Pundits keep on being astonished that the former president repeats actions that are illegal, objectively harmful, inciting violence--- but I think the "logic" (such as it is) is that if it was not wrong then, then why should it be wrong now?

"I'll f-in do it again!"

Basically.

Repeating these actions and *again* not facing any justice serves to "prove" that is it permitted.

That is why the glacial pace and inaction of our justice system may well end this little experiment in democracy.

@futurebird
Bingo!

Nixon didn't go to prison.

Ford wasn't immediately impeached for pardoning Nixon.

Reagan didn't go to prison.

Bush I didn't go to prison.

Bush II didn't go to prison.

Each and every step along the way, Democrats, Republicans, and the mainstream media told us that it would be “too disruptive” to have the rule of law.

So we made Trump inevitable by declaring that Republican presidents are above the law.

I would say losing the republic would be “disruptive.”

@tofugolem @futurebird

Very nicely put. We have a long line of Republican presidents who attempted to undermine democracy, up to and including collaborating with hostile foreign nations. None of them ever faced meaningful consequences. Trump was not only inevitable, he's not even the end point — the next Republican attempt to subvert or nullify elections will be even more blatant.

@sphinx @tofugolem @futurebird the so-called other side is not better. Clinton had a bunch of scandals including money from China. Al Gore contested an election and tried to do selective recounts, until the Supreme Court shot him down. And the D party was responsible for a really big insurrection in the 19th century. I could go on.

The parties do not represent competing moral principles. They represent competing collections of interests. They are just rival gangs.

@mike805 @sphinx @futurebird
Wait.

So you're telling me that a string of Republican presidents didn’t break the law because you believe the conspiracy theories from the official Republican propaganda safe-space?

Buwahahahahahahaha!

You’re just adorable.

First, if your response to an accusation is to accuse someone else of something else, you just confessed to the original accusation. Look up “tu quoque” fallacy sometime.

1/2

@tofugolem @sphinx @futurebird actually I think the whole system, and all Republican and Democratic presidents, break the law every day.

Anyone who thinks there are good guys in American politics (outside of the occasional local politician who has not been through the filter yet) doesn't get it.

America is just the strong arm of a financial cartel. The British used to perform this function once, but now it is the USA. It is a criminal enterprise, not a government.

@mike805 @sphinx @futurebird
Yes, yes. You’re trying to use the “but both sides” argument to defend the criminality of Republican presidents. We’ve heard this song before, and I already explained why the logic is completely flaccid.

But keep trying, little guy. Maybe if you repeat yourself often enough, you can turn bad logic into good logic, because that’s how truth works if you were raised in a household that didn’t teach you to value education.

@tofugolem @mike805 @sphinx

It would be wrong to put all of this on Republicans. I will give you that, but please don't make the rather lazy conclusion that there is no substantive difference between the results we see when each party has power.

It's easy to see both are sub-optimal but equally obvious they they are radically different and in one case there are signs that there is the desire to end the entire democratic experiment.

@futurebird @tofugolem @mike805 @sphinx

I just don't agree with that phrasing, because the DNC isn't at all maintaining "the entire democratic experiment". That's rhetoric - it's spin. The outcomes speak for themselves: the government's agenda isn't driven by voter representation - it's dictated by donor representation. The donors get what they want, the voters don't, and being connected to the party means you can act with impunity. It's not the DNC's mission to change that

@pleaseclap @futurebird @mike805 @sphinx
True, but at least the Democratic party is less fascist than Republicans. So there's that.

@tofugolem @pleaseclap @futurebird @sphinx yes they are less Fascist. That's the good news.

The bad news is they are a lot more Bolshevik. And not just Bernie. It seems like half their talking points come from the Communist Manifesto.

Sometimes I think we are watching the run-up to the Spanish Civil War, or perhaps the Kampfzeit, repeating as farce (the first time being tragedy!)

Does it really have to be a choice between Communism and Fascism?

@mike805

So having strong unions is communism? Kinda watering down the meaning of that word I fear.

Likewise social democracy is a stop gap measure to preserve capitalism by addressing the areas where markets fail.

Communism is a totally different system.

If you don't like the idea of a free market and schools and government health care, fine, but calling it communism is an old anti-union tactic and nothing more.

@futurebird

Self organizing unions are great. But when you have the democrats pushing for "right to work" laws where people are **forced** into unions against their will then yea, its stsrting to creep a bit too close to communism.

@mike805

@freemo @mike805

Uh. It's the *Republicans* who push for "right to work" laws because they are effective at breaking up unions which are basically gone except for some corners of the public sector.

And look what's happened to wages.

@futurebird

Actually your right. I misunderstood the meaning of rigbt to work laws and after reading on it now i was mistaken.

@mike805

@freemo @futurebird that was not an accident. The term is supposed to be confusing.

@mike805 @futurebird

Well to rephrase the democrats **oppose** right tonwork acts, which would allow workers to have the freedom to decide if they want to join a union or not, as opposed to being forced to joining a union against their will.

@freemo @mike805

"allow workers to have the freedom to decide if they want to join a union or not"

IDK this isn't what they seem to really do. Have you ever seen some of the things that happen when you try to "choose" to start a union in a company that isn't fully unionized?

Can you see some of the natural conflicts that might arise? (Such as getting fired for joining the union.)

@futurebird

Absolutely, and i am all for laws that might address those concerns. I think there should be strong anti union busting laws for sure. But in the end employees shoukd have a right to decide how and if to join a union.

@mike805

@futurebird

Keep in mind these union agreements thst force employees into unions also stop employees from starting competing unions that might serve the employees better as well.

@mike805