Trump Can Become Dictator Due to a Loophole in the Constitution

Homepage Forums Politics Trump Can Become Dictator Due to a Loophole in the Constitution

This topic contains 121 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 3 weeks, 5 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 122 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #26941

    Glen D
    Participant

    Reading all this stuff caused a couple of  I’m sure unhelpful aphorisms to pop into my head;

    “The best argument against democracy is to spend 1o minutes speaking with the average voter” (Winston Churchill)

    “A nation gets the government it deserves” (anon)

    I’m not convinced that’s necessarily true of say China and North Korea. However, it certainly  seems to fit Australia and the incumbent shower we’re stuck with.  Our Prime Minister is also a committed Christian, in the worst sense of the term.

    Does the US deserve Trump? Not for me to say. I’ll simply ask if things would have been different had the  46%  eligible voters who did not vote had bothered to do so?  Given Trump’s voter base, and the apparent narrowness  of his victory, who knows?

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Glen D.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Glen D.
    #26944

    daughterofkarl
    Participant

    America started, it’s been said, as a criminal enterprise. Slavery. Genocide.

    To be fair, the same could be said to be true of almost every civilization that ever achieved ascendancy on the world stage, whether it’s the French slaughtering the Huguenots, or the English starving the Irish. Genocide and slavery were not unique to America, nor did genocide and slavery not occur in the Americas before the arrival of European settlers. The Europeans undoubtedly did the whole slavery/genocide thing much more efficiently and effectively than the native people, but they had all that superior weaponry and disease to spread around. So, there’s that. It could be argued, however, that, if by America you mean the United States, we do have to own the ignominy of having continued those practices until well into the modern era. And that we are still grappling with the effects of it.

    If by America you do mean the US, Jamestown was the first successful English colony in Northern America. It is from Jamestown that the other 13 colonies grew, making it the genesis of what becomes the United States. Jamestown was a colony founded by a corporation, for the purpose of turning a profit. All of that high-minded, religious freedom stuff came later. So it might be more accurate to say that The United States, particularly, was founded on an act of capitalist free market enterprise. Everything else about us, for good and ill, even genocide and slavery, is born of that singular fact.

    #26945

    Unseen
    Participant

    America started, it’s been said, as a criminal enterprise. Slavery. Genocide.

    To be fair, the same could be said to be true of almost every civilization that ever achieved ascendancy on the world stage, whether it’s the French slaughtering the Huguenots, or the English starving the Irish. Genocide and slavery were not unique to America, nor did genocide and slavery not occur in the Americas before the arrival of European settlers. The Europeans undoubtedly did the whole slavery/genocide thing much more efficiently and effectively than the native people, but they had all that superior weaponry and disease to spread around. So, there’s that. It could be argued, however, that, if by America you mean the United States, we do have to own the ignominy of having continued those practices until well into the modern era. And that we are still grappling with the effects of it. If by America you do mean the US, Jamestown was the first successful English colony in Northern America. It is from Jamestown that the other 13 colonies grew, making it the genesis of what becomes the United States. Jamestown was a colony founded by a corporation, for the purpose of turning a profit. All of that high-minded, religious freedom stuff came later. So it might be more accurate to say that The United States, particularly, was founded on an act of capitalist free market enterprise. Everything else about us, for good and ill, even genocide and slavery, is born of that singular fact.

    I love to hear variations on the “Hey, everybody was doing it” kind of excuse. Mom and Dad didn’t buy it.

    #26946

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Unseen doesn’t seem to recognize the benefit of 250 years of  hindsight, like he would have been some sort of righteous futuristic prophet or something, LOL. The founding fathers knew they needed all the colonies to defeat the crown and all that associated birthright bullshit and opted for what they considered the lesser of two evils. The civil war against slavery started as soon as the US was realized.

    #26947

    Unseen
    Participant

    Unseen doesn’t seem to recognize the benefit of 250 years of hindsight, like he would have been some sort of righteous futuristic prophet or something, LOL. The founding fathers knew they needed all the colonies to defeat the crown and all that associated birthright bullshit and opted for what they considered the lesser of two evils. The civil war against slavery started as soon as the US was realized.

    So, back then nobody could see that Africans were human or noticed that unlike horses and dogs and oxen they could speak and felt pain just like them? Well, let’s be clear. Even some of the Founding Fathers, notably Jefferson himself, expressed misgivings about slavery. So, you might say that he knew it was wrong, but he still drove slaves.

    Slavery is an abomination and must be loudly proclaimed as such, but I own that I nor any other man has any
    immediate solution to the problem. — Thomas Jefferson

    A page full of Jefferson quotes reveals his guilty knowledge.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Unseen.
    #26949

    _Robert_
    Participant

    The British empire allowed slavery in it’s colonies including North America, Africa and the Islands. Jefferson was a Southerner. The South was agricultural. He had a black mistress. Like I said, they knew that Boston wasn’t gonna defeat the crown alone. Not that Boston isn’t full of racists bigots to this day. It is. Describe what you would do. Split the colonies, South with Britian and fight Britain? Is that your big plan?

    #26950

    _Robert_
    Participant

    We can go further. If the British were not preoccupied with waring against France, the US would not even exist. Then the whole slavery question would fall upon the Empire. Native Americans were the first victims of forced labor but they ended up participating in the African slave trade for profit. And of course Africans sold Africans to the European traders. So yeah, America is a criminal nation. Brilliant.

    #26951

    daughterofkarl
    Participant

    “I love to hear variations on the “Hey, everybody was doing it” kind of excuse. Mom and Dad didn’t buy it.”  (Unseen)

    Oh, I’m sorry, Professor.  I was under the impression that this was a discussion forum, not a venue for Unseen to make his little pronouncements and gift us all with his unassailable wisdom.  Nice straw man you built there, but you’re arguing–not particularly well–a point I did not make.  Maybe you should get down off your high horse, stop being a patronizing dick, and actually say something that furthers the conversation.

    You made your little statement as though it revealed something unique and essential about the American character.  I merely opined that engaging in genocide and slavery did not reveal anything particularly unique to the American character because:

    a.  Genocide and slavery were not unique to America, making it part of the character of many preceding civilizations for thousands of years, and far from excusing it, I acknowledged that the devastation wrought by the arrival of the Europeans in the Americas was massive, eclipsing even the Aztecs, who were notorious for their brutal oppression of other native peoples.

    And,

    b.  Far more telling and revelatory of the US national psyche would be the fact that our earliest origins were rooted in capitalism and consumer culture, Jamestown being the example of that.   The genocide and slavery engaged in by the US was always directly tied to those economic factors, resulting in our continuing to engage in those behaviors far longer than most of our contemporaries.  Treating people like livestock, and continuing to do that long after the rest of Western civilization had outlawed slavery because it was economically advantageous?  Fucking heinous.

    That is, of course, if by America you mean the United States.  A point you have failed to clarify at all.  That little piece of intellectual sloppiness only adds to the murkiness of your point.  The first acts of genocide and slavery enacted against the indigenous peoples of the Americas were wrought by the Spanish, not the English who founded the US.

    If you wanted to make a relevant point that might have engendered a further dialogue, you could have pointed out my characterization of the Europeans as “settlers,” when it would be more accurate to say that the Spanish, and the British and French who followed them, were really “invaders,” not settlers.  That could have led to a really interesting discussion of how language is used in societies to create a narrative and how deeply internalized those structures are.

    But then we might have had a meaningful, interesting, and enlightening dialogue, and that doesn’t appear to be what you want to have.

    My mistake.

     

    #26952

    Glen D
    Participant

    “I love to hear variations on the “Hey, everybody was doing it” kind of excuse. Mom and Dad didn’t buy it.”

     

    Nor should they; the argument is  based on a Tu qouque (you too) logical fallacy.

    If the USA was founded on theft, murder and genocide, the charges must be answered by themselves.  What other countries did is irrelevant.

    The fallacy is also so known as ‘The Nuremberg Defence’ .Nazi war criminals such as  Hermann Goring tried to use it, and  it was rejected.

    In my opinion, the point was worth making.

