When one party plays by a set of rules and the other doesn’t the rule-conforming party will necessarily be disadvantaged. Fighting fire with fire is the only way to meaningfully fight fascism, setting aside whether the Democratic establishment is even capable of that.
yeah. that way it can’t be broken like habeus corpos and due process!!! /s I have been thinking of some limits I would like to see. Like no more than one member can be in a constitutional position from a family where the set is bounded by who you can’t marry so first cousins. Once someone wins or is appointed office it locks out the relatives to do the same until they die/leave the position.
The rules were thrown out during his first term. The dude has taken over our capital and armed them, and is now going to take over NYC, Chicago and a few others. This isn’t the time to go along, we have a corrupt SCOTUS as well. What do you suggest?
Do not split and no cracks. You don’t have to agree with how they are fighting the system, but keep your thoughts private and instead, explain how your system is awesome.
But what is happening in Hong Kong is they come up with a slogan, which is translated as Do Not Split, which is, we know that some people are willing to be confrontational with riot police.
And when they are, that’s going to cost the state in terms of not only resources, but it’s going to cost the state in terms of political capital and support. And we know that there are some people who are not willing to do that. And we are going to abide by the protocol of Do Not Split, which means that we’re not going to criticize them openly, and they’re not going to criticize us openly.
If we’re the pacifists, we’re not going to have them criticize us for being sort of like, I don’t know, limpid or flaccid or not courageous or whatever. And we’re not going to criticize them for being more confrontational. And the thing is that the support is also tacit.
I have no problem with protesters clashing with unlawfully deployed police. What I do have a problem with is the idea that, “if they can break the rules, then so can we”. That, I will criticize. Because that indicates that we are not on the same side anymore.
It’s not “if they can break the rules, then so can we." It’s “They’re taking over our country by deploying armed troops everywhere, ICE, a corrupt Scotus, EO’s that break the law and presidential immunity. There are no rules to be broken anymore. We must save our democracy or we’ll be sorry we didn’t.”
So, fuck the law altogether, then? This is not the “solution” people think it is.
When the rules get broken, there need to be consequences. You don’t just throw out the rules, instead. This is seriously the dumbest timeline.
We don’t have rule of law. There’s no point in appealing to the rule of law when there is none.
When one party plays by a set of rules and the other doesn’t the rule-conforming party will necessarily be disadvantaged. Fighting fire with fire is the only way to meaningfully fight fascism, setting aside whether the Democratic establishment is even capable of that.
Going full fascist, in order to fight fascism isn’t going to defeat fascism.
We need to codify the rules into actual laws & constitutional amendments before we go blind from eye-for-an-eye politics.
yeah. that way it can’t be broken like habeus corpos and due process!!! /s I have been thinking of some limits I would like to see. Like no more than one member can be in a constitutional position from a family where the set is bounded by who you can’t marry so first cousins. Once someone wins or is appointed office it locks out the relatives to do the same until they die/leave the position.
The rules were thrown out during his first term. The dude has taken over our capital and armed them, and is now going to take over NYC, Chicago and a few others. This isn’t the time to go along, we have a corrupt SCOTUS as well. What do you suggest?
Defend the Constitution from all threats, both foreign and domestic. But that doesn’t have to mean “fighting fire with fire”.
Do not split and no cracks. You don’t have to agree with how they are fighting the system, but keep your thoughts private and instead, explain how your system is awesome.
https://sh.itjust.works/post/42969194
I have no problem with protesters clashing with unlawfully deployed police. What I do have a problem with is the idea that, “if they can break the rules, then so can we”. That, I will criticize. Because that indicates that we are not on the same side anymore.
Following an unjust law is worse than disobeying a just law.
It’s not “if they can break the rules, then so can we." It’s “They’re taking over our country by deploying armed troops everywhere, ICE, a corrupt Scotus, EO’s that break the law and presidential immunity. There are no rules to be broken anymore. We must save our democracy or we’ll be sorry we didn’t.”
No, it just means that Democrats will work in the letter of the law, not only its spirit. Laws as written and contort them to get what you need.