I’ve never once seen him suggest taking some positive step like organizing in protesting. All I ever see is sniping at liberals and how their policies will never work. But maybe I’ve missed it.
If the numbers were large enough, millions, and it was peaceful civil dissidence no way he goes that rout and no way the military would do it. Have the millions demand to be arrested and break the system…
If it was violent. All bets are off with trump and barr.
He talks the talk. He’s already had officers grabbing ~100 people off the street in almost certainly unconstitutional terms. He panders to violent right wingers.
Yes, W could have accomplished more abuses, because he would have handled covid-19 with a modicum of competence and sailed to re-election on a massive wave. Trump is stupid and shortsighted and violent.
We’re all trying to fix this mess and make things better. We just disagree on methods. It doesn’t make us anywhere near as bad as the evil racist shitheads we’re up against. I feel like that gets lost in the wash sometimes.
If you want to throw molotov cocktails over this I am completely behind you.
1 Like
All I ask is that they use very big letters and very bold print when they put it on my permanent record, and I’d like a copy.
If it’s millions they are going to run out of space to put them if they try to arrest them all. Don’t know what the jail capacity is around DC, but I’m going to take the under on a million. The big question to me is how many people can get into the Senate and sit on the floor. And Democratic senators should be ushering them (us) in if and when it comes to it, in small groups or whatever is necessary. Democratic senators should schedule constituent meetings every 5 mins with groups of 10 people in their offices, then walk them into the floor of the Senate, thank them for their service to their country, and sit there with them.
The senators should surround the protesters, to force the Capitol Police to lay hands on sitting US Senators.
Like I said, how badly do we and the Senate Dems want to stop this?
I have no idea what that means. I’m the guy who thinks we’re an evil country founded on lies. The truth has never and will never win out. That’s a myth we tell ourselves as a country to feel better. Still - while I’m sure 1968 to 2016 has been nothing like a panacea for black people, I’m also sure it was a lot better than 1910 to 1968.
I’m just not convinced protesting for a marxist revolution has any chance of going anywhere, nor do I think it will end well for minorities - based on actual history.
Polls also show most black people don’t want a full-blown revolution, possibly for exactly that reason, and I don’t think they’re misguided or confused for thinking so. They want incremental improvements. They’re leery of white radicals bearing gifts.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Protesting en masse is good and right and virtuous. It might very well be the best thing we can do. I also think of Tiananmen Square, where good people did the right thing, where good people where slaughtered, where good people were summarily tried and executed, and where those sacrifices didn’t end up doing much.
It’s blatantly obvious that Trump doesn’t think of his opposition as fully human.He’s said as much over and over through his term. It’s likely that he doesn’t think of anyone but his innermost circle as fully human, but he definitely thinks of his opposition as at least a full rung below the unwashed and unworthy masses who at least have the decency to support him. He’s blatantly obviously racist against POC and is more than happy to heap inhumane violence upon them. He’s already running concentration camps for them. As much as we want to think Trump is a coward, and I also believe he is, he’s a cowardly bully, and cowardly bullies are usually OK with using violence as a substitute for bravery. Trump has faced precisely zero consequences for beating and gassing protesters so that he could get an ugly photo op. I have little doubt he thinks he could get away with ordering lethal force, especially if he were panicked about a protest he could label as ANTIFA or some other scare term to delegitimize the protest.
And so, I worry for any mass protests, even as I support them. I don’t think I can join them, as I love my two daughters, and as much as I want to set an example for them, they’re so young that I don’t want their memory of me to be a tale of bravery told to them even though they don’t even remember me any more than the tales. Perhaps that makes me a coward. If so, I will be a coward and do what I can with money from afar as a coward.
9 Likes
Same plan here.
Also I’m shelling out $10k and putting in 100s of hours of work to self-publish a book that I hope in my wildest dreams will alter the conversation on the “shithole countries” south of us and shine a light on the amazing indigenous cultures of the Americas. I don’t expect it to make money, nor do I need much more money than I have.
We all do what we can do.
6 Likes
After what happened with Kavanaugh im guessing Trump goes with a female this time.
Average age of Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh when nominated: 50.
Average age of Garland, RBG, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor: 56.6.
This means we’re giving them almost 7 year longer terms. It’s no coincidence we keep getting our ass kicked on the courts.
Then they push every lever of power to the max and we play nice. They put in hardliners always, we nominate moderates sometimes.
No more. The next nominee should be a 35 year old who sends alllllllllll the lawnmowers into orbit.
1 Like
You’re at the very least coming close to masturbatory fantasies here.
well except Souter. That was LOL first Bush
Why? “What happened with Kavanaugh” was mission accomplished. They can shovel through Jeffery Fucking Dahmer with as many consequences.
AOC?
Do any @LawBros or anybody else know the answer to this question: can the Supreme Court overturn a duly certified election result in a state? The 2000 thing, as vaguely as I recall it, was the Supremes overturning the Florida Supremes about recounts. Is it plausible (turn the cynicism off for a second, I just want an analytical answer) that the Supreme Court says sorry Democrat PA sec of state, we believe such and such ballots are not to be counted and thus President Homelander wins PA. I want to think that can’t happen (in the legal sense), but not sure.
Welp. Assuming the country can fade a descent into authoritarianism, which I kind of think it can actually, the plan now has to be a constitutional amendment to limit Supreme Court terms imo. In 2015 polling for a 10 year term limit showed 66% in favour and only 17% opposed, including 74% (!) of Republicans in favour. I would assume polling on this has gotten radically worse among Republicans since then but passing the amendment still looks like a good shot. It’s just good policy in addition to being a way to not have conservative hegemony on the court for the next 40 years or whatever.
Edit: A 2018 poll showed 61% in favour, with support among Republicans down to 58%.
Yeah lets see when it’s 6-3 if they feel the same, and then Thomas retires during the lame duck session and gets replaced with Stephen Miller.
Are you ready to fake gay marry me yet? If not can you recommend a friend please?
I am younger and better looking
I have more money (maybe).
1 Like