Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined


About sologdin

  • Rank
    alleged attractive nuisance
  • Birthday 10/25/1917

Profile Information

  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. if you want a more socialist society you have to explain away line by line everything that went wrong in East Germany, the USSR while it is important to distinguish one's position from other sets of doctrine, it is nevertheless a strawperson fallacy to continue to insist that leftists need to defend stalinism. it'd be like every time some bourgeois opens their mouth about whatever policy preference they have, i be like oh yeah but what about chattel slavery? dunno. i think you need to defend this system of state-assisted capitalist slavery if you want to advocate markets in this thread. y'all are comical with this theology, which only removes the mystery one step--just turtles all the way down, i suppose.
  2. the likes of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers should start busting heads. *leathermen?
  3. develops as a necessity to "protect" the revolution the leninists talked like that, sure--and there was a need, considering the civil war, interventions by the west post-WWI, the general invasion in WWII. it's not like the revolution did not need protecting. but it's a bit of a stretch to get from there to full metal stalin. that is, there's no need to assume that socialist economics is doomed to become stalinist, considering that stalinism is a set of deviations from doctrine. a state that accumulates too much power, the optimistic idea that this will not be abused is IMO not grounded in reality. i suspect many lefties would stipulate to this, provided also that we stipulate that private accumulations of power are similar--primo levi was held at auschwitz, which was operated and expanded by a private party organ and provided forced labor for the benefit of private capitalist enterprise. one way to look at it was that the weimar state was too weak, insofar as it was unable to prevent a private organization from dominating civil society. the point is that state power can be controlled democratically, whereas private power is almost always dictatorial in its exercise--aristotelian despotism is literally the oikos' authority over its slaves. the polis by contrast can be subject to deliberative discpline.
  4. if there is de facto majority support for socialism, then despite the de jure possibility of capitalist restoration, it would remain a de facto impossibility while the majority was present, surely? the assumption may or may not reflect the real, but once assumed, there's no need for imputations of stalinism.
  5. present himselt as Supertrump who beat the virus in record time his thesis is aptly described in zizek's sublime object of ideology: take away the left politics, and all that's left is undead. what was that about rick grimes?
  6. I don't get is the Republicans hatred of the ACA their preferred health policy is evidenced in the walking dead, wherein the exercise of second amendment rights provides the answer.
  7. kal-- no one should rely on twitter for anything serious, especiually law. here's the actual 'statement.' am not sure this statement stands for the proposition that obergefell should be overturned, as it does not say that. it says plenty of other things, some silly, some severe. we know that thomas and alito do not agree with obergefell because they were among the four dissenting judges on the case. importantly, however, only two judges have joined this statement--i do not see trump's judges joining it. the totally inept thing about the statement is that it says that the obergefell dissents were correct that the right to SSM would result in sincerely held religious beliefs being treated as bigotry but then does nothing about it. i agree that there's a risk here, as there always is, on every issue. we are sadly not living in a disney film wherein there can be final victory over the forces of darkness. the notion that the sex life of a couple whom one does not know except through paper marriage application somehow implicates one's sincerely held religious beliefs is a confession that the these people's religion is literally totalitarian and should be stricken from the earth. considering, however, that this particular point is non-scriptural, i can't take it seriously as sincerely held religious belief. suspicion is that it won't be denied outright; it'll just be permitted to be effectively banned in many states. or by commercial sector, or even by individual agency. we can see a ton of religious liberty cases coming up, claiming free exercise exemptions. not just cake 'artists,' but also anyone associated with weddings. we are a god fearing electricity grid and can't provide power to buildings that have sodomy in them because that makes the baby jesus cry.
  8. Can't he be sued for exposing people you can sue anyone for anything. first, however, mere exposure to some other infected person is likely to be, without more, not considered an injury--and therefore the claimant will lack standing unless they can show their own actual infection. an asshole court may require an infection that causes discernible harm, also--symptoms, treatment, loss of earnings, and so on. the question then becomes whether he is immune--sovereign, head of state, exclusive remedy in FECA, probably other theories. if the defendant loses its immunity argument at any point, the question is usually immediately appealable (e.g., at the rule 12(b) and rule 56 stages pre-trial)--this becomes a total time waster from a plaintiff's perspective. if immunity is overcome, the injured person would need to prove causation (trump as the actual infectious agent of the claimant's disease) as well as overcome other affirmative defenses--assumption of risk seems particularly salient in claims brought by other virus deniers. all that said, third parties might try FTCA claims against him. they'd need to make demand on the responsible agency first. assuming there's no immunity, i'd love to handle a claim like that--get el presidente under oath in deposition--who wouldn't want that?
  9. fairly sure the states involved can consent to a new state being formed from their territories, and have constitutional standing to sue on the question, art III.3?
  10. of course, the whole point of a doomsday plane is lost, if you keep it a secret--why didn't you tell the world, eh?
  11. demanding documents this confirms the mendacity. as if trump descends to read. he was born with all relevant knowledge.
  12. confused and mistaken earlier when I accidentally told the truth dunno. no ajencian nail with these people.
  13. get those aerosols across that 12 foot gap... from a post-debate breitbart interview--
  14. the republican party charter has several options going forward; pence is not automatically the nominee though. and each state has rules for getting him on the ballot--lotsa deadlines have run already. it'd be a disaster for them.
  15. new bingo game. who had stepien on their card? mitch be next, watch.
  • Create New...