first time I’ve ever heard of a law enforcement officer say they wont do something because of the 4th amendment. IMO all law enforcement is duty bound to prevent unconstitutional actions by other law enforcement, but that’s not practical for a wide variety of reasons

political-economic changes enabled by reactionary backlash against the civil rights movement that coincided with the introduction of spreadsheets as a management tool

not even that, it’s just the sheriff’s office saying it wont help break the law

that really, truly sucks

honestly, if you sincerely believe that your physical safety is at risk if the people in your area knew your politics you need to GTFO, posthaste. If that’s not an option for whatever reason, learn who’s least likely to be hostile to your politics, the groups are probably going to be anemic but I know for a fact there’s at least statewide Democratic Party organization. Not even necessarily repping for Democrats in particular there are probably other groups. In any case my point is that you may be alone, but you’re less alone than you think you are

and that posting can concern things more locally relevant than yet another “geNrAL StRIke”. I’m on this particular forum in large part because of the hope it can be locally relevant

I guarantee you there are local politicians in your area who absolutely suck shit, who have established enemies, who aren’t as secure in their positions as they think they are

go learn who they are and make their lives hell.

how about you stop posting about it with a PNG on a forum that gets like 20k visitors a month (high end) and go talk to your neighbors and coworkers about doing something more directly local?

editorially? yea there’s still investigative pieces that are worth reading on there sometimes

I use https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean and I almost never reach a paywall, not sure if there’s a chrome version

important context. For that the real question becomes how to shift the broader narrative so low-info voters stop trying consistently swinging for reactionary candidates

my preferred solution is to distance from national democrats (not a euphemism for moving right). local politicians start naming enemies and using any level of populism instead of just the always-mumbled “yea I want things to be good” or the over-refined “messaging™” that everyone can smell is fake.

There’s also an important conversation to be had as to if talking about the specific effects is the best strategy, I’ll be doing it anyway. but we still shouldn’t loose track of how this is all flagrantly unconstitutional and a naked attempt to turn the federal government into a monarchy.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I dont understand where you found that in what I said

I dont care about the difference between “propagandized” and “idiot”. You attacked me instead of my argument.

Its not the hypothetical removal of the evil and waste of a system, it’d about the process of removing the undesired elements. The problem wasnt just with Brian Johnson was an interchangable empty suit, the problem is with the entire culture and system of incentives. Killing one bad person doesn’t do enough to fix things, targeting enough people to make the change that’s really needed will need a bureaucratic structure to actually get done, target selection, weapons supply, training, validation, paperwork. Very rare for breaucratically enabled violence to ever be good.

For healthcare in particular is pretty much is just as simple as nationalizating health insurance and have everything done by medicare (or state/local govt health plan) But targeted assassination doesn’t automatically translate into an act of congress.

Wow very convincing. thank you, directly calling me an idiot without addressing the core of my argument really has brought me over to your way of thinking

I very deliberately said “in general”, i did not say “in all cases whatsoever”.

For health insurance there is a replacement ready, the answer is to have Medicare do everything.

I didn’t make any arguements about this specific situation? Murder in general is bad

The problem is that there’s no clear endpoint of that thought process. The number of people that exact thought process applies to would require a level of violence that I doubt anybody sane wants.

Edit: to be more precise here. I’m leery about trying to apply the logic of individual self-defense to broader questions about social murder. The entire system is complicit, but if we go to burn the system down without a replacement ready we’ll end up sorrounded by nothing but ash and corpses

I agree is justified in many situations, the French revolution ain’t a good example for that, namely that it didn’t work in the long run with all the Napoleon-ing. The people most adept at violence, who will be most empowered by violence as normalized political tactic mostly don’t promote the interests of most people if they get into power. Napoleon and such

also every time there’s been prominent “propaganda of the deed” it’s backfired by inciting a HUGE state crackdown, Tsar Alexander II and William Mckinley come to mind though both were relative reformers, which would make this about target selection and not alienating potential allies rather than the use of the tactic in general

murder is in general bad, fed-posting is inadvisable

also there’s a broader boring argument about the dangers of violence being normalized as means of political change, but those arguments are boring

smh my head, it’s not even shady small businesses. even the child slavery has been conglomerated into national megacorps