“(With) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the supreme court of the United States.”

Throughout his address, Biden underscored the gravity of the moment, emphasizing that the only barrier to the president’s authority now lies in the personal restraint of the officeholder. He warned vehemently against the prospect of Trump returning to power, painting a stark picture of the dangers such an outcome could pose.

  • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Because people are spineless cowards that won’t meet the fascist police with armed force in the streets.

    • colmear@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Isn’t that exactly the reason for the second amendment? From what I learned, it is not to go to the gun range because it’s fun, it is to fight the government if it goes rogue

      • uienia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        It is not. It is the interpretation right wing gunnits have claimed it is, so there is that I suppose…

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          They are free to interpret it this way just as you are your way.

          It would be weird for a new polity, result of a winning rebellion against lawful government, and definitely against its laws (some people think one can rebel not breaking any laws, apparently, claiming there are legal and illegal rebellions), to not have this in mind frankly.

          And from the context of the second amendment we know that back then it was interpreted exactly as a militia that can fight against federal military.

          One can argue in theory that this doesn’t mean individual gun rights, just that states should have their own armies (national guard). One can’t argue that it’s not intended for rebellion, because it very openly was.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        TBF to fight a government that went rogue in our time you’ll need a whole lot more than knowing how to shoot a rifle.

        Field medicine. Chemistry. How to build underground shelters against airstrikes. How to make mortars and mortar shots in garage with commonly available tooling. Using FPV drones, of course. Using (and possibly making) AT shots. Maybe simple (Katyusha-level) artillery manufacturing. Making mines.

        That’s just some of the manufacturing knowledge you’ll need, it’s much more.

        Communications - something easy to get wrong.

        Then - tactics and teamwork, of course. It’s a lot to learn and requires lots of training.

        Logistics. Something which doesn’t seem as hard as the rest, while in fact the hardest.

        And I’m just mentioning things, one can write a book for every one of them.