top 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 124 points 1 year ago (24 children)

What did you guys not learn about civil disobedience?

It's non-violence, but it breaks the laws "designed to keep things civil." It's meant to disrupt, it's means to obstruct, it's meant to annoy the shit out of the people you are protesting.

I haven't seen any civil disobedience. Which is weird because the boomers did it all the time.

A protest isn't civil disobedience. Boycotts aren't civil disobedience.

A crowd of hundreds blocking a bridge is. People blocking entrances to government buildings is. People surrounding bases is. People flooding the capitol or disrupting the discourse of policy is. The reason they use the military and ICE is because they are terrified that people will remember that even 1% of the US doing this far outnumbers them.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    A crowd of hundreds blocking a bridge is. People blocking entrances to government buildings is. People surrounding bases is. People flooding the capitol or disrupting the discourse of policy is. The reason they use the military and ICE is because they are terrified that people will remember that even 1% of the US doing this far outnumbers them.

    The absolute whining from people when they are moderately inconvenienced is depressing. "Sure, death camps are bad but did they have to block the bridge? I'm going to be late for my brunch!" Well, the person in a camp is going to be late for stuff, too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago

    Which is why it's effective if coordinated and done well. It makes things relevant immediately for the public, for officials, for businesses.

    It will annoy them to the point of either joining them out of frustration, or at least saying "do something!" To the government.

    I have no misconceptions that they will happily massacre civilians when those orders arrive, but until those orders arrive they are only trying to intimidate. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the current orders are quite simply: "Walk and look scary."

    They are clearly more afraid of us than them. They're nothing more than buzzing insects with stingers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I've seen someone on this platform, call out people who block bridges as having a "lack of empathy because you've never had to be somewhere on time"

    You're so right, how dare I make someone late for their dentist appointment. Let the genocide continue, by all means.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    On a more practical level, it can be counter productive to the protester's cause though. I used to work at a busy convenience store in a city where I would talk to many people throughout the day about what was going on in town, including one day when a small group of protesters shut down the major freeway in the area. It only turned the majority opinion against them and increased support for police. Literally no one so much as even mentioned what they were protesting about, let alone gaining support

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Non violent protests work if the alternative is violence. Otherwise they just keep sending in violent bullies to dismantle the protests.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    So basically what the climate protesters are doing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Ehhhh.... they're more so just being a bit... annoying once in a while. They make the cause look bad sometimes. Throwing soup on a van Gogh just looks a little dumb.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You could buy a gun and do it yourself. Why does it need to be someone else's job to do it for you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Problem is I'm not a climate protestor and don't give a shit about the climate because I'm barely able to afford rent. What's stopping you from doing it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    We learned the hippies were ineffectual drug addicts that believed in super weird stuff. Then HIV happened and free love was over. Then Manson family killed a bunch of people and became a scape goat. The hippies lost their appeal. Computers blew up and we never went back to that place to try and figure out how to do it right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Wow. Really? When was this? Where was this?

    I certainly remember several times when learning American history throughout my education about the Civil Rights movement and the resistance to the Vietnam War.

    Admittedly though, I don't know how much of that I learned in school, vs learned in Museums.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    We learned about free love and the hippie movement in school. I went to school in a very blue state.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That's incredible. Maybe Minnesota is just that different? My son still learned about the civil rights movement and civil disobedience in 2nd grade. Specifically they mentioned MLK Jrs marches and sit-ins, and how even something as small as Rosa Parks sitting where she wasn't allowed to was an act of civil disobedience.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I wonder if Id remember the cover of the text books if I saw them. Anyway, sorry your kids arent getting the education I received but to be honest, it wasn't that great. At least for me but there are another of other personal factors that attribute to that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    People (especially white) frequently forget about Martin Luther King Jr. He and his team worked extremely hard to keep it nonviolent and effective. He was ready to die for what he believed in but it was wise enough to realize violence was not the answer. For those curious, I would recommend that you read some of his works.

    I also think that for civil disobedience to work you need purpose and a clear direction. Just blocking a bridge is just going to annoy people and get you labeled as a public nuance.

    With the civil rights movement, it was very well organized and people directly disobeyed laws they wanted changed. Sitting at a white only table is very different than blocking a bridge for something less concrete.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

    One misconception I had about civil disobedience from what I’d learned in school is that it’s a reliable means of drawing attention to your cause: your willingness to expose yourself to legal consequences will communicate to the public how critical you consider the issue to be.

    What I learned from witnessing it first-hand is that officials and the media will invent their own narratives about your actions out of whole cloth, and the statement the public thinks you’re making may bear no relation to your intentions.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Civil disobedience is not meant to draw attention. It's meant to fight back without violence.

