| ▲ | tobias3 15 hours ago |
| As a German outside observer I can tell you there is only one side going down the facist path. The "other side" isn't great either. Would be great to have a sane alternative, I guess. |
|
| ▲ | brightball 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think the sane alternative has long been modeled by the US Constitution. The real test is how any model handles corruption and expunges it because no matter the ideology, people are in charge and people are corruptible. The only real model that can work is one that minimizes the power of those in charge. |
| |
| ▲ | Schnitz 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The US constitution is outdated and vulnerable. Modern constitutions like Germany’s basic law are a lot more resilient. We are watching the US constitution fail right now, it didn’t even take smart men to start dismantling it. I hope I’ll be proven wrong, but what indications do you see right now that the US constitution is performing as intended? | | |
| ▲ | haswell 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’m unfamiliar with German basic law, but considering the lawlessness we’re seeing play out in the US right now, I’m curious how/why modern constitutions are less vulnerable? By this I mean: it’s not as if the things we see playing out are lawful. Is there a structural difference that somehow prevents the same kind of lawlessness? Put another way, what stops a movement that decides to ignore Germany’s constitution from ignoring it should they somehow gain power? | | |
| ▲ | garte 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | For starters, Germany does not give a single person the right to be king with decrees and military leadership. Also (though not an issue with the law itself) it's really dangerous only having two parties at the helm. | | |
| ▲ | Jensson 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > For starters, Germany does not give a single person the right to be king with decrees and military leadership. Separation between civilian leaders and military leaders is a big one, yeah. When the same person controls both the military directly and the executive branch of the civilian government directly you don't have any way to punish him without his subordinates overthrowing him since he controls all the power. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nroets 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 1. When Trump lost to Biden, many Republicans including Mike Pence certified Biden's win as prescribed by the constitution. 2. Trump knows the military will not participate in a coup. 3. Trump will not run for a third term. If he does, he will loose because Americans knows it's unconstitutional. So Americans know that all the dirty laundry will come out when the next president takes office. | | |
| ▲ | JackFr 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The problem is norms are being destroyed. It’s not all new with Trump (governing by executive order, ignoring duly enacted laws, strong arming media companies, etc.). But while earlier administrations might have done those things on the margins, Trump takes them to 11 (in the spirit of the new Spinal Tap) and makes them the central and primary means of administration. With the norms destroyed, we potentially lose our nation of laws, and become a plutocracy with different juntas every few years. | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 1. There's barely any normal republicans left, its all MAGA now that would hang Pence like they wanted to in 2021. 2. Likely true, but they don't really need the military as ICE which now employs all the armed racists they need, like Jan 6 people. 3. He's floating the idea, even talking about not having elections if they're in a war like Ukraine, even though its not in the constitution. Either way they're going all in on rigging elections so Vance will take over. | | |
| ▲ | BlueTemplar 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which foreign country is going to invade one third of USA ? (Never mind, Trump never cared about little details like these...) |
|
| |
| ▲ | lossolo 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Constitution is just a social contract, it’s not a law of physics. Without people wanting to preserve it, it’s just words on a piece of paper with no real power. With a majority in the Supreme Court, the Constitution can be interpreted however one wants. |
| |
| ▲ | larrydag 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The US Constitutional government is meant to be slow, methodical and gridlocked. It is supposed to take enormous compromise to get any decision created into law. |
|
|
| ▲ | nerdponx 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This line of reason is actually becoming more frequently used to justify things. For years, the right wing propaganda machine has been establishing the concept that conservatism and America as a whole is besieged by authoritarian leftists and their smug out-of-outch enablers the liberals. THEY are the authoritarians and they are seeking to destroy America. WE are its defenders, and in the face of existential threat, our methods are justified. THEY have been doing this to us for years, now this is our chance to fight back. |
| |
| ▲ | tobias3 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, and then they call this openly a Reichstag fire moment and people still don't get the parallels. And back then there was a proper systems conflict. People like Krupp actually had to fear being disowned by communists. | |
