Goddammit we were all warned about this MULTIPLE fucking times.
“I’ll be a dictator on day one.”
They appear to be flying the Ferengi flag, sir.
Looks like a bunch of KKK hoods to me
Or a metal band logo
Pakled
Is that supposed to say Donald Trump…? Serious question because it definitely doesn’t say that at all no matter how bad your writing is…
I think it says DonaldJHamberders
I can see it, coming from being around boomer executive types. It’s a testosterone piss mark like the crushing handshake.
And not to be a downer, but I was taught that way too. Not the aggressive ink and strokes from Trump (lol, mic drop), but the obfuscation. Back when cheques were big anyway.
I was actually taught first, getting my first account as a kid, that you could sign as Superman or X as long as you just kept doing it. Kinda shaped me.
Yeah my signature is a smiley face!
DonaldDump
Meh, most of it will be challenged in court.
That’s one of the first things I noticed with his previous try; For all of Obamas flaws, it at least seemed that everything was thought through with lawyers in the loop to make sure the execitive orders had a reasonable chance of surviving a legal challenge.
And then this clown comes along and gives the impression that he handed someone a post-it that said “no moar muzleems!!!111one”
That’s why he’s been stacking the courts for the last eight years.
How about this new thing that came out today - he’s establishing the board to purge generals.
Is he readying complete takeover?
Of course. He’s already said he only needs to be a dictator on Day One. And the if you vote for him, “You’ll never have to vote again.”
AND HERE WE ARE BECAUSE AMERICA IS removed
That was taken out of context how dare you… He was talking to the religious people who never vote… He just wanted them to vote that one time… Come on man… he’s not a dictator… I mean all his friends are super chill people known for humanitarian deeds…
Well that’s terrifying. He knows the military won’t back him in a coup… As is.
Considering how much time it took Obamas orders to even get to the Supreme Court, it can be as biased as he wants it: There’s no way they’ll get through all of it in a timely manner. Plus, there are still state courts.
Ooh I hope to retain your optimism in the next few years…
Oh sure the courts will sure stop him guys! He won’t totally just, do whatever the fuck he wants
yeah, they’ll put him in jail, you’ll see! With all the things he did that won’t be long! Very soon! Right?
They are already putting him in jail for all the other crimes he’s committed… Shouldn’t be too hard to give him more time!
Challenged in court? The bloody dude was announced above the law BY THE SUPREME COURT. As long as he OFFICIALLY kills all opposition, he’s got a full green light on everything. The only thing stopping him will be military officers refusing orders that are too fucking outlandish. Tho I doubt the police will care too much.
Immunizing Trump as an individual from prosecution related to acts performed as President, while deeply problematic, will not prevent legal challengs his EO’s. Striking down a president’s EO is completely different than convicting a president with a crime.
I don’t really see the difference, considering he can just lock anybody who opposes him up. People are already bending over for him out of fear, people that used to be critical of him. Challenging him will take some serious balls facing a suicide mission.
considering he can just lock anybody who opposes him up
He cannot. He says he can and will, but he has absolutely no legal authority to order people’s arrest or imprisonment.
how is it that everyone seems to have forgotten about this: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
trump owns the judicial branch and they put him above the law.
I read that as “flurry of executions”, and though “sounds plausible”
Because he already did that.
Leaving the World Health Organization is terrifying
I’ll never understand why anyone thought the guy to clean up after Trump’s first term was an over 80 year old moderate who’s views on presidential powers boils down to:
I believe the president should be powerless, which apparently means as president I can’t limit the next presidents power
We need someone to fight fascism and we got a geriatric pacifist who spent his whole campaign lying about what he was prepared to do…
And then when he dropped out last minute we ran his VP who kept saying she agreed with him 100% and wouldnt have changed anything over the last four years, despite most of what he “tried” never making it I to the planning stages or getting struck down before implementation.
Biden failed and Kamala told voters she was fine with that and then acted shocked when that’s not what voters wanted.
Voters want someone who will fight for them, not “aww shucks, vote for me again and we’ll try the same shit”.