    Drawing attention is a protest or a boycott.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Sounds about right.

    When it comes to the media the well is poisoned. We need to teach an entire population how to consume new media and we cant do it fast enough.

    Eventually, though, that will stabilize. Then there will be cultural revolutions in that space.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    What is this "new media" for you? Because for many it means sources that tell an alternative truth. Usually written in Sankt-Peterburg.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    And there use to be these things call tabloids, what is your point?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    And there use to be these things call tabloids, what is your point?

    Asking you what you mean with "new media".

    I don't really think you define it as "anything that isn't a tabloid", because tabloids have the same content as what I understand under "new media". And because my understanding of "New Media" is basically "alternative facts, just like in tabloids", and I don't think you necessary understand it the same way, I am asking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Mlk jr got cameras.

    Malcolm X got results.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Their combination got results. You think they're ever going to give Malcolm what he demanded? Fuck no. They give it to King and then shoot the both of em for good measure. King made the movement to sympathetic to just start shooting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    and that’s cool, just don’t stand in the way of the people who push Malcolm X, so we can have both

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Thiiis. The insiders need to laud the goals of protesters and the protesters need to ease off on the "complicit" insiders a bit. We are on the same team, and the combination of approaches is more powerful. Disagreeing on methods is fine, you pull, we push, momentum baby.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Except not really

    It is much harder to label a peaceful protester as a terrorist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 35 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 59 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    IDK, in school they spent a lot of time on MLK and Gandhi, focusing on non-violence. You'd never even know that these men ever talked about anything else.

    Nobody ever learns about Fred Hampton, the Haitian revolution, or Malcolm X by sticking to the curriculum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Labor unions were integral to both of these movements. Students may not have learned much about labor unions in school, but the political elites sure have focused on dismantling them.

    The workweek strikes in France a few years ago were entirely organized by five or so labor unions. They wanted to maintain their 35-hour work week. Can you imagine?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Teaching is something usually done by teachers and or parents

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    YouTube is a VERY SHARP double edged sword. There is a wealth of knowledge, but there’s also a wealth of disinformation.

    It’s also a bit of a catch-22; YouTube can teach you to think critically and look for good sources, but the algorithm will not start that cycle for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I was taught that the founding fathers' did not take into account a two-party political system when they designed the system of checks and balances.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    They did take it into account and George Washington himself said it was a terrible idea because it would lead to exactly where we are now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    If by "take it into account" you mean they said "political parties sure are bad" then not implement anything into the system to discourage their formation, then proceed to form political parties themselves a decade or so later, then sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    No, I just mean the traditional sense of "they understood it and thought about it enough to form an opinion on what might happen."

    Most people disagreed with Washington, but they still took it into account.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago

    Fuck those slavers.

    It is kind of just the endstate of democratic systems. If you need the populace to vote for you (whether directly or through representatives in a parliament or whatever), you inevitably end up down selecting based on key issues. Which means you get more and more coalitions based on, generally speaking, the French Revolution (i.e. Left and Right).

    The US is obviously ahead of the curve. But we are increasingly seeing coalitions between the political parties in Western Europe and so forth. Because they understand that splitting the vote between the three left leaning parties that disagree on the exact level of taxation or the priority queue is just a guaranteed loss once the other side has already stopped doing that.

    Ranked choice voting theoretically helps with this (and isn't too dissimilar in impact to things like the party primaries in the US...) but it still ends up on 2-3 core mega-parties.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 51 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    School is indoctrination. I'm surprised so many of my peers don't realize it.

    When I was in China (country of birth), they did national anthem like either weekly or daily. I think it was every week, they would also do a flag raising ceremony. They then did a weird ceremony where first graders did wore little red scarfs, which I as an adult looked it up and its apparantly called the Young Pioneers program where they attempt to brainwash children into their "communist" ideology. ("communist" in quotes because it wasn't even real communism). So yea I always get weirded out by these weird rituals.

    Then when I immigrated to the US, they do the "pledge of allegience" and the national anthem of the US, of course, being a foreign national at the time, I didn't do the pledge, but just stood up to sort of fit in, but I remained silent. I thought these rituals, national anthem, pledge of allegience, making kids wear red scarfs, was normal, just part of every country.

    Then I grew older and went online and apparantly Europeans tell me the flah of allegience wasn't considered normal.

    I eventually got US citizenship derived from my mother's naturalization. I did eventually get attached to the concept of the constitution and rule of law, checks and balances (I did NOT have any attachments to the US administrations or congress btw, that's a whole differe t thing). But there was always something very uncanny about the way they teach things.

