America's descent into authoritarianism, and it's titular head is a mad man

@Patricio Da Silva
Just curious:
Given the success of your predictions re the 2024 election, and reasoning for same, why do you think you predictions here will prove more accurate?

 

Say, Turtledude, congratulations on those three degrees! I’m sure the walls of your den are lined with the proud symbols of higher learning—right next to the "Live, Laugh, Love" plaque. But tell me, did those degrees include a course in spouting bumper-sticker slogans instead of engaging in actual thought? “Freeloading and teat suckling?” What is this, 1953? Have you met a middle-class American lately? They’re working 60-hour weeks just to afford eggs and toothpaste while you worry about a mythical parade of layabouts living large on government aid.

The middle class isn’t struggling because people are getting "too much help." It’s struggling because the system you defend has had its boot on their necks for decades. Look at wages versus productivity -- flat for the middle class, soaring for the wealthy. It started with Nixon, skyrocketed under Reagan, and persists today under the lingering shadow of neoliberal policies. And while Obama and Biden tried to reverse it, Republicans -- thanks to their uncanny ability to bamboozle nearly half of America -- have blocked real progress at every turn. Yet, here you are, blaming the poor. Because, of course, it’s always easier than holding the rich accountable.

As for your usual rebuttal? You won’t have one. Instead, I’ll get the classic "wall of noise" or "AI nonsense" dismissal -- or some equally predictable cop-out. Right, TURTLEDUDE?

 

Was a disaster. Gorsuch is the guy who asserted that a good judge will not consider the outcome of his rulings.

Well, last time I checked:

1. "Justice" is an outcome
2. If Gorsuch, as a 'justice', is not concerned about 'justice', then why in hell is....

A) the symbol of jurisprudence a blind woman holding the scales of justice?

B) Why in hell are the judges on the Supreme Court referred to as 'justices', if 'justice' is not something to be concerned with?

Apparently, he's so bogged down in 'textualism' that he forgot why he donned the robe in the first place. It's fine to harp on the text, as a textualist justice, as long as the text is not ambiguous, but we know the law is often ambiguous, and the Constitution does, indeed, have its share of ambiguities. It's at the crossroads of clarity versus ambiguity where we need justices. If the text can't deliver the justice required by the title, then the justice demands that he be concerned about the outcome of his rulings.

This is why a pragmatist justice is better than an ideologue.

 

Biden claims the economy is the best it has been in ages. Do you not believe him?

 

No, you voted him in.

THat would be Trump, of course.

It wasn't Biden who engaged in........

 

the claim doesn't conflict with the point.

In the context of neoliberalism, thoroughly entrenched in America, resulting in a flat wage graph compared to the rich, in a long time, things are better now than in the past, overall.

That means that, we've made some progress, but the neoliberal ship is still sailing in America, and it's doubtful it will be reversed until the public wises up and votes neolibs/conservatives/repubs in general, out of office to where they have little power to block Democrats agenda.

See, the problem with you, kriman, and this occurs frequently with you, that you fail to grasp 'nuance' and make distinctions where you tend to think in false choice black and white dichotomies. Life is in the grey areas.

 

Ah, Joe, Joe, Joe, what do you know, JOE?

You’re trying so hard, I’ll give you that. But your argument isn’t just grasping at straws -- it’s knitting a whole tapestry of false equivalencies from them. Let’s unravel this mess, shall we?

First off, your claim that Democrats are somehow the architects of authoritarianism? That’s like blaming the fire department for your house burning down because they showed up with water. The Jan. 6 rioters weren’t “political allies” in some abstract sense -- they were a mob, incited by your guy, attempting to overturn the democratic process. That’s not politics as usual; that’s sedition with a MAGA hat. But sure, tell me again how Democrats calling for accountability is the same as Bannon wanting to lock up Rachel Maddow because her face annoys him.

And then you bring up Dominion, Fox News, and defamation lawsuits like you’ve uncovered some grand conspiracy. Let me explain this in terms even your favorite cable hosts would understand: Dominion sued Fox for lying about them, and Fox paid -- not because Schumer or Jeffries said anything, but because Fox’s lawyers knew they were caught red-handed. That’s not authoritarianism; that’s capitalism with a courtroom twist. If Fox News didn’t want to lose nearly $800 million, maybe they shouldn’t have traded journalism for fan fiction.

