This is going to get complicated. The only way to be sure that, for example, Nancy Mace is actually the “she” “she” says “she” is is to check. And if we do that, to be fair, we gotta check everyone which means were going to discover that so many allegedly “male” members (heh) of congress do not, in fact, have any balls. WHAT THEN NANCY?? WHAT THEN???
Oh yes I hear it all the time. From people posting online.
For your convenience, Be sure to carry your papers with you at all times, “citizen”.
I laugh every time I see some very very brave internet poster urging you to “shoot them”.
Yes yes we get it. You are very badass. Uh huh.
It’s not a zero sum game. It’s not like you “win” the election across the board and get everything you could possibly want. And even if you did get a blue wave you STILL don’t get everything you want. Incredibly, it’s a big country with lots of different people with different ideas of how it should run. It’s a simple fact that among Dems most are not that progressive. Our political system is really a bunch of compromises where nobody gets everything they want but, ideally we all get something. What I’ve observed among many folks such as yourself is that you think you should get everything instantly. My speculation is that people who think like this are dealing with a shorter time scale because they are younger. That’s in no way a bad thing but it does mean you haven’t seen the tremendous change that’s happened or 4 or 5 decades. To me, things have improved dramatically and of the many things that stand out is the fact that I don’t have to worry about being beaten, raped, or murdered for being queer. I can be openly trans. I can even marry my lover.
I’m not saying I don’t want to see a viable third party or more truly progressive candidates. But this is a long game where slow incremental progress is assured even if on a much shorter time scale it seems nothing has happened. From my perspective while we still have a long way to go, we’ve made a lot of progress.
Why are we accepting reporting on tweets as a journalism?
Are we? It’s on huffpost.com. Since when is that journalism?
You know what amazes me? That any vaguely brown person who voted for Trump didn’t seem to think that even if they are literally carrying their papers at all times and easily able to prove their citizenship, they are gonna be harassed constantly for the next four years. With hopeful some state exceptions, they are going to have to be very careful to speak only 'Murican in public and suppress public display of non-American cultures. They are literally going to be having to watch their backs every day.
WTF.
So what are you saying? That objectivity doesn’t exist?
I think the fact that this is so unclear to you is both disappointing and disturbing. And you are going so so so far afield in an apparent effort to hear yourself talk more that I’m just not that keen on engaging.
Have a nice day.
After this bill, Trump will declare antifa, BLM, and pro-palestine movements as terrorist organizations
Possibly. But per the bill they have to at least make a show of “proving” that the organizations aided designated foreign or domestic terrorist organizations, which is defined by the Secretary of State. Yes, of course they can just define an organization as such but it’s not completely evidence-free. I’m a little unclear on the process of domestic vs foreign designations - Executive Order 13224 signed by bush gives both to the Secretary of State. Still that way?
“Then all leftist legal support is dead”
Because people can’t get a tax deduction? I’d hope we’re slightly better than that.
“public officials who engage in treason”
Did Trump engage in treason? Article III of our constitution says:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Trump, sadly, was never on trial for treason much less convicted of it. So like it or not (very much not!) Trump was never tried for crimes that would disqualify him from being elected president. Biden upheld the rule of law and adhered to our constitution.
I don’t like it but that’s the way it is.
Jerk off MORE you mean.
To be clear I think this bill is horrendous, but…
The non-profit will have 90 days to “appeal.” Without having any idea what they’re being accused of.
This is not quite true. In Section 4 C (ii) it states that the secretary must provide “the name of the organization or organizations with respect to which the Secretary has determined such organization provided material support” and in Section 4 C (iii) it states that the secretary must provide “a description of such material support or resources to the extent consistent with national security and law enforcement interests.”
That doesn’t lessen the chilling effect this bill will have nor will it lessen the damage caused. But I feel accuracy in discussing this is important.
Full text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/9495/text
“TRUMP SHOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT”
I agree. But in fact “should not” is a question of law and despite your assertion that somehow removing him is not sacrificing the rule of law, there is no law that says Trump is ineligible to serve as president. I’d like there to be some rules disqualifying him and a bunch of other people, but alas there isn’t.
Go ahead, find the law that says Trump is ineligible and describe how you might defend that in court.
The constant talk of Musk’s power in the new administration must irritate the fuck out of Trump. How terrible.
“Well for Hitler and White Supremacists they clearly weren’t making “society better for basically everyone” and all it takes to understand this is basic logic that they support one superior race and commit genocides against other races.”
You missed my point. THEY thought they were making society better. That “everyone” meant exclusively aryans to them I thought was obvious and fundamental to the point I’m try to make - that from their perspective their actions were perfectly reasonable and justified. There’s uncomfortably little daylight between that and MAGA beliefs.
“…if they want to make a convincing argument that Christian Nationalism is a good thing”
I’m disappointed that you missed this too and launched into a segue that has little to do with the topic I brought up. I don’t think you really read my comment.
