“No Kings" Protests (Latest, 3/28/26)

[ZenMode]

no, they don't.

fascism has a very specific definition and no one was throwing it around like you claim because it didn't apply. now it very much does.

Is It Fascism? A Leading Historian Changes His Mind. (Published 2024)

Robert Paxton thought the label was overused. But now he’s alarmed by what he sees in global politics — including Trumpism.

www.nytimes.com

America is now in fascism’s legal phase | Jason Stanley

The US’s history of racism is fertile ground for fascism. Attacks on the courts, education, voting rights and women’s rights are steps to toppling democracy

www.theguardian.com

I agree that the claims may not meet the dictionary definition, but that hasn't slowed down the millions of protesters calling Trump a king, right?

My point was that people make inaccurate claims regardless of who's in office, often while ignoring/defending the actions of their party's president who's doing similar things.

I don't recall hearing a whole lot of complaints, by Democrats, when Biden tried to use OSHA to force 80 million Americans to get the COVID vaccine or risk losing their jobs. I don't recall much complaining about Biden shot down by SCOTUS, in regard to forgiving student loan debt, only to turn around and try to find another way to do what SCOTUS had just told him he didn't have the authority to do.

It's just political gamesmanship. It's always, no matter your party affiliation, about stirring up anger and fear to drive voter participation because "they" are dictators or tyrants or kings or whatever the en vogue, term-of-the-day happens to be.

 

[lawtig02]

Zen waking up this morning —

 

[C-Money]

I agree that the claims may not meet the dictionary definition, but that hasn't slowed down the millions of protesters calling Trump a king, right?

My point was that people make inaccurate claims regardless of who's in office, often while ignoring/defending the actions of their party's president who's doing similar things.

I don't recall hearing a whole lot of complaints, by Democrats, when Biden tried to use OSHA to force 80 million Americans to get the COVID vaccine or risk losing their jobs. I don't recall much complaining about Biden shot down by SCOTUS, in regard to forgiving student loan debt, only to turn around and try to find another way to do what SCOTUS had just told him he didn't have the authority to do.

It's just political gamesmanship. It's always, no matter your party affiliation, about stirring up anger and fear to drive voter participation because "they" are dictators or tyrants or kings or whatever the en vogue, term-of-the-day happens to be.

No, it's not the same. One is trying to save people and to help people. Nothing Trump does helps anyone but himself and the rich. He does nothing out of good or kindness. Your bosiding is absurd.

 

[ZenMode]

this reads like it was written by a 6 year old.

You must know some amazing 6 year olds!

literally. "i can think of ways that things could be worse, so everything must be fine!"

Straw man: DENIED.

just unbelievably puerile logic.

Well, I am only 6, so.....

 

[ZenMode]

No, it's not the same. One is trying to save people and to help people.

Right, like I said above:

"...often while ignoring/defending the actions of their party's president who's doing similar things."

Nothing Trump does helps anyone but himself and the rich.

I'm quite certain that he believes, even if wrong, that he actually addressing voter fraud with the SAVE Act or helping the country by deporting illegal aliens or helping the fiscal situation by implementing tariffs, just as I'm sure Biden and his administration thought they were helping the country by adding a trillion dollars onto the debt with a snap of their fingers.

 

[He's Not Here]

this reads like it was written by a 6 year old.

literally. "i can think of ways that things could be worse, so everything must be fine!"

just unbelievably puerile logic.

Remember - after the election/before the inauguration, zen said “it’s not going to be that bad. You guys are overreacting.

That line in the sand has become part of his identity. So, everything since then has been twisted argument after twisted argument trying to defend that stance. His ego won’t let him admit that he was wrong and that Trump has been everything we said he’d be and worse.

If the consequences weren’t so dire, it would be a fascinating case study.

 

[C-Money]

Right, like I said above:

"...often while ignoring/defending the actions of their party's president who's doing similar things."


I'm quite certain that he believes, even if wrong, that he actually addressing voter fraud with the SAVE Act or helping the country by deporting illegals or helping the fiscal situation by implementing tariffs, just as I'm sure Biden and his own registration thoughts they were helping the country by adding a trillion dollars onto the debt with a snap of their fingers.

No, you're not right. It's not the same thing. You want to boside everything so bad you can't even see the difference between good and bad.

 

[superrific]

I don't recall hearing a whole lot of complaints, by Democrats, when Biden tried to use OSHA to force 80 million Americans to get the COVID vaccine or risk losing their jobs. I don't recall much complaining about Biden shot down by SCOTUS, in regard to forgiving student loan debt, only to turn around and try to find another way to do what SCOTUS had just told him he didn't have the authority to do.

And again a small amount of relevant knowledge would help you.

What you're describing about student loans is actually the norm, not an exception. Here is the usual life path for an agency rule:

1. Agency proposes the draft rule. The rule is accompanied by explanations of what problem it's trying to solve; a variety of possible solutions; the reason why the agency chose this particular solution; and then responses to objections.

2. The agency receives public comment. These are often written statements delivered directly to the agency, usually from stakeholders (including regulated entities). These statements either express support for the rule; point out problems with the draft rule; and frequently some of both.

3. The agency takes the comments, incorporates them into the rule-making and issues the final rule. It is expected to address all substantial objections.

4. The rule gets challenged in court. If the agency has not addressed the objections to the court's satisfaction, or if there are other issues (such as failure to incorporate certain costs), the court will vacate the rule and remand to the agency.

**!!

5. This is the most important part: the agency then "fixes" the rule so that it will past muster under the court's analysis, and then republishes the rule and we start again.

**!!

Almost all regulations go through a cycle like this, unless the agency gets it right first time. In my one year of clerking, we approved three regs that had been previously vacated and then resubmitted.

So your complaint about Biden is sheer regurgitated ignorance. The court said that it didn't have the authority *under one particular statutory provision.* There is nothing wrong with trying to use a different statutory provision. In fact, it's expected. It rarely saves the regulation, but sometimes it does.

 

[superrific]

I don't recall hearing a whole lot of complaints, by Democrats, when Biden tried to use OSHA to force 80 million Americans to get the COVID vaccine or risk losing their jobs.

That's because it was the right thing to do, given that the purpose of OSHA is to promote healthy workplaces. It is literally the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. And the Supreme Court did not conclude that it was beyond the president's power; it merely stayed a judgment below because it couldn't possibly justify overturning the rule. The logic it did use would have been risible if not so dangerous and tragic.

Why would I complain that the president enacted a measure to promote public health and stop the spread of deadly illness, when the only downside is that some idiot anti-vaxxers just didn't want to get a shot? If it was up to me, anyone who refused the vaccine would have been refused medical care.

 

[C-Money]

Zen thinks Hitler and Biden are the same because Hitler believed what he was doing was right.

 

[ZenMode]

That's because it was the right thing to do, given that the purpose of OSHA is to promote healthy workplaces.

Many, many people, rightfully so, saw it as massive federal government overreach to force people to get a vaccine or literally lose their ability to feed their families, keep a roof over their head, etc.

There will always be disagreement on gray area topics in regard to individual rights. As a person who gladly got the first vaccine and a booster, I found it to be horrifying that the government was basically threatening the livelihood of 80 million people to force them to get a vaccine.

I found it nearly as horrifying that people, like you, have so little appreciation for individual rights that you think it was acceptable.

 

[ZenMode]

Zen thinks Hitler and Biden are the same because Hitler believed what he was doing was right.

Straw man: DENIED.

 

[lawtig02]

Many, many people, rightfully so, saw it as massive federal government overreach to force people to get a vaccine or literally lose their ability to feed their families, keep a roof over their head, etc.

There will always be disagreement on gray area topics in regard to individual rights. As a person who gladly got the first vaccine and a booster, I found it to be horrifying that the government was basically threatening the livelihood of $80 million people to force them to get a vaccine.

I found it nearly as horrifying that people, like you, have so little appreciation for individual rights that you think it was acceptable.

 

[C-Money]

Straw man: DENIED.

Many, many people, rightfully so, saw it as massive federal government overreach to force people to get a vaccine or literally lose their ability to feed their families, keep a roof over their head, etc.

There will always be disagreement on gray area topics in regard to individual rights. As a person who gladly got the first vaccine and a booster, I found it to be horrifying that the government was basically threatening the livelihood of 80 million people to force them to get a vaccine.

I found it nearly as horrifying that people, like you, have so little appreciation for individual rights that you think it was acceptable.

It's horrifying that people like you don't see the difference.

 

[superrific]

Many, many people, rightfully so, saw it as massive federal government overreach to force people to get a vaccine or literally lose their ability to feed their families, keep a roof over their head, etc.

There will always be disagreement on gray area topics in regard to individual rights. As a person who gladly got the first vaccine and a booster, I found it to be horrifying that the government was basically threatening the livelihood of 80 million people to force them to get a vaccine.

I found it nearly as horrifying that people, like you, have so little appreciation for individual rights that you think it was acceptable.

1. There was a third option -- employees could submit to weekly COVID tests and wear face masks. People just didn't want the inconvenience.

2. Individual rights/freedom is only a useful policy or moral principle when there are no externalities. When your conduct affects other people, then it's not exclusively your conduct any more, and the government can regulate. Let me give you some examples.

A. You are required to put your trash in trash bins. You cannot exercise the freedom to toss a Doritos bag on the side of the road. If everyone did that, the litter problem would be immense.

This is even true for household trash. Sometime you should see what happens when you drop your trash bags on the road outside your home.

