Anonymous #1 5w

Oh I agree she was far from perfect. I'm still a Bernie guy at heart 🥹 but fucking war with Venezuela? Regime change? I know Trump is insane but what the fuck.

40

Anonymous #1 5w

How did Obama and Biden push the envelop?

11

Anonymous OP 5w

No yeah ts is definitely abhorrent. Not at all what this country needs. Bernie is ahead of his time. He’s the president America needs like 30 years from now. We’re too far caught up in this massive scam the upper echelons of society are putting forward where we’re forced between picking a literal fascist dictator and the next iteration of the Clinton-Obama-Biden moderates that are somehow taken to be “radical/woke left” by the majority of Americans

3

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

Executive orders primarily

0

Anonymous #1 5w

Executive orders aren’t pushing the envelope. An executive still has to follow the law unless your Trump and just ignore the courts.

3

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

Like bush started the whole pushing the envelope thing. But then Obama took things a bit further, expanding the scope of what the president says they can do with an executive order. Then Trump comes in and pushes that shit to the extreme. Then Biden comes in, while not doing much more in terms of expanding executive power, doing nothing to actually limit that power and oftentimes delegating more powers from elected officials to his unelected cabinet. And now we have Trump again…

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

… trying to claim that he doesn’t need congress for much of anything anymore, that EOs are law. That he can fire entire agencies without congressional approval. That he can go into foreign nations without congressional approval

0

Anonymous #1 5w

No executive orders still have to follow the law. All it is essentially is an order on to enforce a law. The executive does more bc congress has given the executive more power generally. Congress at any time can claw back their tariffing power, war power they just chose not to. There’s a difference between acting within the system and the power you’ve been given vs breaking the system.

10

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

Executive orders hqbing the breadth of scope that they do now is a pretty recent thing. Like past 20-30 years kinda recent. Like yeah EOs have always been around, but it’s been “hey, I’m appointing Benjamin Franklin to be ambassador to France” Not “there are only 2 genders and I’m removing an entire group of federal agencies”

4

Anonymous #1 5w

When courts ruled against Biden’s student loan forgiveness he stopped doing it and did it on a smaller scale that was legal. When courts tried to halt Trump from deporting people he did it anyway and tried to impeach judges who disagreed with him that’s the difference. There’s other example of this but an eo on its own aren’t authoritarian. Trying to use illegal fake electors and an insurrection to steal the election in 2020 is authoritarian.

5

Anonymous #1 5w

And when I say they can claw back their tariffing power the tariffs are still illegal and the president is only supposed to do them in emergency scenarios.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

the entire scope of the federal government has changed. The federal government does more than it did in the 17 and 1800s and that’s true for all governments.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

These aren’t meaningful steps to curtail the backsliding we’re experiencing tho. Like what Biden did is far better than Trump yes, but it’s not like he did anything to limit executive power. The executive has far more power now than it did 30 years ago, which was more than 50 years ago. The only time the president had anywhere near as much power as today was under FDR after the depression and during WWII. Then the day after he died we began drafting the presidential term limit amendment

1

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

All I mean to say is this: republicans are actively trying to turn America into a dictatorship. Democrats want this power too, but are less willing to go and take that power. But they’re more than happy to use the power the previous republican admin stole from the courts, from the states, from congress and from the people. Unless we have a group come to power that explicitly tries to give that power back, we will end up the way of Hungary and turkey. All that changes with rep/dem admins is…

1

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

… how long that process takes

1

Anonymous #4 5w

Lmao Medicare for all isn’t a majority opinion check polling it changes based on how you ask the question. Pro Palestine also isn’t a majority opinion depending on what you mean by that or what poll you’re referencing.

-7

Anonymous blue_squaredup_chic 5w

He wants be let’s be fr

38

Anonymous blue_squaredup_chic 5w

Yes.

32

Anonymous #4 5w

People want healthcare and populist leftist reform, stop running on liberal identity politics. Stop worrying about fucking Palestine and worry about the millions of Americans who just lost healthcare on January 1st after ACA subsidies stopped. Talk about raising the minimum wage, breaking up corporate monopolies, raising taxes on the rich.

35

Anonymous #1 5w

He’s the executive it’s not his job to curve executive power that’s the job of other branches, he shouldn’t be authoritarian but that’s not his role to to define the exact limits of executive power. That’s the job of the courts, congress and constitution. That’s doesn’t mean it’s authoritarian 1. The federal government in general is more powerful. 2. Congress and the America population has willing given the president more power.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Democrats do not want that power I can name examples of when Trump tried to end the peaceful and democratic exchange of power a democrat has never done this or anything remotely close to it.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Unless you can name an example of a democrat doing authoritarianism you’re just rambling.

1

Anonymous #6 5w

Kamala literally promised all of these things. You guys over index on what the American public believes so much it’s so cringe lol.

-7

Anonymous #6 5w

Not to say these things are bad I wish the average American was this progressive but they’re not and we can’t just assume that.

