TheHiddenCatboy

That assumes this poster has a goal to stop the genocide. ;)

This poster doesn’t care one whit about the plight of Palestinians. It has but one goal – to be the nerdy girl that helps peel votes off the votes from the nerdy guy so her friend, the jerkish cheerleader favoured by the Jocks, can win the SGA election 49 to 48 to 3 (I’ve posted this example of how government works in First Past the Post if you’d like to understand what I mean by nerd girl and cheerleader in SGA). The purpose of this poster and others like it is to throw the election to Trump so we’re subjected to Project 2025, which incidentally aligns with Putin’s and Xi’s goals.

Please think carefully before you listen to this poster or any other like it.

You’re wrong. I suspect that’s not an uncommon occurrence for you and that your reaction will be the typical factless rant you people are really known for.

Fascism is all about demonising the ‘other’. It doesn’t care about truth and facts as long as there are enemies, external and internal, to scapegoat. Khelif is just a good boxer. Do you really think Algeria of all places would cover for a transgender female throughout her entire life, from childhood to when she got her Algerian passport that lists her as female through the ‘revelation’ that she was somehow male after beating down a Russian Oligarch’s undefeated prize fighter? No, but since the BS is out there, Reich-Wing authoritarian shitheads are harping on it to further their stupid fears that there are Transgenders EVERYWHERE.

And I agree with the others. This goes beyond opinion to slander. It’s Fascism because in this case, the slander is furthering the idea that transgendered people are somehow evil and wrong and must be opposed by all means … by attacking an Algerian who was assigned female at birth. Fuck off with that bullshit.

This is my worry too. We’ve survived Trump for this long because he’s not half as smart as he thinks he is, nor is he as charismatic, either. But he’s not alone in this. Republicans are chomping at the bit for “Permanent Republican Rule”, and if they have to outlaw Democrats and Democracy to do it, they will. They’re happy in a Banana Republic…as long as they are the ones in control. Which means merely getting rid of Trump isn’t enough. We need a constant campaign to keep Republicans out of office, which the Left isn’t keen on doing because the Left isn’t one unified group, but instead a loose coalition of Scientists, Academicians, Artists, Environmentalists, Civil Rights advocates, and countless other small factions, that are easily played against each other.

Go back and watch Star Wars Episode 3. That’s actually a good description of how a democracy falls to autocracy. The Republicans have been openly dreaming of a “Permanant Republican Majority” since AT LEAST Bush 43’s terms in office. And they’ve been laying the framework since Nixon – a newsentertainment channel that caters to Right-Winger fantasies, judges who put ideology over legality, partisan gerrymandering that concentrates Republican voters for power and dilutes Dem votes into meaninglessness, and political theories that basically advocate for the dismantling of our political systems if that will keep Democrats out of power even if they have a majority.

To answer your questions directly:

Can he do that? Yes. He can. Anyone can.

What would need to happen to convert our system to lifetime terms? There are a variety of ways, but they all boil down to the President doing outright illegal things under cover of a friendly Supreme Court. After all, they granted immunity to ‘official acts’, which we believe is cover for an autocratic takeover of the country.

What would need to happen to convert our system into a dictatorship/monarchy/whatevs? This is just a hypothetical situation. It’s July 2028. Mass incarcerations of Leftists, Immigrants, Muslims, and Minorities have begun and the country is in the throes of a civil war. Polling is reporting that Trump could lose the election, despite disenfranchising the Left’s voting base through various means. Trump announces he’s postponing the 2028 elections 'until things calm down, they have to get much better first before we can have a fair election." People sue. It doesn’t matter what happens in the lower courts, because they’ll appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court. The same 6 Conservative ideologues that said he has immunity for ‘official acts’ will rule that he has the right to suspend the election. And that, my friends, is how Democracy ends, with massive applause from the Alt-Right assholes that Clinton quite rightly fucking called “Deplorable”.

Can Trump actually make either of those happen? Yes. Yes, he can. The framework is already laid out. HK-65 laid it out elsewhere. Essentially, you start by shutting the Other Side out of government. You then take over all the levers of government. Then you set them so you can’t lose. You might need to just waive away the safetyguards that get in your way, and some you might use your lock on government to remove ‘legitimately’. If the 22nd Amendment gets in the way of a Republican dynasty, they’ll have it removed.

TL;DR? Never rely on checks and balances to stop authoritarianism. In the end, the Constitution IS just a piece of paper, and will be run over by authoritarian jerks if that means power.

