|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Responding to your request for clarification, I'd like to quote D&D rules. In my estimate I said more or less "The Dem leadership doesn't care enough about these issues to discipline Manchin in order to fight the court" and he said "There's a reason why, but since you don't know DnD lore well enough to know my takes already I'm not going to tell you." I don't see how that's okay. Either let's drop the line of discussion or discuss it, but "you're wrong and beneath me explaining why" is chickenshit.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:30 |
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:In my estimate I said more or less "The Dem leadership doesn't care enough about these issues to discipline Manchin in order to fight the court" and he said "There's a reason why, but since you don't know DnD lore well enough to know my takes already I'm not going to tell you." Your point doesn’t sound particularly novel, respectfully, but I agree that the comment you received was unnecessarily condescending, and should’ve been submitted as a report instead. I hope this clears the expectations up for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 16:46
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Your point doesn’t sound particularly novel, respectfully, but I agree that the comment you received was unnecessarily condescending, and should’ve been submitted as a report instead. I hope this clears the expectations up for everyone. I'm not the one who brought up this line of argument in the first place, it started because someone declared that "the left" was just as tolerant of anti-abortion dems. If he wants to jump into it, why doesn't he have to explain himself? Why does my point need to be "novel?" if I'm not the one bringing it up? If you want to point to the rules, how is "You know why I'm right and I won't say why" not arguing via innuendo? I already did report him, and nothing happened, so I'm calling him out since moderators I guess seemed to have decided that this is something we should hash out. Butter Activities fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Jul 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 17:00
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:
Or they are drunk and enjoying being outside on this 4th of July long weekend and don't give a drat about internet slapfights right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:I'm not the one who brought up this line of argument in the first place, it started because someone declared that "the left" was just as tolerant of anti-abortion dems. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Best I've been able to determine from observation, if the mods agree with you, you can post the same old stale canards about Manchin and Sinema or whatever other excuse for the status quo over and over without issue, but anyone rebutting it gets hit because that's not "novel", apparently (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Your point doesn’t sound particularly novel, respectfully, but I agree that the comment you received was unnecessarily condescending, and should’ve been submitted as a report instead. I hope this clears the expectations up for everyone. How exactly is just straight up saying “you’re wrong and I won’t say why” not a violation of the rules? Cimber posted:Or they are drunk and enjoying being outside on this 4th of July long weekend and don't give a drat about internet slapfights right now. They could choose to not post until they want to explain the answer?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:How exactly is just straight up saying “you’re wrong and I won’t say why” not a violation of the rules? It is, and so is general backseat modding. I’ve said as much, reprimanding them, I thought, explicitly: cinci zoo sniper posted:the comment you received was unnecessarily condescending, and should’ve been submitted as a report instead Taking a step back, your report was: quote:If talking about this is against some unwritten rule then either can a mod step in to declare everyone stop talking about it or can we hear this mysterious argument that we should all know? And so I stepped in, opining in on the debacle. If your report text were “backseat modding”, I would’ve simply domed them and moved on to the next report. If you or anyone else have any further comments regarding moderation of this conversation, direct them in PMs to Koos, or open a QCS thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I know Clinton was trash but when the Bush v. Gore decision came down he should've sent the US Marshals to round up the SCOTUS, announce that their decision is non-binding, and for Florida's election system to continue its work. Instead like all worthless shitlibs he just shrugged and moved on with his life because he knew he'd spend the rest of his days rich and powerful so why put that at risk. It is incredibly unlikely that the US Marshals would easily obey such an order. I suspect that they would most likely refuse or stall in the face of such an obviously dictatorial move. Moreover, the US Congress would denounce such a move and prepare to oppose Clinton by any means necessary (including, if necessary, impeachment), while the Governor of Florida would ignore the president's plainly unconstitutional intervention and refuse to resume the count. And that'd be true even if the Senate Majority Leader and FL Governor weren't literally Newt Gingrich and Jeb Bush. The same tradition of democracy that's largely prevented military coups all this time also means that literally arresting political opponents is widely viewed as a last resort, not a first resort. Importantly, this view extends to pretty much every entity that the president could reasonably order to arrest people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm with the sentiment that they should have fought more to prevent a literal coup but I don't think that specific tactic would have worked. It would just be Clinton being an aberration in an environment that was so decorum poisoned they they just let a coup happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
