But who’s crazier? Me who advocates for some of the States to meet and draft plans for exiting the US? Or George Conway who proposes protests in the streets??
I ask you: which one will be getting more of the attention of some on the Supreme Court and Repubs in Congress?
[See above the brass tacks of how to go about it in a serious-as-cancer way. I welcome anybody to challenge me on the mechanisms to accomplish it. We can try to go about it in a mutually cooperative way, or we can make it as nasty as hell for anybody seeking to enslave us with a lawless government…]
You always have the best clips! Who would you recommend I follow on YouTube to get accurate information? Currently, I follow Democracy Now on YouTube, The Bitchuation Room on Patreon, and I check out what you post on here. Thanks!
Well, besides when Cenk has something relevant: Humanist, and Adam Mockler.
I used to watch Pakman, but after Biden imploded he had veracity and candor issues. His assistant Luke Beasley takes too long to make his point.
I wish Meidas Reports would offer summary clips of 5-10 minutes, and then longer clips for the details (the way Turks does it…)
Humanist is usually not short, but he never wastes any time explaining all the points to be considered. Sometimes Mockler is bringing facts to the table, other times he’s grieving.
Chris Norlund is good for covering Musk; but lately it’s a let down to witness his virtuous innocence: “Gee, why aren’t these guys getting arrested??” Uhh: because the people Trump stacked the DOJ with have jumped the shark? So now, if this country is to be saved, it relies on a majority of the Supreme Court to call Trump out and a majority of Repubs to back them up. Then they could impeach Bondi, to start.
Failing that: we need to show we’re serious and start laying out plans to exit and form new governing coalition/coalitions…
I agree; the shit going on is well beyond Constitutional (not to mention moral and ethical) and is only going to get worse unless they fight back in a big way, which I don’t see happening. It’s nice in Minnesota; maybe Walz will cede with some others. I wouldn’t hate it if Canada took us in, though, too.
Another youtube pundit is Kyle Kulinski; but he’s better at being sarcastic about current events (similar to the way Cenk is…) Sometimes he beats other pundits to breaking news.
Due Dissidence is good when they are not getting too cynical or nihilistic
Dore: it depends on the topic. When he does working class issues, he’s fantastic. Some of the other things he touches on sometimes goes to a black helicopter place…
I ask anyone: do you think that the remedies listed above (link) could be addressed in the framework of the United States, anytime soon?? So we should look on Trump and Musk converting the US to a lawless gang operation as an opportunity to fix things for the States that want to see them get fixed, and want to repudiate their lawlessness, making it up as you go along, and asymmetric interpretations of judicial code that has the established precedent of many years. Maybe a fraction of the conservative Supreme Court justices could realize they took it too far, and then put a majority of the Repubs in the embarrassing situation where they have to back down on their lawlessness; but at this point I am not holding my breath.
If I was a Canadian, I’d be rather pissed that the only idea being acted on by Americans who oppose this new wave of lawless disregard for warrants by the admin and Repubs in Congress (and the Supreme Court?) is protests. WTF is that about? When they had an unreasonable monarchy in the 1700’s, did they only propose protest actions like the Tea Party? They sued for a separate government, at the risk to themselves…
I can see some people are thinking that “we’ll get by somehow…”
No; this is lawlessness run amok. A new governing system has to be formed among what States that can to deal with the anarchy introduced by The Joker…
(link…)
When we’re not in power all we can do is buy a box of popcorn, pop it, and watch the show. Then boycott, raise money, and organize. But we must be smart about our battles. As Sun Tzu said, we should attack the enemy where he is vulnerable. At the same time we must be invulnerable like in a fortress of truth.
Yeah, I’m all for protests (so they know there’s solidarity with them among US citizens), but the Dems need to do a helluva lot more! I think threatening to secede is a great idea, and if they think we’re bluffing, we should show we’re not. I was at Perkins for breakfast yesterday, and there was an extremely loud table of (can you guess?) rich (for the area), entitled White people unironically talking about how great Trump and Musk are. I’m just glad they left before our food came. So fucking disgusting!
I totally agree. Nothing good can possibly come out of what’s going on. If they’re not stopping, we’re seriously fucked; I’m talking poverty like we can’t imagine, the entire world hating us, a new definition to endless wars, and terrorist attacks beyond what we can imagine.
Term limits will help alleviate the matter. Voting for Mitch McConnell for eternity and perpetuity just because that’s all you know (yes I heard these words in an interview) is ignorance. Term limits should be fought for. Understandable that they don’t want this and are in control this is one fight that should be locked and loaded.
I would be all over that with my “Be a shmarty! Join the Party!” line from The Producers.
Note that they were rich. Working MAGAs are definitely going right now: “Uhhh…this might have not been such a great idea…” When they have a tough time affording groceries and rent because he wielded tariff threats like a drunken sailor, I guess they’re supposed to take solace in the lardass driving a lap or two at Indy??
I still won’t blame MAGAs who voted for Trump as a Chaos Lottery Ticket play. Harris and the corporate owners of the DNC offered working voters JACK SHIT. The president of the Teamsters played it completely right: don’t endorse either candidate.
I think Canada would be EXTREMELY supportive right now if Maine and Vermont were to kick off discussions on exiting.
