Revealed? Did no one read Project 2025m
post
Anyone who is surprised hasn’t been paying attention.
It's a civil war.
I wish, but I don't have faith that enough liberal interests will give a shit. They've done little to stand against fascism and have sided with corporate interests every time.
Civil wars aren't typically fought by politicians. It's up to regular people.
Regular people who have been pacified by a lifetime of "violence isn't the answer" and "if you fight back, you're just as bad." I hope we find the will to resist, but I worry we're too far gone.
So buy a gun. I did.
It'll take time for good people to lose the "anti-violence" dogma, but it'll happen; if only because it because it becomes an unavoidable fact of life.
All it takes is 3%. We have the people.
Holy fuck, people just don't get how severe and horrible this administration is.
People used to say that Steve Jobs had a reality distortion field, but I think Trump is a thousand times worse.
It's so bad and the standards are so different between him and just about anybody else, sometimes the 0.01% chance that he's the world's best actor rather than an idiot and/or Russian asset scares me even more.
Your country has more guns than people. Do something about it.
Yes, I don't think Trump will lead America to a better life, he will only lead the rich to a richer position, so we need to seize the opportunity to make ourselves rich
Lol, anyone in a position to seize the opportunity to enrich themselves is already extremely privileged. Most of us live paycheck to paycheck and many have to supplement those paychecks with credit. We aren't seizing shit.
Yes, but now the cryptocurrency market promoted by Trump is indeed a good option as well
You can buy guns on credit, you can also go massively in debt and keep your guns, eventually they'll no longer be able to take you to court, this is definitely not life advice though.
Beginning to question the inherent wisdom of "Normal transition of power" when Biden handed the keys of the kingdom to a guy who openly planned to lock all the doors and shoot the next guy elected to walk through them.
But hey, I guess it would have been against the rules not to meekly empower a fascist dictatorship.
I hope you are being cheeky by saying 'beginning to', it was immensely obvious this was the plan going back to, at bare minimum, about a year before the election, when Trump just kept saying he was gonna serve 3 terms, his supporters wouldn't have to vote again, etc.
Probably what will happen is anyone who might challenge them will suddenly be arrested on Trumped-Up charges.
I disagree with Biden's handling of the transition, but it's definitely internally consistent with his beliefs. He really, really wanted the global rule of law to work.
I would not be surprised if part of the intention here was to maintain legitimacy during the initial transfer, so that when the monsters refuse to do the same, it will lend legitimacy to a global response to assist the people in reclaiming their democracy.
Now, you could also call that 'passing the buck' and... Well, yes. He did seem to do too much of that, imo. Or not enough, depending on how you look at it.
He really, really wanted the global rule of law to work.
Hence backing Al Qaeda in Syria, fleecing Afghanistan of it's currency reserves to kick off a famine, propping up a military dictatorship in The Philippines, all while continuing a 70 year old illegal blockade of Cuba? Never even mind the Holocaust in Gaza.
Come on, dude. The US has always been playing Calvinball with Rule of Law. If Biden made noises about it, that's just him delivering the company line one last time to the liberal rubes.
when the monsters refuse to do the same, it will lend legitimacy to a global response to assist the people in reclaiming their democracy.
That's pure cope.
Biden bent over backwards for the Silicon Valley mega-donors practically from day one, and they took full advantage until he was used up and disposed of.
He wasn't secretly plotting a resistance movement, he was carving up the country in advance so that Trump could sell it off easier.
To clarify, I am not a Biden supporter by any means. In fact, I place a lot of the blame for the fucked state of the world right now squarely on his shoulders. It would not be a stretch to say that I harbor a deep resentment for the man's work.
However, I do think there's a lot to learn from his career. Because as far as I can tell, the man genuinely seemed to be trying to improve the world for the average person. Thus, he clearly fucked up catastrophically, and there's a lot to learn from how and why.
The US disregard of the Rule of Law historically seemed to be one of his personal bugbears. At least from what I've seen of his accounts and those around them. I won't judge you if you want to discard him as a bumbling hypocrite, but we can learn the most from failure.
He really, really wanted the global rule of law to work.
No, Biden did not. He actively broke it by financing Israel's genocide against international and domestic law.
Sorry US law, that's where the US can do whatever it wants in the rest of the world but at home there is a rule book (allegedly)
You're right, that was awful and idealogically-rooted behavior justified in the name of liberal statecraft.
US support of Israel is a huge problem, and needs to stop. I am with you, and he should be held accountable for the part he played in that.
I love these comments that always place the blame on Biden, instead of you know, the actual fucking fascists. JFC.
For the record, the "actual fucking fascists" didn't materialize during this last election, or the one before it, or the one before it.. etc. I remember when the dems campaigned on "no human is illegal" in 2016 but by time of this last cycle, they were capitulating on immigration and the border to attract the elusive moderate republican to vote democrat.. a strategy that failed our democracy in the end.