Are US Marshall’s actually directly supposed to enforce the will of SCOTUS or are they simply another arm of the executive that happens to be responsible for providing federal policing services for the federal court system and report to the DOJ/executive? I believe it’s the latter but I’ve seen people talk about them as if it’s the former.cinci zoo sniper posted:It is, and so is general backseat modding. I’ve said as much, reprimanding them, I thought, explicitly Thank you for clarifying then. That wasn’t clear to me, because it seems to me until this post they haven’t been either probated or explicitly told to not do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Are US Marshall’s actually directly supposed to enforce the will of SCOTUS or are they simply another arm of the executive that happens to be responsible for providing federal policing services for the federal court system and report to the DOJ/executive? I believe it’s the latter but I’ve seen people talk about them as if it’s the former. US Marshalls are executive. The Supreme Court has a Marshall that heads a police department that reports only to them, like congress has the capitol police.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:US Marshalls are executive. The Supreme Court has a Marshall that heads a police department that reports only to them, like congress has the capitol police. Makes more sense, a couple times (especially in hypotheticals about Trump refusing to do x) I’ve seen people talking about how in a constitutional crisis the Marshalls would have some legal mandate to be the armed force of SCOTUS to enforce court orders that Congress or the executive tried to defy, and I found that questionable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It is incredibly unlikely that the US Marshals would easily obey such an order. I suspect that they would most likely refuse or stall in the face of such an obviously dictatorial move. I think that's because you're viewing history through the lens of 20 years of upholding an illegal act as if it were constitutional and permissible. If Gore, Clinton, the Democratic Party, and society at large had reacted to the court as if they had broken the law, appointed a special prosecutor and referred the matter to the DOJ to investigate the responsible individuals for corruption and trace their connections to financial and political deal-making, it's very likely that we'd be seeing that history as a second Watergate. A big part of why that didn't happen is that Gore decided that allowing the election to be overturned was better than challenging a constitutional crisis. SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Makes more sense, a couple times (especially in hypotheticals about Trump refusing to do x) I’ve seen people talking about how in a constitutional crisis the Marshalls would have some legal mandate to be the armed force of SCOTUS to enforce court orders that Congress or the executive tried to defy, and I found that questionable. Yeah the only armed force that the Supreme Court has authority over is the Supreme Court Police. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jul 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Honestly, it is not a question that has ever been seriously addressed. As with many things the problem is that the people who wrote this part of the constitution were not clear. Congress gets first crack at setting election law and rules for federal elections but in areas of election procedure where congress is unclear or chooses to leave it up to the states, the constitution says the state legislatures decide. This reads to me like we essentially lost the country/democracy when we didn't pass HR1, which we will likely have even less chance to do after the midterms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:This reads to me like we essentially lost the country/democracy when we didn't pass HR1, which we will likely have even less chance to do after the midterms. As a reminder for anyone who thinks the SCOTUS isn't preparing to commit another naked power grab for the GOP.: the first section of your bolded part was literally overturned by the SCOTUS in Shelby County as well. Congress had renewed votging laws the GOP didn't like and so Roberts and co just decided to strike those pesky laws down even though their authority to do so was questionable. When we get a 6-3 ruling on this bullshit I really hope the dissent at least points out that Shelby County is no longer a valid ruling under this bullshit legal theory. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jul 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I think that's because you're viewing history through the lens of 20 years of upholding an illegal act as if it were constitutional and permissible. If Gore, Clinton, the Democratic Party, and society at large had reacted to the court as if they had broken the law, appointed a special prosecutor and referred the matter to the DOJ to investigate the responsible individuals for corruption and trace their connections to financial and political deal-making, it's very likely that we'd be seeing that history as a second Watergate. A big part of why that didn't happen is that Gore decided that allowing the election to be overturned was better than challenging a constitutional crisis. Society at large didn't react to Bush v Gore as if it were an obvious violation of the law and of the Constitution. Plenty of people regarded it as partisan and politically motivated, but this is literally the first time I've ever heard even the slightest suggestion that it was illegal or that the judges could have been prosecuted for it. Frankly, I have no idea what the legal basis for such an action would even be. And it does need to have a real, credible legal basis, because the obvious presumption would be that the president was rolling in and arresting the Supreme Court and nullifying their ruling for blatantly politically partisan reasons, something the president very obviously does not have the Constitutional authority to do. -Blackadder- posted:This reads to me like we essentially lost the country/democracy when we didn't pass HR1, which we will likely have even less chance to do after the midterms. HR1 is just a law, a future Congress can always repeal it. The Dems lost the country when they lost the states. It's not like the Dems never gerrymander or partisanly tinker with election law themselves; the problem is that they've handed more and more states over to the GOP, leaving them only a few states to solidify their hold on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