B. In cold environments, you are generally required to keep your sidewalk free of snow and ice. If you do not, you can be fined. The government can indeed force you to shovel or snow-blow or hire someone to do it. That's because failure to do so would ruin the walking experience for everyone.

C. Governments can even require you to mow your lawn. Many jurisdictions have rules that grass has to be less than a certain length or else you will get fined.
D. Insider trading is illegal. It's just a matter of freedom, isn't it? You got private info from the CEO; now you want to trade on it. Why shouldn't you be allowed?

3. You see, governments can address collective action problems without infringing on freedoms. In fact, the inability to address collective action problems is a deprivation of freedom. A community should be able to say that it wants its rain not to be acidic, its smog not deadly, its public water germ-free and so forth.

Vaccines are a collective action issue. Everyone has an incentive to free ride on everyone else. Vaccines hurt a little, and they can make you sick for a day. Why do that if, instead, you could just count on everyone else to get the vaccine and then you will be safe indirectly. This is the sort of problem that governments confront every day, and rectify with regulation. It happens all the time. Why do you need a license to drive? Why can the government force you to sell your land through eminent domain?

This is the final time I will explain this to you. If you repeat the same errors, I'm not going to engage. I'll just refer you to this explanation. BTW this is standard conventional wisdom. It is not a controversial view. It is taught in basic economics courses, regulatory courses, law school courses. It is ensconced in thousands of laws and thousands of judicial opinions. The government can regulate collective action problems. End of story.

 

[ZenMode]

1. There was a third option -- employees could submit to weekly COVID tests and wear face masks. People just didn't want the inconvenience.

2. Individual rights/freedom is only a useful policy or moral principle when there are no externalities. When your conduct affects other people, then it's not exclusively your conduct any more, and the government can regulate. Let me give you some examples.

A. You are required to put your trash in trash bins. You cannot exercise the freedom to toss a Doritos bag on the side of the road. If everyone did that, the litter problem would be immense.

This is even true for household trash. Sometime you should see what happens when you drop your trash bags on the road outside your home.

B. In cold environments, you are generally required to keep your sidewalk free of snow and ice. If you do not, you can be fined. The government can indeed force you to shovel or snow-blow or hire someone to do it. That's because failure to do so would ruin the walking experience for everyone.

C. Governments can even require you to mow your lawn. Many jurisdictions have rules that grass has to be less than a certain length or else you will get fined.
D. Insider trading is illegal. It's just a matter of freedom, isn't it? You got private info from the CEO; now you want to trade on it. Why shouldn't you be allowed?

3. You see, governments can address collective action problems without infringing on freedoms. In fact, the inability to address collective action problems is a deprivation of freedom. A community should be able to say that it wants its rain not to be acidic, its smog not deadly, its public water germ-free and so forth.

Vaccines are a collective action issue. Everyone has an incentive to free ride on everyone else. Vaccines hurt a little, and they can make you sick for a day. Why do that if, instead, you could just count on everyone else to get the vaccine and then you will be safe indirectly. This is the sort of problem that governments confront every day, and rectify with regulation. It happens all the time. Why do you need a license to drive? Why can the government force you to sell your land through eminent domain?

This is the final time I will explain this to you. If you repeat the same errors, I'm not going to engage. I'll just refer you to this explanation. BTW this is standard conventional wisdom. It is not a controversial view. It is taught in basic economics courses, regulatory courses, law school courses. It is ensconced in thousands of laws and thousands of judicial opinions. The government can regulate collective action problems. End of story.

Like I said, there's gray area and opinions will always vary when it comes to government overreach.

In this case, forcing weekly tests was not only inconvenient, but untenable given the existing shortage of tests, inaccuracy of tests, not to mention how forcing potentially tens of millions more to test weekly would exaserbate the existing shortage. The government was making the alternative as painful as possible to make the vaccine the only realistic option.

No, shoveling sidewalks, lawn mowing and cleaning up trash isn't comparable to forcing people to inject something, with no long term testing for side effects, into their bodies.

 

[4thgenheel]

I agree that the claims may not meet the dictionary definition, but that hasn't slowed down the millions of protesters calling Trump a king, right?

My point was that people make inaccurate claims regardless of who's in office, often while ignoring/defending the actions of their party's president who's doing similar things.

I don't recall hearing a whole lot of complaints, by Democrats, when Biden tried to use OSHA to force 80 million Americans to get the COVID vaccine or risk losing their jobs. I don't recall much complaining about Biden shot down by SCOTUS, in regard to forgiving student loan debt, only to turn around and try to find another way to do what SCOTUS had just told him he didn't have the authority to do.

It's just political gamesmanship. It's always, no matter your party affiliation, about stirring up anger and fear to drive voter participation because "they" are dictators or tyrants or kings or whatever the en vogue, term-of-the-day happens to be.