Based on his record, a few articles snd forum posts explaining what should happen, all of which will be ignored by the legal system, there won’t even be a baliff giving Mr. Trump a heavy slap, which seems apropriate with how Mr. Trump behaves.
Court costs for appeals should be based on the net worth of the appealing entity. Trump’s entire strategy for business, politics and personal relationships for his entire life has been “my daddy left me a pile of money, so I can afford to sue you until the end of time, or you can just cut your losses and walk away now”.
Court costs for appeals should be based on the net worth of the appealing entity.
In other words, you are proposing to actually break the (so-called) “justice system” so that it cannot work as designed.
You do understand that the (so-called) “justice system” was designed to keep you under control while enabling the parasite class (of which Trump is a proud member) to essentially do whatever they feel like and has never existed for any other reason?
Because going all the way takes us back to caveman society.
No system is perfect, and no system is equal, and most importantly, people in a system will adapt to take advantage of the system. That’s why it’s useless to go “all the way”, the system is there to keep us from just clubbing each other over the head whenever we feel wronged. It’s much better that we have a dynamic and living system that can respond to loopholes and attempts to thwart it. Incremental change is the way the system should react.
It is a challenging question though. How do you afford the “little man” their right to appeal rulings, without giving the “big man” unlimited leeway to appeal and delay justice?
Oh, I must be a fascist because I think that going all the way back means going to a time before organized society and a structured code of law? Is that really where your mind jumps to when someone disagrees with you? Oh, this person must be a fucking fascist because they think differently than I!
Ad-hominems aside. How far back is “far back” enough for you that we could build a more just and equitable system? We talking Bill of Rights? Magna Carta? 10 commandments?
Where is the evidence that led you to conflate these two?
Oh, this person must be a fucking fascist because they think differently than I!
What else am I supposed to do when people regurgite fascist narratives? Assume the person doing the regurgitating is not beholden to fascist views?
I assume this is the first time you’ve been exposed to the fact that “Law & Order” narratives have always been the narrative espoused by the fascist element inherent to the liberal nation state long before Mussolini even gave fascism a name?
What else am I supposed to do when people regurgite fascist narratives?
I have yet to see a fascist argue that every justice system has inherent inequality, and that the only way to fix it is to have a dynamic and living system than can respond to the changes in society around it. I don’t think that is a fascist view. Fascist by definition put all authority in an immutable entity that rules with an iron fist with the sole purpose of benefiting one particular group of people.
You might consider reading up on it a bit before you go start spreading it over everything that doesn’t agree with your somehow very narrow yet ephemeral definition of a just society. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive unless you are willing to specify what in your mind, was the most recent equitable justice system in human history. You won’t though, because you haven’t thought about it that much, which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.
You think that endorsing the violence through which the many is subjugated for the safety and security of the few is not fascist?
Fascist by definition
Fascism doesn’t have a definition, liberal. It isn’t - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.
Am I to assume that your understanding of fascism is as flawed, naive and downright cartoonish as the one your fellow liberals on here ceaselessly demonstrate? Aaaaand…
Wow, you put a lot of time and effort in to useless drivel.
inherent inequality,
As dictated by whom? You?
A system does not need someone to dictate inequality, there are plenty of naturally existing system that produce inequal results. I don’t have to dictate shit to notice an inequitable system.
I don’t think that is a fascist view.
You think that endorsing the violence through which the many is subjugated for the safety and security of the few is not fascist?
Textbook strawman there. At no point have I argued that a justice system should subjugate the many for the benefit of the few.
Fascist by definition
Fascism doesn’t have a definition, liberal. It isn’t - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.
This may be news to you, but words have meaning, otherwise you can peanut butter your knuckle wolfsbane.
Am I to assume that your understanding of fascism is as flawed, naive and downright cartoonish as the one your fellow liberals on here ceaselessly demonstrate? Aaaaand…
Please, source your definiton for Fascism. I cited an established repository of knowledge, so far your only basis for the meaning of the word exists in the vapor between your ears.
Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive
What is the point of talking alternatives with those who has a vested interest in maintaining the violence of the status quo?
This is a reiteration of an already refuted strawman, and supporting evidence for my assertion on the productivity of the “dialogue”.
which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.
Is that what offended me? It had nothing to do with your appeal to right-wing ahistoricity?
Didn’t you just accuse me of being liberal twice in the same fucking post?
