FredHayek wrote: Not defending Trump's crimes, just think the timing right before a national election makes it a case of "Lawfare".
I'm sure that, once again, you don't see the difference between these two situations.
BTW - this is hilarious:
After Trump was convicted of 34 felonies on May 30, 2024, he could be in violation of multiple state and federal laws if he still possesses that third gun in Florida. CNN has reached out to representatives of Trump to determine whether he still has a gun in Florida.
Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is a federal crime.
The NYPD’s Legal Bureau will complete its investigation “that will likely lead to revocation of his license,” the senior police official said.
You want to elect a felon, that cannot legally carry a weapon, to the highest office in the land. Just amazing.
FredHayek wrote: The government wants to extend the Trump gag order. Why does the Left constantly want to restrict 1st Amendment rights?
This has been explained before. Criminal Trump has a history of making statements which incite violence in his followers. If he makes a disparaging statement about a juror, a witness, etc., his rabid followers will follow his "orders" and put that person's life in danger, i.e, physical attacks, social media attacks, swatting, etc.
This isn't too hard to understand, Fred. In order to protect those people, he is restricted from talking about or mentioning them. As you have recently written here, rights are not absolute.
Are you really saying that you wish Trump could have his followers do that to other people? Is that how far you want to take Donny's right to free speech, to the point where people are humiliated, attacked, or even killed? That is what it sounds like you are saying. Other people's rights aren't as important as Donny's rights.
FredHayek wrote: Sorry. The Constitution doesn't not limit Free Speech based on that it might hurt someone's feelings.
You may want a Nanny State, but the Founding Fathers didn't. They choose freedom.
It's not feelings, Fred, it's physical harm. But then, you knew that, didn't you.
Trump incites his followers to violence. Case in point - Jan 6 attack on the capitol. But then, you knew that, too. If I understand you correctly, it's acceptable for Trump to get his followers to attack others, because it's "freedom" to incite others to violence against perceived enemies.
It's actually kind of funny that you cite "feelings" since it's obvious that Trump's feelings have been hurt by his indictments and convictions. Kind of ironic, isn't it.
Yes, you definitely want a Nanny State. You are channeling Putin and Xi.
Sad thing is that Nanny States become fascist and communist states. Freedom is messy. Whether it is protests against an election on January 6th, or protests at President Trump's inauguration when crybaby Democrats burned down buildings on the White House grounds. Would you call them election deniers too?
How many of them went to jail for burning down a gatehouse?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
