@popejohnpaulsen.bsky.social
They're not TRYING to govern.
They're trying to tear it all down to leave only themselves standing. Ergo, dictatorship.
THAT'S the bigger issue, don't you think?
They're trying to tear it all down to leave only themselves standing. Ergo, dictatorship.
THAT'S the bigger issue, don't you think?
March 3, 2025 at 3:54 AM
They're not TRYING to govern.
They're trying to tear it all down to leave only themselves standing. Ergo, dictatorship.
THAT'S the bigger issue, don't you think?
They're trying to tear it all down to leave only themselves standing. Ergo, dictatorship.
THAT'S the bigger issue, don't you think?
sorry bud. not a fan of Van Helen. at all. very few tracks I care about.
BUT: I *am* a fan of *you*!!! — and your outlines, critiques, and descriptions are brilliant!!! so, thank you BBW!!!!
BUT: I *am* a fan of *you*!!! — and your outlines, critiques, and descriptions are brilliant!!! so, thank you BBW!!!!
February 28, 2025 at 1:20 AM
sorry bud. not a fan of Van Helen. at all. very few tracks I care about.
BUT: I *am* a fan of *you*!!! — and your outlines, critiques, and descriptions are brilliant!!! so, thank you BBW!!!!
BUT: I *am* a fan of *you*!!! — and your outlines, critiques, and descriptions are brilliant!!! so, thank you BBW!!!!
Well dang, it seems the OP AnthemPhobic has blocked me, I guess after I said that I didn't, in fact, copy/paste Wikipedia 🤷
I was trying to be polite! :)))
I was trying to be polite! :)))
February 20, 2025 at 8:46 PM
Well dang, it seems the OP AnthemPhobic has blocked me, I guess after I said that I didn't, in fact, copy/paste Wikipedia 🤷
I was trying to be polite! :)))
I was trying to be polite! :)))
In the context of "what can we possibly do, what must we do, if we end up needing to eliminate a fascist regime"... I think it's fair to point to this example as a non-violent regime change.
February 20, 2025 at 8:43 PM
In the context of "what can we possibly do, what must we do, if we end up needing to eliminate a fascist regime"... I think it's fair to point to this example as a non-violent regime change.
That's a fair point to raise, of course. But although the MFA instigated the coup, it was the citizens rising up in support of it that forced the regime out, and there was no civil war, there were no civil war type battles. The only deaths were reprisals from the regime, 4 citizens were killed.
February 20, 2025 at 8:43 PM
That's a fair point to raise, of course. But although the MFA instigated the coup, it was the citizens rising up in support of it that forced the regime out, and there was no civil war, there were no civil war type battles. The only deaths were reprisals from the regime, 4 citizens were killed.
ahem I did not cut and paste Wikipedia 🤣
February 20, 2025 at 8:38 PM
ahem I did not cut and paste Wikipedia 🤣
Some that were not fully authoritarian but were backsliding democracies or showing increasing authoritarian tendencies when nonviolent citizen movements successfully forced a change in leadership:
Ukraine – 2004
Sudan – 1964
Hungary – 1989
Ukraine – 2004
Sudan – 1964
Hungary – 1989
February 20, 2025 at 5:23 PM
Some that were not fully authoritarian but were backsliding democracies or showing increasing authoritarian tendencies when nonviolent citizen movements successfully forced a change in leadership:
Ukraine – 2004
Sudan – 1964
Hungary – 1989
Ukraine – 2004
Sudan – 1964
Hungary – 1989
Not "fascist" but equivalent:
India – 1947
Portugal – 1974
Philippines – 1986
Poland – 1989
East Germany – 1989
Czechoslovakia – 1989
Bulgaria (1989)
Mongolia – 1990
Serbia (Yugoslavia) – 2000
Maldives – 2008
Tunisia – 2011
India – 1947
Portugal – 1974
Philippines – 1986
Poland – 1989
East Germany – 1989
Czechoslovakia – 1989
Bulgaria (1989)
Mongolia – 1990
Serbia (Yugoslavia) – 2000
Maldives – 2008
Tunisia – 2011
February 20, 2025 at 5:22 PM
Not "fascist" but equivalent:
India – 1947
Portugal – 1974
Philippines – 1986
Poland – 1989
East Germany – 1989
Czechoslovakia – 1989
Bulgaria (1989)
Mongolia – 1990
Serbia (Yugoslavia) – 2000
Maldives – 2008
Tunisia – 2011
India – 1947
Portugal – 1974
Philippines – 1986
Poland – 1989
East Germany – 1989
Czechoslovakia – 1989
Bulgaria (1989)
Mongolia – 1990
Serbia (Yugoslavia) – 2000
Maldives – 2008
Tunisia – 2011
Reposted
Just watched the video and you are more courageous than all of Congress. Thank you. 🙏 you will inspire others.
February 20, 2025 at 6:09 AM
Just watched the video and you are more courageous than all of Congress. Thank you. 🙏 you will inspire others.
Well it's a subjective call of course...
But my take — Pinto is a thousand times sexier / quirkier / cooler.
But my take — Pinto is a thousand times sexier / quirkier / cooler.
February 18, 2025 at 12:27 AM
Well it's a subjective call of course...
But my take — Pinto is a thousand times sexier / quirkier / cooler.
But my take — Pinto is a thousand times sexier / quirkier / cooler.
Goebbels was an unelected bureaucrat.