Oh, but now we get to your pièce de résistance: the “Democrats did it first” routine. You’re suggesting that legitimate legal actions -- rooted in actual evidence -- (a salient distinction you incessantly fail to understand) are the moral equivalent of Trump promising a Stasi-style purge of anyone who ever said something mean about him. Let’s clear this up: prosecuting people for breaking the law isn’t authoritarianism; threatening to jail your political opponents because they told the truth about you is. It’s not a nuance issue; it’s a kindergarten-level distinction between accountability and revenge.

Your prediction about my response is cute, though. You assume I’ll deny the validity of your false equivalences. And you’re right, but not for the reason you think. The difference is, Democrats didn’t manufacture crimes out of thin air to attack Trump’s allies. They investigated crimes that actually happened. If you think prosecuting coup plotters and white-collar grifters is the same as threatening to sue pollsters because they hurt your feelings, then you’re not making an argument -- you’re doing a stand-up routine.

And here’s the kicker, Joe: even if Trump and his band of sycophants try to pull off this fascist cosplay you’re so keen to defend, they’ll fail. Why? Because unlike the grift-ridden chaos of Trumpworld, the courts, the Constitution, and basic reality don’t bend to the whims of wannabe autocrats. Rachel Maddow isn’t going to jail. Liz Cheney isn’t getting charged for rolling her eyes too hard. And Trump? He’s already knee-deep in lawsuits and indictments because the evidence against him isn’t political; it’s criminal.

Criminal. Capiche?

So let’s be clear: when the history books are written, this isn’t going to be some “both sides” tale of woe. It’s going to be about a country that flirted with fascism and a con man who tried to turn the Oval Office into a throne room. And when it comes crashing down, Joe, you’ll have a choice to make: cling to the wreckage of this authoritarian fantasy, or finally open your eyes to the reality that democracy doesn’t die because of accountability -- it dies when people like you pretend that holding criminals accountable is the same as persecuting the innocent.

Yes, I know it's tough to admit the truth when the evidence points to your guy, but, evidence against GOP administrations is nothing new, really, history is replete with crime in Republican administrations. Maybe, just maybe, someday, you'll have enough wherewithal to swallow the bitter pill.

But, I'm not holding my breath.

 

Biden does not say it is a gray area. He says it is good.

 

I have to admit you one of the finest fiction writers on the site. Coupled with demeaning denials (rather than factual disprove) is noteworthy. And your presentation of LW propaganda as established fact is second to none.
Sadly, your claim that the Dem platform is a preventative of authoritarianism rather than its defining document is so obviously a disinformation tactic or basic ignorance. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're doing this on purpose.

 

as someone with 30 years of federal appellate case experience, I can say Gorsuch is a very good justice and was a very good CoA judge. That someone with your leanings dislikes him is proof enough he is doing well

 

horsepoop; Biden or his handlers-used law enforcement to attack Trump and Trump supporters. He subverted the judiciary with biased judges ruling on issues involving Trump. He or his handlers tried to use big tech and the media to suppress information harmful to his side and to accentuate issues that help him. Biden has appointed judges and Justices who want to disarm the public as well. he or his handlers are fascists

 

some serious fiction you have there. the middle class is shrinking because of too much government that is funding too many freeloaders. Chicago alone has wasted 460 million on illegal aliens in the last two years. too many kids majoring in subjects that don't pay off as well. Most of the people I know working 60 hour weeks are small business owners, associates in big law and accounting firms, residents in the hospitals and professional athletes. I don't blame the poor. I blame left who tries to keep people poor and dependent on government

 

Cite / copy / paste, please.
The PDS-BS-ometer tells me you have the quote - assuming it even exists - wrong, you are taking it out of context, or both.

 

@Patricio Da Silva
Anything?

 

I didn't say he said it was a grey area. I said his saying it's good doesn't conflict with the fact that wages, though they have improved, though the economy is good, compared to the past, doesn't negate my point. To say that wages are not keeping in pace with the expansion of wealth to the rich does not equal 'economy is bad', and by that metric, your failure to grasp this is your failure to make these distinctions, because life is nuanced, there are grey, it's not black and white. Biden can say it's good, and be accurate, I can say wages haven't kept pace with the rich, and be accurate, these two statements do not conflict.

But, of course, that goes right over your head.

 

I did not say that he said it was a grey area.

