GOP Congressman Accidentally Gives Real Reason for Mayorkas Impeachment
GOP Congressman Accidentally Gives Real Reason for Mayorkas Impeachment
Republican Representative French Hill just gave away the game.
"We need to shut the border.… The president could take executive action to do it today—doesn’t need more money. It needs action, and this is what’s disappointing to people, and that’s why Mayorkas is gonna pay this public relations price by being impeached for the first time since 1876,” Hill said.
Notably absent from Hill’s explanation was any description of high crimes and misdemeanors committed by Mayorkas. Hill all but admitted that, with the impeachment, Republicans are aiming to make Mayorkas the face of their anti-Biden, anti-immigrant campaign, despite his having not committed impeachable offenses."
You're viewing a single thread.
Great. He gave away the game. At least 40% of Americans are going to get played. Giving up the game has no consequences. Ask freakin' Christopher Rufo if explaining his unreasonable strategy against critical race theory hurts him in anyway. Ask Steve Bannon. Ask Donald "Aspiring Dictator For A Day" Trump. Ask Steven Miller.
The game was given up a long time ago and we're still playin' it.
Jordan Klepper did a segment on The Daily Show last night (it's on YouTube) where he talked to Trump people and they want a dictator or a king. They come right out and say it.
And im sure they all still fancy themselves "patriots".
Lol it's doesn't help that Klepper strings them along until they agree with something absurd, but...those folks clearly haven't a democratic bone in their body
To be fair, most Democrats do too. They just want a dictator that is going to do the things they want, like banning certain forms of speech, or taxing billionaires out of existence.
Not many people really, truly want a lost constitutional framework where a consensus needs to be reached, and compromises made, in order to do things.
most Democrats do too. They just want a dictator that is going to do the things they want,
[Citation needed]
The user doth projects too much.
It seems like they drink their own Kool aid on the both sides isms that they get worked up and think it's a race. I only want a dictator because they do too, and I've got to get my guy in first.
I only want a dictator because they do too
I don't want ANY dictators. I don't want a president that can just make decrees because congress is deadlocked, regardless of whether or not I agree with those presidential decrees!
I'm agreeing with you, that last part is a projection of people who think that way
banning certain forms of speech
Democrats aren't the ones on a book banning crusade.
Nice attempt at a both-sides though.
Republicans are banning age-appropriate books about gender identity and sexuality from schools and public libraries, yes. And it seems to me, a non-attorney, that it's a clear 1A violation. I'm not disputing that at all. This is terrible, deeply harmful, and also wildly discriminatory against LGBTQ+ children.
But then you have California--a Democratic supermajority--trying to legislate unconstitutional 1A violations in regards to the internet. See here; you will note that courts have so far enjoined the law from going into effect because it's a massive 1A violation for both minors--since children do have limited 1A protections--and adults. And before yous insist that that's just California being California, no, New York state is trying to do the same sort of thing, all because, "won't someone think of the children?!?" IMO, attempts to censor the whole internet because something might, potentially, 'harm' children through mere existence, is, arguably, worse, since that imposes significantly more limitations on children--and on adults!--then a school or public library.
I can not tell you how many times I've had to explain to liberals that there is no hate-speech exception to 1A, and that yes, advocating for genocide of the Jews is legally-protected speech that the gov't can not censor.
Yes, you can legally say almost anything you want as an opinion (defamation is a thing however). Court of public opinion is totally different, and the public can totally choose to "cancel" you if they wish.
These guys always crack me up. They want their racial epithets and hate speech, and also want to be protected from any and all consequences of using such speech.
Hey, idiots - free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. There are always consequences for your actions. Get it through your thick skull, it’s shitty and wrong to be racist, and people will not like you for being racist when you act out, period.
I can’t believe this isn’t well understood but here we are. Fuckin snowflakes.
Of course. And that's fine, I've got no objection to that at all. If I say something that's deeply offensive and hateful, of course I deserve to be censured by people.
And yeah, I've been banned from Twitter and Reddit; the former for advocating the guillotining of billionaires, and the former for suggesting arson as a solution to Nazis. They're both privately-owned spaces, and so that's fine.
But that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about legitimate government censorship, and criminal penalties for politically unpopular speech. We've seen that in, for instance, in anti-BDS laws, which have passed in both Republican and Democratic states, and we're seeing it with Republicans censoring what books libraries can have, and Dems trying to censor what children can see on Facebook.
Do any of them hold an elected office?
I'll take some randos on the Internet against genocide vs actual elected officials trying to ban pronouns any day of the week.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Republicans ban pronouns&ko=-1&ia=web
Both sides are not the same no matter how badly you want to pretend they are.
This is such a strange take. Just because people think that the current system doesn't work doesn't mean they automatically jump to wanting despotism even if enlightened. People who throw up their hands at political gridlock and see it as a justification for dictatorship, and not as reasons to iterate and improve upon the existing system are weirdos.
That's a whole lot of words to spend on a troll, friend.
Why do you believe this to be the case?
Don't engage with bad faith arguments.
Fair, but if this person truly believes what they say it seems understanding why would be beneficial. Shunned people don't just change their way of thinking because they are shunned, especially when groups of shunned people make their own groups and realities. Ignoring problems don't make them go away. Understanding the root cause can go a long way in treating the problem though.
Okay, let's start. I'll address things that are solely covered under the Bill of Rights, either enumerated or implied.