February 18, 2025 at 12:21 AM
Goebbels was an unelected bureaucrat.
The term “co-equal branches” does not appear in 18th/19th-century discourse. The focus was more on the specific powers and limits of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
The phrase arose in the 20th century. It's popular, but it's not an accurate depiction. Read Const, Article I & II.
The phrase arose in the 20th century. It's popular, but it's not an accurate depiction. Read Const, Article I & II.
February 13, 2025 at 7:38 PM
The term “co-equal branches” does not appear in 18th/19th-century discourse. The focus was more on the specific powers and limits of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
The phrase arose in the 20th century. It's popular, but it's not an accurate depiction. Read Const, Article I & II.
The phrase arose in the 20th century. It's popular, but it's not an accurate depiction. Read Const, Article I & II.
EDITORS: Please stop calling the 3 branches "coequal." Word's not in the Const.
Read the Const. The role of each branch is equally PROTECTED by the Const. But ROLES/POWER are not "equal"—Congress has most power. POTUS' role: execute what Congress approves.
Re this: www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/o...
Read the Const. The role of each branch is equally PROTECTED by the Const. But ROLES/POWER are not "equal"—Congress has most power. POTUS' role: execute what Congress approves.
Re this: www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/o...
Opinion | Trump Dares the Courts to Stop Him (Gift Article)
The president is challenging the constitutional order.
www.nytimes.com
February 13, 2025 at 7:32 PM
EDITORS: Please stop calling the 3 branches "coequal." Word's not in the Const.
Read the Const. The role of each branch is equally PROTECTED by the Const. But ROLES/POWER are not "equal"—Congress has most power. POTUS' role: execute what Congress approves.
Re this: www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/o...
Read the Const. The role of each branch is equally PROTECTED by the Const. But ROLES/POWER are not "equal"—Congress has most power. POTUS' role: execute what Congress approves.
Re this: www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/o...
Of course, noting that Congress has the ultimate power to pass laws because Congress can override the president's veto with a 2/3 vote (representing the collected will of the people). But the president cannot override that 2/3 vote.
February 12, 2025 at 10:35 PM
Of course, noting that Congress has the ultimate power to pass laws because Congress can override the president's veto with a 2/3 vote (representing the collected will of the people). But the president cannot override that 2/3 vote.
The power to veto is a real power that enables the president to impact what laws are passed. But, once a law is passed, the president has zero power to "decide" how it should be enforced, executed, or funded.
February 12, 2025 at 10:33 PM
The power to veto is a real power that enables the president to impact what laws are passed. But, once a law is passed, the president has zero power to "decide" how it should be enforced, executed, or funded.
No. The president should have the exact amount of power that is defined for the president in the Constitution, which isn't much. (Though, personally, I think the pardon power should be revised with a Constitutional amendment.)
February 12, 2025 at 10:32 PM
No. The president should have the exact amount of power that is defined for the president in the Constitution, which isn't much. (Though, personally, I think the pardon power should be revised with a Constitutional amendment.)
A HUGE problem is that for many decades, Congress has allowed, or enabled, the president/executive to exercise more power than the president has according to the Constitution.
Usually it's been in fairly small ways. But it leads to this.
But you can still report on it accurately.
Usually it's been in fairly small ways. But it leads to this.
But you can still report on it accurately.
February 12, 2025 at 8:53 PM
A HUGE problem is that for many decades, Congress has allowed, or enabled, the president/executive to exercise more power than the president has according to the Constitution.
Usually it's been in fairly small ways. But it leads to this.
But you can still report on it accurately.
Usually it's been in fairly small ways. But it leads to this.
But you can still report on it accurately.
Simply put: the president has NO legal power to decide how funding is spent nor how laws are interpreted and therefore executed. He is constitutionally bound to execute the laws as they are written by Congress.
February 12, 2025 at 8:52 PM
Simply put: the president has NO legal power to decide how funding is spent nor how laws are interpreted and therefore executed. He is constitutionally bound to execute the laws as they are written by Congress.
Read the Constitution:
Read Article I to see Congress's role and power.
Read Article II to see the president's "power," which always relies on Congress's approval (even when appointing judges or officers, even when acting as "commander in chief").
Read Article I to see Congress's role and power.
Read Article II to see the president's "power," which always relies on Congress's approval (even when appointing judges or officers, even when acting as "commander in chief").
February 12, 2025 at 8:52 PM
Read the Constitution:
Read Article I to see Congress's role and power.
Read Article II to see the president's "power," which always relies on Congress's approval (even when appointing judges or officers, even when acting as "commander in chief").
Read Article I to see Congress's role and power.
Read Article II to see the president's "power," which always relies on Congress's approval (even when appointing judges or officers, even when acting as "commander in chief").
More accurately: the president has no power except what Congress allows. The president is only empowered to execute things Congress has put into law. That's his only role.
February 12, 2025 at 8:51 PM
More accurately: the president has no power except what Congress allows. The president is only empowered to execute things Congress has put into law. That's his only role.
I have a problem with the way journalists frame presidential power, as in this:
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
It's misleading to say "Congress is a 'check' on the president's power."
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
It's misleading to say "Congress is a 'check' on the president's power."
February 12, 2025 at 8:50 PM
I have a problem with the way journalists frame presidential power, as in this:
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
It's misleading to say "Congress is a 'check' on the president's power."
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
It's misleading to say "Congress is a 'check' on the president's power."