    They keep saying "freedom" "freedom" all over everything they teach, and when they teach civics, teachers say that "police cannot do X if they don't have probable cause" "you have rights" "innocent until proven guilty", but we know for a fact that these things do happen, but of course, they are brushed off as "mistakes", and yet cops don't seem to get held accountable.

    So again, I slowly see the same pattern all over again, different country, similar indoctrination.

    And to top it all off, while the US (pre 2025) was considered "democratic", schools are anything but. Schools admin and teachers always have a lot of draconian rules and some doesn't even make sense.

    Like wtf is school uniform, teaching conformity and just "obey" the rules, no questions asked? Also, you aren't allowed to wear any outerwear even if its winter and you're cold unless you purchase the school's sweaters, wtf? This is a liberal city btw. So much for freedom. Freedom to get a fucking cold.

    Security cameras everywhere in school, they had fucking security patrolling inside the school, like wtf its K-12.

    The fucking police the bathrooms so much. They sometimes LOCK THE FUCKING BATHROOM because "drugs". LOL FUCK YOU. I'M GONNA PISS ON THE FUCKING FLOOR. (sry for caps).

    Its just, when you've seen so much shit from schools in 2 different nationalistic countries, and also have to deal with your abusive parents' bullshit, you quickly develop the pattern recognition to recognize authoritarianism.

    Public school is indoctrination. (And private school would be much worse, especially religious ones). Sad that people don't recognize this.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    School uniforms are absolutely NOT the norm in usa cities for the record

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    They're not uncommon though. The only good rationale I've heard is its good for stopping students for feeling bad/getting bullied because their parents don't buy them the most expensive clothes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Except that doesn't even work. They'll compare who has the newest and most expensive iPhone. Or who has the most expensive $500+ designer sneakers (seriously tho, what the fuck are kids doing these days) and somehow shoes are not part of the uniform code. Or some other ways to bully.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I remember learning about people like MLK with respect and admiration for his methods, but also being taught to not use our first Amendment Rights to stir up trouble. It was definitely a conflicting message, and probably the reason everybody today recognizes that we have an extremely serious problem, but nobody wants to start the trouble that will finally deal with it.

    We won't have to, though. They want trouble, and they will have their trouble, even if they have to instigate it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    The thing is that MLK's legacy, while absolutely awesome, has been appropriated by whites and we're constantly told "he was one of the good ones". Many of MLK's false advocates will conveniently forget that he was the target of the FBI for sowing civil disobedience.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    There was actually a pretty good comment here once about how MLK and Gandhi only really succeeded with progress when a visible and difficult threat to the system was perceived.

    Civil rights stagnated until the ramp up with the march to Washington and widespread riots from groups like the black panthers were damaging public society.

    Similarly, Gandhi had trouble convincing the British to even consider independence until widespread communal violence swept the nation in the aftermath of WWII.

    Both figures were touted as succeeding in history books due to their non violent movements, but in reality they simply became the center of attention for media at the time which solidified them as icons of their respective movements.

    Ironically, both were assassinated which means their opposition definitely viewed them as a a powerful political threat, and not just some supporters for peace.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Gandhi had trouble convincing the British to even consider independence until widespread communal violence swept the nation in the aftermath of WWII. What are you talking about?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Gandhi was the peaceful alternative that gave Britain a place at the table.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Where do you get that from? All the violent resistance like Subhash Chandra Bose and revolutionary movement were not big enough to be a major concern. Civil disobedience was more concerning given how widespread it was.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Civil Disobedience was the peaceful alternative; it is a show of force that only works if it carries the implication of a more violent alternative. Nobody ever won their freedom by appealing to the morality of the oppressor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Nope, nope, nope. It is not a show of force, it's making the society ungovernable, like not paying taxes, growing/making/selling anything to anyone etc. There was no implication of anything more violent. It is not appealing to the morality of the oppressor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    If that was true, the British would have had their puppets shoot and starve them until they were governable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    And they tried. Look at the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, the salt raids, the mass imprisonments. But the point wasn’t to wait for mercy, it was to make the cost of control so high, through sheer non-cooperation, that ruling became practically impossible. The system depends on participation. Remove that, and power collapses under its own weight. It’s not about violence, nor about moral appeals. It’s about leverage. When millions stop obeying, even bullets can’t fix the math.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    checks and balances is not a lie it just does not work when folks don't do their job. its like they did the patriot act because bush jr. didn't do his job. No system can work when a significant amount of the components are bad actors.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Yeah, we entrusted too many shitty people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    I wouldn't say democrats are in on it. I would say democrats are being lead by the same strings. It all ties back to the money. GOP and DNC alike are results of private interests. Now, how the private interests align cant really be known but it is something to think about. I mean its safe to assume thier only function is to amass more wealth but then we are just talking about capitalism.

