Is 4chan the perfect Pirate Bay poster child to justify wider UK site-blocking?

A better example might be the treatment of whistleblowers?

Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning were both pursued aggressively during the Obama administration. Next, please. I can go all day

Obama also engaged in dictatorial policy... Just because two people have done it does not make it "not dictatorial".

Or, using logical constructs - "A therefore B" is not made invalid by "C therefore B".

But it's obvious when people say "dictatorship" or "fascism" today in the USA it is just a dog whistle for not liking Trump. Nobody called Obama a fascist for how Chelsea Manning was treated.

A few things are different.

1. Degrees / magnitude. How many cases of dictatorial behavior were there with Obama vs Trump? Every president signs executive orders, but trump signs a lot more of them.

2. Defiance to checks in power. The current administration seems uniquely defiant of both the legislative and the judicial branches, both in rhetoric and act.

And in turn federal district judges have signed a lot more nationwide injunctions? Orders of magnitude more than had ever been issued?

And now they are using a protected class loophole to keep doing it? After it was struck down by the Supreme Court?

No, but it's different when my opponent does it.

It's absolutely not the case. The US is an empire with increasingly dictatorial power centralized in the executive. Clinton increased prison populations and increased police power. Bush increased executive power during his post 9-11 presidency. Obama regularly enforced U.S. policy at the end of a drone strike and shut down U.S. domestic agitation. Biden increased police funding and continued to sell surplus military equipment to cops. He also shut down a workers strike. Trump is a symptom of a general slide towards dictatorial policy. If it wasn't him this time it would have been one of the next 5 presidents from either policy.

Trump is doing some fucked up shit, but he doesn't get to be able to do that without decades of groundwork from both sides of the aisle.

You have to stop thinking it's us or them. You have to stop imagining that somehow any of this is ok because my team or your team did or didn't do something.

I certainly hope I've been clear that this isn't some D vs R conflict. Both parties are at fault, both parties own some blame, but the situation today is not ok. It was also not ok under Biden, Trump 1, or Obama. We should be looking at ways to get the working class to look past our differences and securing more of the pie for ourselves. We should be reducing the power of the executive, no matter who is sitting in the seat. We should be focusing on the wellbeing of all.

Stop making a team sport, or at least correctly identify that you have way more in common with me (a working class anarchist) than you do with the people in power.

Okay here's a secret that you probably won't hear other than in some books that are hard to find.

The youth desire a strong executive. They don't yet understand why it can be a bad thing, because they have little experience with people having power over them that aren't their parents or teachers.

The middle aged desire a strong legislative branch, the most fair branch of government. They have enough life experience to understand why. They are not quite old enough to be set in their ways just yet.

The elderly desire a strong judicial branch. Judges are almost always old, and biased towards the opinions of the elderly, left or right.

There is nothing wrong with a strong executive. It is just completely at odds with those who still control the vast majority of the money and power, and of course, mainstream media: the Boomers. JFK, Great Society, these are marked by a desire for a strong executive. Ironic, of course.

A strong executive can stop them, and the Boomers have never been told 'no' in their entire lives. Really truly, everybody was young in the 1960's. They warped society to their will, just like the people in every baby boom in history. You misinterpret their tantrum as something substantive.

Politics is a team sport..? I have nothing in common with tankies, sorry.

I'm not a tankie, and if you think all leftists are tankies you definitely need to refresh some definitions.

Unless you are saying, "I have nothing in common with the narrow subset of leftists that are tankies" rather than implying I'm a tankie then, sure. I guess you could make that case.

I'm old (50s), I don't want a strong any of those. I especially, however, don't want a strong executive because I don't think decision making should be strongly centralized.

I'm a syndicalist anarchist, who believes communities should be primarily bottoms up driven, democratic, and cooperative. I argue we don't need any of those branches to be strong.

> And in turn federal district judges have signed a lot more nationwide injunctions? Orders of magnitude more than had ever been issued?

that by itself doesn't mean much. More EOs and especially illegal ones produces more injunctions.

> No, but it's different when my opponent does it.

No it's not different but the amount that's done matters. I for one have no issues calling out overreach by "my" side as well (which is more than can be said about most MAGAs). But I'm also going to call it out when the "other" side is doing it as normal course of governing vs being the exception.

How many legislations has this administration proposed let alone passed? vs how many EOs signed just since Jan?

It's really fundamentally unimportant what you specifically believe. What is important is what people your age in the aggregate believe. This is an undeniable truth. It's therefore silly to engage in a conversation about you and your beliefs specifically. I recommend trying to understand Plato's ideas first.

> This is an undeniable truth.

Well, I disagree. What evidence do you have to demonstrate that a) this is true and b) it's so unassailable that one could not deny it?

Because it sure reads like, "I have a worldview. I will assert that it is true and talk down to anyone who does not accept my worldview as truth." It's a way to paint your discussion partner as an intellectual lesser, while adroitly dodging critique. You'll have to do better than just asserting something is true because you said so.

I mean arguing with tankies is just No True Scotsman ad infinitum, so I'm good to stop this here. Best

The Obama administration wielded the power of the executive branch against its political opponents. And then the media ran cover for them -- "the Obama administration had no scandals!"

Using the IRS to target your political opponents should have been disqualifying. Running guns to the cartels should have been impeachable.