Octopus Overlords

Holman wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 4:26 pm
I mean the following without snark: does Canada have better options? Is it possible for citizens to force the ouster of government, or is that something the elected officials themselves determine?

I'm not entirely sure what the question is, but something like this could only be done indirectly in Canada. The MPs would have to have a vote of no-confidence to force an election. The people don't vote for officials themselves, we vote to get a party in power. So, it's the latter. Those in power have to determine if it's something that needs to be done.

IceBear wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:48 pm Oh, I missed that while he was in North Carolina he again said Canada should become a state. The dude needs to drop it.

The sad thing is the G7 is in Alberta this year and he'll probably see a bunch of maple MAGA there cheering the idea

If he manages to get in. He's likely not welcome, especially with all the dirt he's been flinging.

Yeah...I have heard of people protesting outside of an MP's office to let them know they weren't happy, but generally the MP will vote according to party lines.

If the government tries to pass a bill and fails that would trigger a non-confidence vote and then there would be a new election. That's why Trudeau resigned...he was so unpopular and the Liberals were only able to stay in power with support of one of the other parties, and before Christmas the NDP indicated they would invoke a non confidence vote and vote with the PCs to bring down the government. So Trudeau stepped down which allows the Liberals to stay in power until they select a new leader, but as soon as they do, the NDP and PCs will force a new election

Edit: Technically we don't let convicted felons cross the border but I'm sure an exception would be made

Holman wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:16 pm

Hyena wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 4:53 pm However, there *ARE* some interpretations of the 2nd amendment that allow for “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

I think this interpretation is a myth. The Amendment itself only speaks of a "well-regulated militia," and rebellion is by definition unregulated. Even George Washington put down an armed rebellion in Virginia during his second term.

There's no conceivable world in which the government would accept the demands of an armed rebellion because "Well, the 2ndA gives them the right."

The only *practical* effect of the 2ndA in history has been to allow some Americans to restrict the rights of other, less privileged Americans. It has never once been used to prevent or correct government behavior.

I've always felt that this was one of the purposes for the 2A

IIRC, I've seen and read a few documentaries that explained it.
They said this makes sense because right before the American Revolution, the British made it a point to confiscate weapons in order to prevent a Revolution and the founders wanted to make sure that if the American experiment started failing, then the people had a final option to take back the country.
I think this makes sense in this case.
I do think that one problem in the now times would be that the blue side is less likely to have and/or use weapons to take back the country. I could easily see the red side doing so but not so much the blue states. Especially in the states that make it difficult to purchase firearms.
Additional I don't think we are near that point in any case.
Yes, there are horrible things going on and more to come but I don't think we are near the point where an armed Revolution is needed. As bad as it is, we need to suck it up and at minimum wait until everything gets sorted out legally before we would even begin to think of that.
A full blown armed Revolution would be MUCH more worse that Jan 6th.

Oh yay! Cutting all foreign aid

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/24/politics ... index.html

And none of that money will to go actually helping everyday Americans.

IceBear wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 8:09 pm Oh yay! Cutting all foreign aid

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/24/politics ... index.html

Immediately discontinuing humanitarian efforts will cause the death of untold thousands of people around the world while barely having any effect whatsoever on the US federal budget (foreign assistance is less than 1% of the budget).

The cruelty is ALWAYS the point.

Rumpy wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 7:12 pm

Holman wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 4:26 pm I mean the following without snark: does Canada have better options? Is it possible for citizens to force the ouster of government, or is that something the elected officials themselves determine?

I'm not entirely sure what the question is, but something like this could only be done indirectly in Canada. The MPs would have to have a vote of no-confidence to force an election. The people don't vote for officials themselves, we vote to get a party in power. So, it's the latter. Those in power have to determine if it's something that needs to be done.

Yeah, that's what I was asking: how can unhappy citizens force a government change?

The fact that your parliamentary system allows for no-confidence votes in response to constituents' approval puts you far ahead of what we have in the USA. Our elections are on a strict timetable, and there's nothing citizens can do to change the electoral calendar.