| ▲ | brightball 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Similar to calling everyone Nazi’s and fascists who has an opposing point of view? When you take a step back it becomes very clear that this escalating messaging is being push onto both sides of the political isle to create these feelings. I remember in the span of two weeks seeing almost identical posts urging people to train because you are going to have to fight. The wording was almost identical only one post said “leftists” and the other “fascists”. My only question who is pushing the messaging and who does it benefit? | | |
| ▲ | AvAn12 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In what way are democrats (or, “leftists,” if you must) authoritarian? Requiring face masks in a pandemic (which happened under the trump admin, in case anyone forgot) is not the same as masked goons throwing brown people into vans. | | |
| ▲ | mindslight 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | As a libertarian, I see authoritarianism as the imposition of top-down control, often fine-grained, onto individuals' lives. The reflexive reaching for government/law to solve problems. The war on drugs. Mass surveillance, regardless of its goals or who is in charge. The crushing weight and lack of justice in the criminal justice system. The draconian copyright regime. This makes the Democratic [establishment] bureaucratic authoritarians, while the current Republican [establishment] are autocratic authoritarians. Obviously I would prefer anti-authoritarianism - a goal of reducing government control in our lives (including corporate de facto government). I think so would most people, but for being lured in by partisan messaging. Authoritarian singular-perspective narratives always sound so simplistically compelling. But while the autocratic authoritarians weren't in power, it was all too easy to point to the bureaucratic authoritarians as a creeping problem. So now we have autocratic authoritarianism "good and hard". Between the two, I'd prefer bureaucratic authoritarianism as it at least keeps the worst impulses in check (eg the capricious tariff taxes, the naked corruption/bribes, politicizing departments to go after political enemies, wanton cruelty against immigrants for circenses, etc). The only real question is whether at least some of our institutions will hold out so that we can collectively decide to change course, or if it's just set now. As far as the mask issue, I want to live in a world where they weren't mandated, but yet most everyone wears one out of enlightened self interest. The traditional Republican message would have been "wear a mask to protect yourself". The fact that it was self-harming contrarianism instead has more to do with edgelordism and foreign influence campaigns. | | |
| ▲ | ruszki 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | What you wrote can be even an anarchist view. What’s the difference in your point of view? How should a government solve problems without laws? What other options are there? Besides ignoring, obviously. I’m absolutely not familiar with the tools of an imagined truly libertarian government (AFAIK this never happened). | | |
| ▲ | mindslight 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can run down the policies of either major party and find topics where they advocate against government intervention, or at least a light touch. So the idea that we could have less government intervention isn't really a unique or rare one. It's not a matter of imagining some "truly libertarian" government, as that is an artifact of US "Libertarianism" which is itself fallacious (it mostly just renames "government" to "corporations"). It's a matter of which ideals to strive towards. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | throw0101c 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Similar to calling everyone Nazi’s and fascists who has an opposing point of view? Well, the actual neo-Nazis do support one particular party (and it's not the Democrats); see (e.g.) Charlottesville, 2017: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally And it was (is?) official Republican strategy to court racists: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy As The Simpsons once joked “Fox News: Not Racist, But #1 With Racists”: * https://www.nydailynews.com/2017/07/24/simpsons-creator-matt... | |
| ▲ | nerdponx 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > My only question who is pushing the messaging and who does it benefit? You get 0 "both sides gotcha" points for this one because there is a clear answer when it comes to right wing messaging, and it has been the same since the 19th century, long before modern conservatism existed. It's big business owners and anyone else who stands to gain from an oligopoly economy backed by an authoritarian state that punishes and suppresses anything that could destabilize said oligopoly. There's no conspiracy theory here. Meanwhile who is pushing the horrible left wing messaging that racism is bad? A bunch of professors and kids on social media? | |
| ▲ | lkey 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You must separate actions from words, and government actors from private citizens, and powerful monied interests from powerless randos.
If you don't do this your brain will remain cooked. There are no "Leftists" in government. No, Bernie and AOC do not count. Soc Dems are nice, don't get me wrong, but the vanguard they are not. There is no "Leftist" billionaire funding propaganda, no the boogyman 'Soros' doesn't count. He's very much a 'liberal' capitalist, just ask the UK. There is no major US media outlet or platform owned by a "Leftist".
