• PugJesus@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Next up - women are no longer allowed to open bank accounts without the permission of their husband.

    • Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Hmm, would I, a trans woman, be allowed to open one because they insist I’m a man? Assuming they haven’t already made my existence illegal by that point

    • Banana@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 month ago

      Nah see I don’t think that’d ever happen. The banks have too much stake in women continuing to hold bank accounts so they can poach their debt. Capitalism wouldn’t allow it.

      • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Going to have to get a man’s approval to spend anything.

        Banks get to use that money while you wait for a guy to get tp your request.

        • Banana@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Possibly, I just don’t see the financial incentive to restricting women financially. Because how can they increase their debt impulsively if they have to ask permission?

          I understand why the powers that be want to restrict reproductive rights, it bolsters the future workforce, but preventing any the working class from spending money wouldn’t make any sense.

          Like, yeah, a lot of these people do hate women, but they’re primarily motivated by pursuit of profit.

          • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            It would be about control. Like slavery. The women would work and nominally be paid for their effort, but deemed too foolish to spend or invest it properly, so a man in the heirarchy would be put in control of capital. The capitalists are enamored with systemuc low risk profits, because social progress has destabalized their soft power base.

            Slavery is where this moralism is headed. Because labor is such an annoying cost, why not minimize it.

  • WhatIsThePointAnyway@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    It is shocking how well they manipulate people with religion, pseudo masculinity, and culture wars. They literally gave no coherent policy proposals.

  • herrcaptain@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Half a century feels optimistic. I get the feeling you’ll be lucky to keep most of the Constitution intact. (Except for the 2nd amendment, but then probably only for a certain class of people.)

    I genuinely fear for y’all, and for my country as your neighbor. I’m starting to feel suspiciously like an Austrian or Czech person in the 1930s.

    • proudblond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 month ago

      Some of us here are scared, honestly. I am not a history buff but I can’t help wondering how similar we look to 1930s Germany.

        • salarua@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 month ago

          the Republican Party checks off almost all of these.

          • powerful and continuing nationalism: MAGA and America First
          • disdain for human rights: the ongoing trans genocide and their support for the Palestinian genocide
          • identification of enemies as an unifying cause: the “woke” fearmongering
          • supremacy of the military: Trump has waffled between praising the military and calling them “losers”, so not quite yet
          • rampant sexism: reinforcement of traditional gender roles and the “tradwife” movement
          • controlled mass media: inside their sphere, yeah. Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN breathlessly hang on to every word Republican figures say
          • obsession with national security: bOrdEr WAlL!
          • religion and government intertwined: anti-abortion policies universally have religious justifications for them, plus several Republicans have said (and seem to sincerely believe) that Trump was ordained by Jesus
          • corporate power protected: corporate tax cuts and the withering of regulatory agencies under Republican leadership
          • labor power suppressed: the logical corollary to the above
          • disdain for intellectuals and the arts: distrust of experts and scientific endeavors
          • obsession with crime and punishment: running on being “hard on crime”
          • rampant cronyism and corruption: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito’s undeclared trips from Republican donors are likely just the tip of the iceberg
          • fraudulent elections: not yet, and hopefully never 🤞
      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        There are definite similarities and differences.

        Biggest similarity is Trump - a braindead far-right populist supported by conservative elites as a bludgeon against the left (or what passes for it in the US) who has created an independent cult of personality.

        Biggest differences are a long history of democratic participation, the more left of the political parties not being split in two, and no mass political violence yet.

        This could end up very badly if Trump wins - but we’re in a better position than Weimar Germany to pull through and ensure that Trump doesn’t win.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 month ago

    Roe V Wade was a big one but let’s not pretend SCOTUS was doing us any favors before.

    • Qualified Immunity
    • Free Speech Zones
    • Your employer controls your religious rights
    • No effective 4th amendment rights
    • No right to jury in lower trials that still involve jail time
    • Court appointed lawyers are a sham
    • Miranda rights don’t exist anymore
    • The police can move into your house
    • Double trials have become common
    • Excessive bail and fines are part of the system
    • Corporate money has more political speech than you do
    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 month ago

      Illegally deciding the election in 2000 instead of directing FL counties to perform their recounts with a unified process.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Bad news…

        Johnson v. United States, US District Court for the Western District of Texas, 2001

        Vladimir Melnik/Shutterstock

        Topic: Chemical storage.

        Argument: “Plaintiffs essentially contend the defendant United States of America, while doing its best in the military defense of its citizens, nevertheless quartered its chemicals on plaintiffs’ properties without permission or reasonable compensation, leaving a toxic footprint on the earth.” In the words of the plaintiffs, they had been “invaded and occupied by toxic chemicals.”

        Ruling: Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

        Custer County Auction Association v. Garvey, US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, 2001

        Topic: Airplanes.

        Argument: “Petitioners insist they have a Third Amendment right ‘to refuse military aircraft training in airspace within the immediate reaches of their property,’ and that military overflights occurring in the immediate reaches of their property during peacetime, and without their consent, ‘are per se unconstitutional.'”

        Ruling: “We simply do not believe the Framers intended the Third Amendment to be used to prevent the military from regulated, lawful use of airspace above private property without the property owners’ consent.”

        Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger, US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 1984

        Topic: Cows.

        Argument: “Temistocles Ramirez de Arellano (Ramirez), a United States citizen, claims that the Secretaries of State and Defense are operating a large military facility for training Salvadoran soldiers on his private [cattle] ranch without permission or lawful authority, in violation of the Constitution.”

        Ruling: The case was dismissed.

        Engblom v. Carey, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1981

        Topic: Prison housing.

        Argument: “[P]laintiffs-appellants contend that their due process and Third Amendment rights were violated during a statewide strike of correction officers in April and May of 1979 when they were evicted from their facility-residences without notice or hearing and their residences were used to house members of the National Guard without their consent.”

        Ruling: “[Plaintiffs] must have known that substitute personnel would be required during a strike. Since they are employees of a prison, they may properly be charged with knowledge of the risks and limitations on their ‘rights’ as occupants of prison housing.”

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s exactly why it’s on the list. The courts have held that police are not soldiers and thus it does not apply to them. Completely ignoring the fact that police did not exist in 1792 and policing was done by soldiers.

        So if the police wanted to say, take over your house to gain a vantage point against your neighbor, (Henderson, NV, 2013) you wouldn’t have any recourse under the 3rd amendment.

        I guess we should be happy they aren’t just seizing houses under Civil Asset Forfeiture…

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      FREEDUMB! (Screeching bird that actually isn’t an eagle)

      People on Lemmy love to go on and on about billionaires, but honestly for me it’s always been the propagandists that need to be put up against the fucking wall and executed. They enable this and brainwash the country into allowing and accepting it…

    • WhatIsThePointAnyway@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      That was tea party era which is the precursor to MAGA. It all came from billionaire financed foundations funded by the likes of the Koch network. Recommend reading “Dark Money” by Jane Mayer for a detailed account of the how this whole rise of the right was orchestrated.

  • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 month ago

    The party of taking things away. It’s what I call them now, and it’s accurate. It says it all. It’s all you need to know about Republicans.

    We can argue about their racism and bigotry, we can argue about the parallels between Trump’s rise to power and Hitler’s. We can argue about whether they can call themselves the party of small government with a straight face anymore. We can argue about their hypocrisy. We can argue about how regressive their end goals are. We can argue about their attempts to whitewash history and interfere with institutions of learning. We can argue about their endless suckling at the teat of big business and law enforcement.

    But at the end of the day, they are the party of taking things away.

    • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      For whites, you’ll notice how little those rights are enforced for lower/darker classes.

  • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    But don’t worry Stein Voters, somewhere out there, Nancy Pelosi was mildly inconvenienced by being sad about it while in a state that still protects those rights, so really it was all worth it!

    /s