Musk's Illegal Control of the US Government

[chasfh]

27 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

People are going to argue this, but this is 100% right.... there are people that voted for Trump on the margins, who aren't "Red Hats".... in an election that was decided by about 200,000 across three states in the rust belt, these kinds of folks are who decided this election.

And they may have a much more circumspect view of Trump than his die hards do.

Counterpoint: they’re in now so just try getting them out.

[mtutiger]

10 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Counterpoint: they’re in now so just try getting them out.

I have no illusions that anything moving forward will be easy.

My point is that Klein is spot on that from a public opinion standpoint he stands to lose from these early moves.

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

I have no illusions that anything moving forward will be easy.

My point is that Klein is spot on that from a public opinion standpoint he stands to lose from these early moves.

Once they’re in, public opinion doesn’t concern fascist regimes.

[mtutiger]

31 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Once they’re in, public opinion doesn’t concern fascist regimes.

I don't care what concerns them... I care about what we can do to push back against them.

That involves public opinion turning against them

[oblong]

31 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I don't care what concerns them... I care about what we can do to push back against them.

That involves public opinion turning against them

Isn’t only relevant if those 200K deciders are in swing congressional districts or swing senate states up in ‘26 or ‘28?   The only way to potentially stop the madness is a change in congress. I don’t see very many congressional republicans growing a conscience.  

[mtutiger]

3 minutes ago, oblong said:

Isn’t only relevant if those 200K deciders are in swing congressional districts or swing senate states up in ‘26 or ‘28?   The only way to potentially stop the madness is a change in congress. I don’t see very many congressional republicans growing a conscience.  

I've mentioned this a number of times, but incumbent Presidents tend to overreach and the electorate tends to react thermostatically against that overreach. To that point, it isn't just about the 200k deciders... People change their minds or they may not even show up

The Senate map is tough in 2026 (and structurally is tough for Ds in general), but with a 2 seat majority currently, I would honestly be shocked if the Rs held the House in 2026. 

[romad1]

The precedent for Jan 6 has been set.   Think on that.

[chasfh]

And it might not be merely a bunch of ragtag incels next time.

[romad1]

Just now, chasfh said:

And it might not be merely a bunch of ragtag incels next time.

could be a two-way street.

[romad1]

All of this is illegal and unconstitutional. 

[chasfh]

10 hours ago, mtutiger said:

I don't care what concerns them... I care about what we can do to push back against them.

That involves public opinion turning against them

To the degree public opinion can slow them down or stop them, I’m all for it. To your implied point, pushing back on them makes it that much harder for them to move their agenda along.

This is related to a discussion I was having with someone about the NFL’s decision to remove the “stop racism” phrase from their end zones. His thing was, what’s the point of it because it’s not as though racists are going to change their minds by seeing a trite phrase on a sports telecast.

My rebuttal was that the phrase isn’t there to change racists’ minds—those people are, as Ernie Harwell might intone, loooong gone. The phrase is there to remind the rest of us, the rest of society, that ending racism is a worthy goal we should never let slip out of mind, and as long as this is an idea that’s explicitly in the public thinking, that makes it that much harder for the racists to act out in a way that embarrasses us all as a society.

And, flip side, remove the phrase, remove the idea from top-of-mind discourse, and that makes it so much easier for the racists to act out, to shape public thinking with their retrograde ideas, and to eventually take over.

Same thing applies to pushing back on the regime. The more we push back, the harder it is for them to get us all where they want us to be. It’s a worthy crusade on our part. I acknowledge I occasionally descend into a doom spiral here on this forum, and I strongly suspect it makes you roll your eyes. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop pushing back and simply roll over and give up, even if I’m already dead. After all, if someone’s already dead, they have even less to lose, right?

Edited Sunday at 01:26 PM by chasfh

[romad1]

I guess I was not tracking the Brian Driscoll story very well.  Ezra Klein in the Bulwark pod tells an amazing story.  I recommend that one.

Basically, he's Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in "Tombstone."  He's not having this coup.

[CMRivdogs]

 

[romad1]

4 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

 

That's an all-timer right there.  She's just a World Historical Genius. 

[CMRivdogs]

 

[Tigeraholic1]

Time flies when your not in charge..

 

[Edman85]

My what is not in charge?

[CMRivdogs]

And what will be the Fort Sumter moment?

 

[romad1]

9 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

And what will be the Fort Sumter moment?

 

JD Vance himself is speculating about all this.  

[Edman85]

17 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

And what will be the Fort Sumter moment?

 

This already happened Thursday after a court paused the deferred resignation deal and the WH just said they are still processing the resignations.

[Hongbit]

President Musk has already started to tip their hand in his Twitter replies.  

Anyone that questions his processes, supports waste and corruption in government.   It doesn’t matter if it’s constitutional or not.  Ends justify the means, the legality of it be damned.  

Edited Sunday at 10:03 PM by Hongbit

[CMRivdogs]

It's his money. I'm not watching the TV show, but I hope all his bad trucks and cars blow up at the same time

 

[CMRivdogs]

1 minute ago, CMRivdogs said:

It's his money. I'm not watching the TV show, but I hope all his bad trucks and cars blow up at the same time

 

https://autos.yahoo.com/cybertruck-appears-more-deadly-infamous-153034589.html

Quote

A new analysis by independent automotive blog FuelArc suggests that fire fatalities are 17 times more likely in a Cybertruck than in the infamous Ford Pinto — the posterchild of deadly cars if ever there was one.

The site arrives at that conclusion by comparing the total units sold so far — 34,438 for the Cybertruck, compared to 3,173,491 for the ill-fated Pinto, discontinued in 1980 — and comparing reported fire fatalities for both.

At the current rate of horrible fiery deaths, FuelArc projects the Cybertruck will have 14.52 fatalities per 100,000 units — far eclipsing the Pinto's 0.85. (In absolute terms, FuelArc found, 27 Pinto drivers died in fires, while five Cybertruck drivers have suffered the same fate, at least so far.)

 

[Tigerbomb13]

38 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

It's his money. I'm not watching the TV show, but I hope all his bad trucks and cars blow up at the same time

 

Owning the libs > housing vets

[Tigeraholic1]

Libs crying about how Musk spends his money and throwing vets in as baggage… The disconnection is amazing. But but veterans lol.

Edited Sunday at 11:25 PM by Tigeraholic1