Absolutely! There really is no other sane way to look at this one. And yet somehow the "wise centrist" position is to pretend that we have to respect the fascists and treat them kindly as they hope to stave our skulls in with lead pipes.
the thing about bullying is that it's often pretty effective, unfortunately.
You know...it's also the thing where Trump is seen as the avatar of whiteness, and as therefore especially authentic/real/valid, and people therefore default to assuming that we can't defy him without undermining REAL AMERICA.
Oh yeah. And since the people who talk about 'REAL AMERICA' are by and large, fascist fuckwads, we are fed the idea that "heavens to Betsy! we simply can't dare offend the fascist fuckwads of REAL AMERICA"...or what? They'll act as bad as they already do?
The only take I've seen that is different than this pretty obviously correct one (which I'm always thankful you make, Noah, since you don't always see the obviously correct take in public discourse) is Jeet Heer saying it's a distraction from building a pro-democracy majority.
The only way I think that has merit is if it's directed at Democratic party leadership. I would agree that they tend to want to be bystanders instead of active participants in doing good things. But even then I don't think "letting" courts do this necessarily prevents Dem leadership from doing what needs to be done. Dem leadership will always find ways to hide behind the status quo if they really want to.
So having the courts rule that an accused Insurrectionist (which is enough by 14th Amendment, Article 3 standards) cannot be on the ballot in their state is "a distraction from building a pro-democracy majority"?
I'M a Leftist (though hopefully not a dirtbag one), and that makes zero sense to me! I tried to parse it before responding to see if maybe I could understand the rationale even if I disagreed with it, but...I got nothing.
::insert classic cartoon gif of dog smacking his head against a lamppost repeatedly::
I also read Damon Linker, and I think it is important to have someone who is reliably gelatinous. I have enjoyed watching how his thinking changes, as opposed to the content of any single article. He just brings up different points worth considering, that's all.
Some of us have predominantly scientific minds. We are constantly questioning ourselves and everything. I question and think about my own morals, in the hope that I can base them on reason. On that front, I find Linker’s work to be good for me.
Is he right, though? I disagree with him, and on this issue an attorney commented on my comment implying that it is a thorny legal issue. Obviously. But I think the mistake being made is calling everything ”partisan”. This is not a party issue (though the Republicans want it to seem that way). It is WAY bigger. My concern is that the Supreme Court in some way rules that Jan 6 was legitimate political discourse. If that happens, not only will Trump benefit, but some of the convicted individuals will effectively be innocent.
I'm betting on the Extremes waffling on the definition of "engaged," looking at the date of the 14th and deciding that "engaged" has to involve horses and cavalry charges.
"judges and election officials all over the country begin disqualifying candidates for any number of reasons." WTF? There aren't "any number of reasons" why a presidential candidate is disqualified. Besides the age and birth requirements, there is just one--insurrection. Linker doesn't think there's any evidence of insurrection???
This is why people espousing this opinion always waffle on the specifics.
That, and they're invested in not fully exposing the reasoning, i.e. that they know /Republicans/ will use literally any excuse to block their opponents and they're trapped somewhere in the 1990s, thinking that Republicans still /wait/ for an excuse to do what they want rather than just doing it and justifying it with lies, slander, and bullshit.
I've actually seen some pretty cogent arguments that the Colorado and Maine cases are on shaky Constitutional ground and aren't really giving the insurrection charge due process. HOWEVER - the constitution was written by slave owners and patriarchal dipshits who would be scandalized by anything resembling pluralistic democracy. If the courts can be used to stop Trump, don't sandbag the effort, Jesus.
I listened to that this morning. I feel SCOTUS will lean on “officer” vs “Official”. Officers are appointed. Officials are elected ( congress, president, senate) so doesn’t look good for democracy. 😞
What a refreshingly straightforward commonsense perspective.
Sad that we're going to be force-fed the idea that we have to kowtow to fascists lest they do things *they have already done* right up until they do whatever it is they were already going to do next, then get blamed for it!
From my perspective, those wanting to deny "nazis" on substack, want to grant Trump the right to call for terrorizing the media or any one with his free speech, or any others who want to deny free speech are not practicing free speech but are already engaged in an insurrection against thought and engaged in terrorizing tactics by claiming they have the right of free speech to take away and terrorize other's right. Fascism is only successful by denying free speech, and denying fascism of substack writers without removing the likes of those who are already taking away your speech. None of the should be on any ballot anywhere. To tell you the truth I don't have a great deal of faith in the "vote". People vote against chaos and to restore order you silence not just Trump, but Greene ( (my cousin who suggested I be silenced when she was ten), Bannon, et al. You can't let them hide behind free speech to create fear and chaos. You stop them from creating fear and chaos, which I suggest is criminality permitted because the left is afraid to take away someone's free speech.
I fully agree, but we didn’t have the 2/3 necessary to expel anyone, since the Republicans are a united front when it comes to dismantling democracy. What then?
Exactly right, they did not honor their oath of office and with intent to overthrow our democracy. They still should be prosecuted for treason and obstruction. They should be kicked out of office.
Absolutely! There really is no other sane way to look at this one. And yet somehow the "wise centrist" position is to pretend that we have to respect the fascists and treat them kindly as they hope to stave our skulls in with lead pipes.
Have these people never actually met a bully?
the thing about bullying is that it's often pretty effective, unfortunately.
