Boys and girls, I hope you are ready to either fight or flight from the US. It’s coming and people are apathetic to what is happening.
“Why would the Germans allow Nazis to take over?” Well here it is. History will repeat itself thanks to the Nazis allowed to move to the US and the racists.
Regarding flight: where to? Of similar “democracies” Europe and Canada have similarly troubling trends. Scandinavia? Australia? SE Asia? Are they any better, really?
Fight it is. Would still recommend flight for the young and old that can’t fight. I know my only option and my wife knows the plans in place. As a vet, I know what I need to protect and that’s no man/woman in the white house, but the constitution that has given so much to my family.
Never thought growing up that I would need to do such a thing.
Fellow vet, hoped to be done fighting, but this country is devolving into madness, and I’m prepared to fight for the constitution. I took an oath, as all that served did, to defend this country from all enemies, foreign or domestic, and I took that oath to heart. Hope for the best, prepared for the worst.
It feels awful to know this might actually happen again. I can only hope that America actually puts down the rebellion for good this time. We left the schism intact with a failed reconstruction, and look where that got us.
And we have a hell of a lot better system for fighting back than the Germans did. And a lot better precedent to shed light on why to resist it. And, the Nazis were famously sort of clownish and incompetent especially in the early days but compared with Rudy Giuliani and Mike Lindell they were fuckin Seal Team 6.
If the MAGA folks bring fascism for real to the US, it will be the Americans’ fault that they let it happen.
The party that is supposed to be fighting nazis is so devoted to incrementalism that they won’t do enough until it’s too late.
If there’s one thing Milton Mayer keeps coming back to, it’s how it was all the fault of the establishment German political parties of the early 1930s for not being more motivating of people to vote for them, and no one on an individual level needs to do anything until they do first. He keeps harping on that central point: If a dangerous political movement arises in your country, it’s okay to hang out and wait and not resist it until the alternative is sufficiently awesome for your tastes. It’s pretty much the central theme of his whole book.
(I mean, honestly, I don’t disagree with you that the general crappiness of most of the Democrats from about 1992 up to and including 2016 laid some abundant groundwork for the rise of Trump. That doesn’t mean it is safe for anyone in the world to let Trump come to power again this year.)
If there’s one thing Milton Mayer keeps coming back to, it’s how it was all the fault of the establishment German political parties of the early 1930s for not being more motivating of people to vote for them, and no one on an individual level needs to do anything until they do first. He keeps harping on that central point: If a dangerous political movement arises in your country, it’s okay to hang out and wait and not resist it until the alternative is sufficiently awesome for your tastes. It’s pretty much the central theme of his whole book.
And as always, you decide that I’ve said something I haven’t.
I mean, honestly, I don’t disagree with you that the general crappiness of most of the Democrats from about 1992 up to and including 2016 laid some abundant groundwork for the rise of Trump.
They didn’t stop in 2016.
That doesn’t mean it is safe for anyone in the world to let Trump come to power again this year.
Didn’t say it was.
And as always, you decide that I’ve said something I haven’t.
You talked about “the party” that was supposed to be fighting fascism. It honestly hadn’t even occurred to me to designate some other group of people who were “supposed to” accomplish it on my behalf. My point was, we should be fighting fascism. You and me. I think it’s silly to pick out someone else who’s “supposed to” be doing it, although, yes, it is true that anyone else should also be “supposed to” be doing it too. But more, I was viewing it as a personal task and responsibility, and I thought it was silly and passive to turn that whole thing into a reason to whine about the Democrats (although there is one specific sense in which it’s completely justified which I address in my second paragraph).
Now that I’ve explained a little more fully does that sound more ok? I was exaggerating a little to lampoon what sounded like your central message because it’s boring if I just lay out what my specific disagreement is with what you said. I mean it’s definitely boring on my side for me to lay out for the 200th time why I disagree with some conversation that all of a sudden for no organic reason at all turned into “and that’s why the Democrats are bad!” out of nowhere.
They didn’t stop in 2016.
Student loan forgiveness 40% emissions reduction NLRB corporate tax increases
We might have some disagreement because you could describe that all as “incrementalism” and say that Biden’s no good unless he’s willing to overthrow capitalism or use his magic wand to get congress go agree to the massive things that would have needed to happen to overcome 40+ years of neoliberal betrayal. I think the fact that he was able to accomplish it at all with Washington the way it is is a feckin miracle.
