I’ve been having a number of conversations on Hexchan recently trying to make sense of their politics. The most common instance of their hateful hypocrisy I’ve encountered is this constant assurance that they support trans people while immediately attacking and dog piling and trans people who point out that the situation would be much worse under Trump.
The hexchanners who aren’t actively Russian trolls seem to be little more than useful idiots for conservatives, minimizing the damage they do to vulnerable populations and engaging in high school level pettiness and hate.
“BUT BIDEN CAN’T JUST MURDER THE SUPREME COURTERINOO!”
Why? Why not? No one gave a shit when Obama was hunting down and murdering American children, why do you care when it’s a bunch of crusty old fascists?
“BIDEN CAN’T JUST BLACK BAG MANCHIN AND SHOW HIM LIVE FEED OF HIS DAUGHTER’S CAR FROM A PREDATOR DRONE!>!!>!!”
Why not? He can drop hellfire missiles on weddings and ambulances, slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians in Yemen, and god knows what other atrocities, but one pharma crook is off limits? Why?
We’re going to vote Blue in '24, and Blue isn’t going to do shit. The Democrats have always had options.
It’s a good bit, but presenting “drone strike the Supreme Court” as a legitimate option is silly.
If you want a take along those lines but realistic, ask libs why Biden hasn’t nationalized the Texas National Guard and torn down the horrific shit we’re doing at the border.
It’s a bit hyperbolic, sure, but he could easily pack the court, and if Roberts refused to swear in new justices, he could have him arrested. Obama should have done something similar with Garland: when McConnell refused to have a hearing, he should have given a speech about the Senate failing to complete its duties, ordered Roberts to swear Garland in, and then arrested Roberts if he protested the move (along with any other justices who tried to be stubborn). The president has men with guns, and SCOTUS does not, full stop.
Lol packing the court is categorically different than assassinating them.
I agree Democrats should at least be trying to do more (specifically with Obama and Garland), but it’s not as simple as you’re describing it. At minimum, what you’re describing would lose a bunch of Democratic support, and if a bunch of your own party is against you it’s ultimately not going to work. Now of course the fact that a bunch of Democrats would defect over this is itself a problem with the party, but that’s the reality of the situation. There was no one weird trick that was guaranteed to work, and there are consequences to trying and failing.
It’s not “assassination”, it’s targeted killing, and it’s perfectly legal and above board. The Supreme Court said so. The President gets to decide who dies and there’s no judicial review possible because it’s a “political question”.
Master statesman Saddam Hussein had a solution for that specific problem. You get all your party members in a room, demand they pledge personal loyalty to you, and then force the ones who did pledge to shoot the ones that didn’t. Bam. Party discipline secured.
I’m not asking for much. Just for the president to exercise the same tactics to control uncooperative democratically elected governments at home that he uses abroad. Biden allegedly couldn’t do anything because Manchin and/or Sistema just couldn’t be brought to the table for some weird reason. Somehow the guy who controls the army, the intelligence aparatus, the justice department, the DEA, the IRS, and the Post couldn’t find any way to make them move even a little teeny weensie bit.
Sounds funny, but it rings quite true. I am not sure with the decisions of the supreme court how one could stop those actions legally.
AFAIK Congress could pass a law explicitly stating it’s illegal for the president to murder people on a whim, but under the current legal regime I don’t think there’s any recourse at all. When al-Awlaki’s father tried to represent his son before the court, arguing that al-Awlaki couldn’t come in person because the US would extralegally shoot him in the head the second they had him in custody, the courts told him he had no standing and to fuck off. That was a whole ass moment.
See I don’t agree with this kind of thinking. You win votes by doing things, not by not doing things. Biden is letting himself be hamstrung by concerns about “los[ing] a bunch of Democratic support.”
All it would take to turn Manchin into a reliable ally is a little J. Edgar Hoover style blackmail–there’s no way the dude has a skeleton-free closet. And taking SCOTUS, by whatever means, would do a lot to win Dems over. Then force through statehood for DC and Puerto Rico and/or Guam, and you’ve got a solid, long-term Dem majority in the Senate. Power does not flow from a 236-year-old piece of fucking paper, and I’m sick of political discussions that continue to ignore that, as if that damn piece of paper is somehow going to maintain stability in this country over the next decade. I’m sick of Democrats being too afraid to use strongarm tactics like McConnell did, proving again and again that they don’t really care about their supposedly preferred policy outcomes at all. Yes, there are consequences for trying and failing, but there are also consequences for not trying, and thus failing by default.
Same. But what you’re describing involves more than “get a guy to point a gun at John Roberts,” which wouldn’t work. Discussing ways to play hardball with conservative Dems makes sense; banging the table over an oversimplified solution doesn’t.
A country that took itself seriously would’ve lined up and shot members of the GOP after Jan 6th just to prove a point
The difference is