Now, if you have any intention to seriously debate about justice system reform, please espouse your ideas on the last equitable social code that any segment of humanity has operated under in history. Otherwise, you’ll have written a lot of pointless drivel, again, without actually adding anything to the conversation.
Wow, you put a lot of time and effort in to useless drivel.
Says the liberal after posting a reply that’s wearing out my scroll button.
A system does not need someone to dictate inequality,
Yes. It actually does. Or do you think the US is fundamentally white supremacist by sheer coincidence?
At no point have I argued that a justice system should subjugate the many for the benefit of the few.
Of course not, liberal! You were simply arguing for an entirely superficial change to a (so called) “justice system” that subjugate the many for the benefit of the few. Totally nothing suspicious about that at all!
but words have meaning
Again, liberal… fascism doesn’t have a definition. It isn’t - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.
We can play this game all night long - you can give me any “definition” of fascism you can find on the net, and I will easily use actual history to tear them into pieces with next-to-zero effort.
Do you want to?
Please, source your definiton for Fascism.
Again, liberal… fascism doesn’t have a definition. It isn’t - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.
Please state how many times I’m going to have to repeat myself before something begins to gel for you - it will really lubricate this conversation.
Didn’t you just accuse me of being liberal twice in the same fucking post?
Tell me you didn’t know that liberalism is a right-wing ideology without telling me that you didn’t know liberalism is a right-wing ideology. Have you never wondered why you are so eager to make excuses for your fascist brethren?
No? Perhaps it’s time to start.
Now, if you have any intention to seriously debate about justice system reform,
No, liberal - I will not debate “justice system reform” with you. I have no interest in “reforming” your precious status quo so that you can feel better about the violence that maintains your position of privilege within it.
Go ahead, cite a history or source or example other than your own made up bullshit that backs up your claim that fascism is an undefinable ideology. You do understand that your claim is literally an oxymoron?
While you’re at it, find a political spectrum chart that puts liberal in the right wing. I checked about a dozen from different sources, and the closest I could find was a chart that set it dead center.
You still haven’t said what time in society you would go back to as a starting point for your equitable justice system. You were however offended that I said the last time we had a truly equitable existence was before society at large appeared. A reasonable person can conclude from this that…
You have a time period in mind, but you don’t want to state it because you know that I’ll point out the holes in their justice system.
Or…
You haven’t really thought about it, and you’ve made (4, I think?) long-winded posts dodging a simple point rather than admit that you can’t think of such a time or society.
Address the point, or tacitly admit you have no intent to debate in good faith and kindly fuck off.
I’m waiting for your “definitions” with baited breath, liberal. Go on.
I hope this will not take you long.
I checked about a dozen from different sources,
Liberal… are you trying to tell me that you need to check sources to tell me that your ideology is left or right? You didn’t actually know that before deciding that your canned feels should be taken seriously in a political argument?
Yeah… that’s peak liberalism, all right. The grandiose entitlement is characteristic.
Do tell, liberal - what else don’t you know but should be granted “honorary expertise” in?
Did your sources explain to you that liberalism is pro-capitalist, liberal? Did your sources explain the complementary and close relationship between capitalism and fascism to you, liberal?
No? I guess your only explanation for the reasons why capitalists funds fascism into power within liberal nation states is “for shits and giggles?”
A reasonable person can conclude from this that…
A “reasonable person” wouldn’t be faking knowledge on subject matter that they barely have working knowledge about, liberal. I think that we’ve pretty much established that you don’t conform to that description.
Address the point, or tacitly admit you have no intent to debate in good faith and kindly fuck off.
No, liberal - defend your ideology, and defend your ideology’s proximity to fascism. You know… the ideology that you had to “check sources” for find out whether it was left or right?
Ah, so you’ve chosent the tacit admission that your argument is bullshit, you have’t actually thought about what you reacted to, and you’d like to kindly fuck off, but you just lack the self control to behave like an adult in conversations.
Also, classic gish gallop. One, or maybe 2 addressable point at a time please.
Not willing to put any of your copypasta “definitions” to the test, eh liberal?
Why am I not surprised?
One, or maybe 2 addressable point
You mean… apart from?
defend your ideology, and defend your ideology’s proximity to fascism.
At least fascists and tankies have the gumption to try and defend their beliefs - you liberals duck and dive out of an argument simply because you are too damn fragile to handle the fact that liberalism is, in fact, an ideology.
defend your ideology, and defend your ideology’s proximity to fascism.
Let me open with this. I didn’t claim to be a liberal, that is a label that you applied to me. I don’t think it’s an unfair assertion, but at the same time, I am not constrained to the ideological boundaries of that label.
Liberal, (at least where I’m from) means that you interpret the rules of society with some leeway. Language in laws or rules, no matter how specific, cannot encompass edge-case scenarios, so some human intuition and adjustment of a law or rule is required in order to for it to function with it’s intended purpose. Briefly put, Liberals in my country beleive that laws should fit to society, rather than the opposing conservative construction, that society should be fit to the law.
Since you refuse to accept a definiton for fascism, and on multiple occasions, declaring that it is undefinable, it makes it a useless term to compare to. You might as well be asking me to compare liberal ideology to CPU architecture or the concept of cottage industry. If you won’t accept a definiton for fascism, and are afraid to provide you own, then it is logically impossible for someone to use it as a comparative.
Now, I have addressed your silly roundabout 3rd grade logic. Please, with some decorum, address your point, that there is/was a time in human society post-cave-dwelling, where the social/justice system was fair and equitable. In case you forgot, that is the point that started you on this useless, indefensible and idiotic tirade. Or you can tacitly admit you don’t have a point, and you can kindly fuck off.
You don’t have to. If you view the world through the lens of liberal ideology, you are a liberal - regardless of the labels you self-apply.
Liberal, (at least where I’m from) means that you interpret the rules of society with some leeway
Then you misunderstand your own ideology. Liberalism allows absolutely no leeway when it comes to the (alleged) necessity of private property, for instance. In complete contradiction, it allows no leeway when it comes to the (alleged) necessity of (so-called) “rule of law” - a contradiction, of course, that can only be solved by ensuring the law doesn’t apply to those who own the largest share of all the private property.
So where is this “leeway” you speak of?
Since you refuse to accept a definiton for fascism,
Oh, I never said I’d refuse a definition of fascism - I’ve read far more of them than you have. None of them actually manages to “define” fascism. Look at my second paragraph - it’s childishly easy to demonstrate the logical contradictions in your ideology - liberalism has so many inherent contradictions that it, too, is extremely difficult to define satisfactorily. Fascism comprises an ideological framing that contains absolutely nothing inside it that is coherent or consistent in any way whatsoever - are you starting to see the problem with “definitions” of fascism?
The worst of them, by far, are the ones written by liberals - no surprises there. Liberals are desperately anxious to ignore the fact that fascism originates from the very status quo (you know… “rule of law” and “private property” and associated schtick) liberals are invested in preserving. They are anxious to ignore the fact that fascism originates from the very violence that is used to enforce the liberal order.
The Marxist ones are quite a bit better - but still fail to hit the mark. I’m just going to go ahead and assume you didn’t even know those existed before now.
Please, with some decorum, address your point,
Not my point at all, liberal. Your logical fallacy. Remember this?
Because going all the way takes us back to caveman society.
I requested you provide any evidence to prop up this silly Hollywood trope that you knee-jerk conflated with reality faster than Ben Shapiro snorts copium.
Oh, I never said I’d refuse a definition of fascism
No no, you’re faaaaaar tooooo smaaaaart to commit to an actual definition, or even general framework of what fascism is. Despite this, you still expect other people to defend against your internally checked, rapidly shifting goalpost of what qualifies as “fascism”. Put your money where your mouth is, you trollish coward, define, even in loose terms, what fascism is, so that we may actually discuss it. If you can’t do that, then you’re not actually making any points here, you’re just swimming circles in a pool of your own bullshit.
Because going all the way takes us back to caveman society.
My assertion here is that there has not been a perfect, equitable society in human history. This is why I’d rather work to fix the society we have, than throw out the everything and live without society, yah know, because I like the things society brings, like running water, electricity, flushing toilets, refrigeration, videogames… You’d get the idea of your head wasn’t up your ass. The evidence I’ll provide for this claim, is that there has not been a completely just society in human history. If you’d like to refute this claim, you can simply name one. But you can’t, because you are wrong, so you won’t, and instead you’ll dilly-dally and dance around while hurling labels that you don’t understand at people while implicitly arguing that words don’t have a real meaning.
Oh… now we’re no longer talking about “definitions,” are we? We have now shifted to “general frameworks?”
And you accuse me of shifting goalposts?
Despite this, you still expect other people
Yes, liberal - I still expect you to defend your ideology and your ideology’s proximity to fascism.
so that we may actually discuss it.
We are discussing it, liberal - which part of this…
They (liberals) are anxious to ignore the fact that fascism originates from the very violence that is used to enforce the liberal order.
…are you having a hard time understanding? We are discussing the very roots of fascism - which happens to be the very same roots of your precious liberal status quo.
Are you anxious to ignore that too, liberal? For someone that claims to not be “constrained to the ideological boundaries” of liberalism, you sure seem to be acting no different than a bog-standard liberal pearl-clutcher when it comes to confronting the fascism that violently enforces your precious status quo for you.
Do tell, liberal… where were you when antifascists were actually fighting neo-nazis, klan-boys and their pig-friends in the streets a few years ago? Let me guess… heckling the antifascists from the sidelines? Like a good liberal is supposed to?
Will you be doing the same come November?
My assertion here is that there has not been a perfect, equitable society in human history.
Why are you peddling the same pretexts and justifications for fascism that the alt-right peddles?
The ideological gap between you and fascism seems to be shrinking with every exchange.
than throw out the everything and live without society
Soooo… as you have provided zero evidence to prove that your zombie-fiction tropes will come to pass as soon as fascist violence doesn’t enforce your precious liberal order for you, I must assume that you are simply too squeamish to admit your endorsement of said fascist violence (as long as it isn’t aimed at you, of course)
I’d say we’ve come to the point where there is only one thing left to be discerned… why do you even bother hiding it?
Oh… now we’re no longer talking about “definitions,” are we? We have now shifted to “general frameworks?”
Yes, because you have refused in any way to communicate a meaning of the word. That’s on you, not me. Literally your doing, and it’s the core premise of 90% of your statements, but you can’t even tell us what means.
Kindly fuck off. You can’t even address the core component of our original discussion. I’m throwing the final gauntlet here. You name a time, place, or system of government that was fair and equitable in the last 8000 years, and I’ll write an apology to you, admit you are far superior, and delete everything except that statement from my account . If you can’t do that, then don’t even bother fucking replying. I’m just going to copy-paste a reply calling you a moron and pointing out that you have failed again to rise to the most basic level of honest discourse.
Stop projecting your evasiveness onto me, liberal - you’ve been desperately ducking and diving the “core component of our original discussion” from your second reply onwards.
You name a time, place, or system of government
Your attempts to distract from the fact that you have provided zero evidence to back up your initial claims is as transparent now as it was back then.
and delete everything except that statement from my account .
Please feel free. Now that lemmy.world is overflowing with liberals there are mountains of evidence lying around proving how quickly you lot start chanting fascist narratives as soon as anyone threatens your precious status quo - your contribution makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
You are a moron and a coward. You won’t even try to defend your statements. The only way you know to react to conflict is to hurl meritless accusation of fascism. By your own admission, you cannot describe what fascism actually is. You can fuck off anytime.
Stop projecting your evasiveness onto me, liberal - you’ve been desperately ducking and diving the “core component of our original discussion” from your second reply onwards.
You name a time, place, or system of government
Your attempts to distract from the fact that you have provided zero evidence to back up your initial claims is as transparent now as it was back then.
and delete everything except that statement from my account .
Please feel free. Now that lemmy.world is overflowing with liberals there are mountains of evidence lying around proving how quickly you lot start chanting fascist narratives as soon as anyone threatens your precious status quo - your contribution makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
He constructed it a little cleverly: Said that if it was a Republican, they'd be in the electric chair. I don't think it was criminal.
Of course, he also openly tried to have his own vice president killed, and collects non-murder-related felonies like bottles for recycling, and at least so far all of that has been mostly okay of him to do, so I'm not sure how much it matters. 😕
Anyone else notice how quiet the bOtH siDEs camp is on articles like this? Seems they only like to talk about how bad both sides are when Biden is the subject being discussed- but when any of the right wing lunacy is brought up, they’re vapor.
This is a very clear indication as to what their motives are here.
VOTE LIKE LIVES DEPEND ON IT. There are a lot of people here hoping you don’t so that Trump can win November. Don’t give this to them!
Not as much. But I do notice you on every trump post insisting people are screaming both sides… and others taking legitimate criticism of biden as people screaming both sides.
That you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. There are tons of people posting daily the bullshit about both sides. I’d name them, but then I’d be banned for it.
Tons of people urging others not to vote. Tons of people saying both sides are the same- because of a single issue. And one they barely understand.
Don’t confuse the insistence that people get out and vote, and the calling out of bad actors anything other than what it is- an attempt to prop up American democracy and keep us from having to endure another four years of dictatorship.