If you insist that actually Biden, Obama, Clinton, Schumer, or Pelosi are leftists, please please just stop talking about politics. Again, I'm begging you to separate "things pseudonymous people say online" from "things government officials say and do" Let's try an example:
"Fascists are sending the US military and an unaccountable masked federal police force into cities to quell dissent and hunt down their ideological enemies"
or
"Leftists are sending the US military and an unaccountable masked federal police force into cities to quell dissent and hunt down their ideological enemies" Which of these statements is true? |
| |
| ▲ | ethical_source 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are you just going to ignore the 2016-2024 state-directed viewpoint censorship on social media? | | |
| ▲ | bad_haircut72 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Now we have 2025-? stare censored social media. Of all the hypocrisies, people screaming "but what about THEM" while ignoring what people in power NOW are doing is the most insufferable | |
| ▲ | convolvatron 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think the appropriate response to a lack of due consideration to the bill of rights should be doubling down on the bill of rights. not setting it on fire as show of oneupmanship |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Amezarak 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | thrance 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Got sources for any of that? | | | |
| ▲ | immibis 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The "same side" does all of that but also a bunch more bad stuff. The equlibrium that is always reached in a first-past-the-post voting system is two parties that are mostly the same, and you vote for a party that's only slightly more of what you want (because those are the options) and your vote tells both parties which direction to move in, to chase more votes. If the party that drone strikes its own citizens and imprisons Twitter users consistently gets more votes than the party that drone strikes its own citizens, imprisons Twitter users, and builds concentration camps, then the latter party will quickly figure out that the only way to win is to drone strike its own citizens, but not imprison Twitter users, or build concentration camps. And then the former party (now losing) figures out that doing none of the above is the way to win, but maybe they still tap all communications. And so on... We got to the point we're at today step by step, with people voting for one new measure at a time, and parties taking notice of what measures people consistently vote for. The current parties did not spring fully-formed out of Zeus's forehead. |
|
|
| ▲ | ethical_source 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | wyldfire 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > We have the first amendment and are still free to a degree you are not and will never be. I'm not so sure about that. "It's no longer free speech [when someone criticizes the president]." [1] This seems like it's remarkably in line with "they thought they were free" because here you are, thinking you're free. But in fact, your speech is not free because all three branches failed to protect you from this and have now signaled that this will go on. What does it mean to have the first amendment if it's chilled like this and the only checks available are toothless? If SCOTUS were to review this and find that POTUS were wrong (itself a stretch), what remedy would they have? They would defer to the legislature who has already shown us that even in the face of an attempt to violently overthrow the legislature itself are not willing to use its power to check this demagogue. [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/19/trump-no-longer-fre... | | |
| ▲ | ethical_source 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | You have to take Trump "seriously but not literally". The government threatened to revoke a broadcast license, a right to use a limited resource for the public good. Broadcast licenses come with rules to ensure the limited resource is used for public benefit: for example, you're not allowed to broadcast profanity over the air despite profanity in general being protected speech. Nobody is denying anyone's ability to communicate over privately owned channels. What Trump meant is that a network that uses limited spectrum to broadcast nonstop partisan lies isn't operating in the public interest and doesn't deserve the license. Consider the contrast with the 2016-2024 state and corporate effort to suppress inconvenient truths as "misinformation". Remember when they used naked, hard power to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story? That's what real censorship looks like. In America, you can express any viewpoint on social media and be treated fairly. That wasn't the case just a few years ago. In most of Europe, and in the UK, you can't express certain ideas. The state will literally come to your house and arrest you if you have the wrong opinions on government policy. The US does not do that. | | |
| ▲ | BDPW 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >In most of Europe, and in the UK, you can't express certain ideas. This is total BS. In many European countries (the ones I know personally) this is not at all the case. | | |
| ▲ | jjgreen 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Try holding a piece of paper on which is written "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action" in London. |
| |
