartment waving to blm/antifa thugs from their window...the same window smashed with bricks a few seconds later.
"We're on your side", they screamed. lol What's coming won't be so funny.
There is another commentator here named Richard that you might appreciate. He notes a Great Sorting in which the primary factions in the US begin to physically move closer. Not sure I’m doing the concepts Justice though. Take care, amigo. No time for old men.
To be fair, if the Republicans were doing all this, I'd leave the party. It's hard to understand how Democrats can reconcile these obvious attacks on personal freedoms and remain in the party.
“It just means I will fight harder to remove the Democrats from power because they are the side that no longer believes in free speech. “
Thank you👍🏽so true!
That’s right!
IMO, this is the wrong mindset. It's whoever is in power that no longer believes in free speech. It's just like fiscal responsibility - the party out of power believes in being careful with government finances, but then quickly changes their mind once they have the power of the purse. The Democrats are going to learn this lesson the hard way.
I believe the decision did not rule on the merits, only that plaintiffs lacked standing?? Am I misinformed?
No, you are correct. But it was a rather obvious punt on the merits, which is revealing in its own way.
I'm not sure we should read too much into them refusing to rule on the standing issue. The current court has been very strict with regard to standing. And they probably have other upcoming cases where it is important for them to maintain consistency on the issue. I'm curious who would have standing on this issue. I imagine it would be somebody who could prove an actual injury. Many people who were censored through government pressure on the tech companies have actually gained more exposure during the pandemic through Substack than they had before the pandemic. I had never even heard of Alex Berenson or Sharyl Atkisson before I came across them on Substack. I suspect Alex makes far more money now than he did as a New York Times reporter. RFK wouldn't have had the slightest chance of running for president without his continual presence on alternative media and podcasts. I'm not saying I approve of the governments behavior. I think it was a clear violation of the first amendment. However, perhaps a more viable case would be one where the plaintiffs were people whose businesses closed permanently due to lockdowns or were unable to visit their dying loved ones or parents of a teenage boy who died from myocarditis. Those are indisputable harms that could possibly have been avoided if there had been a free and open debate on these subjects.
I think it's interesting that Sasha was so easily able to find an authoritarian silver lining in that Trump would now supposedly be able remove posts that he disagreed with. 🤦🏻♂️
Correct, is the same lack of standing BS as the 2020 election case. If states lack standing on a national issue, they have the right to secede.
The censorship is quite prevalent and growing in every venue. I even had a post denied on the WSJ a week or two ago for including the term "Project Veritas" in my post. I was commenting upon the woman who taped Justice Alito surreptitiously. My comment was that I didn't see that what she had done differed markedly from what James O'Keefe does with Project Veritas. After I clicked on "Send" a message appeared immediately telling me that the comment was rejected. I wrote asking why and received a reply three days later telling me that "Project Veritas" was a forbidden term. WTF?!?!?!?
I haven't looked at the decision so I don't know how sweeping it might be. No, I'm not an attorney, but one of my favorite quotations is Einstein's "If you can't explain it simply you don't understand it well enough." I'll find someone who explains it simply. I find that Turley usually does a good job of making legalese understandable to laymen.
I no longer comment on WSJ articles since they censored a comment where I was asked if I was a Putin supporter. My (censored) reply was “” No, are you a Xi supporter.” Apparently any perceived criticism of Chairman Xi is a big no-no, which tells you a lot about the WSJ and who butters their bread.
WSJ is shooting themselves in the foot by over censorship. They have an intelligent readership who can provide insight and expertise on numerous topics. Many are in international private sector leadership and executive positions as well. They’ll fade out if it becomes an echo chamber.
Agreed. I am seeing more and more commentators noting the change over in format to more fluffy, puff pieces a la the NYTIMES. I believe this can be traced to the old man handing over the reins to the son. History repeats itself.
Like that twisted WSJ news" article the other day about Judge Cannon and how "more experienced jurists" are suggesting she withdraw from the Trump documents case.
The news section at the WSJ has a separate
Has a separate editor than the editorial section. The news articles could easily appear in The NY Times. They are straight up lefties. The editorial section is Trad Republican and occasionally conservative.
I did not renew the subscription I had for fifteen + years because of numerous stories without named sources and the puff pieces you mentioned. The MSM universally produces bad (or no) journalism.
The WSJ editorial pages can be ok. The rest of the reporting is woke msm reporting for the most part.
There is evidently a subsidized band of trolls which stalk the Editorial Comments of the Journal. I've seen more than two dozen comments on one editorial posted by one of the lefty trolls. My rule is, "If I see more than a dozen posts by one person on one editorial, I mute him (or her but only men have been so pestiferous so far).
“Veritas” is of course Latin for “truth”. I am surprised it was banned as I thought it was extinct already.
The Moderators evidently have a burr under their saddle for O'Keefe.
Saw and experienced similar at least 3-4 years ago, after which we cancelled our subscription. This was around the time when the whiny news side wrote some letter complaining about the opinion side.