I think it is because you can't reason with these idiot fascists, but we could have reasoned with Biden.
So what. You wanted a dictatorship to stop a dictatorship. Once the normal transition of power is not followed its game over for our democracy.
Once the normal transition of power is not followed its game over for our democracy.
Once people who've sworn to end democracy are given the power to end democracy, then it's game over for democracy.
Preventing a corrupt criminal who's a known agent of a hostile foreign powers from becoming president is a healthy thing to do.
If the electorate in a democracy want to end democracy, then it's game over. You can't save that.
As would be preventing officials voted into office in a democracy but sooner. There is still a chance as of now as he has not stopped elections yet.
nah, it's over. It was gg for elections in November, and so many people like you didn't realize this. It's to late to prevent this. All we can do now is rebuild.
Congratulations, you just discovered the paradox of tolerance.
And, yeah, essentially, in order to survive, a democratic society cannot allow those who seek to destroy it to participate in the democratic process.
Nope. I have been aware of the paradox of tolerance for awhile and its a little shoehorning to put this situation into it. Your talking about a case of allowing an elected official to take office not tolerating speech.
An elected official who repeatedly stated and demonstrated his intention of preventing any future elections and destroying democracy.
An elected official, therefore, who should never have been allowed to run for office in the first place (this isn't the only reason he shouldn't have been allowed, of course, in a sane country he'd also been unelectable due to his criminal record, lack of any semblance of mental health, and intellectual insufficiency, but it's the most important).
Ill agree he should not have been able to run but that was a failure of congress or in other words other people elected under the democracy to office. Not allowing him to run would have been great but not allowing him to take office when elected would be disastrous.
not allowing him to take office when elected would be disastrous
It would have been many orders of magnitude less disastrous than the alternative.
Sure, cutting off your cancerous hand would've been traumatic. But survivable.
Now, however, said hand is so far up your arse that it's ripped apart your colon in several places and you're bleeding to death while experiencing horrible agony, and spraying all your neighbours with blood and feces.
You could have recovered from getting rid of Trump, but there's no coming back from what you've allowed him to do to your country, and the world.
No. No it would not have. Your talking about doing something trump has not done yet. It would accelerate the problems by putting us at worse case in january of 2025 rather than in late 2026.
something trump has not done yet
Have you been living under a fucking rock‽
I wanted the traitor coward Merrick Garland to do his motherfucking job and prosecute that POS and throw him in federal prison while making him completely unable to appear on any ballot.
Thanks for asking.
You wanted a dictatorship to stop a dictatorship.
Given the current state of affairs, I'm not clear how a Permanent Biden-o-cracy was supposed to be worse.
Once the normal transition of power is not followed its game over for our democracy.
Well, thank god we don't officially lose our Democracy for another eighteen months.
its worse because it would be 18 months sooner. Its like climate change. It won't help if we were at 5 degrees now instead of 1.5. That would not fix it.
Its like climate change.
Weird you would mention that in the context of a presidency that's effectively set himself to the task of nationally Rolling Coal.
It has always been a dictatorship of the rich.
This is just taking the mask off.
That's right, if it's allowed to happen, it's pretty hard to come back from that
You wanted a dictatorship to stop a dictatorship.
[citation needed]
"How dare you break the laws - we should have broken the laws to stop you from breaking the laws."
What a stupid argument. Like Biden refusing to cede power to an elected opponent wouldn't be one of the largest abuses of power in US history.
It would.
It would also be several orders of magnitude less harmful than everything Trump's done.
OMG no 🤣. It would have sent the nation into chaos!
Probably the pertinent bit: "Sulla revived the office of dictator, which had been dormant since the Second Punic War, over a century before. He used his powers to purge his opponents ("Sulla's proscription"), and reform Roman constitutional laws, to restore the primacy of the Senate and limit the power of the tribunes of the plebs. Resigning his dictatorship in 79 BC, Sulla retired to private life and died the following year. Later political leaders such as Julius Caesar followed the precedent set by Sulla with his military coup to attain political power through force."
Dude made himself dictator, reformed laws, purged his political rivals then gave it all up to go live in his villa once he felt he'd achieved his goals of putting the republic back on the rails. Julius Caesar later remarked that the one mistake Sulla made was that he gave up the power he had seized.
How would it have been breaking the law? According to the Supreme Court long before the election, any act a President does while in office is legal.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and just because it's illegal doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. It's illegal to donate or hand out food from your garden to the homeless - as pertains to the law stating that it's illegal to provide a better service than the government.
The article says the constitution say a president can't change voting rules, but this president has the house, the senate and the judges.
Which he probably only has control of because of voter fraud
States control voting so he's going to have a fight in at least some of them.
Yeah but how many does it actually take?
If you are at all surprised by this I got some beach front property in Montana to sell you.

top 100 comments