Hate to break it to you but if Trump had won, there would have been violence on Wednesday, and it most certainly would have been worse. How do I know? Because Democrats have been endorsing violence as a political tactic throughout the Trump Administration.
In 2018, @tedlieu threatened “widespread civil unrest” if Trump fired Mueller. This wasn’t a fluke, either. He repeatedly said people should “take to the streets” if Trump did so (which as we know he didn’t).
@tedlieu James Clapper echoed Lieu — and many other Democrats — saying Trump firing Mueller would result in a “firestorm … in the streets”
@tedlieu Also in 2018, Sen. @CoryBooker told activists to “get up in the face of some congresspeople”
@tedlieu@CoryBooker .@HillaryClinton specifically said “you can’t be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for”
Point of this thread is not “whataboutism” as some will reflexively contend; it’s that Dems have actively encouraged turning American politics into the powder keg they now decry. Violence was coming no matter who won.
.@RepMaxineWaters now says her urging supporters to be increasingly "confrontational" and "forceful" against Trump allies was not actually meant to incite violence
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As usual, Justice Thomas is the only justice who seems to have read the U.S. Constitution. The 2nd Amendment prohibits the federal govt from restricting an individual's right to bear arms, regardless of how politically unpopular they may be. As Justice Thomas notes, Americans can now lose their 2nd Amendment rights without due process.
Justice Thomas: The majority cites 17th century English law to justify disarming citizens, without acknowledging the 2nd Amendment was specifically intended to protect Americans from laws like this
Justice Thomas also mocks the majority for having to rely on proposed constitutional amendments that were ultimately rejected — as if their original proposition carries more weight than their being voted down.
Lest there be any doubt, the role of “fact checkers” like CNN’s Daniel Dale (@ddale8) is to create smokescreens & distractions whenever the public starts getting too close to facts.
Take the Biden WH’s engineering of the DoJ’s case against Biden’s chief political rival. Dale has regularly taken to the airwaves to insist there’s “no evidence” the Biden W.H. had anything to do with the administration’s case against Trump. Like this clip from June last year:
Despite his ostensible role as a checker of facts, we could have given Dale the benefit of the doubt, presuming perhaps he was too busy eating bear-claws to do any research.
However, I helpfully sent him a link reporting an admission from FARA that the Biden WH was in fact coordinating the anti-Trump operation.
One might expect a professional arbiter of truth to thereafter quickly take to the airwaves to issue an apology & clarification.
Instead, the unrepentant Canadian has returned to the air, spreading the same misinformation (and according to what I’ve learned from America's Ministress of Truth, Nina Jankowicz, if you knowingly spread misinformation that makes it “disinformation”). @wiczipedia
16 Reasons Biden's Worse than Trump for "Democracy"
16. Biden Admin turned the FBI against parents who opposed his DEIfication of schools & tried using anti-terrorism laws to target them congress.gov/117/meeting/ho…
15. Biden's FBI is currently using the FBI to target MAGA-aligned voters ahead of 2024 newsweek.com/2023/10/13/exc…
14. Biden's bragged about locking up hundreds of Trump voters ahead of 2024. Many spent months in solitary confinement before anything like a conviction.
Just counted & this article has at least 27 references to spox from the WH, Hunter & Jim Biden, associated parties, etc., refusing comment to Politico.
Here’s the real story of the 14th Amendment, which progressives are using to try Putining Trump off the ballot.
The 14th Amendment has always been intended to empower Washington to lord over states, although even its authors never intended for it to go as far as it has, w/ federal judges over the last 100 years having decided it actually enables them to nullify state laws they dislike.
After the Civil War, Lincoln's Republican Party controlled Congress (in large part due to federal officers arresting anyone speaking on behalf of Democrats), and, seeking to adopt the 14th Amendment, they prevented southern states congressional representation unless they ratified the 14th Amendment.
Despite being blackmailed, every southern state except Tennessee voted against the 14th Amendment. Congress responded by passing the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which "established a comprehensive military dictatorship to run the governments of each of the 10 states" that were not yet back in the United States. (Am quoting from Thomas DiLorenzo's must-read book, "The Real Lincoln.")