To me, the issue with the Democrats, that laid the groundwork for Trump, wasn’t “incrementalism” or too slow progress in the right direction. It was shittiness and active movement in the wrong direction. Biden’s not guilty of that, so I didn’t accuse him of it. If the Democrats since 1992 had been doing incrementalism, we might have some kind of country that is even in the neighborhood as good as it was in 1992, and it wasn’t real great in 1992.
nobody is going to fight and very few if any will leave
Say it with me
Pack the fucking court
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/packing-the-supreme-court-explained
We’ve done it before, we can do it again.
Go in reverse of so much that’s come before the court should be grounds for most of them coming under impeachment.
Like that should kind of be a rule. If any court made up of at least 40% the prior overturns case law more than 50 years old absent a constitutional amendment or Federal law laying the foundation for such an overturn, should be brought before the Congress on impeachment inquiry.
Like the whole way they’ve redefined the 2nd within the last ten years that overturned 200 years of prior understanding, that alone should have most of them barred from federal office for the rest of their lives. And how they redefined it without so much as a Federal law to point to or a hint of a Constitutional amendment suggesting the way they’ve made it now.
A literal garbage court sits the bench. What’s worse is that one day the lean in the court will change and Republicans will cry about judges legislating from the bench.
Dems will need to run the table on Senate races, in addition to keeping the White House, for that to happen. If not, Alito and Thomas get to pick their hard right replacements and all but the youngest of us will wither and die with a conservative SCOTUS supermajority.
Yes, to increase the number of justices we’ll need a congressional and executive branch to push the appointments through.
It won’t matter who Alito or Thomas pick as their replacements if there’s 5 new left leaning justices on the bench.
It’s sad to see the Supreme Court as such an overt political structure now. It’s always been political but this is egregious.
Could we thin the court instead? Fire the four most corrupt?
Won’t work. Gotta use another amendment.
I had heard about this case basically removing a powerful tool for the SEC and effectively requiring them to spend way more money trying cases in front of a jury, but I didn’t know there were so many other agencies that aren’t even allowed to bring jury trial cases and are only allowed to bring the type of case that the SCOTUS basically just eliminated. More and more I’m having trouble not seeing the actions of the SCOTUS majority as a deliberate attack on the US government itself rather than “correcting” earlier rulings that have been precedent for decades.
Someone pointed out to me that the majority of what we consider “good” SCOTUS decisions came from the Warren court. Nearly every other case you could name you only know because of its detrimental effect on American progress. In that light, Roberts is just course-correcting SCOTUS: a branch of the government that historically keeps citizens from being too free.
Yes, I agree with that reading of history, but just because things have been a certain way, doesn’t mean they have to be that way. I concur that the historical precedent for the SCOTUS is to stand in the way of progress, or often to cause regression, but that doesn’t mean we have to quietly accept it. Especially if and when there have been historical departures from that trend that demonstrate things can work differently, and work well.
(Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to prevent a nihilistic reading of your comment.)
You’re arguing for things to be worse, tho.
Smh…
How so? I’m arguing for SCOTUS not to take a wrecking ball to our government by suddenly making unlawful procedures that have been relied on for so long they are assumed in laws passed by Congress decades ago. Should alleged violations of those laws be tried in front of a jury instead of this other mechanism? Maybe, but how about we make that change in a way that doesn’t suddenly render those laws de facto unenforceable with no warning?
Idk overall more jury trials sounds better than judges just getting to decide. I know it’s less efficient and longer, but seems to increase the chances of decisions being made with some humanity, rather than political bias in terms of appointments
(Not that I really know what I’m talking about)
Idk overall more jury trials sounds better than judges just getting to decide.
I don’t have enough information on the topic to form an opinion about whether trial by jury for these cases is better overall for society. But I do know this is not the right way to make this change. This was a case between a hedge fund manager and the SEC, and now as a result OSHA can no longer enforce anything? And with no prior warning for anyone to make any preparations. How could that possibly be the right way to make this change?
Well im kinda opposed to the supreme court as a concept, it didn’t even exist early on in American history, but it is what it is. The other laws will have to fall in like or Congress will have to act
This is one of their Project 2025 goals.
