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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.)
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
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?
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.
From the article: “Beyond ideology, the big consistency is that this is mostly a story of white gay men”
Uh, DUH!
So it’s not generically “queer” Republicans on the rise, it’s “gay white male Republicans”, then they changed the title to make it seem like it’s unexpected.
A few years back, some log cabin Republicans walked beside a sports car in the Austin Pride Parade. You could tell exactly where they were because the crowd fell silent as they passed. It was cool hearing the silence move down the street, nobody booed we just ignored them.
There have been members of the community aligned with the far right for a long time. There was even a hugh ranking gay nazi that worked for Hitler before he outlived his usefulness and IIRC ended up in a concentration camp.
Yes, a lot of people think that they will be considered “one of the good ones”. They can’t accept that it doesn’t matter how much they match the rest of the politics. Being a person of color, gay, etc is all anyone needs to hate you.
P.S. Adding that after the Stonewall riots and getting the NYPD to leave gays and lesbians alone, those upper middle class white gays and lesbians took theirs and ran off. The whole movement fell apart and bi, trans, and others are still suffering.
So they are forcing their own interpretation of Christianity on everyone? I guess that the US doesn’t have separate courts for other religions… So no one’s allowed divorce even if allowed in their religion? this can’t be legal.
To think that the caliphate at least allowed Jews and Christians to have their own religious courts.
Boy I wish our government wasn’t so good at bringing their nightmare fuel fever dreams to fruition, while constantly failing to do anything to better anyone in the way almost every voter agrees with.
What do you mean? Divorce is at a 50 year low, and the average couple getting married today has more like a 75 percent chance of staying married. Your odds are especially good if it’s your first marriage.
The famous 50% figure doesn’t take into account that getting a divorce is correlated with getting another one, and the emerging generations are much more selective in who they marry.
I’ve been married 14 years, and I have no idea. It makes it REALLY hard to break up. No one can grasp that you changed your last name. At all. Every gov offical just BAFFLED. ‘‘I’ve worked in the county clerks office for 30 years and this is the FIRST I’ve heard of people changing their last name for marriage’’. Every. Fucking. Time. If you have kids that aren’t even close to 18, and you break up, You get to be EXACTLY the same as married, but now you don’t have sex or trust eachother. But literally nothing else changes. Also if you get married in your 20s, then by 40 you get to find out in excruciating detail that ‘inner child’, ‘mid-life crisis’, and ‘familiarity breeds contempt’, aren’t just dumb things people say, they are also why you dread being around someone you stupidly legally bound yourself too in the custom of a religion nether of you is still childish enough to buy into.
I mean… it was pretty fun when we were having kids, going on trips, casually abusing Rx drugs, and having a sexual awakening after getting to 25 being painfully sexually repressed through religious abuse, but FUCK if I’m not aware of how little rope is left.
signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce law, allowing people to end their marriages without proving they’d been wronged. The move was a recognition that “people were going to get out of marriages,” Zug said, and gave them a way to do that without resorting to subterfuge.
Do you hear it? The sound of communism, my friend.
vox.com
Hot