Nah. SCOTUS will never let that happen. Rendition him and his ICE goons to countries like Venezuela. He and his ICE gestapo will have caused the deaths of countless Venezuelan citizens. They're fully within their legal rights to charge him and his agents with crimes against humanity. If Trump can rendition innocent people to third party countries, we sure as hell can extradite the guilty to face trial. Don't even try to use the US justice system, not while SCOTUS is so openly corrupt. Just ship all these bastards off to the home countries of their victims. Let them do with them as they please.
We need to rendition Trump to Venezuela or other applicable country. They can then try him for all the deaths of their citizens he's caused in his numerous concentration camps. SCOTUS can take its presidential immunity ruling and boof it up Kavanaugh's ass. If we can't try him and all his ICE goons here, then we can send them all somewhere where they can be tried. Trump is sending innocent people to random countries. No reason we can't do the same with mass murderers.
Work should provide ownership. Worker-owned co-ops should be the default form of business organization. We should write it into corporate charter law that any business over a certain number of employees must gradually transition to a worker-owned co-op. For example, maybe every company over 30 employees must transfer 2% of its equity to its employees each year. This would mean after about 35 years, the business would be majority owned by its employees. Business founders and investors can still make plenty of profit, but you prevent the accumulation of generational wealth. You prevent the formation of an aristocracy by slowly transferring the ownership of company's from their founders to their employees over time. (And obviously you have a lot of other policy details to make this work, such as not just having a flat threshold. Always have to point this out as the "umm aktually" brigade likes to confuse aspirational policy descriptions for actual legislation.)
I want Democratic politicians to start talking about the proper response to this. I don't expect them to endorse people trying to perform armed raids against these facilities, but they need to start talking about holding people accountable. I'm sorry, but if you're working at a concentration camp, you need to be in prison at best, and possibly even hanged for crimes against humanity. We need to start talking NOW about putting all these ICE agents in jail when this is all over. These people are criminal scum who need to be prosecuted for their crimes. And to head off any possibility of a blanket pardon, we need to be talking about using extra-territorial rendition to try these people for crimes against humanity.
A presidential pardon will not save ICE agents from this legal liability. Even with a pardon, these agents can still be tried in the International Criminal Court or other body that practices universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity. And even beyond that, there are dozens of potential nations to send ICE agents to for their crimes. After all, they are committing crimes against humanity against the citizens of dozens of nations. If the ICC isn't viable, we can extradite these people to Venezuela, Mexico, or any number of other countries. These countries can then try them for the deaths of their citizens at the hands of ICE agents.
Quite possibly. Look, we're in a state of cold civil war. On the path we're on, we're likely to end up in a hot war that will destroy all our infrastructure, level our cities, and leave millions of us dead. We could do all of that, or we could simply admit this isn't working, go our own separate paths, and find a new way forward.
The US is honestly too big for its own good. There's a reason the oldest nations on Earth tend to be much smaller than the US. Nations as large as the US either break apart or collapse into dictatorship and authoritarianism. The only way to hold such a large nation together is with an iron fist. Frankly, I would rather have smaller countries and retain democracy than lose democracy in the name of retaining a large single nation.
I'm at the point where I think we need to dissolve the United States entirely. The Constitution you learned about in school no longer exists. Congress is as ineffectual and cowed as the Senate during the Roman Empire. SCOTUS has completely abandoned the Constitution, but we all still pretend that its rulings are worth even reading, let alone following. The president is completely ineligible for office due to taking foreign bribes and leading a rebellion. SCOTUS believes sex discrimination isn't sex discrimination. And the presidency's powers have been expanded through emergency power after emergency power. And entire departments, which Congress only created because they were intended to operate independent of the president, now have been completely supplicated due to rulings by a corrupt Supreme Court.
We are caught in a cycle of ever-elevating abuse and violation of norms. Republicans are always the first one to break norms, but once the precedent is set, Democrats adopt it to. At this point, we're basically electing a national dictator every four years; the core principle of the Constitution - separation of powers, no longer exist. And it's a coin toss whether we'll even have elections in 2028.
I'm sorry, but what are we even doing here? We have two parties that are fighting every four years for control of the national dictatorship. This has made the stakes of every election overwhelming. And both sides are thoroughly convinced of the irredeemable wickedness of the other. Why are we still doing this? We have options.