A not insignificant number of liberal Democrats believe that speech they believe to be hateful should not be legally permissible. Things like, Fox News shouldn't be allowed to broadcast, Nazis shouldn't be allowed to hold rallies, etc. I've had the argument many, many times that there is no "hate speech" exception to 1A, and there shouldn't be, since it was intended to protect unpopular and dangerous speech (...such as sedition against the king). (ETA - Many Dems actively mock the idea of freedom of speech/press/etc, e.g. "freeze peach". Yes, the solution to free speech is more free speech).
A very large number of liberal Democrats believe that individual ownership of firearms should be banned or restricted to the point where it's effectively banned. Gun control and support for wholesale bans is literally part of the party platform.
Certain Democratic majority states have passed laws preventing people that are protesting reproductive rights from getting too close to people using the clinics, or the clinics themselves.
I've absolutely seen liberal Democrats say that certain religious expression and practice by individuals and religious institutions should be banned under penalty of law, notably treatment of LGBTQ+ people by conservative religions. See also: "'hate speech' exception to 1A".
Keep in mind that I do largely vote Democratic in national and state-level elections, but I'm personally more of a libertarian socialist. I vote Democratic because they're more likely to do most of the things I want than Republicans.
-
"Incitement" is a long-standing, widely-accepted exception to the first amendment not mentioned in the amendment itself. Just because the literal text of the document does not include an exception does not mean our legal system can not invent one. While I generally agree that speech should not be regulated outside of extreme circumstance, this is a very common human thing to want.
-
No argument on the second amendment. I do believe that more needs to be done here, but banning firearms - effectively or otherwise - is simply not an option in the States.
-
Your freedoms stop where another's begin. I don't see this as a reduction in freedom, it's a protection of the freedoms of those who are being protested against. Defending against violence is not, strictly, an attack on freedoms.
-
See previous point. Religious freedom must end where another's life and liberty begin. While I generally agree that individuals and religious institutions should be allowed to freely practice their religion, this must be tempered by the individual rights of others. With specific respect to the LGBTQ+ community, many religious groups actively dehumanize and some actively promote violence against them.
I would argue that this situation ultimately boils down to a lack of understanding of authoritarian rule and the damage that can occur because of it. The American education system is largely gutted when it comes to history - our own and otherwise - and I believe this trend toward authoritarianism is largely due to that - and persistent class warfare by the Capitalist class, but that's a different conversation, I think.
People don't really learn about what happened in Nazi Germany, or Fascist Italy, or Imperial Japan, or the Soviet Union, or Communist China, or British India, or probably dozens of other examples I can't think of off the top of my head.
- Incitement
Yes, I'm aware of what incitement is; I know about the Brandenberg decision. I've also had a number of liberal friends--not leftists--that think that a confederate flag stick on a truck counts as incitement, and that it should be banned.
I'd also like to point out that Dems have advanced a bill that would prevent Facebook, et al., from using algorithmic feeds, due to nebulous "won't someone think of the children!" claims (I'd have to pull up the TechDirt and EFF articles about that to give you a citation). The flip side of that is Republicans keep passing "Don't Say Gay" bills, which are also blatant 1A violations.
- Your freedoms stop where another’s begin.
Absolutely. I agree with you 100%. But it's not about preventing violence (in this case; in many cases where cities and states are keeping competing protest groups apart, it is about stopping violence), it's about keeping people who may be protesting loudly away from people that need reproductive care, because they feel intimidated, even if people aren't touching/directing intimidating them or physically preventing them from accessing clinics.
- See previous point. Religious freedom must end where another’s life and liberty begin.
This one is fuzzy, because what if you're 'consenting' (and I use the term loosely here, since I think that all religion is deeply coercive) to harm being done to your person? Take, for instance, conversion therapy, which has been completely banned in some states. What if your religion has taught you that all of your sexual desires are sinful, and you believe that conversion therapy will help you lead a reduced-sin life? And how exactly do you separate religious liberty out from these things, and allow religions to have their own doctrine, while also saying they can't do harm? Like, for instance, the Westboro Baptist Church? They certainly have hateful doctrine and dogma, and I've definitely seen people saying that their religious freedoms should be clamped down on.
I would argue that this situation ultimately boils down to a lack of understanding of authoritarian rule
I don't disagree at all. I'm generally anti-authoritarian, and generally quite far left. When I look at current Republicans, I see a group that is very highly authoritarian, and extremely economically and socially conservative. When I look at most current Democrats, I see moderate authoritarians, moderately economically conservative, and largely socially liberal. What I take issue with is people that say that Republicans are authoritarians, and Democrats are not, when that's simply not accurate.
-
The fuck you talkin about. Gtfo with that democrats do too.
They just want a dictator that is going to do the things they want
"They" being the majority of Americans. We want a constitutional framework that benefits everyone, not just a select few. That's not wanting a dictatorship, it's quite the opposite. Democrats and Republicans Are. Not. The. Same.
If we did get a benevolent dictator, the first thing they'd do is set up a democratic, constitutional framework for when they're gone.
The whole reason the founders did all this is that dictatorships aren't stable, and it's bad for everyone in the end. The ruling class really enjoys keeping their heads.
Spreading power shallow and wide is the way to avoid guillotines and bloodshed.
You are forgetting about peaceful transition of power being a Democrat policy