12

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

I think you're misunderstanding what my position is. ... I wouldn't be surprised if my views are further left than 80% of this community. I have zero love for Trump or conservatism. That said, the democratic establishment isn't about meaningful progressive change anymore. It's all about maintaining power. It's why you have like 85% of dems on AIPACs payroll. It's why all presidents since bush have continued surpassing their predecessors EO records, y you have dems capitulating in the filibuster

1

Anonymous #1 5w

No I get your position I’m not calling you right wing. Again eos aren’t bad one of our most progressive presidents fdr passed more eos than any other president. I just want an actual example of something.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

And the day after FDR died congress and the courts started limiting executive power by drafting the 22nd amendment and limiting the scope of executive orders

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Yeah that’s the point of other branches. If you don’t like the current state of the executive you should blame Congress, the Supreme Court and the public. Not Biden lol that wasn’t his job.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

When congress couldn’t pass the dream act, Obama decided to enact the DACA EO. When Biden student loan EO was shot down by the Supreme Court, he immediately began searching for other ways to get that done. Those are good uses imo, but still uses of expanding executive power. Under bush it was emergency powers that made it necessary. Then under Obama it was congressional gridlock that made it necessary, then under Trump it was “fuck you I do what I want” then under Biden it was…

1

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

… “I need to do everything I can to undo this bozos destructive ways” The application of and justification for executive orders keeps broadening. To the point of “congress shouldn’t have any say in anything the executive branch can get its hands on.” And “if congress doesn’t want to do it I’ll just do it for them”.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Expanding executive power doesn’t equal authoritarianism, you keep assuming this in the convo I don’t know why. As long as the eo follows the law it’s ok presidents have used different reasons for different eos they aren’t a new thing lol.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Why does the justification matter? Again if the order is legal and as long as the president follows judicial review it’s fine.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Technically every time the government gets more funding or a new agency is made or whatever executive power is increased. Does that mean taxes = authoritarianism. Are we libertarian at this point lol.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

I keep belaboring this because what is legal and not legal when it comes to executive power and executive orders specifically is incredibly vague, even for constitutional standards. We don’t have nearly as big of a “legal buffer” when it comes to executive powers as we do state or legislative powers. Its why “unitary executive authority” is a legitimate and difficult to counteract legal interpretation of what powers the executive has

1

Anonymous #1 5w

I agree but again if you want the executive to have a greater legal buffer that’s up to again. The courts, Congress and the public.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

Up until 2000 that whole idea of the legal interpretation didnt exist. Similar to how prior to the 1970s donations to presidential candidates wasn’t considered protected free speech. The way the law is interpreted is always changing. And the way these laws have been interpreted recently (past 50 years or so) have been increasingly authoritarian across pretty much all aspects of US politics and legal code.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Congress can claw back ton of power from the executive they just don’t want to that’s problem I agree. But whats driving this problem is people don’t follow Congress the same way they follow the presidency.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

No yeah congress is one of those exception cases (pretty much unheard of in global politics) where the entity of power is actively relinquishing their power to another authority (in this case, executive) But I think the problem isn’t who elects them, it’s who funds them. It used to be primarily taxpayers, so they had a fiduciary responsibility to their constituents. Now, especially after Citizens United, their money comes primarily from 1) top .1% donors, lobbyist groups, and inside trades

1

Anonymous #1 5w

What do you mean the legal interpretation didn’t exist? Can you give examples again you keep making super broad vague statement idk what to respond to.

1

Anonymous _orangutan 5w

Democrats pulled another 1968 and liberals still haven’t learned

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

And as such, I see the same entity being the primary driver of both the increasingly authoritarian executive branch and decreasingly powerful/efficient congress The corporate/beurocratic elite

1

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

There are some good videos that can explain it far better than I can. Johnny Harris made one recently (“how billionaires stole the election”) about how the legal interpretation of campaign contributions changed to somehow be a free speech issue over a corruption issue. The unitary executive authority thing came from my deep dive of the heritage foundation and their creation of project 2025

1

Anonymous _orangutan 5w

i am really seeing liberals spout “stop worrying about Palestine” as if Palestine isn’t an active site of of western imperialism like Venezuela is. mind you, liberals were spouting “free Venezuela” in 2024 when Biden refused to recognize Venezuelan elections as legitimate. if y’all are not going to be consistent, or hold any of your representatives accountable, then shut the fuck up

1

Anonymous _orangutan 5w

What liberals were saying free Venezuela what?

9

Anonymous #1 5w

I think changing voters mindset is an actual actionable thing you can do. Like I said I think voters trying to push Congress to do more is more helpful than saying oh well citizens united.

1

Anonymous _orangutan 5w

Holy strawman 😭😭

10

Anonymous #6 5w

People do want healthcare and populist left reform, but Kamala never would’ve done any of that sadly

14

Anonymous #9 5w

… you sweet summer child.

5

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 5w

How do you know?

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

You kind of are assuming then quoting some vague source to legitimize it

1

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

because the politicians who support those are widely popular in comparison with your center right establishment dems? you brought up polling and language used and yeah fair point, hard to get a good read when huge variances can occur due to simple phrasing.

2

Anonymous #13 5w

What am I assuming?

-1

Anonymous #4 5w

Wdym who’s more popular give examples?

