monostable555.bsky.social
Overwhelmingly online opinionated overthinker.
381 posts
54 followers
35 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Current crowd = the current government of course. Even an average autocratic regime understands that there must be some compromise to keep the non-political people happy. Not this bunch, they act like they can do anything to anyone with no consequences, and they haven't been proven wrong yet.
comment in response to
post
AFAICT up to now, it was mostly left wing activists and minorities that were doing most of the work to defend democracy, in context of armed threats/intimidation/vote purges from the right wing. And they can't be risking their lives all the time, especially in a de-facto fascist regime.
comment in response to
post
Yes. However, the current crowd is so fiercely, in-your-face destructive and toxic that it's more likely that they might upset the well armed white rural people enough to start pushing back. Wouldn't count on it necessarily, but it may happen.
comment in response to
post
I'm not sure, but I feel the left engaging in active violence might be counterproductive. For people that are not politicians or activists it's probably better to concentrate on maximizing survival in any way possible and hope the right wing collapses from its own internal conflicts. Just a hunch.
comment in response to
post
Luigi has been a Musk supporter, pretty much. I don't think there are any equivalents possible on the left. Left wing is predominantly anti-violence and anti-gun.
comment in response to
post
I don't think that's the case, unfortunately.
comment in response to
post
But are they? It's not *their* money.
comment in response to
post
Obviously he lied, because there are no consequences. Did anyone expect anything else?
comment in response to
post
That's exactly what it is, and that's why Zelensky refused to sign anything.
comment in response to
post
Not sure about that. Ukraine knows Russian occupation. Ukrainians know very well that fighting for freedom is worth it. On the other hand, I'm seeing a lot of capitulation from German authorities on multiple levels.
comment in response to
post
I was thinking of granting an exception for any undercover spies, but I doubt there are any in this day and age.
comment in response to
post
In trumpers' eyes, nothing makes him look like a sucker. He could blow Putin on live TV and they'd scream in awe.
comment in response to
post
That's exactly what it is. If it's actually a genuine traveler and not someone trump sent there to be caught to justify the exchagne.
comment in response to
post
Some idiot (or a pawn) to be exchanged for a high ranking GRU agent, because trump?
comment in response to
post
He knows that. He just wants some excuse for implementing slavery / getting free labor for farms of his supporters.
comment in response to
post
An utterly sleazy mofo.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, right, a "mistake".
comment in response to
post
Was that statement written by Lebedev?
comment in response to
post
Europe does all the work protecting, but US reaps all the benefits? Classic trump.
comment in response to
post
Scumbags like Yoo getting away with it are part of the reason things are how they are now.
comment in response to
post
No, not with the kind of idiots running the government at the time.
comment in response to
post
That's a huge assumption. Arresting on bogus charges is SOP in Russia. Anybody knowingly smuggling cannabis to Russia is an idiot, of course, but I'm willing to give them a benefit of a doubt at least.
comment in response to
post
Or maybe there are enough actual Russian criminals/spies in US to not have to ruin the country's reputation by Russia-style fake charges.
comment in response to
post
Note that "unlimited prosecutorial power" is not something I even suggested in the first place, just that the system shouldn't have a big single point of failure that we're talking about. There could still be other checks and balances. Which, of course, could also have exploitable weak spots.
comment in response to
post
Still not sure what's worse, fully independent prosecutors or prosecutors at mercy of a lawless, authoritarian administration. The first may indeed be really bad or a wash. The second one... well, I'm afraid we'll see that one soon. But there are enough historical examples to know how it looks like.
comment in response to
post
Worse than a system where the full force of unchecked, politicized DOJ at president's command gets unleashed on every group that don't have resources to fight back (minorities, immigrants, poor, middle class), law being secondary to president's whims?
Because looks like that might be on the table.
comment in response to
post
If I (as a prosecutor) can refuse an illegal order, but then have an obligation to resign and be replaced, then that means there is no way of stopping illegal orders, only delaying them, and only once.
I can hardly think of a larger loophole for anyone with authoritarian tendencies.
comment in response to
post
Effectively, the entire concept of checks and balances, prosecutorial independence, rule of law vs rule of men etc. is only strong enough to - for instance - stop consumer protection laws or bully president's son. But during a crisis like this one it appears mostly toothless.
comment in response to
post
Which means that when faced with a blatantly lawless administration, the guaranteed end result (the system working as designed) is every decent person having to resign and being replaced by an apparatchik.
That doesn't sound like a very robust system, is all.
comment in response to
post
I'm not mad at them, mind you! They did something I probably wouldn't be able to do. They put themselves at an insane amount of risk by doing it.
comment in response to
post
Everybody said "people will refuse illegal orders". Looks like the reality is that anyone in position to refuse illegal orders will resign to make space for those who won't refuse those illegal orders.
comment in response to
post
They're likely one of the last lines of defense of democracy, and they've resigned - as you imply - to save their own skins. But did they really? Now they're left with zero power while still ending up on the MAGA hit-list.
I'm not making a moral judgement here - IMO it's just a lose-lose move.
comment in response to
post
I hope you're right, of course, but the situation looks absolutely bleak - it looks as if one side disregards the law completely, while other is strictly bound by every law, procedure, custom, tradition, guideline and gentleman's agreement.
comment in response to
post
There are two paths - either those *actually* resisting and taking risks will be given help in defending themselves (lawyer hours etc.) - or Trump&co. will take control over everything without much effort or risk on their side.
comment in response to
post
Defending democracy is violating ethics, surrendering it is not.
I totally understand people not wanting to risk their lives (professional and actual), but think of the consequences.
Democracy is now effectively defenseless until someone unusually brave (or with nothing to lose) takes the risk.
comment in response to
post
Lots of capitulation going on in the ol' US. Trump capitulating to Putin, federal workers capitulating to doge, Congress capitulating to the felon etc.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Always were.
comment in response to
post
Not a bad idea really. Our values are much more aligned.
comment in response to
post
Laws? Where we're going, there are no laws.
comment in response to
post
He does understand it, he just throws it in our faces because he can.
comment in response to
post
Don't count on it. Ceaușescu, Tito, Al-Qaddafi, Assad, Khamenei, Orban stayed in their positions for decades.
comment in response to
post
Becoming defenceless has never stopped the violence.
comment in response to
post
One example - always doing too little, too late to help Ukraine, imposing constant restrictions on Ukraine attacking Russia because of unfounded fears of escalation, despite everyone who dealt with Russia saying that fighting back hard was the only way to stop them.
comment in response to
post
Who nominated Garland? Who kept him as the head of DOJ?
comment in response to
post
Were they though? A couple hit the important/expensive bits, but the most only hit the oil tanks. Needs way more bavovna.
comment in response to
post
It's not a real scandal when there is no tan suit.
comment in response to
post
They are doing their job. It's just that billionaires are their real employers.
comment in response to
post
Now, Trump loses a lot of his fights. But his supporters still think he's winning, partly because of the media who won't dare to criticize, partly because he's good at tooting his own horn, partly because he's relentless and has backing from his own party, so each loss may potentially be temporary.