Amazing. You read an article about how shitty trump is and you immediately blame Democrats.
This is the new narrative. “I don’t share in the blame if people didn’t vote for Harris. All I did was constantly tell people not to vote for Harris.”
It’s his whole schtick. Apparently trying and failing to hold Trump accountable is more immoral than supporting him and shielding him from him the consequences of his crimes. 🤷
The democratic party is absolutely to blame for this damning historic loss. The last time the Republican won the popular vote was over 20 years ago and the fact the candidate that just pulled that off is the ultra divisive Donald Trump says more about the failure of the left than it does about the right. The majority of Americans don’t believe the Democrats can or will fight for them anymore and that’s a major issue. Joe Biden wasn’t able to effectively articulate his policies and the gaslighting us about his obvious mental acuity did nothing to build trust. I’m tired of hearing the Dems should pick a centrist candidate when it’s obvious they need to dump big money interests and fight for working people again. They need to run a left wing candidate that has the ability to clearly speak to and defend their well thought out policies. They need someone who we can trust to take action on office and not just give lip service our issues. Until then get ready to fail.
Amazing. You read a comment about how Trump is a genuine threat that needs real opposition rather than a Democratic party that looks to compromise with that threat and you immediately decide to kiss the asses of the party that repeatedly fails to protect us.
Edit: The Democratic Party has learned nothing from 2016, they learned the wrong lessons from 2020, and I worry they’ll learn nothing from this election. People critiquing the Democratic Party’s approach is not an endorsement of Trump. We want better opposition that actually fights for us. If all you want is to root for you team and ignore their flaws then we’re fucked.
You should be pushing the party to improve not shutting down any discussion of improving the parties platform or strategy. Trump got elected due to Democratic failures, not because people are discussing those failures.
Haha, if you think I have a “team”, youre fucking cooked.
I’m calling a spade a spade. You want to avoid this? Vote for who is CLOSEST to what you want. Instead of waiting for Santa Claus.
Then don’t defend the flaws of the Democratic party and call a spade a spade. We know Trump sucks. I voted and encouraged others to vote. The job of any party is to motivate turnout. Turnout did not diminish because some random person on Lemmy said they weren’t going to vote or criticized somebody.
The Democratic party hurt their own turnout and appeal by defending the status quo and appealing to Republicans. That kills any sort of enthusiasm people have. They clearly did not win over any substantial number of Republicans and they suppressed their own turnout.
Many people voting do not have a deep interest in politics. I can complain about how they should care more, but they either don’t have the time or they can’t be bothered. Give them something to make it worth the effort. Trump motivates turnout because even though you and I know he’s shit he says he’s going to change things. For a lot of people voting works by assessing how I’m doing right now. Right now most people aren’t feeling great. So when one party says, “things are bad and I’m going to change them,” and the other party says, “actually things are great. Look how great the economy is recovering. Stop complaining about how your cost have living hasn’t recovered,” some people are going to ignore the bigotry and bullshit and others are going to give up.
I’m not asking for Socialist Santa Claus. I’m asking for the slightest bit of competency. I’m asking for assessing what the root causes of a loss are and how to fix it.
Im asking for the slightest bit of effort on their part.
But sure, keep making excuses for them and they’ll take it. Im sure they’ll wake up one day and realize it’s all their fault after everyone has continually excused them.
Shaming people for not voting has never been an effective strategy for significantly increasing turnout. I feel like it’s been tried and maybe people need some good policies in tandem with your shaming to motivate them.
I don’t like that they don’t vote. I think that they should vote. I want to think about how we can get them to vote.
Keep being dense though. I’m glad it makes you feel better.
Keep giving excuses and being dense. See how that works out for you. Great job.
A populist. That’s what the people crave.
And they always should.
We are meant to be a democracy, a populist is literally a person who puts citizens issues ahead of others.
Bernie is a populist, populists are great.
And for those who are still confused: Bernie and Trump are both populists, but Trump is also a demagogue and that’s what’s a bad thing.