Lately, even the opinion side, as represented on the WSJ show on Fox News on Saturday, has been way too hawkish for my taste. Regardless, it's only a matter of time until the opinion people are completely phased out and replaced with indoctrinated "journalism" graduates like the "news" side.
No, a Trump administration should by NO Means suppress speech the way the Left does. That is antithetical to all that this country stands for. That’s just making the issue far worse than it already is.
Free Speech, the 1st Amendment, is absolute.
This decision is a tragedy for our nation.
But we must continue to fight for what’s right and true, or else what’s the point of anything.
If I know Sasha at all (and that's only through what she writes here), I'm sure she was being facetious when she said that Trump should turn around and use anti-free-speech tactics against his enemies. The only ethical (and in the end, effective) weapon against misinformation (or mal- or dis- or whatever word games they want to play) IS FREE SPEECH.
ACB, Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority. They ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case. I suppose you have to show individuals suffered with jail time or something similar to bring suit. Big win for government coerced censorship. Hopefully this is just a bump on the road to freer speech.
https://www.kcur.org/politics-elections-and-government/2024-06-26/u-s-supreme-court-rules-against-missouri-attorney-general-in-social-media-censorship-case
I like that you responded to a reader’s question. It’s kinda like Tucker does. Well done.
As long as it’s my side sending the FBI I’m fine. Not a very good way to split the baby. It’s sad that evidently 6 members of SCOTUS can’t read the Constitution
But not unexpected.
This country is finished, and anyone with an IQ higher than the maximum speed limits should be able to see that. The coming election will not change a thing, as there is absolutely no difference between the two parties--just two sides of the same coin, and that coin is not in your pocket,nor mine. Withdraw your consent, people--a true patriot is one willing to fight to save their country FROM it's government. The tree of liberty has been thirsty for a long time now. A free people cannot support the government this county has been "growing" for most of my lifetime ( 78 now). It cannot be allowed to exist any longer--withdraw your consent!!
Amen. And, FJB and his ilk.
If I withdraw paying my taxes they take my house and throw me in prison. Is that your advice and experience?
Since Berenson has “standing”, hopefully his suit v Biden moves further!!
I'm gonna beat my dead horse on this. Giving people devoted to worshipping themselves great power necessarily leads to great evil. If you think they will stop at blocking your exercise of former constitutional rights, you should count all the innocent Americans this ilk has illegally imprisoned.
Everyone is hoping Mr. Trump can correct all this. Maybe. Maybe not. The fact is if the nation continues its prancing march to hell on earth instead of turning with humbled hearts to the Creator, there's very little Mr. Trump can do. This is a national culture problem. Only a change in national culture can fix it.
You were doing pretty good Mr. Goodman until you said magic is the answer.
Instead of reading some reporter's second hand interpretation of the decision, often it's a lot better to read the actual decision itself - here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf - and what the Court did makes sense. You have to show with particularity an actual injury which can be remedied by court action, not a speculative future injury - and you have to show direct causal relationships - and that wasn't done, either - or it's not in the pleadings. The states involved could perhaps enjoin social media services such as facebook or twitter from doing business in their states, until the social media platforms changed their business operations. Corporations must register in a state in which they are not incorporated as "foreign business entities" - revocation of this registration stops them from doing business in that state. That might be the most useful approach.
If states don't have standing to sue over national policy that has a negative impact on them, the remedy is secession. As in the run up to CW2, that is what the Court is flirting with.
Did you read Alito's dissent, where he showed conclusively (to me) that at least one plaintiff had standing, but the court utilized new requirements for plaintiffs to achieve standing. There were actual individual plaintiffs, not just two states. Do individuals have no remedy when denied their first amendment rights.
I've just gotten done reading the case and Justice Alito's dissent, and he got pretty close to what is going on, but missed the forest for the trees:
Here's where Zuckerberg gives up the game:
“But for Facebook and many other social media platforms, the situation is fundamentally different. They are critically dependent on the protection provided by §230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U. S. C. §230, which shields them from civil liability for content they spread. They are vulnerable to antitrust actions; indeed, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has described a potential antitrust lawsuit as an “existential” threat to his company." Murthy, Alito Dissent at 4.
Zuckerberg has been allowed by the government - the Federal Trade Commision - to aggregate unto himself a near monopoly over public discourse. And his monopoly is dangerous to free speech, as censorship of his platform would be very effective in limiting debate and censoring the free flow of ideas. But Zuckerberg's company has made him and his associates billions of dollars, so he is very sensitive to blackmail - hence the "existential threat" language. And the use of that blackmail - impossible if Zuckerberg's company were broken up under the antitrust laws, as it should be - is probably something a government intent on bad actions or other criminality or furthering corruption would find quite useful, a weapon that could easily be brought to bear in the curtailment of free speech. in this case, speech those in control of the government hate.
The whip gets cracked: “In the same breath, Psaki reminded the platforms that President Biden “‘supports . . . a robust anti-trust program.’” Id., at 25171 (emphasis deleted); May 5 Press Briefing.” Ibid. at 9.
