Mjpasta710

Do you have any real points, with supporting evidence, or are you content with just vibing your position?

Yeah, I'm not trying to vomit a bunch of falsehoods at folks to try to make a point by point argument. I don't think I need to write a book to make a point.

You aren't arguing in good faith. You're ignoring facts and history.

Murders don't end in those countries because the revolution is 'finished'. Anytime someone disagrees they have to be disappeared or reeducated.

Is China such a success that they're using hostages in China to threaten folks to keep their social media compliant with CCP ideals?

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/05/china-overseas-students-face-harassment-and-surveillance-in-campaign-of-transnational-repression/

https://rsf.org/en/beaten-death-state-security-rsf-shocked-gruesome-murder-independent-journalist-china https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_August https://www.cato.org/blog/death-cuban-dissidents https://2017-2021.state.gov/chinas-disregard-for-human-rights/

Do you have any argument that doesn't involve a bloodletting of society?

How? Please explain what this means. I am advocating for democratically controlling production so that it can service the needs and wants of the people, rather than wealthy Capitalists as it does in curreny society.

You're advocating revolution, if I'm reading your words correctly.

That involves a radical restructuring of society. You're advocating violently modifying the roles of individuals to fit your new goals. That has historically and always involved a bloodletting.

As I understand it Marxism is about being authoritarian in government (telling people what to do, and punishing those who don't comply) and ensuring via government that resources are equally distributed. This concentrates power among the ruling elite. Historically, this continues the corruption it claims to end. So, what I'm saying essentially - that Marxism is a neat philosophy - It doesn't line up with reality or achieve its stated goals.

It does kill all the dissenting opinions and create the echo chamber that has consistently been corrupted and hasn't stood the test of time.

So if there's to be a bloodletting. Let it begin with those asking for it, first.

As I mentioned, the examples of this working out in real life. Not so good. The USSR, currently dissolved and not a model I'd be interested in emulating. The folks I know who lived in it don't want it back either.

Cuba, I'd say they had equality for citizens which they don't, not a good example either.

China... Really?? Marxism? Really?? We're glossing over Mao Zedong and a history of mass murder.

"The truths of Marxism are myriad, but it all comes down to one line: 'Rebellion is justified!'" When the CCP was waging revolution and still trying to gain national power, this statement was a powerful shot in the arm. Once it became the ruling party, to bring this up again was to invite revolt against itself. That was exactly what happened in the Cultural Revolution. Its result was catastrophic, because Mao as a revolutionary was unable to make the transition from "breaking" to "making". He once claimed: "There is no making without breaking. The making is in the breaking." But that was just revolutionary romanticism misaligned with reality. In truth, it is much harder to "make" than to "break". Source - https://www.thinkchina.sg/politics/new-paradigm-needed-china-cannot-achieve-common-prosperity-marxism-and-class-struggle

You're expressing wonderful ideals.

They don't seem to line up with the execution in the real world though.

My argument is that it won't and hasn't ever.

When a developer writes a program that doesn't do what it's supposed to, it gets rewritten. Marxists just keep trying the same philosophy. Maybe if we murder more people it'll work.

Because every proletariat revolution has resulted in equality and not a speed run to mass poverty... Why would it work this time? When has it ever worked in reality? Where's the beautiful shining example of Marxist success?

Let's copy that now. (I can't find an example of it).

When do you realize revolution is an acceleration of entropy in society.

You're proposing to bloodlet society and end up with less for the people, and more for the rich.

This is a crowdstrike issue specifically related to the falcon sensor. Happens to affect only windows hosts.

How about when there are folks who have been harmed by people with agendas?

They'd prefer their code or commentary to be inclusive, not exclusive?

All of this ignores this is not happening in a vacuum. Project 2025, trump, the supreme court selection of limited precedent and ignorance of other precedent....

This is a brick in the pavement of our descent into fascism. Hand waving it away as a wonderful clarification that enabled prosecution of the office is unreasonable.

They already ruled the Constitution and clear discussion in Congress during the original Amendment, invalid when the insurrection clause and States rights were revoked... Colorado ballot decision ftr.

They've shown their hand. They're willing to select evidence, much like your review, that fits the narrative - ignoring any other facts.

It's already being used to delay adjudication in clear abuses of power.

Law requires a certification from a board to practice. You're of the opinion that examination that proves ones understanding of the law(bar exam, exhaustive study followed by proving that knowledge)--- puts you on equal footing with that majority?

I continue to firmly dissent your assertion regarding the validity of your opinion, you have firmly claimed not to be a bar certified individual.

Being an expert in law here has weight. A majority of them feel this is a power grab. You're welcome to hold opinions. Spouting endless review to make responses difficult isn't helping you.

This is akin to you saying you know better how to file legal paperwork or act as a defense attorney because you read about it.

Do you also dospense medical advice?

Except in the future - If you're part of the official staff for the president - A defense wouldn't be needed. The fact that the president told them to do it wouldn't even be able to come up. It's privileged communication now.

yearse ?

Your argument seems to be, they already had this power - now the Supreme Court can stop them. When will that ever happen?

You're glossing over the fact that they've declared entire sections of communication off limits going forward. This is new. This is not same old, same old. The Supreme Court is currently compromised. No-one is going to prosecute a republican president in this environment.

Everything they could do can be construed as official, immune, business after being elected when viewed through the right lens.

If this the president previously had immunity, why was Nixon pardoned?

The Supreme Court was free to interpret this as they saw fit. They've demonstrated that they're not following precedent and are marching to their own beat.

Regarding the clear power grab, Denying the facts that the other changes the court has made will have untold effects on the ability of states that are gerrymandering based on race:

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/23/nx-s1-4977539/supreme-court-ruling-makes-it-harder-to-bring-racial-gerrymandering-claims

It's ok to insurrection, if you do it right, also while president:

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/14/nx-s1-5005999/supreme-court-jan-6-prosecutions

It's also ok to use your official employees as president to carry out illegal acts and prevent them from testifying:

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/01/1198912764/consider-this-from-npr-draft-07-01-2024

Denying that folks who actually understand the law, like law professors, and Supreme Court Justices. There's a difference between laypersons and experts in some fields. I'm not claiming to be an expert in neurology, law, or other fields. I'm deferring to people who have studied these field(s) and asking for their logic and expertise. You're responding and relying on your logic.

The court is currently controlled by one party. One person openly claims credit for this, and definitely pushed the balance towards one direction.

Our congress is deadlocked by republicans when it comes to anything related to the former president.

They will not pass anything or see cases against their preferred president making them literally immune in practice.

The word soup from kava seems to indicate they feel, that because the president had so much power already, what's the big deal if a little bit more gets added?

Folks who are scholars on the topic seem to think accumulating more power to the Executive and Judicial branches to be a bad thing.

As noted in Supreme Court rulings: The only parties who get to decide if a president is acting incorrectly would be if A. Congress successfully impeaches the president, B. They passed the supreme court's review of what constitutes (non)presidential acts.

In reality both of these branches have been corrupted and owned by 'conservative' interests.

Rulings on SuperPACs, Citizens United, gerrymandering, presidential immunity, insurrection and more are laying the groundwork to remove additional freedoms or protections.

So this has the result of essentially making it possible for the controlling party of these to have a literal dictator whose communications with officials can't be reviewed or considered in prosecution.

Folks who have a lot of experience working with legal matters are voicing concerns on this. This isn't an appeal to authority, rather a matter of consulting folks who are experts and considering their opinions.

Fair. Thanks. Was mobile and trying to wade through and reply.

They can't impeach if they can't assemble a quorum.