Some areas allow for "recall" elections of particularly unpopular or corrupt officials, but these are pretty rare, and they're not automatic: they generally require the cooperation of the corrupt official's party fellows.

Holman wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 9:37 pm

Rumpy wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 7:12 pm

Holman wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 4:26 pm I mean the following without snark: does Canada have better options? Is it possible for citizens to force the ouster of government, or is that something the elected officials themselves determine?

I'm not entirely sure what the question is, but something like this could only be done indirectly in Canada. The MPs would have to have a vote of no-confidence to force an election. The people don't vote for officials themselves, we vote to get a party in power. So, it's the latter. Those in power have to determine if it's something that needs to be done.

Yeah, that's what I was asking: how can unhappy citizens force a government change?

The fact that your parliamentary system allows for no-confidence votes in response to constituents' approval puts you far ahead of what we have in the USA. Our elections are on a strict timetable, and there's nothing citizens can do to change the electoral calendar.

Some areas allow for "recall" elections of particularly unpopular or corrupt officials, but these are pretty rare, and they're not automatic: they generally require the cooperation of the corrupt official's party fellows.

It's still fairly rare here, but it does happen, and it's nice to have it as a democratic failsafe.

Meanwhile you have a President who wants to enable a 3rd term and he's barely even gotten started, nor does he have a great rating. A bit like counting chickens before they hatch. I feel for you guys

Punisher wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 7:47 pm

Holman wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:16 pm

Hyena wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2025 4:53 pm However, there *ARE* some interpretations of the 2nd amendment that allow for “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

I think this interpretation is a myth. The Amendment itself only speaks of a "well-regulated militia," and rebellion is by definition unregulated. Even George Washington put down an armed rebellion in Virginia during his second term.

There's no conceivable world in which the government would accept the demands of an armed rebellion because "Well, the 2ndA gives them the right."

The only *practical* effect of the 2ndA in history has been to allow some Americans to restrict the rights of other, less privileged Americans. It has never once been used to prevent or correct government behavior.

I've always felt that this was one of the purposes for the 2A

IIRC, I've seen and read a few documentaries that explained it.
They said this makes sense because right before the American Revolution, the British made it a point to confiscate weapons in order to prevent a Revolution and the founders wanted to make sure that if the American experiment started failing, then the people had a final option to take back the country.
I think this makes sense in this case.
I do think that one problem in the now times would be that the blue side is less likely to have and/or use weapons to take back the country. I could easily see the red side doing so but not so much the blue states. Especially in the states that make it difficult to purchase firearms.
Additional I don't think we are near that point in any case.
Yes, there are horrible things going on and more to come but I don't think we are near the point where an armed Revolution is needed. As bad as it is, we need to suck it up and at minimum wait until everything gets sorted out legally before we would even begin to think of that.
A full blown armed Revolution would be MUCH more worse that Jan 6th.

Apologies in advance for coming off as a pedantic a-hole here, if I do. I have a degree in this stuff with a specific concentration in the colonial/revolutionary era. More importantly, I've seen Hamilton twice.

All kidding aside, generally speaking, I'm comfortable saying that the intent of the second Amendment was probably NOT to provide a "final option" in the event of tyranny, even if that's a real-world result. I say this because one of the stated reasons for a "well-regulated" militia was, (and I have to point out here that in the language of the times this means "prepared" or "well-trained," not "subject to strict laws"), in Madison's words at the Constitutional Convention, “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty." Note that Madison was making this argument in favor of a citizen militia instead of a standing army, not as a counterweight to a standing army. He eventually lost that point, and a (weak) army was established, but the citizen militia idea preceded that and was still seen as a/the critical piece of national defense.

More directly, we know that rebellions (Whiskey, Shays, etc..) and secessions have been dealt with harshly, and that Texas v White (Fuck Texas, BTW) established that secession/rebellion isn't legal.

Finally, though no one asked, it's germaine to the stupid "constitutional carry" pro-2A arguments to note that the colonial era was rife with local gun-control laws, so it's utterly nonsensical to suggest that leaders in late 1700s were writing a Constitution that was meant to ensure an individual citizen's right to carry any weapon anywhere at any time.

