Whatever the outcome in November, Democrats can send more sternly worded notes to Trump.
Yes. I can see them doing that.
I saw what you did tried to do there.
I think any future Dem administration will have to think long and hard on how to move between two extremes, on one side let things continue to backslide while respecting all norms and customs and on the other becoming a mirror version of Trump.
If they want to save their country (and may be human civilization) they’ll have to make an abrupt change of direction, and that will be impossible if they don’t take radical measures and ignore a lot of norms and maybe some laws.
On the other hand destroying the democracy in order to save it is not ideal either.
Some famous last words here:
That doesn’t mean they can’t do stuff if they only have control of Congress. It just means they could do much, much more if they had control of everthing.
Once again, the R’s were highly effective at blocking stuff when they only had control of Congress, under Obama. They didn’t control the WH. There hasn’t until relatively recently been a clear R leaning SC.
This discussion evolved out of @Robby saying as a general proposition “the other branches of government largely rubber-stamp or give their tacit approval to the actions of the executive.”. That proposition is not made good by saying that the D’s could do more if they controlled everything, than if they only controlled Congress.
Further, “the other branches of government” includes the SC, and the SC absolutely does not rubber stamp D statutes, as we know all too well.
Right, I should have clarified that I was speaking about the current Republican executive.
It’s extraordinary how the SC has bent over backwards to accommodate the whims of Trump. John Roberts joined with the three liberal justices yesterday to vote against the Trump ballroom (with Roberts indicating that it was “likely unlawful” because it lacks authorization from Congress). And yet the majority still ruled in favor of Trump.
Rancher face, not U.S. beef, is on the menu:
Well said.
They don’t need to ignore some laws. They need to enforce them - hard and fast, and with the actual metric shit-ton of evidence that exists.
Of course doing that would indeed require ignoring a lot of norms, including worrying about public perception. But those norms are seriously dead anyway.
They’re so mad at Trump they’re only going to vote for him two more times. Three, tops.
“If he does this shit again in his third term, I swear I won’t vote for him for his fourth term. This time I’m serious!”
It’s tough for them. On the one hand, they’re losing their livelihood. On the other hand, they might meet someone who uses they/them pronouns. What a quandary!
They’d much rather vote for some rising 3rd party of right-leaning anti-tariff folks than for the demons whose unmentionable name starts with D.
If there is no such party, they’ll vote R. Even if it’s trump again.
The hope is if there is no such party, they just stay home or submit a none of the above vote.
That’s an acceptable alternative to me. It’s been clear for the last decade or so there’s a good 35-40% of the population that is essentially locked into a cult and non-participation is the best we can ever hope from them
I feel like those last two posters didn’t really pick up what I was saying. I’m saying it’s possible they would meet someone with they/them pronouns!!! And, the voter would be expected to use those pronouns!!
I mean, if you can’t see how that’s more important than your livelihood, well, I guess you’re just part of the cult.
Looks like leopard’s back on the menu, boys!
It’s really sad. I grew up among such folks and still know several. Many of them personally know somebody “with pronouns” and will make endless excuses for the ones they are related to or have known for years but never make the connection that those aren’t exceptions or “the good ones” among the rest.
Sounds like any other bigotry. “He’s <minority>, but not one of the bad ones.”
Oh, I got it. And it’s a good reference; they really are the way you describe.
My response was intended to convey "Yeah, they’d rather have their livelihood and a trans-free world. But absent that choice, R over D every time; no thought required. More like no thought available. D is a snarl word never uttered in polite company. R is just another word for ‘actual American’ ".
And yes, they’re ignorant bigots. News at 11.
Yeah, I know. I just figured reemphasizing it made it seem that much dumber, which is what I was shooting for.