"A coalition of dem governors could do a whole lot of damage to people/companies/institutes in unison by freezing assets of foreign leaders or tariffing their economies, prohibiting business dealings, executing tariffs on other states,"
No court would uphold this. It would violate the Interstate Commerce and Import-Export Clauses of the Constitution and would be dubious even with Congressional approval—and that will never happen.
I want us to strengthen existing laws, introduce new bills, and put some teeth in our fight, with real investigations and penalties. But I don't want the Dems to become the losers the GOP are.
"No court would uphold this. It would violate the Interstate Commerce and Import-Export Clauses of the Constitution and would be dubious even with Congressional approval—and that will never happen."
So? Flood the courts with cases to slow down the rulings and appeal every loss. By the time adverse rulings are finalized the chill will have set in and companies will be deterred. You think Trump & Co care that most of their policies are going to get reversed by the courts? Do the same shit they're doing: flood the courts with cases.
If a dem coalition of governors actually put malice and intent behind unified actions I'm *sure* that a team of their crack shot lawyers could find all sorts of legal loopholes to punish businesses with. Where there is a will there is a way.
But that's whole point. It's one thing to be smarter and stronger fighters. I don't want to flood the zone with shit and twist the system the way Trump does. We will never get better as a nation if all we do is imitate their worst.
We’re not getting better as a nation anytime soon. I’m more worried about setting MAGA back than I am with how that gets done. I’ll take getting it done dirty over not getting it done cleanly any day of the week. And frankly, I’d rather have aggressive assholes than limp fish doing that work because it produces quicker/better results than what the limp fish have been getting done.
Because you don't establish deterrence without being at least *somewhat* mean/threatening about it. Ever seen nice guy deterrence work out well? You only get to do "nice guy deterrence" after you already have an established record of proven cruelty.
Hmm, the choices are either menacing or nice? Agree nice doesn’t work in establishing your authority, but mean? I learned to “take no shit” from 7th-grade students (the most disruptive of the middle grades due to all those hormones surging) as a substitute teacher. The first principal I worked for gave me these watchwords in managing classroom behavior: “loving and firm”.
In a classroom with children, where your relationship with them is part of your teaching, you have to be both loving (preserves the relationship) and firm (behavior compliance). Of course that’s not so in the situation you’re describing. Still, you can be firm, which is confidence in your authority, without being mean. Meanness is for teachers and parents (and Trumpers) who aren’t confident in their authority. The firmness and confidence in your authority is the most important. Civil - and firm - is better than mean.
These are not 7th graders we are dealing with. We are dealing with people who only understand and operate around strong vs weak. Raw force and the will to apply it aggressively is the universal language they understand, not firmness. "Move fast and break stuff" is not about being firm, it's about being swift and course. This is the language of the "disruptors" we're trying to rein in. Give it back to them in their own language, speed, and force and they'll learn a lot quicker than going the "firm" approach. This is about getting results, not showing the best form. No more of this "when they go low, we go high" BS.
Yes, I clearly acknowledged that we aren’t talking about 7th graders.
Move fast and break stuff isn’t what presidents do in our nation.
“Swift” is fine, but I don’t know what you mean by “course.” Is that a synonym for mean? Judges don’t have to be mean when they render their rulings.
I’m sorry, but raw force is not what one does in a liberal democracy that runs on the rule of law. As Malinowski said, "the party fighting to restore a government that respects rules must abide by the rules it champions." Do you disagree with this???
I like "cold calculation." But war isn't the right analogy. We are not in a massive war of weapons on the ground, in the air and on the seas with fatalities. We are engaged in a war of words and images on media platforms and courts of law. No fatalities.
Literally in the middle of a re-listen to Dan Carlin's "Supernova in the East" Hardcore History pod series covering the Pacific campaign of WW2 and can confirm that this is not at all the case. We fought *very* maliciously, and that was because the Imperial Japanese fought ruthlessly and to the last man in most cases. We ended up fighting maliciousness with maliciousness. Curtis LeMay's firebombing campaign alone puts this sentiment to rest. We burned to the ground 50-90% of 67 Japanese cities before we dropped the nukes. Hell, the firebombing of Tokyo alone killed more civilians than both the nukes we dropped combined.
"If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." - Curtis LeMay
I'm aware of the history you cite. If asked whether the allies committed war crimes in WW2 my answer is yes, we fire-bombed cities and dropped two nukes.
I stand by "for the most part not maliciously" aware that no war is free of malice. The question is whether malice is embraced or resisted, both happened in practice.
Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay had to push for indiscriminate bombing, they finally got their way because we could not achieve the accuracy needed for strategic bombing. They were seen as bloodthirsty within Allied command.
"A coalition of dem governors could do a whole lot of damage to people/companies/institutes in unison by freezing assets of foreign leaders or tariffing their economies, prohibiting business dealings, executing tariffs on other states,"
No court would uphold this. It would violate the Interstate Commerce and Import-Export Clauses of the Constitution and would be dubious even with Congressional approval—and that will never happen.
