'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
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.
Sorry it took me so long to respond, I got lost in the details…
As Rudolph Rucker writes in “Anarcho-syndicalism: Theory and Practice:”
But, again, Hasan explains it more generally, They keep saying , “Just Vote…”.
Can't possibly sound dumber than people still buying this.