this nerd thinks we care about the pathetic justifications libs make for not being able to do good things
deleted by creator
your comment made me realize The Beatles - Revolution has gotta be one of the most libbed out songs of all time
yeah, it’s probably their most anticommunist:
“and if you go carrying pictures of chairman mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow”
… …
“don’t you know it’s gonna be alright?”
TINA in song
Miss me with that shit
Dana White: that’s fucking illegal
-
Liberals cannot do that because it would be illegal
-
There’s nothing we can do about conservatives when they break the law, because they are too powerful
Lather, rinse, repeat.
The important part is that we failed the right way
We respected the norms and standards while being completely dysfunctional
One time an angry lib on
sent me a cartoon where an anarchist said “At last, I am the one pure leftist!” as he was being executed by a Nazi. It could easily have been altered to say “We couldn’t save anybody from the carnage, but at least we played by the rules!”
😌
-
Imagine believing in the Separation of Powers when the ruling class controls all branches of the government
Why yes, I support the Separation of Powers. How could you tell?
Are the libs really trying to quote the constitution at us now? Read Federalist Papers #10 if you give so much of a shit about how the founders thought government was supposed to work.
These were people who led a revolution to replace the feudal ruling class with their own capitalist ruling class. It was literally democracy by and for the bourgeoisie. It was in their class interest for these protections to work and one of their biggest concerns was factionalism, which became a problem almost immediately and ultimately became so ubiquitous that even the most apolitical folks will complain about “division” and talk about how all the parties serve rich people.
Separation of powers my ass. Go take a look at the size of the executive bureaucracy and tell me how much you think the founders expected congress to abdicate large swaths of their power to the executive branch due to factional pressure. It’s such a bullshit argument, even from a non-leftist point of view.
Separation of powers? How about you separate deez nuts?
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
It was designed from the ground up to prevent good things?
A government of slave owners and
CW SA
rapists
designed a system meant to keep people like them in power?
liberals absolutely cannot fathom that someone else might be more read than they are so they assume all communists are the kids who fell asleep in the back of the class in 8th grade
The most in depth liberal political analysis is just mindlessly regurgitating thought terminating cliches from their high school civics class
Starship Troopers is effective at turning libs into fascists without needing the scratch precisely because it uses a high school civics class as a vehicle for disseminating its lazy propaganda
separation of powers? nah dude the president has all the guys with guns, if he really wanted to he could purge the ranks, keep loyalists, and kill the other branches. in fact, the truest idea of separation is, funny enough, the fact that there are many executives in governorships who have their own militias and state guards. but these are obviously dwarfed by national spending and national recruitment numbers
also you know, he could do huge damage to the whole system if he wanted to given the fact he can legally drone strike pretty much whoever he wants
The US president could make almost anyone in the world disappear, the only exceptions being heads of state with a nuclear arsenal behind them, but a single senator is somehow too much to handle.
What about the police? Its militarized there are many of them and can presumably be mobilized faster than the military. And while dwarfed by the national guards and army they could tip the balance one way or another in certain circumstances.
there is something to be said about communist infiltration of the executive branch of a country, but historically none of thats worked out in imperialist countries except for spying for AES. in czechoslovakia, partisan groups that were organized by cadres of the former czechoslovak military became radicalized throughout the course of the nazi occupation. after the war, the liberal government was reinstated by treaty (czechia proper technically never got occupied by the allies and the partisans restored order in the wake of the nazi defeat). these now communist partisans were then reintegrated into the liberal government’s military and police force, which was something like 60-40 communist to liberal. eventually, an election happened and a critical role over the police was given to a communist party member. they then purged the ranks of the police and did a soft revolution after all the liberals purged themselves from government positions in an act of protest of the police getting purged (hilarious!).
this has also happened in a similar way somewhat recently with nepal, but instead of nazis, they were dealing with a comprador monarchy. i believe there are also other places like in africa that have likely followed a similar path.
and yeah, id figure the police in america would answer to the governorship in a certain capacity given the governor’s ability to pardon non-federal crimes within the state. i would suspect that if socialism were to take root in america, itd be a bit like a free state and slave state divide like prior to the civil war, which in fact the ending of the civil war was the closest america had ever been to socialism given how popular radical republicanism was. they blew it though. you can see analogs to this idea in modern day federal states like russia and india and to a much lesser extent, czechia. czechia has many small localities that have pockets of socialism, russia has many places in the far east that has the KPRF running the show from the governorship down, and india has the red corridor + the southwest areas near/in kerala.