Government is meant to serve the people. The people are not meant to serve the government. If a government no longer serves the needs of the people, then that government, Constitution, or entire nation can simply be dissolved.
It's time for a peaceful dissolution of the United States. Grant all 50 states independence, let them come back together into whatever new nation or nations they wish to form. Let them write a new Constitution or Constitutions based on the compromises of our own time, not those of 250 years ago. Yes, there would be negotiations that need to happen, but that's happened through countless other national breakups.
And if you think the Constitution precludes this, you haven't been paying attention. There is a very simple way to end the union forever. Someone just needs to run for president on that platform. SCOTUS has given the presidency near dictatorial control over everything in the executive branch. Someone could run for president on the following platform:
"I will be the last president of the United States. Elect me, and I will grant all 50 states full independence. I will fire every single federal employee. I will not collect any taxes. I'll surrender control of military forces to the states. I will not resist any attempts by states to withdraw from the Union. In fact, through these actions I will force them to do so. If Congress or the Supreme Court object, I will ignore them. I will have a clear political mandate to dissolve this failed union. And those voices that want to deny the American people their future will simply be ignored."
That's literally all it would take. Congress and SCOTUS can piss and moan all they want. They'll find themselves meeting in abandoned buildings with no electricity and no one guarding the doors. They can pass whatever silly resolutions or rulings they want; they'll be pissing into the wind. In the meanwhile power will be completely dissolved to the states, and they'll be working with each other to form new regional nations and write new Constitutions for them. Once the back of the existing federal government is broken in this way, there will be no putting it back together.
Our nation was built by human beings for the service of human beings. If we find that this nation is no longer serving the needs of the people, it can simply be peacefully dissolved. If a president were elected on platform of openly promising to do this? They would have such a political mandate that there would be no stopping them.
Exactly. And ultimately, voters don't want to hear excuses. They don't expect perfection, but they do expect some results. Republicans, even with limited majorities, always manage to achieve at least some of what they would call progress. Democrats OTOH just fine endless excuses. At some point, you're either incompetent or admitting to your voters that you were lying to them - promising them something you would never be able to deliver.
Biden did student loan forgiveness, which should have given him all the college votes, yet people shurg and go “Well yea! About time!”
He dithered and only reluctantly did this. And then when he did, he did it in a way that a corrupt SCOTUS could overrule. There were other paths he could have taken, but he chose the least-confrontational approach and ultimately the court negated most of his efforts. His fault or not, very few people actually ended up getting their loans forgiven. If he failed to consider a hostile SCOTUS in his plans, then that is a strategic failure on his part.
He puts money into infrastructures and unions and again, people go “I guess, it’s a bit better than Republicans!”
His infrastructure bills are currently being torn to pieces as they were slow to actually spend their money. They were mired in everything bagel liberalism. A thousand requirements for dollar spent meant to solve every social ill under the Sun. But regardless, these bills didn't directly help individuals. They may be necessary to curb the rise of China, but that's not something that affects people's lives directly. Unionization? Biden was unable to stem the decline in union numbers, and he himself chose to be a strikebreaker.
Can't set different nicknames between servers, and it's much worse at actually maintaining large group conversations. Compare how communities are managed in discord or telegram vs signal.
It's even worse than that. Very, very few people are actually centrists. Like, .1% of the population are probably true moderates.
The parties are coalitions representing people of varied opinions. And people rarely agree with the parties on every issue. But most people fall generally on one side or the other. However, some folks end up highly misaligned to the party issue assignments. For example, what party is the natural home for a militantly homophobic militant atheist? They think both priests and gay people should be sent to reeducation camps. Where do they belong?Neither party really. This person would consider themselves a centrist, even though they have nutjob fringe views from both the right and left. This is an extreme example, but it illustrates what most centrists actually are. They're not lobotomized zombies with no passion or beliefs. They have strong beliefs that simply don't align with the party coalitions.
But this reality is not how "centrist" politicians govern. Instead they try to place themselves at the exact center of every issue. Very very few human beings actually think that way. So they inevitably come across as highly inauthentic. People believe in things. If you try to walk the dead middle, you're telling people you believe in nothing. You become a living example of the uncanny valley. And people feel gross just listening to you.
Anything related to food it is!