Also my co-workers and conservative family love to say it whenever a Republican does something illegal or immoral. It's a scape goat they throw out when they get backed into a corner and can't face the fact that they're wrong.
It’s exactly why Republican media spends so much time projecting. It’s a protective mechanism. If they can say the left is exactly the same kind of bad, even if it’s a complete lie, then you get to stick with the party you want to instead of considering changing if you do happen to recognize how bad they are.
Funny. I call myselft a centerist and don't do that. Progressive/leftists don't consider me progressive leftist because Im not in lockstep with everything the particular leftist/progressive believes in and they are right. Im left of center which means im firmly a democrat as republicans are no were near center at all. If someone is saying both sides I don't think they are anywhere near to center. Its like saying both sides with the ukraine/russia thing.
in real terms im left of center so in american terms im super left and in republican terms im a no good communist .what I want is regulation, a progressive tax structure, and decent social programs.
when the extremes respond to you as being aweful what else can you be. I support biden and democrats because I have lived through republican in power and I would rather make small progress than go backwards. Again globally im left of center I would says.
to you, but others feel different and again globally it really is. Yes a left of the center overall but close to the center. In the us im a crazy leftist but we are way skewed right at least as far as who gets elected. So if I was in congress then yes I would be akin to bernie but plop him and me in most parlements and we would be close to center. for now anyway as it feels like the rest of the world is following the us lead in leaning right overall.
True which is why I am left of center globally but close enough to center to be a centerist. Im certainly more center than left. I think free markets are fine if properly regulated (something the us has not done since the 70's) and if they have competition (no monopolies or companies using infrastructure that just can't be duplicated like utilities) and if they are not to important (like education and healthcare). In the us though that puts me pretty left of center. More left than center but it would not be the case in 70's america. Pretty sad really.
Centrist means you favour the status quo, and generally obstruct progress. What you’ve described is not centrism, unless I guess your country already has those things.
And even then that’s a very literal interpretation of centrism, and not at all what it’s come to mean
when the extremes respond to you as being aweful what else can you be. I support biden and democrats because I have lived through republican in power and I would rather make small progress than go backwards. Again globally im left of center I would says.
But I do notice you on every trump post insisting people are screaming both sides
Another common tactic/fallacy is exaggerating the claim. Example: saying something “screams” about “both sides”. The bit about screaming is unneeded and is just added to make it easy to argue against it.
and others taking legitimate criticism of biden as people screaming both sides
That’s not the same and not what is meant as “both sides”. And again, people aren’t screaming. I’d maybe take your comment more seriously if it didn’t ignore things while adding a fallacy to discuss a common fallacy.
Both sides are not the same, but they are both corrupt. The message of “both are the same” needs to be more specific.
The right side takes away rights, the left helps people. That’s great! Only while the decisions cater to things wanted. They only do what will get them in office.
How corrupt is Joe Biden? The guy’s famous for being in the Senate for 30 years and never getting rich. Is he squeaky clean? I don’t know, but characterizing the situation as “both sides are corrupt” is close to disinformation.
You’re saying that the bullshit artist formerly known as The Senator From MBNA isn’t corrupt?
The guy who’s received more in bribes from AIPAC throughput his career than his current net worth and has to be dragged kicking and screaming to not participate in Israel’s genocide even as over 60% of the people who voted for him are against it?
The guy who, after decades of promoting Amtrak (the company, never its workers) and railway companies in general took away the constitutional right to strike from rail workers, forcing them to accept a deal almost identical to the one from corporate that they had already overwhelmingly rejected?
The guy whose infrastructure deal, which the party preposterously touts as the best bill against climate change ever, makes any new renewable energy generation contingent on expanding federal fossil fuel leases manyfold and gives away public infrastructure to for-profit companies?
The guy whose solution to police brutality is to throw more money at cops?
The guy who, as a successful and ambitious politician moved from Pennsylvania to Delaware, a tiny state that just so happens to be the most corporate friendly one in the entire country, the one where most major corporations are registered in spite of being physically based elsewhere?
THAT’S the one you’re saying isn’t and never has been corrupt? Fucking REALLY?
That he doesn’t officially have a lot of money for a successful politician isn’t proof that he’s not corrupt.
He could be stashing most of his money in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands or one of the growing number of US tax shelter states.
He could be bribable with relatively small amounts of money.
He could just simply be bad at saving.
