#NoKingsDay

Nope. Your msnbc rhetoric is pretty pathetic. You focus on the outliers because like sheep you buy what madcow and Scarface tell you to. Thousands of criminals here illegally at the invitation of president vegetable are being deported and that is a great thing for this country. Only leftwing nut jobs oppose that. Only in your fucked up head would that be considered fascist. It won’t be long before a mass murder plays out in some fashion in this country at the hands of a terrorist who came illegally under Joe and your side will try to spin it like the cowards you are.
A mass murder occurred Friday by someone exactly like you.
 
A mass murder occurred Friday by someone exactly like you.
Rather ironic for a Trumper to be predicting that immigrants will murder someone when one of their own literally just murdered two people and came damn close to killing two more, and all because he's convinced himself that their political views are so evil they had to die. IMO, the real threat to this country right now isn't coming from immigrants, it's coming from radicalized, xenophobic, white nationalist fundamentalist Christians who can't handle that the world around them is changing in ways they don't like.
 
As if we needed any more proof that he sees himself as a dictator
A true king/dictator likely puts significant effort into stopping the #nokings protests which are reported as the biggest in US history.

As it actually went down, Trump sat quietly for the parade, spoke for about 7 minutes, fairly humbly and presidential-ly, and left.

There's no doubt that he expects those close to him to by loyal and not question him.
 
A true king/dictator likely puts significant effort into stopping the #nokings protests which are reported as the biggest in US history.

As it actually went down, Trump sat quietly for the parade, spoke for about 7 minutes, fairly humbly and presidential-ly, and left.

There's no doubt that he expects those close to him to by loyal and not question him.

I suspect that his connection to reality is tenuous and very much altered. That makes him no less destructive nor dangerous.
 
Fwiw, historically, armed conflict is notably less successful at curbing autocracy than sustained popular protest, including corporate pressure campaigns.
Armed conflict is more successful at removing autocratic regimes. The problem is that the conflict produces a new boss not so much unlike the old boss. I'm assuming this is what you are referring to, and it's a good point.

On the other hand -- and this is something I think about, as someone who admired Gandhi possibly more than any other human who lived -- it's unclear whether peaceful protest can still be effective. When was the last time an autocratic regime was toppled by protests? Egypt? And then the Muslim Brotherhood filled the void, until the military staged a coup. The country is more or less a soft dictatorship at the moment.

What changed? First, I think the autocrats learned how to boil the frog. They preserve the trappings of democracy while slowing eating away at it -- which has the function of blunting opposition. For instance, one wonders how effective the civil rights movement would have been if white southerners could have toned it down a bit. No colored water fountains or black people can't walk on the street or standing in front of the university entrance. I mean, it would still be an unjust society but people aren't going to protest as much if they see their oppression in abstract terms. There's a reason we tell the Rosa Parks story the way we do. Well, several reasons -- but one of them, surely, is that Rosa Parks comes across more sympathetically if she was minding her own business when forced to sit in the back of the bus. It wasn't an abstract harm. They humiliated her. They gave her no choice but to protest, so says the popular narrative.

Second, the folks in charge have to be willing to be shamed. This is the point of truth behind the idea that European colonizers were something less than complete barbarians. Well, the British and French at least. They were barbarians but also invested in the idea of human rights and thus they could be shamed into liberation. The famous scene in the film Gandhi where the Indians line up to get beaten by the soldiers when trying to enter the salt facility -- it's stylized for the screen but is more or less based on the Dharasana Salt Works incident. And what happened is that the British soldiers became uncomfortable and then unwilling to keep beating the shit out of innocent people.

Is that even possible any more? Right-wingers think propaganda is better than apology or reconsideration. Meanwhile, they have gotten better at de-empathizing the regime's goons. I'm not sure exactly what techniques they use (probably a combo of training, fear, and selection), but anyway: do we really think that North Korean soldiers would have any qualms about beating the crap out of 500 people in seriatim? Russian soldiers?

None of this is to say that armed conflict is better, or has become a more attractive option, or is more justified. It's simply to wonder if the days when huge marches had any effect are done.
 
Nope. Your msnbc rhetoric is pretty pathetic. You focus on the outliers because like sheep you buy what madcow and Scarface tell you to. Thousands of criminals here illegally at the invitation of president vegetable are being deported and that is a great thing for this country. Only leftwing nut jobs oppose that. Only in your fucked up head would that be considered fascist. It won’t be long before a mass murder plays out in some fashion in this country at the hands of a terrorist who came illegally under Joe and your side will try to spin it like the cowards you are.
Trump tanked the bi-partisan border bill because Biden was deporting more individuals than Trump did and Trump didn't like that
Whatever is good for Trump is good for America
As an aside if all you have is name calling, don't bother
 
Back
Top