i think these people would eat the contents of trumps nappy by the spoonful if he demanded it. How could you have that little self respect?
No I'm not assuming that at all. At least not that it is a good thing-- but it is normal. We were discussing matters of US law, not Yemeni. And as previously mentioned no one even knew he was there. And "only rogue nations do that" is naive in the extreme; that or the definition of "rogue nations" includes just about every nation with the resources to so do. History is rife with examples. We're not going to improve the world any by pretending we already have. Gotta admit reality in order to change it.
It's a classic. And a good lesson for why we shouldn't respond to trolls. We're talking about drones and Yemen instead of what we're bringing to the Trump arrest party on Tuesday.
It's Spring Break, so I am not teaching Tuesday. I work as an election official for the local election until 1:00 or 2:00 (Wisconsin Supreme Court), so I should be home in time for the festivities. Again, I am not happy at all that a former president is being arraigned. However, I am thrilled that a career criminal is facing justice.
Can he run from prison or exile? Honestly I think they just like the drama. https://t.co/p9YDdIpFTN— Rebecca Cohen (@GynoStar) April 1, 2023 plus quoting gynostar..
Well, I imagine he ran a couple of times after he died, as well Eugene V Debs ran for President while in prison.
Not so much recently, though. More recently it only tends to be rogue states, but... Yeah, that! it's no accident that people are attempting to divert us with stuff where we have relatively minor disagreements, (relative to the world's more powerful democracy becoming a fascist state, anyway, where that sort of thing would become commonplace), when dth is about to get clobbered.
I wish the media would give more space to the people who have been correct all along about GOP fascism and deprioritise those who have been consistently wrong If our democracy is being "tested," it's largely because Republicans are casting the entire process as inherently illegitimate in advance. Media accounts of the "test" we face that don't centralize this end up erasing GOP agency from the equation:https://t.co/PaGnu884b0 pic.twitter.com/rH4JUjJChe— Greg Sargent (@GregTSargent) April 1, 2023
The last sentence of the second tweet is the crux of the matter—it’s axiomatic among the punditocracy that Republicans and conservatives in general have no agency.
This was the show I watched recently that reminded me of how fragile democracy is and how ineffective the law and 'politics as usual' can be when trying to defeat it... https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00084tb/rise-of-the-nazis-series-1-1-politics At about 19 mins it talks about how Hitler portrayed himself as a 'man of the people' and not part of the elite and how some people tried to fight him in the courts... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Litten ... Cross-examination of Hitler[edit] In May 1931, Litten summoned Adolf Hitler to testify in the Tanzpalast Eden Trial, a court case involving two workers stabbed by four SA men. Litten cross examined Hitler for three hours, exposing many points of contradiction and proving that Hitler had exhorted the SA to embark on a systematic campaign of violence against the Nazis' enemies. That was crucial because, to appeal to middle class voters, Hitler was trying to pose as a conventional politician and maintained that the activities of the Nazi Party were "strictly legal". Though a judge eventually halted Litten's questioning, thereby saving Hitler from further damning exposure, newspapers reported on the trial in detail and Hitler was investigated for perjury that summer. Although he survived that inquiry intact, he was rattled by the experience.[2][10][11] The thing that struck me watching that wasn't just the fact of what happened with Litten... it was the glowing admiration of Baroness Helena Kennedy, QC who, (for those that don't know), is a liberal icon of left wing intellectual politics in the UK. It was like the apparent 'victory' in a court case about 4 nazis who attacked a communist meeting was somehow the denouement for Hitler and meant he was defeated, politically but, as this shows, unless you actually address the political issues directly, an apparent 'win' in court means nothing... ... “The climax comes in an exchange over a pamphlet written by… Goebbels… a quick guide to Nazi ideology for new party recruits. It includes the promise that if the Nazis cannot come to power through elections, ‘then we will make revolution! Then we will chase the parliament to the devil and found the state on the basis of German fists and German brains!’ If Hitler’s party is legal, Litten wants to know, how could such a thing… be published by the party’s official publisher?... Hitler evades the question by denying that the party ever approved the pamphlet. Then, over the lunch break, Litten learns that the pamphlet is still being sold at Goebbel’s meetings and at all party bookstores. Can Hitler explain this? Hitler cannot. He roars with helpless, inarticulate rage. Litten calmly presses him for an answer. Then the judge, Kurt Ohnesorge, throws Hitler a lifeline… ‘This has nothing to do with this trial,’ he says, disallowing further questioning. Hitler is shaken and embarrassed. But he is saved.” (Hett, Democracy, p. 37). From a legal perspective, given the matters in issue in the trial and the form of questions posed, there was probably merit in this interruption—though we are left to wonder what larger victory might have been won by Litten, and what level of blow might have been sustained by the party, had an answer been compelled. That last part strikes me as the nub of the issue. Unless, 1), The lies of Fox News, (which contradict observable reality and perform the same function as Goebbels lies in making voters believe there are no such things as facts), 2) The gerrymandering of the GOP across the USA and, 3), The fact that elections can be 'bought' by rich political donors, are challenged, you're still in danger of being taken over by fascism. Success in this case won't change that as stuff about campaign finance laws and paying off hookers will likely be viewed a 'small potatoes' by most voters. He, (and the people and organisations that support him), have to be taken down by a whole RAFT of matters, both legal and political, before you'll be in the clear. You should probably start with the blatant gerrymandering and anti-vote laws being pushed in many US states by the GOP and the fact that, AFAIK, these are matters handled by the state probably needs to be challenged head-on, as does the 'citizens united' ruling and many other matters.
That WP article is exactly my thinking as well. The fact that dth paid a hooker and dodged some campaign finance laws, whilst it would be politically telling in a 'normal' political system, (or time), is probably irrelevant in the long run. It's the reaction to it from one of the major political parties and their backers like the Koch's that are the real danger here.
One of the replies... The danger of passive voice. It's not "being tested." Fox and the @GOP are assaulting it.— Grace Alexander (@GraceAl38236563) April 1, 2023 Yep!
Yes, but sometimes walking into a foreign country and arresting somebody who threatens the nation is not a viable option.
fixed, slightly. If BigSoccer P&CE did that for posters, I wouldn't be able to work. I'd be here all the time!
If only there was a constitutional process the GOP could have used to prevent a criminal former president running again and clearing the way for new candidates?!
So, we should just go into that country and kill them? That does not seem very viable or desirable. Also, sometimes, bad people get away with the bad deeds they commit. That happens even with a criminal justice system. By the way, there are, of course, times when killing a suspect may be necessary. The emphasis should be on "necessary."