    Truth is, normal people arent part of the equation they are a remainder that gets deemed negligible or shuffled to the side. Its absurd, really, when they are the driving force but to consider them anything other than a statistic is against all modern theories of capitalism.

    This is probably the wrong venue for this discussion but I just wanted to say, I dont think democrats are in on it but are just as much chess pieces being moved around as the GOP are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Dems are in on it too. Look at insider trading and Nancy pelosi. There is money to be made by them so they're not in a hurry to change things either for the greater good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    The fact that everyone is stuck on Nancy Pelosi when there the list of people making money off their station in government goes on and on. Mostly just sexism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    Starting from middle school (15-ish years ago) I was always enraged by the fact that people blindly follow a lying dictator. How hard can it be to not praise shitty lying scumbags? They are simple creatures who eat and shit like the rest of us. Dems are just controlled opposition (mostly). When I told some candidates are puppets I was laughed at, but later on everybody was shocked that their beloved candidate is just a paid actor.

    Truth is most people are stupid af. They will always be manipulated by other stupid but evil people. All this shit will prevent normal people from being cooperative and resilient community. Society is doomed and Carl Sagan agrees on that. The only solution is smart dictator as in China (yeah people will hate me for this statement). People will suffer but as community they will prevail upon becoming sustainable.

    You might disagree, laugh at me and call me a doomer, but I am already desensitized to it.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    I read: "checks and balances do not work"

    They arent working. Att least the checks and balances we have now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Yeah you can't be taught about future failures of a system. The only way for it not be able to not be working is for humans to not be in the equation of government. Which is one of the reasons ai taking over does not scare me. Either they kill us all. Win for the planet. Or they run things properly. Win for everybody.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    They dont teach future failures but they do teach the robustness of our checks and balances.

    Which turns our to be not very.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Its incredibly robust. Its lasted over two hundred years through several constitutional crises. Its possible it might even survive this. Whats happening now required complacency of a majority of both houses of congress, a large swath of the judiciary, plus the executive. Thats pretty damn robust. Its like saying a bridge is not robust even though its stayed up when some of its supports got destroyed but once over half of them were taken out it finally started to crack.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    sure but there are holes in our entire constitutional process that you can drive a truck through. They work in certain cases, but in others they may as well not exist. Like ,impeachment barely works. And god knows a lot of our presidents should have been impeached. And the will of the people is not implemented by our government and hasn't been for a long time, if ever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I can't see impeachment given its severity as being something lots of presidents should have been. It has to be difficult. Now I could see a less severe recall that was easier to enact. Granted the constitution certainly could be improved to me as a modern person with the knowledge I have. I mean I would love the house to be a parliament and the executive to be a tribunal. I wish it mandated that once someone is elected to body that no one who is related up to first cousin to be elected to the body and im sure many folks would have much more. The real problem is how do you change or make a new one that is only good ideas and who decides on good ideas. like if we voted on a new one it should likely be line item but even then I would fear what maga would vote for or not vote for.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    "Watches an orange buffoon turn the government into a authoritarian regime."

    Its incredibly robust!

    Same time, "the American experiment", "a young democracy", "27 constitutional ammendments", etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    You're missing the whole point. If majority are shitty people, that's what you get.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Youre missing the point, government was suppose to be designed to fend off shitty people destroying it.

    Edit:

    Listen, Im taking this position not because Im particularly enthusiastic about it but really just trying it on for size.

    Is there anything else you would like to add to bolster your position? Im sure these is more nuance and I havent hit on it yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    fend off some shitty people from destroying it. Not a majority of elected positions. Again your expectations of robust go beyond anything that is feasible. With a monarchy one monarch can bring it down. Despite the orange buffoon he would not be able to do it without all the congress collaborators. His first term was actually a constitutional crises we got passed. Barely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I think a direct result of how poorly we dealt with trump after the first administration is the second administration. In the interest of appearing like things are functioning properly we brushed off making drastic moves like making the DOJ be more aggressive toward the trump admin. At least then we could have had more to show for it. Except, since people like you believe the system is working as intended things continue to break down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • It didn't last over two hundred years. It failed utterly in 1861 and wasn't restored until 1865. That was only 160 years ago.

    It probably would've failed again in the 1930s but the Roosevelt Democrats were able to take control of both the legislative and executive branches and make the checks and balances irrelevant, and then the rest of the world bombed itself into the dirt, allowing America to become fat and rich enough that you didn't notice the rot.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    No it was designed to look like it works. Smoke, mirrors, placation they amount to fancy words for lie. Governments and Capitalist leaders have been getting bolder and bolder and are not only saying it but trying to act like they deserve the ability to control the masses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›