Well, I've literally seen Hamilton at least a dozen times so that trump's your degree obviously!



I don't think it was the main intent of the 2A but didn't some of the founding fathers discuss the need for armed citizens was to overthrow a corrupt government?
Maybe Jefferson? Maybe Adams? Not really sure, but I think it was discussed as a reason to have armed citizens.
I'll allow your degree to confirm this...this time...but you should really see Hamilton a lot more if you want to be taken seriously..

If only there were some contemporary writings about the amendments and the federal government. Some sort of ... federalist papers...

Isgrimnur wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:17 am If only there were some contemporary writings about the amendments and the federal government. Some sort of ... federalist papers...

Yeahh...I've tried reading those but they are beyond my ability to read and understand in the now times unfortunately.

Most of the Founders’ writings justifying rebellion were with reference to the rebellion they themselves had carried out against Britain.

But there’s no sense in which the Constitution establishes a right to overthrow the government. That’s what elections, amendments, and new laws are for. In fact every elected official takes an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, including domestic ones.

Sure but as we can see now, those oaths don't actually mean anything.
Ultimately an oath is only worth what the person giving the oath is worth.

Punisher wrote:Sure but as we can see now, those oaths don't actually mean anything.
Ultimately an oath is only worth what the person giving the oath is worth.

This is why the Founders divided government so Congress and the Supreme Court would act as a check on a lying criminal President. Republicans failed to impeach Trump or limit Presidential immunity.

But I have no faith, based on recent history, that the SCOTUS will be impartial so they won't be the safe guard people think they will

Zarathud wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 1:11 pm

Punisher wrote:Sure but as we can see now, those oaths don't actually mean anything.
Ultimately an oath is only worth what the person giving the oath is worth.

This is why the Founders divided government so Congress and the Supreme Court would act as a check on a lying criminal President. Republicans failed to impeach Trump or limit Presidential immunity.

This just proves my point. Once you let enough unethical people in power across the board, the oaths of ethical people don't mean anything.

IceBear wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 1:13 pm But I have no faith, based on recent history, that the SCOTUS will be impartial so they won't be the safe guard people think they will

Nobody who is paying attention believes that SCOTUS is or will be an impartial safeguard. It's just going to be more and more right-wing as Trump and his heirs pack it with whatever nominees the Heritage Foundation puts forth.

I've talked with several senior leaders at civilian agencies over the past week. The prevailing opinion (which surprises exactly no one) is that this administration is actively rooting for every federal civilian agency to fail miserably in achieving their mission over the next 12 months. They want as much chaos, dysfunction, disengagement, mismanagement, and lack of success as they can possibly muster. The goal is to be able to point to all these agencies and say "see, government doesn't work". The very last thing they want are federal employees rallying to accomplish their critical mission effectively.

While none of the leaders I talked to would ever admit this "on the record" (these are all friends that I've worked with for over 15 years who felt they could speak candidly to me) they all said it's the Admin's primary objective to break everything they possibly can just to say "We told you so". They can then either hand it over to Elon to privatize or just get rid of it. Citizens who needed that service or function? Tough shit, bootstraps, etc. They would love nothing more than for government employees to quit en masse, as it saves them the trouble of having to do it themselves.

There are a few pockets that will be exempt from that, of course. They will want ICE to be highly successful in kicking in the doors of brown people. They will probably not cripple the VA entirely because that would be bad optics. And the DoD is likely exempt from most of this. But the goal for every other civilian agency is to inflict as much carnage as possible.

That just seems like an awfully dishonest tactic, and an awful way to treat the government agencies and the people that work for it and I really hope it gets exposed for what it is.

Rumpy wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 2:44 pm That just seems like an awfully dishonest tactic, and an awful way to treat the government agencies and the people that work for it and I really hope it gets exposed for what it is.

