I didn't say they think it's a dictatorship. I am conveying that they are against it becoming a dictatorship.
So wait a minute. Trump is not a dictatorship and yet we have all this violence and assassinations attempts and murder because some people think it might become one.
Isn't this is what was said 10 years ago the first time Trump won that the opposition said it would become a dictatorship and it never. Yet we seen dictator type governance from the Dems when they ot in using lawfare againt the opposition, gas lighting the nation over Biden and bypassing the democratic process in selecting their presesidential candidate Harris.
Then how is it a dictatorship or threatening to become one. Do you think people narratives about Trump being a dictator has fuels the idea of Trump being seen as one by the opposition. When its not actually one. Which in turn is fueling violence where some radicals are calling for a revolution and the taking out of TRump and others as part of that revolution to bring down the government.
No the polls are the polls. Why is it they are always misleading when they don't say what you want them to say. Most people on this thread seem to believe that stopping illegals is the right thing to do considering the problems its causing for the US. Trump was electred on this policy why would it now be misleading. Its consistent with what he was elected for.
I would think billionaires would be more for autocracy while ordinary citizens would be for preserving democracy.
Why do you keep saying this. Do you realise the biggest billionaire in the world is behind the dems and sponsoring them in Mr Soros. Many dems have wealth. Trump was not even a republican when before becoming president. MUst was a democrate and it was fine. Now he supports Trump he is some dictator.
The media marketplace is already owned by conglomerates who make money either way. Do you remember when I showed who voted for citizens united and who voted for the FEC?
I am not sure. Why is it important if both sides do it. Why are you singling out one side over the other.
What violence are you referring to? I like to reason upon facts.
You don't think all the talk about Trump and the Right being dictators and Nazis is not fueling violence. About Kirk speaking hate and needing to be silenced. That 1/3 of college kids now think its ok to use violence against political opponents. The rising political violence, 3 assassination attempts on TRump, one successful one on Kirk and other shootings and threats everyday. THreats and violence has gone up 1,000%.
If you like to reason the facts and you seem to be keeping up with all this situation how is it you don't know and have to ask for evidence. You should know if you keep up with facts and use critical thinking.
There’s a growing number of Americans who think violence might be necessary to get the country back on track
The belief that violence may be the answer has grown among Republicans and independents – up 3 and 7 percentage points, respectively, since April last year. But the largest increase has been among Democrats. Now 28% of Democrats share that view, up 16 points.
Nearly a third of Americans – 30% – say people may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track, according to the latest PBS News/NPR/Marist poll.
www.pbs.org
Americans say politically motivated violence is increasing, and they see many reasons why
Just over half of Americans see left-wing (53%) and right-wing (52%) extremism as major problems.
www.pewresearch.org
Right-wing terror attacks plunged in 2025, while left-wing attacks ticked up: study
From 2011 through 2024, an average of 20 right-wing terror incidents took place each year, compared to an average of nearly three left-wing incidents annually.
www.nbcnews.com
This tells us that the beliefs of thinking violence is more acceptable is actually resulting factually in more violence. So when people push this narrative that the US is under threat from dictators and Nazi they are actually cultivating violence in the streets.
That's what most people think that support Trump. But the fact remains, we're not supposed to have the military doing domestic law enforcement.
As far as I understand its completely within the constitution. The courts have supported this. I thought you said you reasoned out the facts. If you mischaracterise Trump and the supporters then this is what is causing the problem.
Trump is saying he is considering invoking the insurrection act, based on false claims of out of control crime rates in Democratic run cities.
Well he will only be able to if this is actually the case. The constitution deals with such situations. But lets keep with reality.
I'd say they are ignoring what he is saying.
No I mean that Trump supports disagree. If they agree with Trump actions on immigration.
I don't think you understand what is going on. Trump lost a fair election. With the help of fellow republicans he tried to get Pence the vice president to overturn the results so as to stay in power. That is proof of a wannabe dictator. He now fires anyone in his administration who doesn't believe his slander.
