Spottybrowncow,
I will try to answer questions posed here one by one.
spottybrowncow wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
The democrats change the senate rules, enabling them to pass anything with 50+1 votes.
I think this already happened, the rules changed in 2017, which was due to Republican decision to get Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
spottybrowncow wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
They begin codifying into law preferences in hiring, speech, treatment by prosecutors and courts, etc., based primarily on race.
This could well happen, but could backfire as the majority would find themselves not getting a job (or into university). This is what happened to the affirmative action programs of the '70s and 80s. But then people don't remember the past, so we could see these mistakes repeated.
spottybrowncow wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
These laws are challenged in courts, but are either not heard by the courts, or the rulings allow the new laws to take effect.
It takes quite a while for laws to be challenged up to the Supreme Court level, so even if lower courts decide that the pro-(insert minority group here) mandates are OK, it will take a while for it to get overturned by the Supreme Court.
spottybrowncow wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
Laws are subsequently passed seizing property from people that "have too much," officially justified because "they only got it because the system enabled them and they cheated others."
This is where "liberalism" turns into Force. This is a distinct possibility for the near term. This is euphemistically called "wealth re-distribution". It is confiscation, theft by the government. We have already seen a lot of rhetoric about reparation payments for slavery. I recently re-watched the Ken Burns documentary on Huey Long. (it is on Vimeo, Youtube has half of it, then a link to the Vimeo - I really recommend this). The ideas of "wealth re-distribution" are tantamount to communism. Why would anyone work hard or take the risks to create some new product if there was no reward in the end?
spottybrowncow wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
They then pass laws stating that for specified infractions, which could be as simple as social media posts they don't like, several weeks or months attendance at a "re-education camp" is required.
I could certainly envision laws against specified infractions, such as social media posts. But what is already going on is pretty effective. People lose their jobs or university admission or similar due to posts that could be years in the past. However, I do not see "re-education camps" as a possibility. Loss of jobs or benefits or giving someone a criminal record is actually much worse, and what we are already doing or close to doing.
Currently, use of the n-word is seen as completely unacceptable (I would agree with that), but the penalties currently being meted out are often way out of proportion. Who should have their life ruined as a result? There should be some serious consequence, but it shouldn't be the inability to provide for your family for the rest of your life.
What I think is about to happen is this. I will pick the most obvious topic, but others could move in this direction. Many religions declare that homosexuality is a sin. I believe that just saying this is about to be declared illegal. Many refuse to allow homosexuals to be married in their facilities. This could also be declared discriminatory/illegal. Both the preaching and 'denial of facility use' will make the religious leader guilty of discrimination or a "hate crime". I do foresee religious leaders being incarcerated for this.
Note that belonging to a specific religious denomination or congregation is a choice, and that you can chose not to belong if you don't agree with the doctrine or practices. But the government could decide that such freedom of belief is no longer acceptable.
spottybrowncow wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
The courts refuse to stop it. Some people resist going to re-education camps for doing what was perfectly legal a year or so earlier, and they are given prison terms, which are publicized as just in the media.
I will take this as people are incarcerated for breaking the new laws. Well, that is our system, if you break the law, you can be put in prison. The media at this point (from either side) are perfectly capable of justifying almost anything at this point.
spottybrowncow wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
A few people resist violently, they are killed by police, and the state-controlled media portray them as terrorists who got what they deserved.
If you resist the government violently, you are going to get yourself killed. I do NOT recommend anyone trying this.
spottybrowncow wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
Next the government passes laws banning all firearms, with anyone caught not complying getting a 10 year mandatory prison term.
Attempting to ban firearms in the USA would be colossal mistake. There are far too many guns out there, it just wouldn't work. Just looking like they might be going down this path is how the Democrats lost all kinds of political power and helped enable Trump in the first place.
Much more likely are things like special licenses and taxes to keep the price of guns and ammunition so high as to dissuade people from buying them. This of course will not prevent people who want to do really bad things from getting the guns and ammo they need to perpetrate atrocities.
spottybrowncow wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
Are the people who would then willingly turn in their guns noble patriots submitting to democratically passed laws? Or something else?
Since I don't think gun confiscation is going to happen, this would be attempting to reach a conclusion based on spurious conjecture. However, we do believe in being law abiding citizens. This is the whole "rule of law" thing on which the country is based. If we disagree with laws, we need to work to change them (or prevent them from being passed in the first place).