You said "See, the problem with you, kriman, and this occurs frequently with you, that you fail to grasp 'nuance' and make distinctions where you tend to think in false choice black and white dichotomies. Life is in the grey areas."

You said or implied it was a grey area. Biden says it is good, not grey.

You have the false belief that you are some kind of superior being. As many have pointed out, you aren't. You are in over your head and afraid to admit it.

 

Dunning Kruger effect

 

As a person far more experienced and educated in the law I'm guessing you and Gorsuch are talking separate concepts

 

No, he didn't, nor do you have evidnce.

You can't name them. You need to take your posts to the CT forum.

Lawfare is a myth. Every indictment was based on the findings of a grand jury. Moreover, the DOJ indicted a number of Dems, even defended Trump twice in court, so your insinuation is horse manure.

And that's rich considering Trump’s DOJ literally tried to investigate his political enemies, threatened to withhold military equipment to Ukraine if Zelensky didn't publicly announce Biden was being criminally investigated. Biden lets DOJ function independently -- Trump made it his personal vendetta machine. You really do not have a leg to stand on.

And you want me to believe you are 'superior' in legal knowledge, yet you are blind to these well established facts which you cannot disprove?

You're trying to tell me you are a lawyer yet you make a blatant misstatements of fact that can be fact checked in like, 2 seconds?

NONE OF THE JUDGES RULING IN ANY OF THE CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST TRUMP WERE APPOINTED BY BIDEN.

A number of the judges who ruled against Trump (in the elections) were either appointed by Republicans or Trump, himself. Take, for example, in the Docs case, Cannon was rebuked twice by the 11th circuit, and two of the 3 judges were appointed by Trump

Here's the 400 page Senate Judiciary Report on how TRump tried to subvert the 2020 election, evidence included:
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim Staff Report FINAL.pdf

.You mean Trump threatening to revoke Section 230, suing social media companies, and calling the press the “enemy of the people”? Biden’s not muzzling anyone -- you’re just mad your conspiracies don’t trend anymore.

Oh, yeah, the Fifth Circuit -- the far-right-wing appeals court that ruled to restrict access to mifepristone, an abortion medication, despite its decades-long safety record and widespread use, was pearl-clutching about government “coercion.” Let’s get this straight: public officials informing private companies about misinformation is not “censorship”; it’s governing in the 21st century. Platforms made their own decisions, as they always do, based on their rules. The court is twisting the First Amendment into a shield for lies and chaos. And calling this “coercion”? Please. If suggesting responsible action is unconstitutional, then what’s next -- banning the Surgeon General from issuing health advisories? This isn’t about free speech; it’s about coddling conspiracy theories. That particular court is in la la land.

Still have your guns, don’t you? Biden’s supporting sensible gun safety laws, not confiscation. Meanwhile, Trump banned bump stocks, remember that?

You wouldn't know a fascist if one was right in front of you.

How do I know this? You voted for Trump.

"Trump is fascist" says both General Kelly and General Milley.

What,. I'm going to take your word for it over 70 years of honorable military service??

I don't think so.

ANd you claim to be educated.

Still have your guns, don’t you? Biden’s supporting sensible gun safety laws, not confiscation. Meanwhile, Trump banned bump stocks, remember that?

 

more wall of noise. i still have my guns because hillary lost

 

Sorry, you're looking at scabs and not the reason for the wounds.

That you do not understand how neoliberal policies has ruined the nation, is apparent, and the graphs prove it.

I explained it and your forest for the trees doesn't refute my bigger picture argument.

I took the horse to water, but I can't force you to drink.

Not only that, the right has no solutions other than to give more goodies to rich people and screw everyone else.

That's neoliberalism, for you.

Really stupid.

 

When all else fails shift into slobber slinging and charge off eh. Do you need a squeegee to clean your screen?

 

Good post. Completely decapitating.

They have no response.

 

A month ago I was being told the economy was the greatest ever, and now it sounds like Joads can't afford eggs and toothpaste as we are apparently in a Trumpression. What happened I wonder?

 

More than one thing can be true at the same time. Inflation can have come down to within a fraction of the Fed's target, there can be empirical evidence of a strong economy, and consumer prices can remain high following a post-COVID, global inflationary spiral in response to a massive, world-wide supply chain disruption. Just as trump can be an obese, grotesque, inveterate liar, with a desire for autocratic rule all at the same time.