You have a lot of good takes, but these aren’t.
how is this a bad take, lmao. it isnt happening because those guys are his team, and that team is called team liberalism. to note: the czechoslovak communist revolution began through usurping the executive branch, and its a valid way for communists to come to power, if rare. you can even argue nepal is on a similar track.
You’re thinking of the military as this force that is blindly, personally loyal to the president. The military is not that politically uniform, and the only foreseeable president a chunk of them might go to bat for is Trump, and there are all sorts of separate problems with thinking Trump could purge the military then become a dictator with the remainder.
Say Sleepy Joe orders an Army unit to enter the capitol building and execute every Republican – are the hooting chuds in that unit going to say “yes, Mr. President” and do it? If Biden orders a drone strike on the the Florida gubernatorial mansion, is the lib officer (who joined because he thinks the military is a force for good) going to do it? How is the order to effectively start a second civil war going to go over among a rank-and-file that’s looking around and wondering who is on which side?
Say Sleepy Joe orders an Army unit to enter the capitol building and execute every Republican – are the hooting chuds in that unit going to say “yes, Mr. President” and do it?
i mean obviously joe isnt going to do this, as i said, its team liberalism. what i am saying is that if there were, by some arcane technology, a socialist president, then odds are there are many socialists in the military and likely have even infiltrated intelligence agencies to some degree. the move would be to purge the military and do a soft revolution. this isnt a likely scenario for an imperialist country, but this has happened in history to federal governments in the past. whats more likely is a socialist governorship does similar with the police and militia of the state, but that is still unlikely.
This wouldn’t happen because America is ruled by a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie not because the “seperations of powers” means anything substantial.
Our friend is right here as well. Joe could abuse his powers at least to give him more leverage in negotiations. Instead, he is the capitulator-in-chief.
yeah he has so many powers that he can use but just chooses not to. you only need to flex the pinky of the executive branch to get most things done, so long as it is for liberalism
It’s just “political power grows out of a barrel of a gun” or to use a more US-relevant example: “Well, John Marshall has made his decision, but now let him enforce it.”
“I’m not going to enforce a law” is pretty far from “I’m going to have the military shoot the Supreme Court.”
Trying to convert an atheist with Bible verses vibe.
The Book of Lib 5:38
I recommend reading any version of the constitution of the USSR. There’s all kinds of enumerated positive rights. The government had legal obligations to safeguard your welfare, as opposed to the US government which is often legally prohibited from acting against the rich.
Socialist constitutions are always a great read, but of course liberals will say “well ackshually it’s all a ploy and they don’t follow it
”
Wait a sec, even China has “separation of powers.”
What is this person on about?
Why do they think that MLs don’t do “separation of powers.”
deleted by creator
That’s overbroad, as it would suggest liberals couldn’t achieve similar results under a monarchical model. Glancing over at England, I can see ample evidence to suggest merging the executive and legislative branches into a parliament, defanging the courts, and defending the super-legal powers of the monarchy does nothing to inhibit liberals from running wild.
Separation of Powers (and, to a lesser degree, Federalism) allows independent parties to operate with varying degrees of power in order to maintain enthusiastic participation in elections. All these different offices with varying sizes and scopes and appointment processes will guarantee relevance in the minority party and therefore guarantee an organization invested in that party’s continued leadership and organizing activities.
If it didn’t exist, the worst the bourgeois would have to fear is the Japanese or Mexican or Turkish model of a single dominant party that’s backstopped by the military.
exactly
The argument they’re mad about is that Biden could have exerted pressure on Manchin and Sinema in creative ways to coerce them into being less obstructive. Apparently this would be “becoming the Republicans”
…wtf
I recognize the user from my days on a subreddit that they moderate (or used to? Idk, I’ve only glanced at their reddit profile to verify that it was the same user), so I’m just
big oof
It’s so fucking funny if you have had any experience of any other political party. Get a whip like a real party, if someone like Sinema or Manchin acted like they did in the ALP even once, they’d be out of the party, demonised by the press, harassed by the unions, and people would spit on them in the street.
The laws that govern the organization of the bourgeois republic are as innate as the laws that govern reality. The separation of powers, like gravity, is to be understood and worked within, as critique is pointless, because change is impossible.
Moralists don’t really have beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child’s toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded. Centrism isn’t change – not even incremental change. It is control. Over yourself and the world. Exercise it. Look up at the sky, at the dark shapes of Coalition airships hanging there. Ask yourself: is there something sinister in moralism? And then answer: no. God is in his heaven. Everything is normal on Earth.
Removed by mod
The president doesn’t actually have any power sweaty. 🤔 Unless he’s Republican.
It’s a shame Executive Orders can only be issued by Republicans