Yet the majority voted him back in as though this was not the case. Thats the reality. Are they all fools.
Like I said, he lost the election fair and square. He slanders people. There is no evidence of far-left radicals.
But he won the election fair and square now and people are trying to undermine this now. He is doing what he promised and people support this.
People keep bringing up old news. In fact the reason why some dems and other independents joined with Trump was because they actually percieved it the other way around. That it was the dems who were threatening democracy with all their gas lighting and lawfare. Some are at this point being indicted.
I like to reason upon facts. You need to provide some evidence of what you claim.
I don't think you like to reason out facts. I already gave you the facts.
The disagreement is about what constitutes humane and just treatment of people. We have parents who are illegals who have children who are lawful citizens. We have children who were brought here as toddlers and are now living productive lives as adults and professionals who don't have any prospects in the country they were brought from. We have millions of refugees who have no lawful citizenship anywhere in the world.
So how does any of this change the fact that they are illegal. As far as I understand the children involved parents are the illegals. So some are being deported and as a result are taking their children with them. The children citizens are not being deporteed and the government cannot do so under the consitution.
This is an example of the false narrative that Trump is deporting citizens that is contributing to the violence. People then believe this and then attack the government. The same as the false narrative about ICE agents wearing masks like some secret police. They are protecting theirs and their families life from these radicals.
The problem is complex. Cartels just toss drug shipments over the wall or cut holes in it with angle grinders. They simply pay border guards to look the other way.
Ok so a tougher stand on border security will at least reduce most of this.
How Trump’s border crackdown has choked cartels’ fentanyl flow into the US
According to Trump's Department of Homeland Security, the Biden administration seized enough fentanyl to kill 14 billion people—but that only counts what was caught.
worldisraelnews.com
Why is it always the negatiove stuff and never the positive. If its about being humane then is not stopping this horror drug trade thats killing many people and destroying communities good.
Yeah, when he fools people, he really fools people.
Your more or less saying anyone who supports Trump is deluded. This is part of the problem.
Immigration reform has been an issue for most of my lifetime.
Good so Trump finally doing something is good is it not. It seems it has been left like the middle east and terrorism and now action is being taken rather than just accepting it happens or even cultivating a situation for it to happen.
I not sure why you say maybe. I like to reason upon facts and what I have provided is what I find as officially documented. I don't recall any narratives that suggested illegals were not illegals, so I don't know what you mean.
Lol they never say it outright. They are not that stupid. Its politics. Often the language is not explicit but implicit. When for example Harris promised free health care for illegals she was more or less promoting people coming illegally into the US with the promise of better health care if you came to the US illegally.
There are many such examples and this cultivates people coming and then being catered for. The better policy would have been illegals get no health benefits so don't come. All part of making it absolutely clear that coming is illegal and there will be no benefit from breaking the laws.
Sen. Kamala Harris’s claim that an ‘undocumented immigrant is not a criminal’
Justice Department Publishes List of Sanctuary Jurisdictions
WASHINGTON – Today, the Justice Department published a list of states, cities, and counties identified as having policies, laws, or regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.
www.justice.gov
Democrats Used To Talk About 'Criminal Immigrants,' So What Changed The Party?
The makeup of the Democratic Party has changed, and its base has adopted a fundamentally more progressive attitude on immigration in a relatively short time span. The reality is that Democrats have moved, too, from when the party cited the flow of drugs and "criminal immigrants" two decades ago, the same arguments for border security that Republicans use now.
The Progressive Moment Is *Still* Over
Thus, while in 1998 similar majorities of both Democrats and Republicans believed in the need to control and reduce illegal immigration, by 2018 Democrats had largely abandoned this view and Republicans had increasingly embraced it.
After years of moving in the direction of open borders, the Biden administration's policies caused a remarkable shift in the views of Democratic voters toward a stricter stance on immigration.
cis.org
1. Loosening restrictions on illegal immigration was a terrible idea and voters hated it.
Aside from the economy, no issue loomed as large in the Democrats’ 2024 election drubbing than the immigration issue. Voters thought Democrats had completely lost the plot on illegal immigration and utterly failed to control the border. Voters cast their ballots accordingly, clearly preferring a much tougher approach to illegal immigration, including not just closing the border but deporting illegal immigrants already in the country.
But Democrats don’t seem to know it.
www.liberalpatriot.com
I don't personally know of anybody who disagrees with deporting illegals full stop.
According to the above articles the Dems use to be tough on bordcers and illegal immigration but then changed suddenly in the last 10 years. Became more progreswsive on this issue to the point some were radically progressive thus fueling violence at tough immigration.
I know it's mostly illegal people who have grown up here and who have productive lives and who are neighbors and who have children born here who are legal citizens that out of compassion many would like to see amnesty be granted.
Yes that seems fair enough. Just start from now and those who have been here for some time just grant citizenship and move on. There may be some cases more complicated but primarily if they have been here a long time and have not done anything wrong they should be able to stay.
We had the same problem when we cracked down a couple of decades ago.
Geopolitically, I know Aleksandr Dugin has spoken about it for decades. A plan to divide the world into three superpowers by destabilizing democratic governments with culture wars.
lol I though the idea being pushed is a one world government (The Great Reset) where we will have less and be more happier than ever. Some sort of socialist utopia. A sort mimicking of Gods kingdom.
The plan involves step one, buying up media in those countries with democratic governments,
Sort of all ready happening. Or was happening. The problem is you have to stop democracy to do so because the very nature of democracy and freedom is that it allows independents to rise up.
With the didgital age anyone has access to the world and can do it from their living room or home studio and have as much clout as the big boys. In fact has been partly why the big media is failing now and no one believes them anymore.
and also buying large shares in companies who employ large numbers of the citizenry in the major cities. Step two, create turmoil and war in countries bordering those democratic countries, thus creating millions of refugees fleeing into the democratic countries one wants to destabilize. Step three, send in pro autocratic politicians who run on a platform of anti-immigration.
You know this is true but I don't think its any one particular person or organisation behind it. I think its more assn ideology that has ground through a belief and not a take over by force. I think this is the latest ploy of radical Islamist in infiltrating western nations through media, propaganda, encourage resistence, spreading fake news and trying to divide the nation.
But also as mentioned earlier there is a growing radicalisation which primarily has the same thinking. Except they are doing it for political reason mainly with Marxist beliefs. Many smaller groups like BLM, ANTIFA, Trans groups, Anti Semetics ect. But also nationalist radicals like White supremacy groups like Neo Nazis ect.
Generally what use to happen in far away nations with radical ideology is now coming to western nations. Rather than the western nations spreading freedoms and democracy. It seems the radicals are winning and turning teh world into chaos.
When Dugin wrote about it, he said America would be difficult and I assume he was referring to the fact that we are already a melting pot of many cultures. He said something like democrats in the USA would not fall for it, but republicans would be open to accepting racism under the guise of anti-multiculturalism.
I think most western nations began on a unified basis loosely under God. There was at least some respect and unity on certain issues. This created national unity. But things change in a modern progressive world and now we have 101 splintered beliefs and ideologies in the market place competing.
In some ways its a reciept for radicalisation in that sooner or later because they are different and about truth and order in the world that there will be division and at the extremes radical fighting over that truth. We use to have a strong unified identity that was clearly different to far away radical beliefs and ideas. Now who knows. But theres many identity groups now fighting.
The people who work for him don't think so. I've seen two cabinet meetings where each member at the table takes a turn complimenting him on how great he is and what an honor it is to serve under his leadership.
Using what people thought about others can be a never ending rabbit hole of comparing whose opinion was the worse. Many whave said the same about Harris. Or other politicians on both sides.