And when they do try it they massively gently caress it up or shoot themselves in the foot. Look what happened when they tried to gerrymander NY's congressional seats. They got smacked down pretty hard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:HR1 is just a law, a future Congress can always repeal it. The Dems lost the country when they lost the states. It's not like the Dems never gerrymander or partisanly tinker with election law themselves; the problem is that they've handed more and more states over to the GOP, leaving them only a few states to solidify their hold on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Society at large didn't react to Bush v Gore as if it were an obvious violation of the law and of the Constitution. Plenty of people regarded it as partisan and politically motivated, but this is literally the first time I've ever heard even the slightest suggestion that it was illegal or that the judges could have been prosecuted for it. I mean as I said before, government officials and even judges get prosecuted all the time. Bribery, public corruption, fraud, racketeering, and official misconduct are all standard crimes and there's several examples of the Republican members of the court being exposed to them. The financial and political relationships between many of the judges and their party leadership are extremely sketchy - with many of them benefiting both directly and indirectly from their governmental positions - and in the eyes of a less friendly court it is likely that their favor-making arrangements, paid organizing, and improper activity would be seen extremely critically. In regards to Bush v. Gore specifically, you yourself have indicated that you believe that if a government official were to violate the constitution and interfere with an election, that would be authoritarian - well the Supreme Court violated century-old statutes in their rush to overturn the election, and they had absolutely no authority to do so. That's official misconduct right there, even before investigating the problematic relationship between members of the court and their various paid "dinner parties" "strategy sessions" and "speaking engagements". You could put together a RICO case pretty easily - the only thing shielding them is judicial immunity, and that got stripped away as soon as the court did away with precedent (not that there has been any precedent for justices being tried for a coup attempt). Believing that government officials should obey the law and face criminal penalties where appropriate isn't wild or abnormal, it's mainstream American opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
If the “prosecute the Bush v Gore Supreme Court” take had any legal grounding there would at a minimum be a small number of law professors specifically laying out the case in some articles or at least blog posts. Not just a few posters on a dead political subforum generally griping the president should lock them up and conveniently ignoring the fact that not only would no one go for that and it would be like Bill Clinton pulling a Jan 6 without even the benefit of a hooting mob of chuds backing him up, but it also ignores the power of, I don’t know, judicial review. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jul 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
The case basically comes down to "judicial immunity, still a thing?" If it's not, either because a court decides it doesn't apply to these individuals in this circumstance, or because they decide to waive judicial immunity, then it's a ball game. The Republicans have relied very heavily on the idea that they are above the law and aren't subject to ethics rules. They are very vulnerable. Maybe they won't be prosecuted criminally because of the politics, but there's no reason to assume it's impossible. Judges and election clerks have been arrested and convicted for a lot less.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 23:11
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I mean as I said before, government officials and even judges get prosecuted all the time. Bribery, public corruption, fraud, racketeering, and official misconduct are all standard crimes and there's several examples of the Republican members of the court being exposed to them. The financial and political relationships between many of the judges and their party leadership are extremely sketchy - with many of them benefiting both directly and indirectly from their governmental positions - and in the eyes of a less friendly court it is likely that their favor-making arrangements, paid organizing, and improper activity would be seen extremely critically. If the DoJ had serious hard evidence of conservative Supreme Court judges committing clear crimes, then why would they wait to prosecute until the Supreme Court makes a ruling the president disagrees with? Aside from the obvious appearance of corruption that would come from sitting on such evidence until the president developed a desire for political retaliation, there's also the fact that prosecuting a judge after a ruling doesn't retroactively undo that ruling. And if they don't have such evidence, then it's downright absurd to try to throw together cases against half the Supreme Court in the two-month lame duck period. It's quite likely that the incoming president would quickly dismantle any DoJ fishing expeditions upon taking office. You seem to be under the impression that judicial immunity protects actions outside the courtroom, but becomes inapplicable as soon as the judge makes a ruling you disagree with. But that's basically the opposite of true: judicial immunity is ironclad when it comes to decisions made on the bench, even if they're based in bad law. And note that "bad law" in this context refers to being overruled by a higher court; there is no constitutional mechanism whatsoever for the executive to directly override the judicial system's interpretation of the law (although Congress can clarify the laws via legislation to make its intent clear to the courts, if it wants to).
