https://archive.ph/rA9Fx
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/15/opinion/trump-criminal-cases.html#commentsContainer
No man is above the law expect for the president who can literally get away with murder, so jot that down.
From a sober lib perspective this op-ed is entirely correct.
Legal weapons that have been formed against Trump in the last 4 years that have generally failed to take him down, but have effectively drowned many of his former associates are now just going to be given to him. Your favorite rapper is going to be prosecuted with these same tools in 5 years.
Liberals cannot solve this problem, because liberals refuse to understand the bootstrap problem of power. Goldberg is practically correct in any system the leader of that system by definition cannot be an ordinary man, it's simply a fantasy that liberals have in their head. It's the same contortions SCOTUS did when they pulled "official acts" out of their ass and refused to clarify.
The President's main job is to actually do crimes in service of maintaining the Empire. That's the reason you can summarily execute US citizens in Yemen via drone strike. Then 3 years later you just have to tell everyone how it's a lawful act of war because you said so. It's really clear that these simply become tactics of convenience espeiclaly when you look at how they're used in the imperial core and the fact that even those who are doing the executing cannot keep their story straight on the reason they had to execute a suspect without trial.
This is not a problem with a simple solution, and it is a problem that entangles itself with the systems of control that governments enact on their people. This particular problem of how uniquely broken the US system is for curtailing the de facto power of the rich has festered in the US since its founding and it's the reason that the Union won the Civil War but the South won Reconstruction.
I read somewhere, might've been graeber, that the fundamental ideas of States like the US have kiiind of a violence/justification problem
That they were born out of a violent revolution, but now that they've won they must declare all other revolutions against them invalid and bad, they must build this apparatus of violence etc etc. That their rule effectively boils down to the right of the stronger, cohered by a bunch of pretty lies about how its not that, led by a bunch of kleptocrats.
And here's the part I'm moderately confident I didn't read somewhere; it comes from their hollowness. The fact that their revolutions didn't have to happen, they were the aggressors, and they dont fundamentally have any ideals; just vapid fucking lies. They stand for nothing they can admit to-literally just usurping the old regime on an occulted version of the same power structure.
Fascists do have ideals, even if it just boils down to 'exterminate' and a fundamental inability to acknowledge another party in communication. So their violence feels a lot more legitimate, because there is actually something behind it, even if that something is gross, and there's a built in solipsistic defense against criticism.
This is part of why libs always roll over for fascists, just rabidly crave the belly rubs. The fascists serve the ruling class, at least enough of them, and that's all the libs really care about. Its why the dems would rather throw an election than move left. Their disagreement with fascism is about means, not ends.
in any system the leader of that system by definition cannot be an ordinary man
Reminds me of Gödel's second incompleteness theorem
The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
A logical system (e.g. standard mathematics) cannot prove its own axioms. Therefore not all problems are solvable using standard mathematics.
A logical system (e.g. standard mathematics) cannot prove its own axioms.
However, this restriction only applies to consistent systems. An illogical system (e.g. liberalism) can prove its own axioms.
A logical system (e.g. standard mathematics) cannot prove its own axioms
It can, and trivially so. Because every statement implies itself, we can just use modus ponens on each axiom A and (A => A) and we get A (if you even need an inference rule).
What the theorem says is that a relevant logical system (not just any logical system) cannot prove that it is not self-contradictory.
Fantastic phrasing. It makes Trump seem like a superhero.
God-King Trump.
Where are the 300 Libspartans to face off against him?
"A central pillar of American democracy is that only ordinary men are subject to the law." - the paper of record
Bluesky libs are incensed. Example thread - https://subium.com/profile/ditzkoff.bsky.social/post/3lbcm7gzyhc2i
My wild guesses... There are surely more than about dozen top posts about the op-ed. There will be even more as the hours go on because Bluesky has a one-track mind when it comes to Trump. This will stick in their craw and their anger has legs. I bet they're whining about it days from now. And why bother? It's just another crap op-ed at a shit rag.
---
Edit
My predictive abilities need to be improved. I missed the obvious. Bluesky is making one Animal Farm joke after another.
