4 ms·

What good are laws when the government doesn't obey them anyway? They will just find some way to side step it, Like "This a national security matter" and that w

What good are laws when the government doesn't obey them anyway? They will just find some way to side step it, Like "This a national security matter" and that will be that.

mrguyorama 6y ago
Or just straight up ignore it completely like the president has done with some laws. Sometimes the courts catch up to him, sometimes the senate doesn't give a shit
- on_and_off 6y ago
  Something that an observer said when Trump was elected has really struct with me : "the next 4 years are going to be a stress test for the checks and balances of the US political system". I could not have been truer and damn ... the system is not faring well.
panarky 6y ago
This is one of the classic pillars of fascist politics. Justify atrocious, anti-democratic actions by citing widely shared ideals. Implement Jim Crow laws and prevent Black people from voting under the guise of "states' rights". Invade a nation that does not threaten us in order to "liberate their people" and "spread democracy". Encourage paramilitaries to intimidate peaceful protesters with weapons of war to "protect property and the rule of law". And now send heavily armed mercenaries or federal agents into cities, with no identification and no accountability, against the will of local leaders, to kidnap citizens from the streets to "protect federal property".
- amadeuspagel 6y ago
  Justifying things you do - atrocious and anti-democratic or not - by citing widely shared ideals is a pillar of any kind of politics. To claim that sending feds into cities is like Jim Crow in a meaningful sense because it was also justified with widely shared ideals is ridiculous.
  - panarky 6y ago
    The difference is that in fascist politics, the justifications are lies. The US didn't invade Iraq to "liberate its people", and federal thugs aren't abducting people from the streets to "protect federal property". Those are lies and transparent pretexts. In non-fascist politics, the justifications aren't dishonest pretexts. For example, when non-fascist Roosevelt established Social Security, the stated reason was to safeguard "against the hazards and vicissitudes of life". That was not a lie or a pretext. It was true, and that's the difference.

What good are laws when the government doesn't obey them anyway? They will just find some way to side step it, Like "This a national security matter" and that will be that.

mrguyorama 6y ago

Or just straight up ignore it completely like the president has done with some laws. Sometimes the courts catch up to him, sometimes the senate doesn't give a shit

on_and_off 6y ago
Something that an observer said when Trump was elected has really struct with me : "the next 4 years are going to be a stress test for the checks and balances of the US political system". I could not have been truer and damn ... the system is not faring well.

panarky 6y ago

This is one of the classic pillars of fascist politics. Justify atrocious, anti-democratic actions by citing widely shared ideals. Implement Jim Crow laws and prevent Black people from voting under the guise of "states' rights". Invade a nation that does not threaten us in order to "liberate their people" and "spread democracy". Encourage paramilitaries to intimidate peaceful protesters with weapons of war to "protect property and the rule of law". And now send heavily armed mercenaries or federal agents into cities, with no identification and no accountability, against the will of local leaders, to kidnap citizens from the streets to "protect federal property".

amadeuspagel 6y ago
Justifying things you do - atrocious and anti-democratic or not - by citing widely shared ideals is a pillar of any kind of politics. To claim that sending feds into cities is like Jim Crow in a meaningful sense because it was also justified with widely shared ideals is ridiculous.
- panarky 6y ago
  The difference is that in fascist politics, the justifications are lies. The US didn't invade Iraq to "liberate its people", and federal thugs aren't abducting people from the streets to "protect federal property". Those are lies and transparent pretexts. In non-fascist politics, the justifications aren't dishonest pretexts. For example, when non-fascist Roosevelt established Social Security, the stated reason was to safeguard "against the hazards and vicissitudes of life". That was not a lie or a pretext. It was true, and that's the difference.