XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

On 2024-03-06 16:37, AlleyCat wrote:

Ruffo:
This is a contest where Democrats are saying, essentially, we have to destroy democracy in order to save democracy.

Sorry, but...

...why is any of this relevant, loser?

Rubin:
Chris Ruffo, who's been on this show many times, and Chris is from the Manhattan Institute, he has been really the thought leader behind taking out DEI in our institutions. He was working with DeSantis to help do it here in Florida. He is the one that basically exposed Claudine Gaye at Harvard for all
of her plagiarism. He was on Joe Rogan's show yesterday talking about how the anti-democratic movement that the left has become is actually destroying the country and perhaps we should do something about that.

Rogan:
When you look at the current political landscape, particularly these trials, how disturbed are you by what seems to be this acceptance that people have for
prosecuting political opponents? Because to me, regardless of what you think about Donald Trump as a human being and the polarizing figure that he is, setting the precedent of trying your political opponents to somehow or another
either put them in jail or make them seem like complete total criminals in a way that would, for the casual, for the person who's not reading deep into the
headlines, for the casual Democrat that sees this Trump real estate thing that
just happened where he got fined $365 million, the casuals, I've seen people argue that fraud is fraud and this is that and he's a fraud. And then I saw Kevin O'Leary explain it from Shark Tank.

He was saying this is what every real estate developer does.

They say my building's worth $400 million and then someone comes along from the
bank and they say no, it's worth $300 million. We'll give you a loan on $300 million or whatever it is, whatever the number. But also real estate pricing in
general is the strange thing to say that's fraud because people overvalue their
property all the time. I mean, it's a standard thing that people do. When someone has a house and it's worth $700,000, they decide to list it as $900,000. And the real estate person says, well, you know, it's really pushing
it. And the guy's like, that's what I want. I think it's worth $900,000. Like people have always done weird shit like that. And then when you have this leftist judge that says that Mar-a-Lago is worth 18 million, then you just showed all your silly hands. You showed your hand. Because that's a crazy thing
to say in a place that has the most expensive real estate on earth.

Yeah, and the Mar-a-Lago property is not worth $18 million. I mean, that's absurd.

Isn't it like 18 acres?

Yeah, it's huge. It covers both sides of the little key or whatever you call it, the little island. But the bigger question is, the question that was first
raised by the presidency of Richard Nixon that has now come into fruition with
the presidency and the kind of ex-presidency of Donald Trump, we have a democratic system that favors Trump in the sense that he won in 2016. He's winning the primary right now for Republicans in 2024. But you have a bureaucracy that is dead set against him. And the rhetoric amounts to a very odd claim. They essentially say, we wanna keep him off the ballot. We wanna put
him in prison. We wanna bankrupt him so he can't become the president, even if
the people support him.

We wanna deprive the people of making the decision.

So you wanna take it out of the realm of politics and into the realm of administrative justice or the criminal justice system and adjudicate it in that
way on bogus pretexts.

I mean, the cases are bogus.

And so the question that we're raising is, who actually rules in this country?
Is it the American people who get to decide by their vote, who represents them
in the government, or is it the permanent bureaucracy that has accumulated so much power? It IS a contest of how we think of our democratic system.

And I'm of the mind that the people should decide, not the bureaucracy.

And this is a contest where Democrats are saying, essentially, WE HAVE TO DESTROY DEMOCRACY IN ORDER TO SAVE DEMOCRACY.

Democracy has very different meanings in the two usages in that sentence. We have to destroy democracy as we've traditionally known it, electing a president
through a vote of the people, in order to save democracy, which is ruled by expert opinion, ruled by the bureaucracy, and essentially left-wing hegemony, left-wing domination over institutions.

As someone who tries to maximize whatever I can do to push forward on these issues politically, it's not lost on me that if they can wipe out someone like
Donald Trump, we're all table stakes relatively. And they're going to have no hesitation, because once they cross the Rubicon, metaphorically speaking, THAT'S WHEN DISSENT BECOMES A CRIME.

Rubin:
Yeah, that's the point. Trump always says it. They're not coming for me, they're coming for you. I'm just standing in the way. And that's kind of what's
going on here right now. And I say that as someone that's not, I'm not particularly enthused about this election, obviously, or some of Trump's behavior in the primary or anything else.

I'm being as honest as I possibly can as it relates to all of this. I don't think he can solve, you know, we played a video a day or two ago where he talked about, you know, there was another candidate who said he would need eight years to do all the things. I can do them all in three months. It's like,
no, you can't. Okay, fine. And it's a lot of braggadocious stuff.

But Rufo is absolutely right about that. And what they just tried to do was remove certain states, these attorney generals who are activists, basically Democrat activists, tried to get Trump off the ballot. Then, he gets to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, again, they did the right thing, 9-0. Said, no, no, no, we got to leave this to the people. We understand that it can't be
us.

Actually, they went against the precise text of the US constitution
which states unambiguously that anyone found to have engaged in
insurrection cannot serve as an officer of the US.

IT CAN'T BE THE PERMANENT STATE THAT DECIDES WHO'S GOING TO BE PRESIDENT.

THAT WOULD BE TERRIBLE FOR DEMOCRACY.

https://youtu.be/RJTXU0LwMGw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)