Don’t forget getting Student Loans to be somewhat affordable. 5% of not just your total income, but your disposable income, accounting for basic cost of living. That actually convinced me to step away from my ongoing education and enter loan repayment. A huge deal considering how much loan debt I have…

Thanks for saying this.

In the late 70s, the Shah of Iran was a posterchild for authoritarianist shitheads. Everyone wanted him gone, from the religious Right to the academic Left and everything in between. A crowd of liberals, professors, businessmen, reactionaries, and mullahs all united to send the Shah packing. When it was all said and done, Iran had an opportunity to form a Muslim Democracy and join the world as a rising star.

Then the Left started arguing with itself. There were the Communists who wanted Glorious Revolution, and the Academics who just wanted a sane system of government, and the moderates who wanted only a LITTLE bit more socialist support for the underserved, and each of those factions split into sub-factions over some little petty policy difference or another. And while they were fighting, the Religious Right came together, unified in the belief that Gawd Himself was on their side, and promptly took over government.

Iran went from a secular dictatorship to a religious dictatorship while the Left argued.

France has shown us that that doesn’t have to happen, by unifying in voting against the Right and settling on one candidate for each district and not letting little distractions get in the way. Unfortunately, despite this win, it shows us that the more things change, the more they stay the same and the various factions of the Left that are unwilling to compromise a single tiny bit and are willing to burn down the house if they don’t get exactly what they want, which might just cause the fall of the coalition that defeated the Hard Right in France and another risk of the rise of a Fascist government. Let’s be like France before the election, and not like France after, if we possibly can?!

Exactly this. I knew all along that if Biden dropped out, it would be going from “I’m in this 100%” to “I’m out for the good of the nation” without anything in between. You can’t do anything but that in politics, because a wishy-washy ‘we’re evaluating what’s best for the country’ would be the death of his campaign, and he’d have no choice besides “I’m out” at that point. Might as well just rip the bandaid off and go straight to “I’m out” without any intermediary steps. Be fully invested until you make the decision you can’t be anymore.

OK, ngl that {democrat|republican} rendering as democratrepublican is pretty cool.

Some really good arguments. But here’s one from the Cyber Security side. We all know about the CIA, but do you know about the other CIA?

• Confidentiality – Information that you store or transfer is only readable to those you designate.
• Integrity – Information you store or transfer is only alterable by those you designate.
• Availability – Information you store or transfer is available to those you designate when they need access to the data.

Confidentiality is the heart and soul of a functioning life. You do have stuff to hide, even if you say you don’t. Do you want a rando to know your passwords? Do you want your wife to find out about your birthday gift to her before the big day? Do you want your nosy neighbour to start gossiping to the entire neighbourhood about what you and your wife did on her big day? Do you want that big secret plan that will make you the next Mark Zuckerberg be found out by the real Zuckerberg and now he’s rich and you’re not? All of these are things that aren’t illegal, yet are still private information that someone like you might want to make confidential.

And this isn’t even the tip of the iceberg. Sure, you might argue, you shouldn’t be posting your plans for the Zuck-killer on Facebook, but your actual words are not the only thing Facebook stores and analyses. They know a lot about you. What you liked. What you commented on. What you searched for. What you looked at. They know things about you that you never ever said. For instance, even if you never said “I’m a DemocratRepublican” in so many words, or even if you don’t share overtly political posts, they still know your ideologies and are willing to sell this information to everyone and sundry. Facebook is even building profiles on people who never created accounts on Facebook. Imagine being RepublicanDemocrat and working for a DemocratRepublican boss. You’ve worked hard to keep politics out of the workplace, because while there may be anti-discrimination laws if you’re a woman or a minority, having an unpopular political opinion is not protected in as many places, so you could easily lose your job if Facebook discloses to your boss that you’ve not got the right political views.

If Confidentiality really was not an issue and everyone could live open lives without consequence, we’d be talking about the IAs of security, not the CIAs. That we are talking CIAs shows that yes, there actually IS a need for secrecy, and we actually DO have things to hide, even if we don’t moonlight as murderers, cat-burglars, or strippers.

PS: I don’t believe you have never had it explained to you why 'I have nothing to hide" is a bad argument.

PPS: Very strong sea lioning vibes here.

PPPS: Seems like this nonsense started cropping up on Reddit when it became clear the protests were having an effect. And now it’s here. So much dishonest debate tactics being thrown around the whole “we want an alternative to the creepily intrusive policies of main-stream social media” debate. I wonder why? </sarcasm>