Why are people surprised?
Biden and a lot more Dems already claimed this with UNRWA…
Did y’all never read First They Came For?
We didn’t stand by one subgroup, now our larger subgroup is smaller than the fascists. And they’re gonna keep picking off subgroups.
You can’t fight fascism with people who agree that certain groups are worth targeting.
So I’d like to forward this question to the liberal settlers and misleaders that like to pooh-pooh the concept that Amerika is run by a uniparty-- can any of you explain to me why “Genocide” Joseph Robinette “Segregationist Eulogizer” “Racial Jungle” “'94 Crime Bill” Biden is giving Trump new toys to play with when both the DNC and the media apparatuses suckling from their teats spent the last three months trying to convince the country that Trump is the second coming of Adolf Hitler?
The 15:
- Allred TX
- Caraveo CO
- Case HI
- Cuellar TX
- Davis (NC)
- Golden (ME)
- Gonzalez, V. TX
- Lee (NV)
- Moskowitz FL
- Panetta CA
- Perez WA
- Schneider IL
- Suozzi NY
- Torres (CA)
- Wasserman Schultz FL
Thanks. Came here for this
If the Senate rejects it, the bill will be reread on January 21st, passed by both houses, and signed by Trump. Elections have consequences. There is no end to the consequences the United States and the rest of the entire Western world is about to experience.
Given that the election is over and we’re falling into a fascist kakocracy, I don’t know that lecturing people that “Elections have consequences” is really helpful.
They’re already talking about sending the military into cities to round up minorities.
The phrase “Elections have consequences” is pretty sinister when Nazis take control. We all speak in hindsight about Nazi Germany, as if violence against that regime would have always been justified.
Why are we just sleepwalking towards the next major atrocity here? There are literally multiple genocides looking because of this man. “Elections have consequences” my ass, democracy never defeated fascism. We know what has, but we’re still observing decorum for some reason so I’m not even allowed to say what the solution literally is to this problem.
They definitely want to get ride of the church of satanism. Then they can hang up all their propaganda without that thorn.
If it can be used against all churches, it might almost be worth it.
Have you not been paying attention “white Christian nationalism only” first they came for the Arabs then go the Jews…
Making megachurches that get involved in politics pay taxes? Silver lining.
Nah this is specifically written to target non profits that “support terrorism” and political churches are committing the good kind of tax fraud
State sponsor churches will be exempt what aren’t you getting.
For real, the main tenet of fascism is the law only applies to whom power doesn’t like. Those in power will openly and flagrantly transgress the law because doing so and getting away with it validates their position in their eyes. The fear instilled by their use of violence to silence people disproportionately isnt a nuance to delegitamize, it’s a feature front and center on their brand.
Fascists don’t have morals. You can’t treat fascists like they were a normal group that respects social dynamics, because decorum only applies if both parties respect it. If one side decides to not play by the normal rules, then decorum will be used to hang you, because you are bound by it and predictable, easy to outmaneuver. The way to handle a fascist is the same as when you need to put the family dog down. It’s your duty. It’s not a joy, you take no pleasure in it, you make no speeches, you don’t waste time, just dispatch them. no monologues. End it. Fascism has to made afraid to show it’s face, or it’s going to eat all our faces.
Hopefully it is that poorly/fairly written. I would hope something obviously biased towards christianity wouldn’t have passed but who knows nowadays.
From what I’ve read since, it’s a power that can only be exercised by the Executive branch; as in, it’s not a process that can be started in court by Joe Voter.
deleted by creator
It’s funny you accuse us of not reading when it’s obvious you didn’t read the article or Raskin’s criticism of the law. Hint: what you posted is covered and does not obviate the criticism.
What the fuck are you talking about?
