The party of taking things away. It's what I call them now, and it's accurate. It says it all. It's all you need to know about Republicans.
We can argue about their racism and bigotry, we can argue about the parallels between Trump's rise to power and Hitler's. We can argue about whether they can call themselves the party of small government with a straight face anymore. We can argue about their hypocrisy. We can argue about how regressive their end goals are. We can argue about their attempts to whitewash history and interfere with institutions of learning. We can argue about their endless suckling at the teat of big business and law enforcement.
But at the end of the day, they are the party of taking things away.
FREEDUMB! (Screeching bird that actually isn't an eagle)
People on Lemmy love to go on and on about billionaires, but honestly for me it's always been the propagandists that need to be put up against the fucking wall and executed. They enable this and brainwash the country into allowing and accepting it...
Johnson v. United States, US District Court for the Western District of Texas, 2001
Vladimir Melnik/Shutterstock
Topic: Chemical storage.
Argument: “Plaintiffs essentially contend the defendant United States of America, while doing its best in the military defense of its citizens, nevertheless quartered its chemicals on plaintiffs’ properties without permission or reasonable compensation, leaving a toxic footprint on the earth.” In the words of the plaintiffs, they had been “invaded and occupied by toxic chemicals.”
Ruling: Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
Custer County Auction Association v. Garvey, US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, 2001
Topic: Airplanes.
Argument: “Petitioners insist they have a Third Amendment right ‘to refuse military aircraft training in airspace within the immediate reaches of their property,’ and that military overflights occurring in the immediate reaches of their property during peacetime, and without their consent, ‘are per se unconstitutional.'”
Ruling: “We simply do not believe the Framers intended the Third Amendment to be used to prevent the military from regulated, lawful use of airspace above private property without the property owners’ consent.”
Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger, US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 1984
Topic: Cows.
Argument: “Temistocles Ramirez de Arellano (Ramirez), a United States citizen, claims that the Secretaries of State and Defense are operating a large military facility for training Salvadoran soldiers on his private [cattle] ranch without permission or lawful authority, in violation of the Constitution.”
Ruling: The case was dismissed.
Engblom v. Carey, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1981
Topic: Prison housing.
Argument: “[P]laintiffs-appellants contend that their due process and Third Amendment rights were violated during a statewide strike of correction officers in April and May of 1979 when they were evicted from their facility-residences without notice or hearing and their residences were used to house members of the National Guard without their consent.”
Ruling: “[Plaintiffs] must have known that substitute personnel would be required during a strike. Since they are employees of a prison, they may properly be charged with knowledge of the risks and limitations on their ‘rights’ as occupants of prison housing.”
That's exactly why it's on the list. The courts have held that police are not soldiers and thus it does not apply to them. Completely ignoring the fact that police did not exist in 1792 and policing was done by soldiers.
So if the police wanted to say, take over your house to gain a vantage point against your neighbor, (Henderson, NV, 2013) you wouldn't have any recourse under the 3rd amendment.
I guess we should be happy they aren't just seizing houses under Civil Asset Forfeiture...
That was tea party era which is the precursor to MAGA. It all came from billionaire financed foundations funded by the likes of the Koch network. Recommend reading “Dark Money” by Jane Mayer for a detailed account of the how this whole rise of the right was orchestrated.
But don't worry Stein Voters, somewhere out there, Nancy Pelosi was mildly inconvenienced by being sad about it while in a state that still protects those rights, so really it was all worth it!
Half a century feels optimistic. I get the feeling you'll be lucky to keep most of the Constitution intact. (Except for the 2nd amendment, but then probably only for a certain class of people.)
I genuinely fear for y'all, and for my country as your neighbor. I'm starting to feel suspiciously like an Austrian or Czech person in the 1930s.
the Republican Party checks off almost all of these.
powerful and continuing nationalism: MAGA and America First
disdain for human rights: the ongoing trans genocide and their support for the Palestinian genocide
identification of enemies as an unifying cause: the "woke" fearmongering
supremacy of the military: Trump has waffled between praising the military and calling them "losers", so not quite yet
rampant sexism: reinforcement of traditional gender roles and the "tradwife" movement
controlled mass media: inside their sphere, yeah. Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN breathlessly hang on to every word Republican figures say
obsession with national security: bOrdEr WAlL!
religion and government intertwined: anti-abortion policies universally have religious justifications for them, plus several Republicans have said (and seem to sincerely believe) that Trump was ordained by Jesus
corporate power protected: corporate tax cuts and the withering of regulatory agencies under Republican leadership
labor power suppressed: the logical corollary to the above
disdain for intellectuals and the arts: distrust of experts and scientific endeavors
obsession with crime and punishment: running on being "hard on crime"
rampant cronyism and corruption: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito's undeclared trips from Republican donors are likely just the tip of the iceberg
fraudulent elections: not yet, and hopefully never 🤞
Biggest similarity is Trump - a braindead far-right populist supported by conservative elites as a bludgeon against the left (or what passes for it in the US) who has created an independent cult of personality.
Biggest differences are a long history of democratic participation, the more left of the political parties not being split in two, and no mass political violence yet.
This could end up very badly if Trump wins - but we're in a better position than Weimar Germany to pull through and ensure that Trump doesn't win.
Nah see I don't think that'd ever happen. The banks have too much stake in women continuing to hold bank accounts so they can poach their debt. Capitalism wouldn't allow it.
Possibly, I just don't see the financial incentive to restricting women financially. Because how can they increase their debt impulsively if they have to ask permission?
I understand why the powers that be want to restrict reproductive rights, it bolsters the future workforce, but preventing any the working class from spending money wouldn't make any sense.
Like, yeah, a lot of these people do hate women, but they're primarily motivated by pursuit of profit.
It would be about control. Like slavery. The women would work and nominally be paid for their effort, but deemed too foolish to spend or invest it properly, so a man in the heirarchy would be put in control of capital. The capitalists are enamored with systemuc low risk profits, because social progress has destabalized their soft power base.
Slavery is where this moralism is headed. Because labor is such an annoying cost, why not minimize it.
Hmm, would I, a trans woman, be allowed to open one because they insist I'm a man? Assuming they haven't already made my existence illegal by that point
