you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 64 points 2 years ago (25 children)

I hope history will be harsh towards her.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [+] 88 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    If a reckoning came her way, would it be a supreme Court thing right away? I do worry she'll skate if it is ... but I half worry J. Alito or J. Thomas feel they could simply whack a progressive counterpart and then have no court in which to defend themselves ... and thus skate as well to open up space for her.

    Nightmare fuel and nothing more, of course.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    Considering that right now fascists are gaining power everywhere in the "western world", it doesn't seem likely. Well, not until decades and probably a bloody war or two later, at any rate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    Fascist regimes don't last long because they all eventually turn their violence inward. They breed the sort of mistrust and lack of questioning that don't make them effective societies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (10 children)
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    You are aware that there are more types of authoritarian governments than just "fascism," right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    Fascist regimes

    ^ Right here is where they specified that they weren’t talking about all authoritarian societies but a subset.
    If you want to argue that your list is all fascist countries then do that, but they did not move any goalposts by correcting you after giving what you labeled authoritarian countries instead of fascist ones specifically.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The fact that me pointing out why your accusing someone else of moving the goalpost isn’t true and a mistake on your part is met by you immediately trying to make me disprove a claim you haven’t even made explicitly yet, makes me think this will go nowhere regardless of anything I might say.
    Will you acknowledge your mistake and move forward? If so I’m open to discussing it further, but if you continue to avoid the points made as if to never acknowledge when you are wrong then I’m not going to bother.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    Real smart of you to change what we're talking about in the reply. That's a classic move to make yourself seem like you made a point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Would Franco's Spain and Pinoche's Argentina somewhat contradict that assertion? They both lasted a good long time before there was a slow transition away from their regimes from what I remember.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And she'll be a footnote, after she's spent her life ensconced in power and being showered with gifts for serving the cause. She'll have a much nicer life than people who had integrity and cared about their fellow man, but we'll be comforted that someday she'll get her judgement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Why wait? She'll live a long life. There's plenty of time to hold her accountable for aiding and abetting Trump.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • She probably would not have denied it had the prosecutors had a 3-7 minute conversation with Trump's defense and had determined they couldn't have come to an agreement. Prosecutorial arrogance allowed them to just ignore procedure and they figured they could get away with it.

    Also, if the prosecutors have such good evidence, maybe instead of worrying so much about what Trump is speechifying on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, they could just prosecute him? Are they really afraid that a jury is so stupid that they are going to be persuaded by Trump ranting tweets or Xes or whatever they are called now on that enshitified platform? Either they have weak evidence or this is just a power play to try to control Trump's ability to say what he wants (and ignore the court rules) and they thought they could get away with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    This is the equivalent of thoughts and prayers. Get out and organize

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Not much I can do on my end, considering I don't live in the US. I'll keep watching the dumpster fire from above.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments