“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.”

  • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

        • Neato@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

          • toadyody@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

            • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              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!

        • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          banning certain forms of speech

          Democrats aren’t the ones on a book banning crusade.

          Nice attempt at a both-sides though.

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

            • Gerudo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              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.

              • crusa187@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                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.

              • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                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.

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            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.