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The case basically comes down to "judicial immunity, still a thing?" If it's not, either because a court decides it doesn't apply to these individuals in this circumstance, or because they decide to waive judicial immunity, then it's a ball game. The Republicans have relied very heavily on the idea that they are above the law and aren't subject to ethics rules. They are very vulnerable. Maybe they won't be prosecuted criminally because of the politics, but there's no reason to assume it's impossible. Judges and election clerks have been arrested and convicted for a lot less. They would be vulnerable if there was any realistic chance the Dems were willing or able to play hardball to the point of criminal charges against any national level republicans that aren’t pariahs in their own party or Trumps base. If they actually did something like arrest Thomas there would be a reaction, likely a violent one, that I doubt the DNC is prepared for or even willing to began preparing for it, and I think most or all of the GOP and Dems know this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 01:54
|
|
|
P sure the president arresting judges is more than just hardball since it’s universally understood as a dictator move. If indeed there is evidence to prosecute then the DOJ figures that out without a president pushing a button and announcing “release the hounds.” Hardball is expanding the court, which is absolutely justified and legal and would have the added benefit of making each individual justice less powerful. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Jul 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 02:22
|
|
|
It seems like your objection here is that it's a counterfactual. "If it hasn't happened yet, it couldn't have happened and it will never happen." But that just doesn't carry much water in a world where justice and the constitution is basically whatever the people in power say it is. It's absurd to act as if the blatant corruptive act of overturning an election in the interests of your own political party, who funds you and who you've sworn a personal allegiance to, can't ever be viewed as a crime. If you asked the average American how to describe a government worker accepting $50,000 in annual "gifts" from a group that they then provide with favors, they'd call it bribery and they'd be right. Prosecuting corrupt officials is a normal part of a functioning democracy. The DOJ and an independent prosecutor are of course allowed to investigate suspect judges, and federal courts are fully empowered to enjoin and censure the actions of a corrupt supreme court. I'd suggest reviewing how limited the constitutional guidelines actually are for this sort of thing. The Roberts Court doesn't act out of a deeply-seated constitutional authority when they throw out centuries of precedent or seize unconstitutional powers like interfering with a state election - they recognize that their willingness to challenge unstated norms creates its own power. It's precisely why the GOP has been running rings around their decorum-poisoned opponents. Alito would never worry about stuff like this - he'd carve out an "exemption" to whatever principle stood in his way - whether it was judicial immunity or whatever else - and say that due to the theory of originalism, the constitution has never authorized it in this circumstance. McConnell would not hesitate for a moment to investigate a Democratic justice that he thought was vulnerable to a charge of corruption. And Trump would shop his cases around to every judge in the country until he found one that would be willing to issue an injunction to uphold a critical election recount. Kaal fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Jul 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 03:32
|
|
|
Kaal posted:they recognize that their willingness to challenge unstated norms creates its own power  This comes full circle to how our constitution is comparatively an old bird that codifies far fewer procedures and rights than other more modern constitutions. The modern GOP appears to understand that abusing the antequated nature of our constitution--uprooting the norms and rights taken for granted in Schoolhouse Rock--is a road to power that would-be moderate opposition doesn't wish to even acknowledge exists. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Jul 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 03:39
|
|
|
^ I use Schoolhouse Rock to describe rights and norms that could be considered ubiquitously common American political values pre-Trumpism/Teaparty radicalization.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 03:51
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:
Absolutely. And the reason I bring all this stuff up isn't even so much that I think that contemporary Democrats should fight a 20-year old rearguard action, but rather that they need to stop acting as if Lawful Stupid was a virtue. It's not liberal, and it's not even centrist - it's a breed of faith-based legalism that few Americans respect or even care about. Liberals aren't seen as carrying the cross of law and order when they use unspoken guidelines and weasel words to defend Republican activity that everyone agrees destabilizes democracy, the judiciary, and society at large. They're seen as weak and unwilling to challenge the status quo even when most of the country hates it. Let the Republicans defend themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 03:55
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I think that's because you're viewing history through the lens of 20 years of upholding an illegal act as if it were constitutional and permissible. If Gore, Clinton, the Democratic Party, and society at large had reacted to the court as if they had broken the law, appointed a special prosecutor and referred the matter to the DOJ to investigate the responsible individuals for corruption and trace their connections to financial and political deal-making, it's very likely that we'd be seeing that history as a second Watergate. A big part of why that didn't happen is that Gore decided that allowing the election to be overturned was better than challenging a constitutional crisis. It also didn't happen because literally nobody at the time proposed it or considered it possible. This is as much a historical counterfactual as "what if someone gave Robert e. Lee a Maxim gun". It's absurd to pretend such actions were ever an actual possibility. I get being pissed and wanting action now but twenty years ago was twenty years ago, possibly more, and *nobody* at the time was in that ballpark yet. We've had two decades of destabilization. Since then. 911 hadn't even happened! Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Jul 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 04:44
