Too simplistic. If we ever want to be EFFECTIVE in preserving democracy, we first have to pause and THINK. Just running around frantically and yelling "no!" isn't exactly the most effective way to fight back against an enemy who has a real plan and has most of the political power in DC right now.
Too simplistic. If we ever want to be EFFECTIVE in preserving democracy, we first have to pause and THINK. Just running around frantically and yelling "no!" isn't exactly the most effective way to fight back against an enemy who has a real plan and has most of the political power in DC right now.
So, just think for a moment. How many lawsuits have been filed by now? Almost as many as the number of lawsuits filed in Trump's entire first term. How many of those have we won? Most of them.
Why does the history of fascism show that this is VITAL? Because fascist destruction tends to be quite irreversible. So it's BECAUSE this is not 1995 that we need a very different take on shutdowns, you see?
It's BECAUSE this is not just a policy disagreement but the installation of fascism that we cannot possibly legalize it, which is exactly what a shutdown would do. Schumer is way ahead of you in his thinking here. So the first question to ask yourself is: WHAT are your counterarguments against HIS arguments? In other words, why would you want to help a neofascist government in its destruction of democracy? Any idea?
Too simplistic. If we ever want to be EFFECTIVE in preserving democracy, we first have to pause and THINK. Just running around frantically and yelling "no!" isn't exactly the most effective way to fight back against an enemy who has a real plan and has most of the political power in DC right now.
So, just think for a moment. How many lawsuits have been filed by now? Almost as many as the number of lawsuits filed in Trump's entire first term. How many of those have we won? Most of them.
Why does the history of fascism show that this is VITAL? Because fascist destruction tends to be quite irreversible. So it's BECAUSE this is not 1995 that we need a very different take on shutdowns, you see?
It's BECAUSE this is not just a policy disagreement but the installation of fascism that we cannot possibly legalize it, which is exactly what a shutdown would do. Schumer is way ahead of you in his thinking here. So the first question to ask yourself is: WHAT are your counterarguments against HIS arguments? In other words, why would you want to help a neofascist government in its destruction of democracy? Any idea?