‘Necessary to quell the rebellion’: DOJ tells 9th Circuit that Trump can deploy National Guard from every state and can’t be second-guessed by judges
‘Necessary to quell the rebellion’: DOJ tells 9th Circuit that Trump can deploy National Guard from every state and can’t be second-guessed by judges
The DOJ urged the court to issue an emergency stay and allow the Trump administration's deployment of the California National Guard to continue in Los Angeles.
During a Tuesday hearing at the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the DOJ urged a three-judge panel to issue an emergency stay of a lower court order and allow the Trump administration’s deployment of the California National Guard to continue in Los Angeles — going so far as to argue a president’s federalization of militia can’t be second-guessed by the courts, even if the chief executive mobilized forces from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., simultaneously.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Yes, that is the current paradigm we live in. I would argue that it's this way because of how effective the right wing propaganda machine has been over the last 4.5 decades.
So, you're saying lies and propaganda are cool as long as your team keeps winning?
No, you've misunderstood me. You can't enact policies if you don't win, right? And you won't get reelected if people feel you bullshitted about your promises. So first step is winning, right? As I said, there's different ways to win, including lying or telling the truth. Has nothing to do with being "cool" or not. I'm just saying that dem messaging sucks, and their track record sucks.
I don't think winning elections justifies an entire propaganda network existing for the sole purpose of manipulating the masses into being the foot soldiers in a class war against themselves. I also don't think the people who would lie and manipulate like that could possibly be the same people that would dismantle the current billionaire-centric economic structure. I think, if you're a right winger in current US politics, you're extremely ignorant, short-sighted, or intentionally invested in transferring wealth from the poor to the super wealthy. The right is ultra neo-liberalism mixed with overt oligarchy. The left is neo-liberalism lite mixed with subtle oligarchy, but heavily fractured between that group and a different group that is actually constantly trying to change things for the better. If you're paying attention, there's a clearly better choice for working class Americans. But people like you would rather argue right wing points into the ground (they never hold up to logic or real data) until you can't argue them anymore, then shift to "well at least our evil behavior brings us wins!". You're not an American.
I think you're arguing with a figment of your own imagination. Nowhere have I said anything about winning at all costs for its own sake. I'm observing that the current dem strategy isn't a winning one (indisputable), and I'm telling you why. Look, here's a good example from the last election: people were not feeling good about the economy. Trump has an answer for them. It's the wrong answer (tariffs and deportations), but he is engaging with a real concern. The democrat answer was "actually you're wrong, the economy is great, look at the stock market". They're stuck, because as the party of the status quo, they can't propose any radical changes to the system. They don't want any radical changes to the system. This means that in effect, they aren't even competing with republicans! I'm asking you to demand that your party compete.
No, I'm arguing with an un-serious person who shifts the goal posts and changes the topic instead of arguing in good faith. I was going to copy and paste a section of you saying lying and propaganda are valid winning strategies, but you seem to be having a hard time keeping up with the conversation, and I'm not interested in debating with disingenuous people.
You can't paste it because I didn't say it. I said that you can win by lying. Is that not a fact?
So first step is winning, right? As I said, there’s different ways to win, including lying or telling the truth. Has nothing to do with being “cool” or not.
You're shifting previous statements to work around my arguments instead of directly refutting them. You said this, within the context of unconditionally supporting the people doing it. What am I supposed to take from that other than "the important thing is winning at all costs"? Are you seriously trying to make the argument that you can win by lying, like that's some sort of new information to anyone in the world anywhere? If so, forgive me for being confused by the sheer stupidity of the argument.
So you do understand part of what I'm saying, but not all of it. Yes, you can win with lies and you can win with the truth. You can also lose with either of them. Whichever way you go, you have to do it convincingly. Trump was convincing in his lies, and won. Kamala wasn't, and didn't. Does it do you any good to tell the truth unconvincingly in politics? This isn't a criticism of truth, it's a criticism of messaging and perception.