enbyecho @ enbyecho @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

785

Joined

1 yr. ago

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

Are you sure? It's not always clear.

"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.

This game recommendation thingy might be helpful: https://apps.quanticfoundry.com/surveys/start/gamerprofile/

In the profile you choose what you are looking for in a gaming experience - it doesn't matter if you don't know yet or need to make up some answers. There are questions like "How important is working towards a common goal with other players?"

It's a place to start anyway.

I feel this argument has merit:

That Trump is rewarding loyalty with little consequence to himself and at the same time testing senators to see who will fall in line. That also has the effect of making many fall in line (see Dictatoring for Dummies, P. 14). At the same time he gets to soften up the senate for candidates who are almost as outrageous but will seem reasonable in comparison.

"Most people agree with him"

No they don't: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2013/01/29/broad-support-for-combat-roles-for-women/

"Two-thirds (66%) support allowing women in the military to serve in ground units that engage in close combat, while just 26% are opposed. "

Stop letting these fucktards own the narrative by default, dammit.

You are missing out on some greeeaat discount opportunities.

Stocking up on contraceptives earlier rather than later seems like a good idea.

The constant talk of Musk's power in the new administration must irritate the fuck out of Trump. How terrible.

Meanwhile, in America...

No no no this time is different.

/s

Not arresting this man the second the Supreme Court gave Joe the opportunity will end with millions dead, we both know that.

I think millions is an exaggeration but it's also pretty irrelevant whether it's a 1000 or 1 million, it's gonna be very very bad. I'm very sympathetic to this argument and in a whishy hopey kinda way would have loved to see it happen...

But: the SC ruling doesn't allow a president to act with impunity. It's way more complicated than that.

It states that a president has "absolute immunity" for actions "within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority" and "presumptive immunity" for all official acts. The complete shitstorm that would follow an arrest of Trump "for reasons" would include significant debate about which one of these it was. I have to think that "because he will do bad things and for reasons" is going to push this to the second classification at best. And at that point a whole lot of lawyers are going to be working overtime to show that "applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

(Opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf)

It would end up in the Supreme Court. What do you think would happen then? The SC would rule that Biden did not act appropriately and Trump would be released. I don't have a lot of faith in running out the clock on him running or any other "good" outcome.

"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.

"The end justifies the means" is the standard excuse of dictators everywhere. And once you go down that road you don't really come back.

There is an excellent interview on this topic with Laurence Tribe that is really worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z06TJAMY-bo

I fully acknowledge just how much this sucks and how dangerous the situation is. I'm trans and live in a MAGA-infested area. That's only one dimension of the danger but it definitely opens one's eyes.

But throwing up our hands and grasping at bad options that make things worse is not the answer. We have far far more power than people realize. I don't entirely share Tribe's faith in our constitution and laws but to just say "oh it didn't work lets throw it away" is not going to make things better. It would literally be throwing away what power and ability to effect change we still have. It would destroy our country and you can bet it won't be remade as some progressive paradise.

It's not about Biden it's about setting a precedent that it's ok for any party to break the rules because they believe themselves to be "good" and "right" and "just".

I commend you for just how far you had to dig for that false equivalency. Well done!

If you want me to listen you should probably say something beyond vague platitudes and "your argument is terrible".

What astounds me is that you expect me to be completely consumed with what's important to you while you are completely dismissive of what's important to me. As if somehow the ONLY issue that mattered in this election was the Palestinian people. As if every horrible horrible thing that is going to happen under Trump to American people has to take back seat to YOUR cause. That's the definition of virtue signaling and it's incredibly offensive to me.

Feel free to have the last word but I won't engage with you further.

Your premise is based on this: "Almost everyone in north Gaza will be dead by new years. "

Which is clearly and obviously false. Check back with me on Jan 1.

"Do you think Trump will kill them a second time?"

The Trump administration will enable the complete erasure of the Palestinian people and their land. Huckabee has said as much already. Israelis have said as much too. I believe them.

Finally, do you think nothing else matters? Do you think the consequences of a Trump administration beyond Palestine don't matter? If so, I'd encourage you to spend less time virtue signaling and more time checking your privilege.

It's not inevitable at all.

Am I? If you don't think we get more genocide with Trump you are willfully not paying attention.