|
| ▲ | krapp 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I'm not framing consensus as fascism, I'm pointing out what the consensus is within the current fascist framework, and that consensus is that Congress doesn't make the rules anymore. And that consensus is shared by Congress itself. |
| |
|
| ▲ | jibal 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Being honest increases credibility, not damages it. > framing a label update as oppression That strawman damages credibility. |
|
| ▲ | RIMR 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The president has no authority to rename the Department of Defense, but he and his administration demand consensus under the threat of legal consequences. Just as one example, they threatened Google when they didn't immediately rename the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" on their maps. Other companies now follow their illegal guidance because they know that they will be threatened too if they don't comply. There is a word for when the government uses threats to enforce illegal referendums. That word is "Fascism". Denying this is irresponsible, especially in the context of this situation, where the Government is threatening to force a private company to provide services that it doesn't currently provide. |
| |
| ▲ | drstewart 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your keep using the word illegal but I don't think you know what it means | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It means something violates the law. Am I right? | | |
| ▲ | drstewart 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, green account, it does. which law does renaming Gulf of Mexico or giving DoD an alternative name violate? | | |
| ▲ | OkayPhysicist 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Renaming the DoD does directly contradict the National Security Act of 1947, which renamed the Department of War to the Department of the Army, and put it under the newly named Department of Defense. | |
| ▲ | ok_dad 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Someone with 1200 points after 14 years on HN shouldn’t be pointing out green noobs, especially when they are being very reasonable with their comments and you’re objectively wrong. You used “green account” like a slur. | |
| ▲ | freeone3000 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The National Security Act of 1947, as amended on August 10, 1949, establishes the name of the executive department overseeing the military as the Department of Defense. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | vibeprofessor 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| true, if everything is 'fascism' then nothing is |
| |
| ▲ | thatswrong0 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | https://archive.ph/YSAWU Except this administration is certainly fascist, and the renaming is yet another facet of it. That article goes through it point by point. | | |
| ▲ | vibeprofessor 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | zimza 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The maga brain is something else | |
| ▲ | virgildotcodes 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is all such wild display of fully absorbed propaganda, even your very first bullet point, just... incredible: > Dismantling government bureaucracy/corruption Trump has done more to benefit financially from the presidency, to offer access and influence to anyone who will funnel money into his enterprises or give him gifts, than any president in our history. How could you possibly write this in good faith? When Trump said he could shoot a person on 5th avenue and people would still vote for him, do you recognize yourself at all in that statement? | | | |
| ▲ | alpaca128 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So I take it you consider them not doing great at "releasing the Epstein files", or did you just not vote for that? | |
| ▲ | alchemism 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ok cool so you voted for fascism. Your pride will age well Im….certain |
|
|
|