| ▲ | wyldfire 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because HN says I should take you seriously, I will take you seriously. I think you are uninformed. Of course, we're all aware of the limitations of over-the-air broadcasts and why there are limitations there. > Nobody is denying anyone's ability to communicate over privately owned channels. There's several dimensions to this that I think you are lumping in to the simplest possible explanation, because you're uninformed. * Trump himself said "When 97 percent of the stories are bad about a person, it’s no longer free speech." [1]. This signals his abandonment of his oath of office, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The first amendment doesn't apply anymore when the president decides he will use the power of the presidency to retaliate against and prevent speech he does not like. * Nexstar Media Group is attempting to acquire Tegna Inc, this merger is pending FCC approval. Look no further than the Paramount/Skydance merger - an ombudsman being installed to review content. These actions chill free speech [2]. > You have to take Trump "seriously but not literally". Trump means what he says. He repeatedly backs up his words with actions that reinforce them. You have to take Trump literally, if you fail to do so, you do it at your own peril. [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/19/trump-no-longer-fre... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect | | |
| ▲ | ethical_source 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Trump himself said "When 97 percent of the stories are bad about a person, it’s no longer free speech Pulling this quote out of context fits in a general pattern of demonization of Trump that goes all the way back to the "fine people" Charlottesville hoax. What Trump meant about free speech is that once 97% of a broadcast consists of partisan attacks, the broadcaster can no longer hide beyond the fig leaf of individual commentators exercising their individual rights to free speech. A broadcast that consists of 97% demonization of a people on one side of an issue that splits the country 50-50 isn't serving the interest of the public. Absolutely nobody is preventing anyone from being 99.9% hostile on his own infrastructure, but we're under no obligation to let this broadcaster continue using public airwaves just because it labels its propaganda as "free speech". There is no free speech right to the electromagnetic spectrum. When Trump says "free speech" in that quote, he's using it to refer to this fig leaf of propaganda as "free speech". That's just how the man talks. Anyone who's listened to him knows what he meant. It's precisely this form of misrepresentation that's made Americans mistrust the media and establishment more than at any time in history. | | |
| ▲ | wyldfire 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | That is not at all the right context. You have fabricated a context that suits some legitimate intent. The president wasn't talking at all about limited spectrum and I can't believe you keep going back there. > A broadcast that consists of 97% demonization of a people on one side of an issue that splits the country 50-50 isn't serving the interest of the public. It's almost as if you are calling for the return of the fairness doctrine (sometimes incorrectly referred to as "equal time rule")? In any case: criticism of the current government is absolutely the intent and purpose of the First Amendment. Demonization is not what happened. Just go ahead and watch/read what Kimmel actually said. It's not trying to demonize, it's a critique of the party in power misrepresenting the truth. > Anyone who's listened to him knows what he meant. I am finding it harder and harder to take you seriously. Anyone who's listened to Trump knows that he is thin skinned and abuses his power to retaliate against those who critique him. Anyone who's listened to Trump knows that he can't spell the word "spectrum" much less think about how the government should help judiciously guide civil discourse without infringing on free speech. | | |
| ▲ | tolerance 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It's not trying to demonize, it's a critique of the party in power misrepresenting the truth. The truth, which was what in this case? (Bearing in mind what information about the shooter was available at the time of Kimmel’s statement). And who/what arbitrates between whether it’s demonization or criticism in this matter? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Fake news? Or like Hitler called it, lugenpresse. I was going to write more but your post is so incredibly stupid I can't believe you believe this. |
|
| |
| ▲ | braabe 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The AfD candidates were in their late-50s to late 70s, some apparently with serious preexisting conditions, all ruled natural deaths (and one suicide). I have no idea how to substantially proof the absence of a conspiracy but I see no evidence to the contrary. I would, however, be extremly interested in seeing the math from the people claiming this to be "statistically extremely unlikely". It lacked rigor in the past.
The thing with unlikely events is, that they tend to happen if your sample size is large enough. :D Nitpick: Second most popular (looking at the federal elections from this year). And I think they have no realistic chance to govern any time soon, as no one from the other parties (the other 75% of the vote!) wants to form a government with them. There is this joke, about the left splitting their vote share over too many small splinter parties: The biggest enemy of a rightist (?) is the leftist - the biggest enemy of the leftist is another leftist who holds 98% of the same beliefs! I am confident, that I could call our current chancellor every insult under the sun and not be prosecuted for it. (I am aware of the incident with Andy Grote, which has since been ruled unlawful and unreasonable. I would assess this more as a case of improper use of influence / corruption than systemic prosecution).
Conversly, were I to call for his murder, I think prosecution would very much be reasonable. Escalation to violence has, in my opionion, no place in the political process. You are welcome to disagree. I (honestly!) hope your institutions are up to the task of defending that first amendment. I increasingly get the feeling, that a constitution is of little use, if no one in power is willing to stand up for it. | |
| ▲ | 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | cindyllm 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