" If you want to convince me that genocides are good for humanity, you’re going to need to be a lot more convincing than that."
Ok now we’re getting ridiculous. I’m now convinced that you either didn’t read what I wrote or just didn’t understand it.
“Trump is an actually interesting candidate promising to make radical changes, aligning with the interests and identities of many Americans, and building a shared vision and hope for the future”
Untruthfully. You are missing that very important qualificaiion.
“While meanwhile the Democrats fuck around doing basically nothing, they flip-flop on their stances whenever its convenient for them”
A common error. “I didn’t personally notice any change so therefore they did nothing.” It’s demonstrably NOT true.
“Approaching capitalists in an open-minded way rarely works.”
That doesn’t even make sense. Who said anything about “approaching capitalists in an open-minded way”? WTF are you talking about?
Dude, I started out reading your lengthy comment excited to have a substantive debate. I thought you might have some interesting points. But you are so all over the place and use a very large volume of words to say very little. I’m disappointed.
I appreciate your thoughtful comment.
Neither authoritarianism nor ignoring the rule of law are inherently bad.
Look, I understand the point you are trying to make. Roughly that being authoritarian to achieve “good” ends is ok. The wrinkle that you overlook is that there are many wildly varying viewpoints about what is “good”. Being “inclusive of everyone” for example, is something that most Christo-fascists would abhor, their bible notwithstanding. Neglecting people for economic gain is practically a religion in itself for some people.
What all that boils down to is this: if one group ignores the rule of law because they are “right” then the other group feels fully justified in doing the same. And because we have a democracy and that democracy doesn’t enshrine progressive ideas into law, we can’t ensure groups with ideas we find abhorrent don’t use our precedent to impose those ideas on us.
Fascism is a specific type of authoritarianism that basically does the opposite to a society of what it should look like.
Not according to fascists. Do you see the problem? You just said that fascist authoritarianism is ok - from their perspective.
Utilizing authority to make society better for basically everyone is not fascism
Hitler firmly believed he was making “society better for basically everyone”. The Christian Nationalists and White Supremacists firmly believe their getting into power via a Trump administration will make “society better for basically everyone”.
I know many of us would love to believe that there is an objective truth and that our beliefs about a good, just and equitable society are universal and objectively correct at a human level. I believe in the “arc of the moral universe” that is so but there is no way that I can use the mechanisms of oppression that I detest to enforce that belief on others and have that enforcement be successful.
Have you ever tried to negotiate or educate someone when you are angry? Like say your neighbor keeps playing loud music and you really want them to stop. If you come out yelling at them and are visibly angry you -might- get them to stop, but you have made an enemy. If you approach them in an open-minded way that acknowledges their rights and autonomy you have a much better chance of a constructive dialog that gets you what you want.
It’s hard to think like this right now, I fully understand. We are all angry and frustrated as hell. Maybe it helps to be reminded that we still have a lot of power, especially at the local level… and that we are playing the long game.
Breaking the rules isn’t fascism though. Fascism is fascism.
It is precisely fascism. It’s ignoring the rule of law to achieve authoritarian aims. Why is it ok when you agree with the outcome and not ok when you don’t? But way more importantly, once you do it you cannot go back. If Biden did this and Trump ended up winning - make no mistake Biden has no authority to remove candidates from ballots - then Trump would feel completely justified in jailing his opponents.
What do you think is a more ethical choice
A. Because the premise of your choice is flawed. You do not know that breaking the law would stop him. You do not know -with certainty- that not breaking the law would result in that outcome. But we do know that being authoritarian to achieve aims we believe in is no better than people we disagree with doing the exact same. What would happen if Biden was successful in stopping Trump but then, because we wouldn’t ever keep unfettered presidential power… right? RIGHT? We’re the “good” guys… what would happen if MAGA Republicans won in 2028? I doubt we’d ever have another election again.
Right so… “let’s do the thing the fascist threatens to do because we’re right and it’s justified” is not the same thing as the fascist saying “we’ll do it because we’re right and it’s justified”.
Easy to justify the means when you believe in the ends… but of course every one thinks they are right and that everyone else will come to believe they are right, thusly conveniently avoiding any bad consequences.
Do you have any idea what would have happened if Biden just arrested Trump?
I’m claiming that people employ binary thinking and lay blame where the answer is just a wee bit more complex. Saying “Her selfishness is a direct cause of Biden being elected.” is flat-out ludicrous for all kinds of reasons, mainly that no one knows what would have happened if Bernie had been the candidate. Nobody’s even putting numbers on what “split the vote” even means. FFS.
And look, I voted for Bernie. I even wrote him in in 2020 (I’m in CA).
But the main reason I’m saying all this is that she had the right to run. It just comes across as incredibly shitty - AND exactly the same thinking that made HRC the candidate - to say “oh no, you there, you can’t run because it might split the vote”.
“Is there any evidence of this? A single picture even?”
Have you considered using a search engine? Do you need help with that?