Eatspancakes84

joined 1 year ago
[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t believe that, even in the face of a full coup, (gun) violence will solve any issues. There’s just no way that a majority of people support a violent militia taking over power of the government, no matter how illegitimate some think that government is.

As examples, look at the recent coup attempt in Turkey, or the Wagner uprising in Russia. In both cases the violent uprisings were used by the dictator to cement his power. Guns will not help you.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

Why?? Every time someone uses political violence the would be dictator becomes more popular and he can make the state more repressive. Even right now, there will be idiot undecided voters that will change their vote to him because some idiot tried to kill him. There are really no upsides to attempting to remove tyrants with guns.

So a commission makes a mistake and this should lead to voter disenfranchisement? Why do you think that’s fine? Completely reasonable to request a small extension of 1 hour when the commission screws up (which inevitably means will happen sometimes independent of party affiliation).

Of course such committees take joint responsibility rather than pointing the finger at one person. These people are essentially volunteers and you will need people to volunteer in the future.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But then with how partisan judges are now, you would get completely random rulings. Better than what we have now I guess, but in theory you could have two landmark cases against, for example, Roe v Wade, and the SC might handle these challenges completely differently depending on composition.

The issue with (the most important parts of the) voting rights act was that it only applied to states with a history of racism. Expand it to cover all states and in theory the argument of the SC breaks down. Of course, they may well come up with a different line of reasoning, but a Democratic congress should at least try.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

People don’t realize just how close presidential elections are. In CA during the last election 35 percent voted Trump. Clearly that’s a landslide win for Biden, but it still implies that even in the most liberal state in the US 6 million people voted for a facist.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Here’s the issue: think about how happy you will be when TX leaves the union. The GOP feels the same about CA.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

He is also making such a bs argument. Does anybody believe that Maduro lets out criminals in the hope that they will cross the Dorian gap to go to the US? That makes no sense. It’s much more likely that those criminals, once let out of prisons, remain in Venezuela.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Insane double standards. When was the last time Trump did an interview outside of Fox and Friends?

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Also, especially since your body remains on earth. Does your soul have genitalia?

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (2 children)

It’s crazy how much things have changed in 8 years. Before Trump came on the scene, Fox was very biased, but their stories had a basis in fact. 4 years ago they had gone down the drain, but still prevented a coup by calling AZ for Biden. Now they tell lies about as frequently as Trump.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 53 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What we have learned from 10 years of Trump is that you lose when you respond to his arguments. His entire jig is to constantly shift the focus of the debate. He wants you to talk about Biden’s age and buttery males, instead of the economy. The best thing Harris could do (and she did) was to stay on topic.

view more: next ›