'There Are No Kings in America': Biden Blasts Supreme Court, Issues Dire Warning After Immunity Ruling
dailyboulder.com
“(With) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the supreme court of the United States.”
Throughout his address, Biden underscored the gravity of the moment, emphasizing that the only barrier to the president’s authority now lies in the personal restraint of the officeholder. He warned vehemently against the prospect of Trump returning to power, painting a stark picture of the dangers such an outcome could pose.
You are viewing a single comment
Dumbass and spineless Biden and Democrats. The supreme court literally just started that America had a king but this dumbass party would rather take some stupid fucking high road bullshit instead of playing the game to ensure the fascist fuck around and find out.
They don't even have to resort to assassinations, they could really tell the IRS to audit 501(c) and remove their status from the churches and bullshit Republican charities, or tell the justice department to focus on domestic terrorism and corruption to fuck over Republican groups and representatives, or tell the FDA to allow the sale of raw milk.
Play the god damn game and be the fucking king if these corrupt justice says there's a king.
That is a guaranteed path to fascism.
I'm not gonna say that the chances are good, but if they refuse, and win, and then walk back the changes, maybe fascism can be averted.
If they walk into using these tools and normalise them even more, then when the other party gets the government again, you get a republican fascist, and if the other party never gets the government again, it's because you got a "democrat" fascist.
Don't race to the bottom, everyone loses there.
No, you use the fascist power granted by fascists to abuse the fascists who granted it in the first place. Power is the only thing that stops fascists. Start with a few nights in a black site for the justices who thought granting absolute power to the president was OK. If scotus already accepts fascism from their team it's already too late for your plan to work.
So fascist powers for the fascists, but not for the non-fascists.
Get rid of all thet right now with whatever means IMO.
You can't beat fascism by becoming fascist.
How on earth is it becoming a fascist because you remove pro fascist laws?
That really is some mental gymnastics.
Arbitrarily rewriting laws you don't like sounds pretty fascist to me.
It's truly amazing that people apparently don't understand this.
I think people think of fascism as specifically "murdering minorities" or something rather than a form of autocracy.
You're right, you beat fascism by rooting it out at the source and burning it and salting the ground so it can never take root again. I don't think those are fascist ideals I think those are just normal moral ones.
What does that even mean though?
Right now all it means for the everyday citizen is shunning people socially. Letting people anguish in their own decisions. We as a society have decided it's ok to let people rot in the street for the crime of having no support system. So we ignore and shun and show society those views are not ok. Let fascists rot. It's the only real thing we can do right now other than take strong political stances and close off routes to fascism politically.
This sounds an awful lot like doing nothing
Exactly!👍
When have the Democrats ever shown us that they’ll do that?
Roe? Voting Rights act? Hell, a Republican had to save ObamaCare.
Democrats aren’t going to save us from FASCISM. The sooner everyone realizes this, the more prepared we’ll be to fight against it.
Well we have a 2 party system, and that ain't changing. So if not the Democrats, who?
You can vote for Joe Biden while realizing the Democrats won’t save us, I will. We need workers to organize to build an alternative party to Democrats and Republicans. That’s why I don’t shun those that want to vote third party. We’ll never get a third party until we ask for it. The duopoly has us pigeonholed, and we have to break ourselves out, they’re not gonna do it for us.
I honestly don't know why anyone is strategising as if they're on the same side as dems or any politician. I'm not even convinced we have a common enemy in Trump, because they don't seem serious about beating him.
The question you should ask when voting is "Who is my preferred enemy?" Biden won't abuse the carte blanche immunity from criminal prosecution? Great, sounds like he's the weaker enemy, so vote for him. Force him to keep the position he clearly doesn't want. Force him to disappoint his base for another four years.
While he's doing that, get to work building alternatives that meet people's needs from the bottom up and wean them off of this criminal system, to undermine it and prepare people to thrive as it crumbles.
The great thing about this political theory of change is that it's the same regardless of who's in power. It decouples you from the capricious, disempowering shifts of electoral politics.
That would be juuuuuust about the dumbest thing they could possibly do. It would mobilize gigantic swaths of voters who are heavily invested in rhetoric over fact-checking.
Doing away with Roe mobilized many of those voters who could be considered to be fence sitters towards the left. Removing church tax exemptions would move them right back and it would do NOTHING to solve the problem, because while the actual big offenders are happily USING the hell out of that tax exemption, they're rich enough that they'll get along fine without it.
It WOULD hurt a whole lot of TINY churches that employ 1-50 people per church and actually do community work, though. All of those would go away. That's a LOT of rural food shelves.
I'm largely against the religious tax exemption, but that's a problem we should worry about AFTER we can replace the nationwide infrastructure we'd be dismantling by doing so with something at least as effective as what's there now.
It also screws over the many churches or other religious organizations that genuinely do good for their communities
Theater needs to keep going.
Both sides are the same.
Sounds dumber everytime you say it.
But is he wrong? From Nixon, to Reagan, to Newt GIngrich, to Mitch McConnell to Trump, the Democrats have been feckless and refused to halt this march to fascism. They are complicit by tacit acceptance. This need to adhere to some vague Status Quo (Capitalist Donor Class) is why we are in this situation. It’s time to wake up and realize the Marxists were right all along. You can’t compromise with Capitalism.