Roberts, ACB, and a majority of Repubs can choose to call off endorsing an extremely valid reason to exit (through their inaction, which is sometimes the highest form of action…): the ignoring of court orders with no serious penalties after you do. Given that The Joker pardoned Ulbricht, we shouldn’t be surprised by the apparent planned attack on courts and a rule of law: the unconditional pardon of a guy who was facilitating global addictive drug sales and some murders for hire. [If he had the common sense to stick to weed, he never would have gotten a serious penalty as he did…]
Let’s get these discussions started! Repubs aren’t the only ones who can announce a departure from what we KNEW to be a rule of law. The difference is we can attempt to reestablish one…
Carville dropped this approach to dealing with the newfound penchant of the Repubs to engage in lawlessness:
Basically, he advocates a combination of protest and voting. I think it is not enough. Yes, protests are called for. And the voting will inevitably happen in a Darwinian manner. But those are NOT enough to stop the actions of a Kangaroo Court implicitly rubberstamping lawless actions by not meting out serious penalties when its perpetrators are violating well-established legal precedent and have had ample access to counsel that has told them the score beforehand. It won’t mean much, Mr.Carville, if you win an election in Virginia or wherever and both the DOJ and the Supreme Court will continue to enable those who are violating laws, with no penalties. This is not going to wait until the midterms; the people who are taking illegal actions to subvert legal precedent know that it would be over for them with the midterms, so they are now in a race to preclude such a check.
The Trump administration and many Repubs KNOW the civil unrest that is in the pipeline, and they are presently engaged in a skunkworks project to retool the military as a domestic police force. Any protests that might be made are on a trajectory to getting suppressed by illegal means.
The action of a State or States exiting the ““United”” States has had only one precedent to date; and when it was attempted, the cause for doing so -to preserve slavery- contradicted core democratic principles. States seeking an exit from the lawlessness that the Supreme Court has invited through their inaction CAN:
Formulate a new system of governance that addresses a number of bad practices in US governance that deny a democratic system of representation to its stakeholders. If you look at the legal underpinnings of prior attempts, they really didn’t have a good argument, and were at odds with the principles of the Rights of Man and human rights.
Seek out a hearing in the U.N. Even though the U.S. would have outsized voting influence there, it can be thought of as a megaphone to share with member states and the larger world community not only the grievances of what is egregiously unjust, but also what practical solutions are being proposed by the States seeking an exit.
At the end of the day, seeking the relief of an exit from a federal system which has jumped the rails of a rule of law will depend on the support you get from other countries. At the present time, given the lawless behavior of many in the present political system of the U.S., I can see it would get a lot of support from other countries. It will take a long time for such an exit to be brought about; that gives the U.S. ample time to correct its course of legal anarchy, should the Supreme Court and/or political actors wake up and choose to do so.
Another thought: we want to send a message to the world that we, SOME of the members of the United States, want to do more about our rising lawlessness than just try and defeat them at the polls. When the prevailing Duopoly has expressed its disdain for popular opinion through gerrymandering and ballot access, saying that’s our only plan is causing other countries to give it up on us (for that matter, we should be giving it up on ourselves if that’s all we’re going to do…)
Right now (former?) allies are saying to themselves: “Why don’t people who respect laws there do something about this?!” Saying you are done with it and seek to check out of it by conducting referendums on exit and forms of governance that fix our representational democracy design flaws is the strongest message you can send that we don’t accept the disregard of court precedents…
Let me know if this resonates with you or am I going crazy. The glorification of mafia figures as heroic or admirable in movies and television has had a subtle but significant impact on political culture, particularly in the United States. While correlation does not equal causation, there are several ways in which this portrayal may have contributed to the rise of right-wing politics especially with Trump using mafia language on may occasions.
Former FBI Director James Comey once compared a meeting with President Donald Trump to “Sammy the Bull’s Cosa Nostra induction ceremony” and said Trump’s demeanor gave him flashbacks to his “earlier career as a prosecutor against the Mob.”
Normalization of Authoritarian Power
• Many mafia films depict strong, decisive leaders who operate outside the law to maintain order and protect their “family” or community. This mirrors the appeal of authoritarian political figures who promise security, control, and a return to “traditional” values, often a key feature of right-wing populism.
Romanticization of the Anti-Hero
• Movies like The Godfather, Goodfellas, and The Sopranos present criminals as charismatic, disciplined, and even noble figures who defy government oversight. This anti-establishment narrative resonates with right-wing populist movements that distrust government institutions and see “strongmen” as necessary leaders.
Glorification of Wealth and Power
• Many mafia films emphasize the accumulation of wealth, often through ruthless means, as a sign of success. This aligns with the right-wing capitalist ideal of self-made wealth and deregulation, fostering admiration for figures who “take what they deserve” rather than relying on government structures.
Ethnic and Cultural Nostalgia
• Mafia movies often emphasize tight-knit ethnic communities (e.g., Italian, Irish, or Jewish mafias) resisting outside forces. This can parallel nationalist and right-wing rhetoric that valorizes cultural identity, traditional values, and skepticism toward outsiders.
Distrust of Institutions and Law Enforcement
• While the mafia is technically “criminal,” these films often portray government officials, law enforcement, and politicians as either corrupt or ineffectual. This helps fuel right-wing narratives that cast the government as an enemy of the people, promoting ideas like deep-state conspiracies or the need for extralegal solutions.
Hyper-Masculinity and Traditional Gender Roles
• Mafia culture in films reinforces traditional, patriarchal family structures where men are dominant and women play subservient roles. Right-wing politics often embrace similar ideals, promoting “family values” and rejecting progressive gender roles.
Violence as a Tool for Justice
• Many right-wing ideologies glorify self-defense, gun culture, and vigilante justice. Mafia movies often depict violent retribution as justified, reinforcing the belief that force is a legitimate means to resolve conflicts and protect one’s way of life.
While mafia films alone did not create right-wing politics, their cultural impact—promoting authoritarianism, distrust of government, glorification of wealth, and hyper-masculinity—resonates with many themes of conservative populism. By framing criminals as “heroes” who operate outside the system, these narratives may have contributed to the appeal of strongman politics and anti-establishment movements in the U.S. Trump did just say “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,”
