Per DC Draino the New Mexico GOP HQ in Albuquerque was firebombed last night.
Apparently a counter-terrorism crackdown is already underway, but with so many nutty leftists off their meds out there it could take a while before they call it quits.
Hawaii seems less prone to this brand of kill-thy-neighbor-if-they-disagree-with-me, but keep an eye over your shoulder just in case.

The fire follows numerous acts of vandalism in recent weeks directed
against Tesla, the electric-car company whose owner, Elon Musk, has
led Republican President Donald Trump’s effort to slash the federal
workforce. Several of those cases involved Molotov cocktails that were
used to start fires at dealerships. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi
has called it a “wave of domestic terrorism.”

Attacks on property carrying the logo of Elon Musk’s electric-car company
are cropping up across the U.S. and overseas. While no injuries have
been reported, Tesla showrooms, vehicle lots, charging stations and
privately owned cars have been targeted.

Trump is attempting to disrupt and dismantle that Left wing machine and restore the rule of law.  Meanwhile the Left (and a couple of forum members here) continue to spout off that Trump is the one acting outside of the law.

Because both can be true. Both the left and Trump have weaponized the judicial system.

I would feel much safer wearing a Biden or Harris hat in a very red city than a MAGA hat in a very blue city.

How many MAGA hats do you own?

Waiting for you to list all the people Trump went after using the DOJ in his first term.

Talking about this term.

I own no political hats.

What does that question have to do with my comment? Do you think my risk assessment is flawed?

It's been exactly 69 days since Trump was inaugurated. 

I notice you failed to answer the question I asked changing the scope to "this term."

Where is your list of weaponized government abuses targeting his political opponents the past 2 months?

I'm not talking about administrative actions like revoking clearances, since that doesn't involve paying lawyers, appearing in court and facing prison time.

My question is as apropos as the majority of your responses and comments.

I just wanted to see how many qualifiers you'd need to give a definitive answer.

I do notice you confined the answer to a description of political (different than the question I asked, which was MAGA specific).

Yet, you confined the article of clothing to "hats".  That's more specific than the description you offered.

Which begs the question of whether you have any other apparel that contains political slogans.  Why not reply "no apparel of any kind containing political slogans of any kind," just to be consistent?

A case could be made about the revocation of clearances but that is not what I had in mind.
Nothing to do with the DOJ or state AGs using law fare to attack his opponents.

For starters Trump has put a number of people I would call loyalists into key positions. For example, even though there was still time left on his appointment, Trump replaced the head of the FBI, Chris Wray, with Kash Patel. Mind you Patel has a published, deep state political enemies list. Remember when the prosecutor in one of Trump's criminal cases ran for office on the promise to prosecute Trump? Patel falls into the same camp as that prosecutor.
Nothing to do with the DOJ or state AGs using law fare to attack his opponents.

You have Trump going after multiple law firms which worked against him or criticized him which has the effect of making other law firms scared to challenge Trump in the future.
Nothing to do with the DOJ or state AGs using law fare to attack his opponents. 

He's simply singling out a few law firms for their questionable behavior.  One firm agreed to give $40 million worth of free legal work to administration causes, including fairness in the legal system, combating anti-semitism and aiding U.S. veterans.  Obviously, the firm saw fault in their actions in aiding those targeting Trump for political reasons.

He didn't use "lawfare" against any of the firms -- dragging them through the courts to punish them for being opponents.  He used his own executive powers to identify and hold accountable firms that abused the legal system against him.  Big, big difference compared to being charged with 34 bogus felonies.

A case could be made about the revocation of clearances but that is not what I had in mind.
For starters Trump has put a number of people I would call loyalists into key positions. For example, even though there was still time left on his appointment, Trump replaced the head of the FBI, Chris Wray, with Kash Patel. Mind you Patel has a published, deep state political enemies list. Remember when the prosecutor in one of Trump's criminal cases ran for office on the promise to prosecute Trump? Patel falls into the same camp as that prosecutor.
You have Trump going after multiple law firms which worked against him or criticized him which has the effect of making other law firms scared to challenge Trump in the future.

If any law firms are scared of going after Trump in the future, maybe it's because they are using the system unethically to attack him, and not because they have a valid case against him.  A little fear might stop frivolous lawsuits designed to financially harm Trump as well as consume his time and attention away from his political agendas.

i'm wondering who the media and other Democrats will find to villainize once Trump leaves office?  No matter who the GOP nominates for office, any insults and accusations will be lame compared to the vitriol being spewed at Trump since he threw his hat in the ring.

We talked about this. When u dont use facts, but feelings, u forget.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Using his power to hold questionable law firms accountable or abusing his power to punish law firms which tried to hold him accountable?
No, I don't believe these law firms are all super virtuous but Trumps actions and justifications are the same you see when dictators try to silence opposition. 

If the law firms broke laws or ethical standards then make the case to the bar association, don't go punishing them by punishing clients who try to hire them. Law firms are supposed to represent their clients and if Trump is being sued the law firms are under no obligation to speak kindly about Trump.

Using his power to hold questionable law firms accountable or abusing his power to punish law firms which tried to hold him accountable?
No, I don't believe these law firms are all super virtuous but Trumps actions and justifications are the same you see when dictators try to silence opposition. 
Please give examples of how dictators hold law firms accountable in order to silence opposition.  One would think shutting down media reports that are negative would be more in line with dictators' actions.  Since 80% of stories about Trump tend to be negative, I don't think Trump is doing dictator correctly.

If the law firms broke laws or ethical standards then make the case to the bar association, don't go punishing them by punishing clients who try to hire them. Law firms are supposed to represent their clients and if Trump is being sued the law firms are under no obligation to speak kindly about Trump.
The bar association is comprised of lawyers.  You want to rely on lawyers who may not approve of Trump in general to somehow punish law firms attacking him?  There's no way to expect a bar association to be unbiased.  There's no entity overseeing bar associations.

I must need a magnifying glass because I can't seem you find any facts from you. Maybe you typed them very small?