Either way, there’s NO way that Biden isn’t corrupt as fuck. That’s just not possible given his words and actions of the past 50+ years and today.
Oh and before you hit me with the usual Trump whataboutism: YES the Mango Mussolini is much worse in just about every way, including the amount and blatancy of corruption.
That Trump is indisputably worse is irrelevant to how corrupt Biden is.
Don’t play dumb. For most intents and purposes, the campaign IS the candidate.
The candidate might not officially be allowed to personally benefit from campaign money, but the rules are lax and enforcement moreso.
Add to that the fact that the success or the campaign is the success of the candidate and also that it’s a pay for play political system and it’s downright silly to pretend that a sizeable donation doesn’t amount to a bribe and/or that the corporations, lobby groups and (as in the case of AIPAC) foreign government propaganda arms don’t both expect and get more than their money’s worth in return.
Is there another explanation for Biden’s typical-for-a-professional-80yo net worth that may be more likely than webs of deceit, bribes, international money laundering, and influence peddling?
Like, what if he just wasn’t that corrupt? And he has mostly worked as a public servant with a working-class background?
and you seem like you’re at about a 14 to 16-year-old level of maturity regarding politics; railing-against-the-world, “my eyes are open, don’t you see what I see??”, polarized opinion and discourse untempered by personal experience of compromise or impossible situations, lack of empathy, and insistence on unrealistic all-or-nothing outcomes delivered immediately versus consistent, incremental improvement that takes hard work and nuanced understanding.
Typical “Enlightened Centrist” equating healthy skepticism towards and independently acquired factual knowledge about corrupt authority figures with immaturity and distemper 🙄
Also fucking rich that you’re accusing me of a lack of empathy while defending one of the most powerful humans in the world siding with executives against workers and war criminals against innocent civilians and international courts 🤦
That you can’t distinguish between the factual and reasonable criticism of a well-informed elder millennial and the sulking of an impatient teenager says a lot about you and little to nothing about me.
It’s because they are righties posing as lefties or straight up from troll farms. The billionaire class along with Russia and China - all have a vested interest in seeing Biden fail. Trump serves their interests.
Bingo. And they think people are falling for that bullshit. More than likely what’s happening is they’re all just bullshitting one another without even being aware of it.
Sadly, the way the electoral college works, they only have to convince a few thousand people in key states and it could swing things hard. Trump has a basically bulletproof lock on his base, so this kind of Biden bashing is only going to pick up to try to sway people who likely aren’t paying that much attention. The right is throwing everything they can at this election. It’s worse than 2016 when Trump was a wild card. They are more organized and dangerous this time.
This is important. Our system is so fucked that the only votes that matter are a few thousand people in a few swing states.
Let that sink in for a minute. A few thousand people, in a country of 340 million, will decide if we have a boring, mildly effective hypocrite as president or a raging racist rapist bent on our collective destruction. I’m not telling people to stay home, every single person who is able, should vote for Biden. But 99% of our presidential votes are meaningless.
The electoral college has got to go. Reminder that the last republican to win the popular vote in a presidential election was George W. Bush in 2004, and that was almost certainly because of 9/11. Extreme right-wing ideas are not popular with the majority of Americans, but the system is set up so the crazies get to grab power anyway. Minority rule is the antithesis of what this place is supposed to be about.
The point is to keep a rolling discussion. If people see something enough it enters the zeitgeist. As demonstrated when I introduced some nuanced memes to the meme community’s and was immediately banned.
The troll farms know how to control the discussion and lemmy is just another the_donald but now they let past the filter some discussion because they need an audience before they can subjugate them.
How funny! I was just permanently banned from that same community this morning for disagreeing with one of their trolls. And yet, said mod was recently in a discussion about being fair and moderating civility.
Meanwhile, they allow all sorts of accusations and bullshit from the far left.
Then shitposts banned me because I was “spaming” but it was all original content designed to be just as provocative as any other meme. Even more so with the response i got.
When told to slow down on the posting (after I asked if I could diversify my accounts to make it look like it was coming from unique sources) i posted one final meme 30 mins later. And that was spamming.
Fun fact, the secret service was around for almost 30 years before they started doing presidential security, and it took the assassination of McKinley before they were officially in charge of presidential security. They were founded as an anti-counterfeiting arm of the Treasury.
That is a fun fact. A personal fun fact is I remember that the Secret Service is part of the Treasury department because of the cult classic, Wild Wild West.
Add comment