That and electrolytes
Always have and always will.
It’s common sense that voters want someone who they think can and will help them.
Republicans lie about it and win elections. Dem politicians try to convince us populism is bad because it’s not what their donors want.
A little bit of me dies everytime a “moderate” conflates populism with evil.
Populism is a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of the common people and often position this group in opposition to a perceived elite group.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
They hate populism because they’re the political elite. They’re the ones already not helping the common American and instead helping the other wealthy people.
If the Dem party pivots to populism, it means replacing both the elected and non elected leaders of the Dem party. And they’re not going to do what’s best for the country but worst for them personally voluntarily, or they’d be populists already.
We need to either force them out or start a new party, and four years isn’t as much time as it seems.
Bernie party for the future. Whatever name it needs.
Semantics…
But no.
We can’t tie it to a person, and Bernie is far to old to be the candidate.
Tying it to a person is what happened with Obama in 08, so when he left in 2016 there was a vacuum in the party. Hillary and the neoliberal rank and file filled that vacuum, and they were rooting for trump because they needed the worst possible opponent for Hilary to have a chance.
Bernie has been saying for decades he’s not the answer, the answer is a movement. Not loyalty to a single person who can never last a decade in office.
As much as I love Bernie, he shouldn’t even run for his own Senate seat again. He doesn’t have to retire, there’s a lot of good work he could do growing the movement. But he’s too old for office and has been for a while.
I’m not talking about the man. I want his attitude and policies as the platform.
A little bit of me dies everytime a “moderate” conflates populism with evil.
conflate sure, but they’re not mutually exclusive.
Obviously not.
But populists fucking win elections.
No one is saying the Dems need to run an evil populist. Or someone that lies about being a populist, like trump.
I’m more concerned that a populist Dem is a unicorn. The closest I’ve ever seen is Sanders or AOC and they’re hardly mass appeal popular.
Anyone with a solid conscience and mass appeal that we actually know wouldn’t want the job.
. The closest I’ve ever seen is Sanders or AOC and they’re hardly mass appeal popular.
What?
Bernie could actually get republican voters and people who think the current Dem party is too far right.
Withe division along party lines being so deep, progressives are probably the most popular politicians in America right now, everyone else just most of their own party likes them. They’re capped at 1/3 approval because of that
People continuingly act like 1/3 of the country just doesn’t vote.
We saw in 08 with Obama they’ll show up for a Dem running a populist campaign, and for whatever reason that’s the last time we’ve tried it in 16 years.
Neoliberalism isn’t popular enough to win elections. And all it’s ever accomplished was driving Republicans to ever increasing extremes.
Bernie could actually get republican voters
nah, not buying that one. Never seen ANY inclination for them to call him anything but a dirty socialist.
People continuingly act like 1/3 of the country just doesn’t vote.
do you have any data that suggests overwise?
We saw in 08 with Obama they’ll show up for a Dem running a populist campaign,
63.6% turnout. Less white votes, more minority votes than 2000 or even 2004
Neoliberalism isn’t popular enough to win elections
This we can ardently agree on.
edit: spaces for formatting
they’re hardly mass appeal popular.
100% propaganda pushed by the capitalist (and therefore anti-populist) mass media.
I wouldn’t exactly call Biden a pacifist…
I would, he’s an extreme pacifist to the point where figuratively if he saw a grown man beating a six year old to death in an alley he wouldn’t lift a finger to stop it.
He’d admonish it, tell them to stop, maybe even call them corncob.
But he wouldn’t use violence to save that childs life.
And obviously in this analogy Gaza is the child that can’t defend itself.
He’s literally sending weapons to the man beating the child and telling him where to hit him where it hurts most
What about supplying weapons or even directly aiding a war effort negates pacifism?
You’re talking about the most extreme as far as determination not commitment, absolutionist pacifists is what they’re called.
They would have a problem with that.
But treating every member of a group like they’re the same as the most extreme…
I’m hesitant to ask but whatever groups do you apply that logic to? It’s rarely (if ever) a good idea.
Uhhh …