I've come to learn over the last decade+ that there are quite a few people in the voting public that have no idea what local, state and federal government agencies are doing to keep society running. They ultimately think they find out about something they don't like ("My tax dollars are funding prisoners getting sex changes!") and then the suddenly decide to do everything in their power to stop all funding/support to any public agency - starving the beast, as it were. The overt stuff that is happening right now is nothing in comparison to all the stuff 90% of the population doesn't realize.I just read about how a number of public health / environmental health elements have been pulled from Department of Transportation projects - grants being given to states. Specifically they're removing requirements for walking paths / biking access and increased access to electric charging stations. There's no reason to do it other than to be (1) spiteful and (2) stop any type of progress. Unless you're part of the industry in some way, most people aren't even going to notice. I am only seeing a tiny fraction of these things - the death of a thousand cuts strategy - and I can only assume it's happening at all levels and in most areas right now.

Eventually enough table legs will be kicked out and there will be some catastrophic event - a failure large enough that gains national attention. At that point I'd imagine Biden or the Democrats will blamed, but a competent media could counter the message. However, they're actively attacking and absorbing media as well, so you'll excuse me if I'm feeling bleak at our current trajectory.

I'd originally thought the first 6 months were going to be the worst, but I'm now thinking we're headed toward irreparable damage by March, possibly sooner.

Smoove_B wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 2:57 pm I've come to learn over the last decade+ that there are quite a few people in the voting public that have no idea what local, state and federal government agencies are doing to keep society running.

When the notice came out that they were suspending all foreign humanitarian assistance, one of the articles mentioned a public poll that was done in 2022. When asked how much the US spent on foreign assistance, the surveyed Americans thought it was somewhere between 20-30% of the federal budget. It's actually around 1%.

When people think 25% of their tax dollars are going overseas, I can understand how they might be frustrated. But what we actually spend there is miniscule and getting rid of it won't make a lick of impact to them.

The problem now is that not only do people think that we're spending 25%, but if they do find out that it is actually 1%, they won't believe it. They still fully believe, vote, and act like we're sending 25% of our budget overseas because whatever YouTuber they listen to for all their information continues to repeat the lie. And any news source that says otherwise is “fake news”.

I'd originally thought the first 6 months were going to be the worst, but I'm now thinking we're headed toward irreparable damage by March, possibly sooner.

Yup.

Guess your coffee prices are going up?

Smoove_B wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 2:57 pm
Eventually enough table legs will be kicked out and there will be some catastrophic event - a failure large enough that gains national attention. At that point I'd imagine Biden or the Democrats will blamed, but a competent media could counter the message. However, they're actively attacking and absorbing media as well, so you'll excuse me if I'm feeling bleak at our current trajectory.

I'd originally thought the first 6 months were going to be the worst, but I'm now thinking we're headed toward irreparable damage by March, possibly sooner.

Yikes, that's rather depressing. I shudder to think most of it will look like by the time he's done with his term. It's like watching a slow-motion trainwreck. You know it's going to happen but you feel utterly helpless. Well, here's hoping those table legs get kicked out sooner rather than later, as it's probably better to have it happen sooner.

Smoove_B wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 2:57 pm There's no reason to do it other than to be (1) spiteful and (2) stop any type of progress. Unless you're part of the industry in some way, most people aren't even going to notice. I am only seeing a tiny fraction of these things - the death of a thousand cuts strategy - and I can only assume it's happening at all levels and in most areas right now.

The part that's infuriating to me is that they're doing this and I don't see the freaking upside to it. I wish I was a billionaire so I could show them how to intelligently be an evil force and make the people love me AND grow the country so I get even more powerful and rich. As it stands, this kind of shit only weakens the country, thereby weakening their global power, and slows the economy, thereby cutting into their profit margins. It's like, what if the Joker was President and all he wanted to do was watch shit burn because that's all he wants to see.

IceBear wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 3:26 pm Guess your coffee prices are going up?

Well, only until domestic coffee production ramps up to take up the slack, as tariffs intend.

I'm sure we can do it!

The part that's infuriating to me is that they're doing this and I don't see the freaking upside to it.