Yes, he and you are obviously wrong. Even if everything you said was 100 percent true (lol) the people who failed to stop facism are obviously not the same as fascists themselves. Everything thinking person knows this , and Marx would too if he was alive.
Superior Orders, or ignorance of what is happening, does not absolve one of responsibility.
Again, that is not the claim that was made. You can't even stay on topic. I bet Marx could stay on topic .
Marx abused alcohol, so not sure. The Republicans are capitalists. The Democrats are capitalists. To Marxists they are the same. Liberalism fails because it cannot address the contradictions inherent to capitalism, inequality and wealth accumulation. Capitalism requires inequality for wealth accumulation.
Social democratic reforms can alleviate the inequality and distribute the wealth more equitably, but, because it does not replace capitalism itself, it always falters.
So, although Democrats and Republicans differ on social policy, they both defer to capitalism. Capitalism rules both parties.
Meaningful, important distinctions can exist even when Marxists are unable to recognize them.
Explain? Because systems ultimately fail , it's no good? Longevity and risilience are worthwhile considerations when designing and economic system to govern a civilization, but uktimate fallibility does not invalidate them entirely. More to the point, what evidence is there that Marxists societies do/would last longer?
Can't speak for previously, but recently, a good chunk of Democrats' failures have been because of a select few members holding out, no?
Hasan Piker explains this quite well.
Noooo please. Not that imbecile grifter....
Attack the messenger if you don’t like the message. What did he say that was incorrect?
This is a straight lie. It's just feelings.
A democrat representative from West Virginia represents a completely different electoral base than a democrat from California. So when the House is a slim d majority there are going to be spoilers. Labor reform (and others) has passed many times when Democrats had opportunities. Hassan has a political science degree and knows this. Unfortunately, he is captured by his audience and has to pander to them so he lives in conspiracy land. It's all feelings and no substance.
Like party whips don’t exist. They’re supposed to offer concessions to get bills passed. Pork Barrels are a thing. Stop defending these people, the planet is burning.
When a Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college, it’s not because of red states, it’s because the donor class doesn’t want those policies to pass.
I'm also glad we can pivot away from what a joke Hassan is.
I think you're reinforcing my original point: with just a slim majority a big party tent won't accomplish much. These are just facts. I'm not defending the democrats -- this is just reality.
On another note: I'm curious about this prevalent binary invocation that happens on this site. You accused me of defending these people. I'm not interested in defending anyone --just discussing the facts. Why is everyone on Lemmy.world so intent on ascribing a team/position to everyone so earnestly? What is being gained with this tactic?
I'm also glad we can pivot away from the fact that a Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college, even Republicans, but they can never get passed.
I think you’re reinforcing my original point:
On another note : We are discussing the fact that Defending Democracy Through Elections Won’t Be Enough to Stop Fascism.
Just a guess, but it might have something to do with immanent critique
Ok, I see what's happening. Listen, I'm glad you discovered Marxist-Leninist theory and you feel the urge to re-contextualize everything through that narrative. It's cool -I'm happy for you. I was there ten years ago. It's good to have multiple perspectives to analyze history. What's not good is to adhere to an exclusive narrative. I'm not here to discuss marxist-leninist theory though, I'm here to discuss the facts of the matter. It's very simple and comfortable to sit here and reduce everything to class warfare. The real work happens in the details.
If we analyze each bill that was blocked we can understand what were the causes. We can also analyze when progressive bills did pass and how that work happened. The real work is in the details. My initial statement stands true: with a slim majority in either house or senate, it's going to take moving mountains to pass very progressive legislation. The reason is not class warfare or capitalists enforcing the status quo etc.
This is true. But the voting block that actually shows up to polls is actually venn diagram that overlaps partially. Also, while democrats are busy constantly purity testing each other, Republicans have been able to refine their messaging and impose their draconian policies with impunity. I'm tired of hearing about this both sidesing and upholding the status quo constantly when none of you have any clue about the work or process involved in changing policy. Go participate in local politics and become involved so you can get first-hand knowledge and become more effective. Or sit here and keep telling me about the capitalist class. Maybe that's easier --dunno.
Nah. Immanent critique has nothing to do with why people on Lemmy are so eager to ascribe labels to others. I think it has to do more with the fact that many users on this site are probably younger and can't handle nuance. If they are confronted with an internal critique, then their first reaction is to categorize interlocutors as diametrically opposite. If you point out a flaw in Hamas's warfare you are automatically a Zionist. If you bring up critiques of Marxist-Leninist theory, you are automatically upholding the status quo of capitalism. It's a way to have chilling effect on discourse so as not to be confronted with an internal critique because when you are young, and your entire worldview depends on one exclusive framework you can't risk shattering it. My desire for you as you grow is to learn to accept internal critiques (of whatever world framework you choose to adhere to) without resorting to otherising and also not be afraid to look at the facts of the matter. History is both in the micro and the macro. Don't stick to just the macro.
Can't possibly sound dumber than people still buying this.