You know...it's also the thing where Trump is seen as the avatar of whiteness, and as therefore especially authentic/real/valid, and people therefore default to assuming that we can't defy him without undermining REAL AMERICA.
Oh yeah. And since the people who talk about 'REAL AMERICA' are by and large, fascist fuckwads, we are fed the idea that "heavens to Betsy! we simply can't dare offend the fascist fuckwads of REAL AMERICA"...or what? They'll act as bad as they already do?
Indeed, they'll keep being exactly who they are today, unless they're appeased? 😂🤣😂
Can I get a Secular Humanist "A-MEN!", Brothers and Sisters?
First, fuck yes.
Second, not sorry for my use of the very emphatic ‘fuck’ these days.
Best thing I've read this year!
BAD INSURRECTIONIST!
The only take I've seen that is different than this pretty obviously correct one (which I'm always thankful you make, Noah, since you don't always see the obviously correct take in public discourse) is Jeet Heer saying it's a distraction from building a pro-democracy majority.
The only way I think that has merit is if it's directed at Democratic party leadership. I would agree that they tend to want to be bystanders instead of active participants in doing good things. But even then I don't think "letting" courts do this necessarily prevents Dem leadership from doing what needs to be done. Dem leadership will always find ways to hide behind the status quo if they really want to.
Yeah, that's a silly take. this is a thing proponents of democracy can rally around! You need stuff to rally around; this is it!
Jeet feels accountable to the dirtbag left which doesn't really want to oppose trump at all, I think, and it makes him say some stupid shit sometimes.
So having the courts rule that an accused Insurrectionist (which is enough by 14th Amendment, Article 3 standards) cannot be on the ballot in their state is "a distraction from building a pro-democracy majority"?
I'M a Leftist (though hopefully not a dirtbag one), and that makes zero sense to me! I tried to parse it before responding to see if maybe I could understand the rationale even if I disagreed with it, but...I got nothing.
::insert classic cartoon gif of dog smacking his head against a lamppost repeatedly::
This headline LOLLLL!!! <3
I also read Damon Linker, and I think it is important to have someone who is reliably gelatinous. I have enjoyed watching how his thinking changes, as opposed to the content of any single article. He just brings up different points worth considering, that's all.
Some of us have predominantly scientific minds. We are constantly questioning ourselves and everything. I question and think about my own morals, in the hope that I can base them on reason. On that front, I find Linker’s work to be good for me.
Is he right, though? I disagree with him, and on this issue an attorney commented on my comment implying that it is a thorny legal issue. Obviously. But I think the mistake being made is calling everything ”partisan”. This is not a party issue (though the Republicans want it to seem that way). It is WAY bigger. My concern is that the Supreme Court in some way rules that Jan 6 was legitimate political discourse. If that happens, not only will Trump benefit, but some of the convicted individuals will effectively be innocent.
I'm betting on the Extremes waffling on the definition of "engaged," looking at the date of the 14th and deciding that "engaged" has to involve horses and cavalry charges.
"judges and election officials all over the country begin disqualifying candidates for any number of reasons." WTF? There aren't "any number of reasons" why a presidential candidate is disqualified. Besides the age and birth requirements, there is just one--insurrection. Linker doesn't think there's any evidence of insurrection???
This is why people espousing this opinion always waffle on the specifics.
That, and they're invested in not fully exposing the reasoning, i.e. that they know /Republicans/ will use literally any excuse to block their opponents and they're trapped somewhere in the 1990s, thinking that Republicans still /wait/ for an excuse to do what they want rather than just doing it and justifying it with lies, slander, and bullshit.
I've actually seen some pretty cogent arguments that the Colorado and Maine cases are on shaky Constitutional ground and aren't really giving the insurrection charge due process. HOWEVER - the constitution was written by slave owners and patriarchal dipshits who would be scandalized by anything resembling pluralistic democracy. If the courts can be used to stop Trump, don't sandbag the effort, Jesus.
It's called anticipatory obedience, and it's the very first lesson in Snyder's "On Tyranny": Do Not Obey in Advance.
I listened to that this morning. I feel SCOTUS will lean on “officer” vs “Official”. Officers are appointed. Officials are elected ( congress, president, senate) so doesn’t look good for democracy. 😞
What a refreshingly straightforward commonsense perspective.
Sad that we're going to be force-fed the idea that we have to kowtow to fascists lest they do things *they have already done* right up until they do whatever it is they were already going to do next, then get blamed for it!
From my perspective, those wanting to deny "nazis" on substack, want to grant Trump the right to call for terrorizing the media or any one with his free speech, or any others who want to deny free speech are not practicing free speech but are already engaged in an insurrection against thought and engaged in terrorizing tactics by claiming they have the right of free speech to take away and terrorize other's right. Fascism is only successful by denying free speech, and denying fascism of substack writers without removing the likes of those who are already taking away your speech. None of the should be on any ballot anywhere. To tell you the truth I don't have a great deal of faith in the "vote". People vote against chaos and to restore order you silence not just Trump, but Greene ( (my cousin who suggested I be silenced when she was ten), Bannon, et al. You can't let them hide behind free speech to create fear and chaos. You stop them from creating fear and chaos, which I suggest is criminality permitted because the left is afraid to take away someone's free speech.
I fully agree, but we didn’t have the 2/3 necessary to expel anyone, since the Republicans are a united front when it comes to dismantling democracy. What then?
Exactly right, they did not honor their oath of office and with intent to overthrow our democracy. They still should be prosecuted for treason and obstruction. They should be kicked out of office.