Genuinely curious if anyone has info on how something like this is enforced.
orioler25
joined 1 week ago
Read the comment before you write a response bud.
Republicans have to deal with the barrier of most voters fucking hating them and cannot be suppressed without destabilising the US economy. They have had and will continue to have an extremely difficult time enacting their policies at lower levels of government and, while they talk a lot, they cannot actually occupy US cities openly without it all falling apart. There's also a good chance that if they try, it will weaken the illusion that the US could easily suppress violent resistance or liberation movements. They could only suppress Black Liberation militias with an incredible cost in resources and appropriation of their mutual aid strategies; that was not nearly as popular as anti-Republican sentiment is today.
Liberalism is successful exactly because it is good at appropriating the "positive" direction of society. Most Americans -- most people really -- have no clue what fascism actually is and the cartoonishly spectacular form American fascism has taken on so far conveniently occludes the more specific and popular values that fascists feed on. Liberals are already primed to accept a fascist government, that's why this was so easy to do.
Vance as an option would likely be more difficult to maintain than a Democratic party member who operates in the mutual interest of these groups, alienates liberal resistance from socialist or anarchist resistance, and enegerizes the Republican base through manufactured rage.
Make no mistake, American fascism will sustain itself through a Democratic Party member. Their interests are common, but their image is not. Trump's fascism is clumsy and dependent on the good will of blackmailers to survive, it will not last long. Democrats hope to walk into an authoritarian regime that would not be possible through their usual tactics of control and carry on the same work with less resistance.
Except, John's enlarged Dodge Ram makes him statistically a greater danger to everyone and their kids. In daily life, John is a more relevant danger to me than pretty much anything else. If John is in the USA, the children at this school are most likely to die of a car collision -- with increased fatalities correlated with popularity of trucks like John's -- or a firearms incident, funnily enough also subject to a statistical correlation with light truck ownership. Between 19 and 24, vehicle collisions are the number one cause of death regardless of gender; only beat out by poisonings and suicide as you get older. Again, light trucks are correlated with higher rates of fatalies. If you're in those age groups and don't have a substance abuse or mental illness disorder, John is the most likely thing to kill you in your life.
People like John are apathetic about the casual brutality of such a vehicle, that is in fact the point of the hypermasculinity molded into it. I don't want him around me, and I don't want him around my kids. He chose to be dangerous and individual rights doesn't mean you can threaten others with impunity. That's why neglect can land you with murder or manslaughter charges.
Pretty much every proposal here is brutal. That section appears to be less explicitly laid out than others. Its vague and likely with a far less detailed plan than what is visible in the rest of the article.
Look at you working so hard to not care about change.
People like you are what holds back a lot of the real work.
Pretty sure the fujoshis own Trek actually.
Keep licking boots.
What does that do for you?
view more: next ›
Yeah, that's what the law is. Im curious about the mechanics of this, this certainly is not a new issue and AI could feasibly make mass surveillance necessary to enforce such a law easier. If that's the case though, what kind of process would exist to confirm the person's qualifications? Just some examples but that is more of what I'm talking about.
Arbitrary laws as a form of suppression is centuries old here in NA.