• nyctre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      Don’t know the exact method, but I’m pretty sure appointing people that agree with him to the SCOTUS which will later rule that he’s got absolute immunity for official acts is one of the steps.

      • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        9 days ago

        Do you see how the fact that you cant point to a path for these things to happen is the problem? The thing about immunity is just confirmation for what always has been, its not a new ruling. When they pretend like this is something new they are lying to you, its just now formalized.

        • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 days ago

          Presidential immunity is not a new thing. It’s not just me saying that. A lot of people who are experts in the law are saying that, including the dissenting justices.

          The president can now do everything up to and including having their opponent assassinated by the military. There’s a good video about this here.

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            9 days ago

            Legal eagle is a biased person, he has bought into the propaganda just like all the rest of you guys.

        • nyctre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 days ago

          The fact that someone insufficiently familiar with law can’t point to a path for these things doesn’t mean that someone with more knowledge can’t. Also, how are you so sure it isn’t you who’s being lied to?

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            9 days ago

            Because I can look at what all the presidents in my lifetime have done and have zero consequences to. Trying to pretend that just now they cant get away with doing whatever they want is just silly. How many wars/conflicts have the presidents started on their own the few decades?

        • exanime@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 days ago

          Literally anything… Have his opponents assassinated, openly take bribes in exchange for killing regulations or selling pardons or us citizenship… Anything

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            9 days ago

            Sure, the president has been killing people and starting wars for decades and nothing happens. And how do you think all presidents are rich after being public “servants” for their whole lives? They will only get in trouble if its for personal gain directly.

      • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 days ago

        OMG, Sam Seder, really? That dude is just a rage porn creator. And I dont really care what people claim or what way you guys are misleading. What is the exact method?

        • zbyte64@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          And I dont really care what people claim or what way you guys are misleading.

          I also like to shout into a void for a sense of validation.

    • PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      It’s always gradual up until the very end. They chip away at your sense of normal by changing little things. It starts with censorship. They delete the ideas they don’t like. Then they eliminate free speech. Punish protesters. Increase militarization of police. Add a few laws about “appropriate behavior” you know, dress codes, curfews, male escorts, mandatory church attendance, et viola, authoritarian state.

      • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        9 days ago

        This is kind of funny/sad. Do you realize you just listed out the steps the left has taken in the last 10 years?

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            9 days ago

            Oh gotcha, I point out reality so it must be a troll. It would be good for you to actually learn what the fuck is happening and not just repeat the propaganda you read on the internet.

            • akakunai@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              8 days ago

              Buddy, you didn’t point out shit, you gave a presupposition. If you want to point something out, point out the legislation behind each of the “steps the left has taken in the last few years.”

              • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 days ago

                I never said there was legislation, and in fact if they can accomplish steps without legislation then thats even better for them.

                Step 1 - Can you say mainstream ideas that conservative believe on social media and not get kicked off most platforms? No, you will get booted off most platforms.

                • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  Step 1 - Can you say mainstream ideas that conservative believe on social media and not get kicked off most platforms? No, you will get booted off most platforms.

                  Heh I know I’m starting a parallel reply chain, but I suddenly remembered this meme today. This is really the crux of the problem.

                  • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    7 days ago

                    How many times have I been banned off this site or from sub-reddits for sharing tepidly conservative opinions? On this site I think temporarily 2-3 times, and probably 30 different subreddits. But you are free to yell any crazy leftist belief about the revolution and putting people up against the wall.

                • akakunai@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 days ago

                  If we’re not talking legislation, then I don’t see how it’s all that important in a discussion about democracy. If a social media company chooses freely to decide they don’t want to platform someone, where’s the problem? That’s freedom, baby. I have very few carveouts where I will not support someone’s actual right to speech, but I do not think forcing any private entity to platform speech they are against is all that democratic.

                  I do not even agree that many of these companies are really all that quick to deplatform people either. There are many conservative voices on social media. The examples that come to mind where individuals were kicked off certain sites generally involve explicit undue vitriol against other people (individuals and communities), often wishing harm unto them. If this is not what you mean by the “mainstream ideas that conservative believe” that people are being kicked off platforms for (I sure hope not)…then what else? I mean, who is being booted off of platforms for saying they think the government is too big, or that they think x politician is doing a poor job, etc.?

                  • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    8 days ago

                    The issue is the government is so big that it is married to corporations (mainly on the federal level). So the big issue is the government directly giving money to companies and telling them who to censor, and also how the financial system works and the funds that the companies get indirect to censorship. Also there is the “public square” argument that social media is the public square and a few companies have a monopoly on the public square.