-1

Anonymous #13 5w

I can give you sources what do you want?

0

Anonymous OP 5w

Sorry you feel that way

0

Anonymous #12 5w

Are you aware of what the VP does? Or are you just repeating what you heard on TikTok. She made NO policy decisions, that was Biden. Also, she said she supported a ceasefire multiple times. You fell for a right wing psyop. I'm a communist and I held my nose and voted for her anyway because I am part of marginalized identities that are under threat with a Trump administration. Not voting is incredibly privileged.

11

Anonymous #6 5w

“I’m a communist” AAAAND there goes any credibility you might have had. Have a good day!

-4

Anonymous #12 5w

Oh you're just a liberal then. Indeed, have a good day.

9

Anonymous #6 5w

No I’m not a liberal or a conservative I’m a moderate

-4

Anonymous OP 5w

Lmao based

5

Anonymous #4 5w

Also seems like Biden is for universal healthcare but he said he would veto a single payer plan. Depending on the policy we’re talking about mainstream dems do support it.

1

Anonymous _orangutan 5w

you keep saying they didn’t have an impact and you point to third parties. The problem with 2024 wasn’t third parties it was people not showing up to vote which far left people probably played a part in.

1

Anonymous #15 5w

We have always been fascist and imperialist, if you can’t recognize that it’s your fault and you’re a fucking idiot. You want respectable and professional fascism and imperialism, a respectable form of throwing kids in cages, because at the end of the day you can forgive yourself for forgetting the rate of deportations under a Democrat

-1

Anonymous #15 5w

Wah wah wah

13

Anonymous #9 5w

You’re pitiful, you do the equivalent of plugging your ears and sing LaLaLa like a child who doesn’t want to know the truth. You’re a pig with the rest of them oh well, go huff copium and engage in your self congratulatory liberal or conservative horse shit

-1

Anonymous #9 5w

Mind you Biden, whose successor was Kamala herself had this to say… yea I think we’ve been imperialist from the start, Democrat or Republican you fucking imbeciles. Again liberals just want #respectable and #civil imperialism and they don’t want to see the heart of imperialism: capitalism something every single president in the U.S. upholds and will go to the lengths of invading other countries to support

0

Anonymous #15 5w

Crazy how this is about Trump and you managed to bring up Obama lmfao all these "they're both equally evil" people reek of privilege and anti blackness

4

Anonymous #6 5w

And this reeks of “I don’t care about Brown Libyans or Palestinians” who were being bombed by Obama and Biden. Do I need to make it about a white democrat for you because it spells out the same way you pathetic loser

-2

Anonymous #6 5w

You say stop worrying about Palestine but if you can’t trust your elected officials to stop funding & supporting a genocide how can you trust them to fight for democracy & protect the everyday citizen?

5

Anonymous #9 5w

I wish you the life you deserve

1

Anonymous #14 5w

Yall rn:🙈

0

Anonymous #15 5w

No one batted an eye at Libya bc it was an international effort to overthrow Gaddafi who was killing his own protestors until it spilled into a civil war. It came after a UN vote that included African countries voting for the intervention.

1

Anonymous #15 5w

Idk how saying dictator bad is the same as saying yeah we have been imperialist but ok.

6

Anonymous #15 5w

You’re for brown people being killed as long as they’re protesting a dictator. The virtue signaling lmao.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

They completely destroyed the irrigation projects that fed the entire country water and it lead to Islamic extremism controlling the country to this day. They killed him because he wanted to introduce a gold backed currency that would have stopped the IMF, World Bank, and particularly the French from financially dominating the continent. We did far greater harm and it proved again we shouldn’t be meddling in their affairs because you don’t solve these issues by drone striking civilians

1

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

Because regardless we are much much worse, when we get involved we have the military and financial/economic capabilities to harm a country more than any domestic dictator ever could, and you tokenize brown people and void them of their agency because they were nonetheless achieving progress which you hand wave away, you are ignorant and you simply don’t know the truth just because I’m having to teach you only goes to show how little you think about how the U.S., democrats or republicans, destroy

0

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

Sovereign countries, you could not care less, supporting any elected official as you seem to be doing is supporting imperialism, because there isn’t an imperialist party the U.S. is imperialist PERIOD. A drone strike isn’t any prettier whether it flies a donkey or an elephant, you are using stupid slogans instead of having a point at all, you clearly don’t know the history either, u r a waste of time bye

1

Anonymous #15 5w

That’s cool you think that the UN report doesn’t agree with you, there was around 60 civilian deaths with around 1,000 military targets destroyed. The idea that there were these mass civilian deaths is not true.

3

Anonymous #15 5w

You’re tokenizing brown people I know you think they enjoyed getting killed for protesting but that’s not true. you realize the UN vote included again African countries and lybia’s opposition requested the nato mission to be extended.

1

Anonymous #15 5w

I didn’t give you any slogans except the one you used but good ramble lol.

1

Anonymous #15 5w

Which btw I do think what France does and has done in Africa is insane but it’s kinda hard to call out when stopping a dictator from killing protestors is imperialism.

1