I think there's two camps. The first is just hoping for complete breakdown so they can swoop in with their Christian Nationalist agenda and reform the government in the way they want. The second are the businesses / oligarchs that are trying to keep close so they can swoop in and offer services to replace what is being stripped from the government. I think the VA is up first for that. Dismantling the VA would be unpopular, so they'll starve the VA to try and show how inefficient and wasteful they are and the private sector ghouls will demonstrate how they can offer the same services for better prices because they'll be "competing" for service.

I guess my point is that my feeling is that there's going to be a tug-of-war of sorts between the religious Right and the business interests. Neither places consideration on the average person and somehow this will all be spun to show how it's better for the average citizen (lower crime! better services! less waste!) as overall quality of life is diminished. Private corporations will continue to make tons of money and the wealth divide will grow even more.

I still don't know that anything will be felt or experienced quickly - not like immigrants that are being rounded up and sent away. For the average person I'd imagine it's going to be living in a world where there's more pollution and lower quality products. So much feels unknowable right now - we're in uncharted territory, but if feels like the guardrails have been bent and chaos agents are now slipping through.

It was pointed how Hitler took 53 days to dismantle democracy in Germany. It seemed unreal to believe, but after 7 days, it doesn't seem so outrageous.

Yeah, I'm scared

Holman wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 5:21 pm

IceBear wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 3:26 pm Guess your coffee prices are going up?

Well, only until domestic coffee production ramps up to take up the slack, as tariffs intend.

I'm sure we can do it!

Shows what you guys know. I just checked the price of my coffee. It's still the same. All they did was shrink the size of the container. Wait. Tariffs haven't gone in to effect yet?

https://www.axios.com/2025/01/26/trump- ... ffs-coffee

I'm not sure what the plan is for the cabinet, but I'm guessing once that circus is over, that's when it'll kick into high gear. Not that the administration is playing nice right now by any means, but I get the sense the cabinet confirmations is Trumps way of demonstrating internally to the GOP that he's in charge now. Like, there's no world where Hegseth should have been confirmed and in a world where McConnell was still in charge I'm guessing it wouldn't have happened. But that confirmation (to me) demonstrated something has shifted and whatever discussions/negotiations happened behind closed doors with the GOP resulted in the message being sent - this is happening so get on board.

I saw reporting (I wish I could remember where) to the effect that Trump is overtly threatening members of congress thinking of stalling his plans. He has said that an extremely well-funded campaign organization (i.e. Elon Moneybags) is prepared to primary everyone who doesn't toe the line.

Constitutional checks and balances are nothing compared to billions of dollars. The Supreme Court has made sure of that.

Smoove_B wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 5:33 pm in a world where McConnell was still in charge I'm guessing it wouldn't have happened.

You know you're completely fucked when Mitch McConnell is the last bulwark of integrity.

hahahahahaa

Kraken wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:25 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 5:33 pm in a world where McConnell was still in charge I'm guessing it wouldn't have happened.

You know you're completely fucked when Mitch McConnell is the last bulwark of integrity.

It's a sad story of when yet another Senator or Congressman learned too late that they should have put country over party. Of all the itmes they had to stop shennanigans like this I can only think of one time where this was stopped, and that was way back when John McCain stopped the repeal of Obamacare. Every critical vote since then has been all about party over country. Fuck Mitch, he brought this on all of us.

raydude wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 11:21 pm Fuck Mitch, he brought this on all of us.

So say we all

The fact that Columbia so quickly caved to the tariffs means Trump is going to be emboldened to use them more...give me Greenland or tariffs, become the 51st state or tariffs, etc

What Trump sees as "the art of the deal" I see as extortion from a mob boss.

Preaching to the choir

IceBear wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2025 9:26 am become the 51st state

nope - they will never let a new territory be a new state, not a chance.

IceBear wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2025 9:26 am The fact that Columbia so quickly caved to the tariffs means Trump is going to be emboldened to use them more...give me Greenland or tariffs, become the 51st state or tariffs, etc

The rest of the Americas, particularly South American nations, are going to snuggle up with China to fight off Trump's "dealmaking." Bullies eventually run into resistance.

It will shock Trump/admin but when you wipe out your diplomatic corps and purge anyone who knows anything, everything comes as a surprise.