I want us to strengthen existing laws, introduce new bills, and put some teeth in our fight, with real investigations and penalties. But I don't want the Dems to become the losers the GOP are.
"No court would uphold this. It would violate the Interstate Commerce and Import-Export Clauses of the Constitution and would be dubious even with Congressional approval—and that will never happen."
So? Flood the courts with cases to slow down the rulings and appeal every loss. By the time adverse rulings are finalized the chill will have set in and companies will be deterred. You think Trump & Co care that most of their policies are going to get reversed by the courts? Do the same shit they're doing: flood the courts with cases.
If a dem coalition of governors actually put malice and intent behind unified actions I'm *sure* that a team of their crack shot lawyers could find all sorts of legal loopholes to punish businesses with. Where there is a will there is a way.
But that's whole point. It's one thing to be smarter and stronger fighters. I don't want to flood the zone with shit and twist the system the way Trump does. We will never get better as a nation if all we do is imitate their worst.
We’re not getting better as a nation anytime soon. I’m more worried about setting MAGA back than I am with how that gets done. I’ll take getting it done dirty over not getting it done cleanly any day of the week. And frankly, I’d rather have aggressive assholes than limp fish doing that work because it produces quicker/better results than what the limp fish have been getting done.
Why is malice necessary?
Because you don't establish deterrence without being at least *somewhat* mean/threatening about it. Ever seen nice guy deterrence work out well? You only get to do "nice guy deterrence" after you already have an established record of proven cruelty.
Hmm, the choices are either menacing or nice? Agree nice doesn’t work in establishing your authority, but mean? I learned to “take no shit” from 7th-grade students (the most disruptive of the middle grades due to all those hormones surging) as a substitute teacher. The first principal I worked for gave me these watchwords in managing classroom behavior: “loving and firm”.
In a classroom with children, where your relationship with them is part of your teaching, you have to be both loving (preserves the relationship) and firm (behavior compliance). Of course that’s not so in the situation you’re describing. Still, you can be firm, which is confidence in your authority, without being mean. Meanness is for teachers and parents (and Trumpers) who aren’t confident in their authority. The firmness and confidence in your authority is the most important. Civil - and firm - is better than mean.
These are not 7th graders we are dealing with. We are dealing with people who only understand and operate around strong vs weak. Raw force and the will to apply it aggressively is the universal language they understand, not firmness. "Move fast and break stuff" is not about being firm, it's about being swift and course. This is the language of the "disruptors" we're trying to rein in. Give it back to them in their own language, speed, and force and they'll learn a lot quicker than going the "firm" approach. This is about getting results, not showing the best form. No more of this "when they go low, we go high" BS.
But we are dealing with people who ACT as 7th graders with no respect for real authority and no real sense of proportion.
Yes, I clearly acknowledged that we aren’t talking about 7th graders.
Move fast and break stuff isn’t what presidents do in our nation.
“Swift” is fine, but I don’t know what you mean by “course.” Is that a synonym for mean? Judges don’t have to be mean when they render their rulings.
I’m sorry, but raw force is not what one does in a liberal democracy that runs on the rule of law. As Malinowski said, "the party fighting to restore a government that respects rules must abide by the rules it champions." Do you disagree with this???
We may be getting into word definitions, but we fought WW2 very effectively and for the most part not maliciously.
I think a spirit of cold calculation is best. You do X? I will do Y and you will regret it.
I like "cold calculation." But war isn't the right analogy. We are not in a massive war of weapons on the ground, in the air and on the seas with fatalities. We are engaged in a war of words and images on media platforms and courts of law. No fatalities.
"....and for the most part not maliciously."
Literally in the middle of a re-listen to Dan Carlin's "Supernova in the East" Hardcore History pod series covering the Pacific campaign of WW2 and can confirm that this is not at all the case. We fought *very* maliciously, and that was because the Imperial Japanese fought ruthlessly and to the last man in most cases. We ended up fighting maliciousness with maliciousness. Curtis LeMay's firebombing campaign alone puts this sentiment to rest. We burned to the ground 50-90% of 67 Japanese cities before we dropped the nukes. Hell, the firebombing of Tokyo alone killed more civilians than both the nukes we dropped combined.
"If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." - Curtis LeMay
The only real "gentleman's front" in WWII was the European campaign, and even then there were things like the Dresden bombing. For more examples in Europe, see the US section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II
I'm aware of the history you cite. If asked whether the allies committed war crimes in WW2 my answer is yes, we fire-bombed cities and dropped two nukes.
I stand by "for the most part not maliciously" aware that no war is free of malice. The question is whether malice is embraced or resisted, both happened in practice.
Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay had to push for indiscriminate bombing, they finally got their way because we could not achieve the accuracy needed for strategic bombing. They were seen as bloodthirsty within Allied command.
The Allies would have won the war without bombing cities, that particular strain of malice was not necessary; this is in itself an argument against giving malice free reign in wartime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey