> In Aptheker, the petitioner challenged Section 6 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, which made it a crime for any member of a Communist organization to attempt to use or obtain a passport.[1]"
They can not leave power or they will all br prosecuted. They are all very motivated to work together and remain in power. It cant last forever. Individually they are too selfish, short sighted, and incompetent to rule for long.
They might have dreams of a 100 year 4th reich, but its not going to happen.
all signs are pointing to this - that these guys are not willing to be out of power soon.
from the white house redecorations, to the trump 2028 hats, to the gerrymandering going on in many states. capture of judiciary, suppression of free speech etc. the 'us' vs 'them' mentality.
No, separation of power isn't in great shape unfortunately.
But I don't think it has collapsed yet, or you think it has?
Mine is probably free speech, it's also not in a great shape either. But without separation of powers, free speech is quick to crumble into a precarious position.
If there is no one who makes the laws, the law won't exist ;)
So we have the important three:
- judiciary
- law making by Legislature
- executive powers for enforcing law
It's one of the most important things to keep them separated and not interweaved. The three powers control each other and the fourth one controlling the controlling:
- journalism and it's covered investigations or whistleblowers
And then you need the rule of law that the law is the only law.
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party; and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt, until recently, and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."
- Gore Vidal (1975 or before)
Let's not confuse "huge differences" with huge emotional polarization over "small adjustments". Even on ICE tactics there aren't huge differences in method between Biden's and Trump's admins. The scales are different but the methods are the same, "administrative warrants" were upheld by SCOTUS and were/are used by both admins - as recently explained by IL Gov. Pritzker (D) on Jon Stewart's show.
> and completely asymmetric levels of radicalization.
I don't keep exacts stats but the numbers of politically-motivated murders seem to be very similar for both sides - it's a good argument in favor of rather symmetric levels of radicalization.
Yep. There's shit lite and ultra shit where some bet on ultra shit accelerating towards less shit and other believing ultra shit is really a fragrant utopia that smells like roses. Ultra shit really wants permission to start a civil war purge while shit lite is worried about magazine capacity and the "scary look" of forward grips while a flood of diarrhea is already ankle-deep.
They want people that disagree to stay so that an example can be made of them. The people who voted them the regime into office want to see those people suffer.
Charlie Kirk was a "literal who" until he was assassinated, and even though his assassination was extremely graphic, and even though it took place at an event where he, at least purportedly, offered discourse with the other side, Kirk probably would have remained a "literal who" had the left not let its collective mask slip in the aftermath. It's really astounding how badly progressives are playing this.
"Who was Horst Wessel, and why are people comparing Charlie Kirk to him?
Within hours of Kirk’s death, opposite ends of the political spectrum invoked the Nazi martyr"
> While Kirk’s rhetoric was combative — he railed against immigrants, gender ideology and “global elites” — he operated in a democratic system and advocated for civil disagreement.
Kirk was openly happy about Pelosi shooting and advocated for a patriot to bail out the shooter.
Kirk should not be killed. He also was not someone who advocated civil disagreement or anything like that. He helped to create toxic culture that exists now and did it intentionally.
Horst Wessel was killed at time when Germany was nominally a democracy. Nazi took power only later. It was dying democracy, just like the democracy in the USA is dying.
False equivalence. Remind me what political power Unicorn Riot actually possesses compared to the party currently controlling the federal government. Unicorn riot hasn’t “done” anything because they don’t run the government.
Statements or actions taken by some fringe group are in no way equivalent to statements and actions taken by the actual government—which is currently being run based on fringe right wing ideology.
The US did this before; there was a Cold War-era law SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional in 1964.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptheker_v._Secretary_of_State ("Aptheker v. Secretary of State" (1964))
> In Aptheker, the petitioner challenged Section 6 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, which made it a crime for any member of a Communist organization to attempt to use or obtain a passport.[1]"
Some expanded context,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit... ("Freedom of movement under United States law")
Good thing the current supreme court has such respect for precedent!
It's like 50/50 kind of balanced rulings - when precedent agrees with their agenda, they go with it, when it doesn't they go with their own thing.
Just like my wife treats my wishes.
They really care about stare decisis unless it doesn’t favor their agenda.
https://archive.ph/R18Ne
The Party of Free Speech, everyone.
Nice nickname :-D
So this would mean that not only can you not enter the country if you make fun of Charlie Kirk but you now wouldn’t be able to leave as well?
It’s very obvious at this point that they are absolutely sure that they aren’t going to be “out of power” any time soon.
They can not leave power or they will all br prosecuted. They are all very motivated to work together and remain in power. It cant last forever. Individually they are too selfish, short sighted, and incompetent to rule for long.
They might have dreams of a 100 year 4th reich, but its not going to happen.
all signs are pointing to this - that these guys are not willing to be out of power soon.
from the white house redecorations, to the trump 2028 hats, to the gerrymandering going on in many states. capture of judiciary, suppression of free speech etc. the 'us' vs 'them' mentality.
In the end the question is: will democratic institutions hold? I think we won't know the answer until they don't.
I think it would be unprecedented in the US, and over the years the red flags have been increasing, so the signs aren't good - but not there yet.
What’s your favorite democratic institution? My favorite is separation of powers.
Would you say it’s holding?
No, separation of power isn't in great shape unfortunately.
But I don't think it has collapsed yet, or you think it has?
Mine is probably free speech, it's also not in a great shape either. But without separation of powers, free speech is quick to crumble into a precarious position.
I think rule of law is probably more fundamental. It's important that the powerful are held to account, and that's very difficult without rule of law.
But if no one enforces the law on the rulling power, the law doesn't work.
If there is no one who makes the laws, the law won't exist ;)
So we have the important three:
- judiciary
- law making by Legislature
- executive powers for enforcing law
It's one of the most important things to keep them separated and not interweaved. The three powers control each other and the fourth one controlling the controlling:
- journalism and it's covered investigations or whistleblowers
And then you need the rule of law that the law is the only law.
This ground pillars of democracy.
[flagged]
You’d think they would want people that disagree to leave so they could have more votes in their favor
I don’t think it’s going to much matter who you vote for moving forward, the results will be the same either way.
In the Corporate States of America, it never did.
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party; and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt, until recently, and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties." - Gore Vidal (1975 or before)
See also: https://elpidio.org/2025/07/12/the-state-of-the-union-gore-v... (original: "The State of the Union" May Day, May 1, 1975 in Esquire)
There is huge difference in reality right now and completely assymetric levels of radicalisation.
> There is huge difference in reality right now
Let's not confuse "huge differences" with huge emotional polarization over "small adjustments". Even on ICE tactics there aren't huge differences in method between Biden's and Trump's admins. The scales are different but the methods are the same, "administrative warrants" were upheld by SCOTUS and were/are used by both admins - as recently explained by IL Gov. Pritzker (D) on Jon Stewart's show.
> and completely asymmetric levels of radicalization.
I don't keep exacts stats but the numbers of politically-motivated murders seem to be very similar for both sides - it's a good argument in favor of rather symmetric levels of radicalization.
Yep. There's shit lite and ultra shit where some bet on ultra shit accelerating towards less shit and other believing ultra shit is really a fragrant utopia that smells like roses. Ultra shit really wants permission to start a civil war purge while shit lite is worried about magazine capacity and the "scary look" of forward grips while a flood of diarrhea is already ankle-deep.
They want people that disagree to stay so that an example can be made of them. The people who voted them the regime into office want to see those people suffer.
[flagged]
Charlie Kirk was a "literal who" until he was assassinated, and even though his assassination was extremely graphic, and even though it took place at an event where he, at least purportedly, offered discourse with the other side, Kirk probably would have remained a "literal who" had the left not let its collective mask slip in the aftermath. It's really astounding how badly progressives are playing this.
"Who was Horst Wessel, and why are people comparing Charlie Kirk to him? Within hours of Kirk’s death, opposite ends of the political spectrum invoked the Nazi martyr"
https://forward.com/news/768607/horst-wessel-charlie-kirk-na...
> While Kirk’s rhetoric was combative — he railed against immigrants, gender ideology and “global elites” — he operated in a democratic system and advocated for civil disagreement.
Kirk was openly happy about Pelosi shooting and advocated for a patriot to bail out the shooter.
Kirk should not be killed. He also was not someone who advocated civil disagreement or anything like that. He helped to create toxic culture that exists now and did it intentionally.
Horst Wessel was killed at time when Germany was nominally a democracy. Nazi took power only later. It was dying democracy, just like the democracy in the USA is dying.
Paul Pelosi wasn't shot. He was beaten with a hammer.
Turnabout is fair play when places like Unicorn Riot et al have done the same from the opposite direction.
False equivalence. Remind me what political power Unicorn Riot actually possesses compared to the party currently controlling the federal government. Unicorn riot hasn’t “done” anything because they don’t run the government.
Statements or actions taken by some fringe group are in no way equivalent to statements and actions taken by the actual government—which is currently being run based on fringe right wing ideology.