3 ms·

By the time that happens, everyone who understands what is happening will have already left because people like you want to wait until power is consolidated to

By the time that happens, everyone who understands what is happening will have already left because people like you want to wait until power is consolidated to such an extent that it can't be reasonably fought. That law was enacted after they thought they had the power to do it, not before as with every salami slicing action. If they think there will be a response, they back off while they continue to slice. You talk about political capital like it's in a bank account just waiting to be spent, while political capital is being lost through inaction itself, especially in people seeing that it's more rational to run than fight. Schumer's strategy to wait for 40% unpopularity didn't save any political capital, just the opposite, it demoralized everyone on his side, destroyed resolve, and shattered solidarity. What is the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_Parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_P... and https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblue-memo https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblu... Intent is already declared, time passes which allows power to consolidate. When would it be easier to act, after several months of power consolidation?

Jensson 1y ago
> What is the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_Parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_P... and https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblue-memo https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblu... You are crazy if you don't see the difference...
- hayst4ck 1y ago
  You are crazy if you don't see the difference. It's not a difference in goal, it's a difference in level of power consolidation. They would already have enacted that law if they thought they had the power to do it, the fact that they haven't means that they think it would cause a response they couldn't win against. As soon as they think they can win, they will do it. So by not acting now, you ensure that that law is a possibility later. Imagine I have a neighboring country who's land I want. They have 10,000 citizens, but I only have 5,000 bullets. I have a bullet factory that produces 1,000 bullets a month. Do I invade them right now or do I wait at least 5 months? If I am the country with 10,000 citizens and I see my neighbor is producing bullets at maximum capacity, should I wait until I definitely know they will invade to mobilize my own manufacturing base/prepare my citizens for a potential invasion? What if they had already spent 2,000 bullets taking a 2,000 person state?
  - Jensson 1y ago
    > So by not acting now, you ensure that that law is a possibility later. What do you mean "act now"? Do you want more people to go out and key tesla cars? You think that is going to make fascism less likely? No, stuff like that only strengthens fascism. People fought Hitler at every turn in his rise to power often using less than legal means and violence, that only made him stronger. > Imagine I have a neighboring country who's land I want. They have 10,000 citizens, but I only have 5,000 bullets. I have a bullet factory that produces 1,000 bullets a month. Do I invade them right now or do I wait at least 5 months? Except that country is selling you the bullets, and they say they need to produce more bullets to win even though you just buy them. My advice: Stop selling bullets to your enemy. Your response: But they have so many bullets, we need to make more to defend ourselves, and of course we can't stop selling bullets since that will crash our market! Like, each of those positions are fine in themselves, but the combination is devastating.
    - hayst4ck 1y ago
      I regret engaging with you, you are bad faith.
      - Jensson 1y ago
        That isn't bad faith, I believe you want to do good, I am just explaining the consequences of your actions. Trump currently has higher support than at almost any time before, that is thanks to people like you who over react and fight even the reasonable things the Trump administration does with fervor. If I didn't believe in you then I wouldn't explain these things, I do it since I think things can change for the better.
        acdha 1y ago
        Trump’s support is low and continuously dropping. At this point, Biden was over 20 points higher and Bush/Obama were both almost 40 points higher. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/donald-trump-approval-rating-polls.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/donald-trump-appro...

Jensson 1y ago

> What is the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_Parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_P... and https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblue-memo https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblu... You are crazy if you don't see the difference...

hayst4ck 1y ago
You are crazy if you don't see the difference. It's not a difference in goal, it's a difference in level of power consolidation. They would already have enacted that law if they thought they had the power to do it, the fact that they haven't means that they think it would cause a response they couldn't win against. As soon as they think they can win, they will do it. So by not acting now, you ensure that that law is a possibility later. Imagine I have a neighboring country who's land I want. They have 10,000 citizens, but I only have 5,000 bullets. I have a bullet factory that produces 1,000 bullets a month. Do I invade them right now or do I wait at least 5 months? If I am the country with 10,000 citizens and I see my neighbor is producing bullets at maximum capacity, should I wait until I definitely know they will invade to mobilize my own manufacturing base/prepare my citizens for a potential invasion? What if they had already spent 2,000 bullets taking a 2,000 person state?
- Jensson 1y ago
  > So by not acting now, you ensure that that law is a possibility later. What do you mean "act now"? Do you want more people to go out and key tesla cars? You think that is going to make fascism less likely? No, stuff like that only strengthens fascism. People fought Hitler at every turn in his rise to power often using less than legal means and violence, that only made him stronger. > Imagine I have a neighboring country who's land I want. They have 10,000 citizens, but I only have 5,000 bullets. I have a bullet factory that produces 1,000 bullets a month. Do I invade them right now or do I wait at least 5 months? Except that country is selling you the bullets, and they say they need to produce more bullets to win even though you just buy them. My advice: Stop selling bullets to your enemy. Your response: But they have so many bullets, we need to make more to defend ourselves, and of course we can't stop selling bullets since that will crash our market! Like, each of those positions are fine in themselves, but the combination is devastating.
  - hayst4ck 1y ago
    I regret engaging with you, you are bad faith.
    - Jensson 1y ago
      That isn't bad faith, I believe you want to do good, I am just explaining the consequences of your actions. Trump currently has higher support than at almost any time before, that is thanks to people like you who over react and fight even the reasonable things the Trump administration does with fervor. If I didn't believe in you then I wouldn't explain these things, I do it since I think things can change for the better.
      - acdha 1y ago
        Trump’s support is low and continuously dropping. At this point, Biden was over 20 points higher and Bush/Obama were both almost 40 points higher. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/donald-trump-approval-rating-polls.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/donald-trump-appro...