Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 52 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,207,423
They'll come for your rights eventually. Today it's just women, so who cares? Tomorrow it will just be black people, so who cares? After that it will just be the non Christians, so who cares? But eventually, it will be you. I'm sure you'll care then.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 years ago, 31 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,207,426
@1,207,420 (B)
Sadly it isn't just America. This shit is a global disease. Look at who Italy just elected, for instance. The lessons from WWII have been forgotten, not even 100 years later.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 years ago, 22 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,207,439
@previous (C)
Any one politician in the US doesn't have massive power. The problem is how many people there are in congress and at more local levels of government who are full on MAGAtards. That's why midterm elections like today are just as important as presidential elections.
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,207,449
@previous (D)
in theory... but in practice, the US President has gigantic amounts of power. The checks and balances you are beaming about have been eroded away over the past century.
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 37 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,207,451
@1,207,439 (D)
also forget about the US and whatever "protections" are supposedly in place. Electing a person to lead the people of and manage the resources of a large tract of land ("country sized") is just a stupid idea
Anonymous D replied with this 3 years ago, 16 seconds later, 37 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,207,452
@1,207,449 (C)
You're right, precisely because of congress and more local levels of government being packed full of sycophants who would never challenge dear leader. If anyone in congress had a spine, the checks and balances would still function as intended.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,207,459
@previous (C)
Perhaps you should read it yourself. It literally says in the second paragraph: > Congress can terminate an emergency declaration with a joint resolution enacted into law.
But they won't because they don't have spines. But if they did have spines, then they could.
> Perhaps you should read it yourself. It literally says in the second paragraph: > > Congress can terminate an emergency declaration with a joint resolution enacted into law. > But they won't because they don't have spines. But if they did have spines, then they could.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 47 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,207,462
@1,207,454 (D)
I wasn't being facetious. I mean what if that is the actual lesson of WWII and we just haven't learned it yet? And maybe in 100 years kids will learn in history class about WWIII and be like "how could they go 100+ years and not see that Fascism was right all along!?
Basically I think it's retarded to view history as a "lesson". It's not Aesop's Fables, it's just strength * willpower = who wins the war. Victors write the history books and might makes right.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 years ago, 13 seconds later, 47 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,207,463
@1,207,460 (C)
My point is that if congress wasn't full of sycophants who actually did their job instead of just doing whatever The Party tells them to, we would be in a much better position as a country. I'm not arguing with you or saying you're wrong. We seem to be in agreement, but I think you're misunderstanding me.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,207,468
@1,207,462 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
I guess there is the whole philosophical debate of to what extent the ends can justify the means. Fascism has historically led to mass suffering that, in my opinion, is quite difficult to justify in any way. I think you're taking the term "lesson" too literally. We can use historical trends to make pretty good guesses as to how things may play out in the future when circumstances align with what we've seen before. That's all it means.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,207,477
@1,207,468 (D)
Do you really think the OG fascists had no justifications for what they did? I mean like, yeah some kid on /pol/ being edgy with 1488 shit probably isn't thinking too deeply about any of it but I do believe Mussolini could have explained his actions as well as anyone explains anything they do. Maybe you and him would disagree on whether those justifications are any good but I would be extremely surprised if he couldn't justify anything he did.
> You don't need a "perfect race of people" to have a functional government lol. Wtf are you talking about
you're saying the current system is good enough, but only if somehow all the losers that you hate were gone gone gone... why not just fix your shitty system where losers can take over and break the supposed rules? instead you're sitting around dreaming of a perfect race of humans... again? I thought you had "learned from WW2"!
Anonymous D replied with this 3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,207,481
@previous (C)
Wow you're putting a lot of words in my mouth. The system is absolutely in dire need of fixing. However, any system of government is inherently reliant on those in power acting in good faith. Any system can fall apart simply from those in power just not following the rules. Yes, our system needs a lot of improvement to make that more difficult to achieve, but it would function much better than it does now if it weren't full of sycophants. Both can be true. > instead you're sitting around dreaming of a perfect race of humans... again? I thought you had "learned from WW2"!
I thought you were trying to have an actual conversation, but this is so incredibly stupid and antithetical to whay I am saying that I can only assume you're a troll trying to get a reaction.