|
|
|
Yeah, the question here is pretty much "What if America at the end of the 90's wasn't America at the end of the 90's and actually viewed the right as an active threat?" and I don't know, what if? It's hard to try to predict what might have happened because the environment required likely would have needed to be wildly different. Best I have is what I posted earlier. If Gore was president 9/11 would still be a deciding point on if America reacted rationally or took it as an ego blow. I have my doubts considering how many Democrats went with the Iraq war. But the environment needed to get Gore the presidency is so different that who loving knows. I do think something should of been done and we should look back on it as a huge mistake. While there's not a lot of legal voices calling for out right prosecution it's not hard to find legal voices of the time saying that the only real justification the court would of had would be if they were acting lawlessly got the greater good and that argument is incredibly weak. Legal experts are not prone to strong language so saying the court acted outside the law is pretty strong. https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1508&context=nlj https://www.jstor.org/stable/1600400 Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Jul 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 05:35
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Trump would shop his cases around to every judge in the country until he found one that would be willing to issue an injunction to uphold a critical election recount. The sarcastic response is “well if Trump would do it then clearly I should want everyone to do it” where “it” is trying for any fig leaf to gain power or jail opponents. The more nuanced and less catastrophizing is that in fact the rule of law still means something because Trump tried this not in theory, but in practice, and lost. It’s not really an “unstated norm” when it’s fully recognized by like, every political scientist, that democracies need rule of law and little concepts like the executive not jailing judges, which was literally what the OP called for. It’s very much a stated norm, and what was suggested was a huge escalation that would have not only failed in 2000 but been a huge precedent for any additional poo poo Trump/Eastman/Giuliani could dream up in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 06:38
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:The sarcastic response is “well if Trump would do it then clearly I should want everyone to do it” where “it” is trying for any fig leaf to gain power or jail opponents. Trump didn't fail because the rule of law prevailed but because congressional leaders conspired with local governors to overrule the president and deploy the national guard. A counter-coup.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 10:32
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Trump didn't fail because the rule of law prevailed but because congressional leaders conspired with local governors to overrule the president and deploy the national guard. A counter-coup. That didn't happen in 2020. That happened in 2021. yh is talking about court proceedings to stop vote counting and change vote totals and outcomes, which Trump spent his entire lame duck period pursuing in the courts. Also, what you say is true only if you're including Pence under "congressional leaders". He's the one who authorized their deployment, because deploying National Guard troops inside DC required Presidential approval.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 12:08
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:That didn't happen in 2020. That happened in 2021. yh is talking about court proceedings to stop vote counting and change vote totals and outcomes, which Trump spent his entire lame duck period pursuing in the courts. My apologies, I missed the 2020 specific context. As for Jan 6th... given that Trump refused to authorize the request for National Guard support... well, this statement seems to list out a whole slew of people who aren't allowed to overrule the president without invoking the 25th ammendment. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2464427/statement-by-acting-secretary-miller-on-full-activation-of-dc-national-guard/
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 13:00
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Yeah, the question here is pretty much "What if America at the end of the 90's wasn't America at the end of the 90's and actually viewed the right as an active threat?" and I don't know, what if? It's hard to try to predict what might have happened because the environment required likely would have needed to be wildly different.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 13:09
|
|
|
We lost the country when Obama and the Democrats didn't take advantage of a once in a lifetime opportunity and relegate the GOP to a permanent minority party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 14:35
|
|
|
Watching cable news footage of Bush v Gore is bizarre too, the tone is very unserious, like “can you believe this wacky political bullshit, it’s so dumb.” I guess it was that “end of history” mentality where nothing was that important because the machine would keep going and many people really believed nothing would shock it or disrupt it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 14:45
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Watching cable news footage of Bush v Gore is bizarre too, the tone is very unserious, like “can you believe this wacky political bullshit, it’s so dumb.” Have to realize that in the 1990s nazis were still comedy villains from The Blues Brothers
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:30 |
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:I guess it was that “end of history” mentality where nothing was that important because the machine would keep going and many people really believed nothing would shock it or disrupt it. I haven't thought of it that way, and you're dead right. What's unsettling is to think that a huge swath of Americans still see politics through the End of History lens. As I said earlier, maybe more are waking up this month. A democracy is a delicate thing, and history trivially reveals how challenging it is to weigh circumstances when a light touch is needed to maintain democratic norms (99% of the time) and when it needs a precipitous insurgency or intervention to preserve (like the J6 National Guard deployment). Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Jul 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 14:53
|
|