And Zuckerberg cringes like a whipped cur dog, seeking to lick the hand of his master, looking for that oh-so-conditional approval: “And Facebook’s reactions to these efforts were not what one would expect from an independent news source or a journalistic entity dedicated to holding the Government accountable for its actions. Instead, Facebook’s responses resembled that of a subservient entity determined to stay in the good graces of a powerful taskmaster. Facebook told White House officials that it would “work . . . to gain your trust.” Id., at 9365. When criticized, Facebook representatives whimpered that they “thought we were doing a better job” but promised to do more going forward. Id., at 9371. They pleaded to know how they could “get back to a good place” with the White House. Id., at 9403. ...The picture is clear.” Ibid. at 14-15.
The person who has actual standing to sue is Zuckerberg, because he was victimized by unconstitutional and illegal blackmail - which indirectly affected others, such as the plaintiffs in this case - so the chief victims are Zuckerberg and his company and its reputation, which isn't going to be worth much if it gets to be seen as a government toady.
Now, if Facebook were broken up, this blackmail of a centralized monopoly would be very much more difficult, and there would be at least a freer marketplace of ideas (with say 50 or so different companies) - and that sort of antitrust action is the best answer to this problem, of the stifling and censorship of controversial speech by the Government. So Justice Alito gets close to the answer, but not quite to it, in my opinion. But I certainly agree with what he has done so far.
As you said, this is a horrible ruling. It further sends us towards 1984 territory and emboldens the tyrants who want to rule us. Roberts has already proven to be their asset and I immediately lost trust in Coney-Barrett when she gushed all over Mitch McConnell in that Minnie Mouse voice at her confirmation ceremony.
1984 is just around the corner if ALL don’t wake up!
He’s done some good things but is a leftist at heart.
I am an Englishman living in England but I'd back my love for the USA against anyones. And I value it x100 against kinzingers.
This is my opinion. In 1938 a man called Chamberlain brought a piece of paper back from Germany shouting "Peace in our time". And the country went to sleep, apart from one man. Winston Churchill warned everyone that it was too far along for peace and we should be preparing to build armaments. Few listened and the rest is a mirror of today...you see it wouldn't have mattered what decision the cowardly 6 in SCOTUS made...the uni party is too far down the road of Marxist takeover to turn back.
A 6-3 decision the other way would have just meant the enemy reverts to Plan E on the take down.
Republicans would have praised the Court and carried on...as it is the Republicans will denounce the decision and carry on.
The democrats have their lawyers in place, their ballot harvesters in place, their broken machines in place, but now they have 12 million empty ballots in place. They have 12 million illegal mercenaries in place and these aren't privileged kids from white suburbs. These are fighting age men and women from war torn shitholes where life was cheap.
These are the spearhead of the riots coming this year. These are the goons they will send in before the FBI/DOJ goons.
When you all talk about fighting...just how far are you willing to go? And where do you think they will send the conscripts?
Good history and insight, Ernie. I am a veteran and from a family and neighbor of veterans. I think you are correct that we’re unlikely to resort to violence this year in reaction to another stolen election. We’ve been informed just how easy the Uniparty can bankrupt and imprison us by witness of Trump, Bannon, Navero, Assage and all J6ers. However, I think the story changes in 2025 because I think the Dems are intentionally tanking the election by keeping Biden in; their goal is to leave Trump holding the bag when inflation hits 20% and people really go hungry and homeless, when Ukraine surrenders, and Russia is forced to retaliate for US orchestrated killing of their civilians. Then they will conscript the remainder of the young white males and turn them loose on the older ones. Ipso facto white men no more.
Total agreement. How many people I see on Quora, Medium and social media who are veterans against President Trump. I mean, these people weren't necessarily subject to the woke Generals and Admirals we see now soo how the hell do they not see what we see?
Mwork in the field throughout the war.roke out because my Jewish girlfriend had gone out to a kibbutz the week before and I was meant to join her.
As it was she was in the north and I was sent south near Eilat and, although we were never attacked during that time I did have to do my guard duty on rota and work 9in the fields throughout the war.
I saw what happens to Israel when it's attacked from all directions. I know what will happen to American citizens, particularly white, suburban Americand who voted for the open border.
I remember a couple of privileged white lads in an appartment waving to blm/antifa thugs from their window...the same window smashed with bricks a few seconds later.
"We're on your side", they screamed. lol What's coming won't be so funny.
There is another commentator here named Richard that you might appreciate. He notes a Great Sorting in which the primary factions in the US begin to physically move closer. Not sure I’m doing the concepts Justice though. Take care, amigo. No time for old men.
We're the ones who look at the advancing enemy and say fuck it...it's a good day to die...or to take down as many as we can.
Hope enough people feel the extent of the problem like Ms Stone and people here do or We are doomed!
Fight well
Amr Australia.
To be fair, if the Republicans were doing all this, I'd leave the party. It's hard to understand how Democrats can reconcile these obvious attacks on personal freedoms and remain in the party.