    ((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

     

    Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for “you also”), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent’s argument by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s). The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke’s 1614 stage play, The Cittie Gallant, as the earliest use of the term in the English language.[1]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Glen D.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Glen D.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Glen D.
    #26956

    daughterofkarl
    Participant

    “I love to hear variations on the “Hey, everybody was doing it” kind of excuse. Mom and Dad didn’t buy it.” Nor should they; the argument is based on a Tu qouque (you too) logical fallacy. If the USA was founded on theft, murder and genocide, the charges must be answered by themselves. What other countries did is irrelevant. The fallacy is also so known as ‘The Nuremberg Defence’ .Nazi war criminals such as Hermann Goring tried to use it, and it was rejected. In my opinion, the point was worth making. ((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for “you also”), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent’s argument by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s). The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke’s 1614 stage play, The Cittie Gallant, as the earliest use of the term in the English language.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

    The point would have been worth making if that had actually been what I said.  But, I didn’t.  Hence the straw man. Set up an argument your opponent has not made, and then argue it as though they had.  At no point did I reference other countries’ engagement in slavery/genocide as an excuse for it having happened in the Americas.  I referenced it simply to point out that that particular characteristic of the US/Americas is not what reveals the essential character of the US.  Or the Americas.  Whichever.  I am really having a hard time understanding your inability to grasp the point I actually made.  That the essential character of the US is far more saliently revealed in our origins as a capitalist, consumer culture whose very existence was dependent on the shareholders back in England getting their investment back.  Do you all really not see how that factor, for better and worse, is a part of our national DNA in a very specific way?  How, literally, everything else about us, including our penchant for slavery/genocide, grew from that??  No one has even attempted to discuss that, so hung up are you on an argument that was never made.

    Your mastery of Wikipedia is very impressive.

    #26958

    Glen D
    Participant

    @daughterof karl

    I was responding to this:

    “To be fair, the same could be said to be true of almost every civilization that ever achieved ascendancy on the world stage, whether it’s the French slaughtering the Huguenots, or the English starving the Irish. Genocide and slavery were not unique to America, nor did genocide and slavery not occur in the Americas before—”

    In my opinion that claim is  Tu quoque and irrelevant. If I’m mistaken, be pleased to have you explain why. I make no claim of being a serious philosopher and make honest mistakes.

    #26959

    Unseen
    Participant

    “I love to hear variations on the “Hey, everybody was doing it” kind of excuse. Mom and Dad didn’t buy it.” (Unseen) Oh, I’m sorry, Professor. I was under the impression that this was a discussion forum, not a venue for Unseen to make his little pronouncements and gift us all with his unassailable wisdom. Nice straw man you built there, but you’re arguing–not particularly well–a point I did not make. Maybe you should get down off your high horse, stop being a patronizing dick, and actually say something that furthers the conversation. You made your little statement as though it revealed something unique and essential about the American character. I merely opined that engaging in genocide and slavery did not reveal anything particularly unique to the American character because: a. Genocide and slavery were not unique to America, making it part of the character of many preceding civilizations for thousands of years, and far from excusing it, I acknowledged that the devastation wrought by the arrival of the Europeans in the Americas was massive, eclipsing even the Aztecs, who were notorious for their brutal oppression of other native peoples. And, b. Far more telling and revelatory of the US national psyche would be the fact that our earliest origins were rooted in capitalism and consumer culture, Jamestown being the example of that. The genocide and slavery engaged in by the US was always directly tied to those economic factors, resulting in our continuing to engage in those behaviors far longer than most of our contemporaries. Treating people like livestock, and continuing to do that long after the rest of Western civilization had outlawed slavery because it was economically advantageous? Fucking heinous. That is, of course, if by America you mean the United States. A point you have failed to clarify at all. That little piece of intellectual sloppiness only adds to the murkiness of your point. The first acts of genocide and slavery enacted against the indigenous peoples of the Americas were wrought by the Spanish, not the English who founded the US. If you wanted to make a relevant point that might have engendered a further dialogue, you could have pointed out my characterization of the Europeans as “settlers,” when it would be more accurate to say that the Spanish, and the British and French who followed them, were really “invaders,” not settlers. That could have led to a really interesting discussion of how language is used in societies to create a narrative and how deeply internalized those structures are. But then we might have had a meaningful, interesting, and enlightening dialogue, and that doesn’t appear to be what you want to have. My mistake.

    Did you ever notice how often it is that when someone accuses someone of being patronizing, they start off on a TRULY patronizing rant?

    So, anyway, your rejoinder is just a lot more of “It was okay because, hey, ever-body was doin’ it.”

    Did you check out the link to Thomas Jefferson’s quotes? He wasn’t even fooling himself. He had guilty knowledge which amounts to mens rea. He knew slavery would come back to bite his legacy and the country’s someday, but he just had to do it.

    Why? Because he wanted to be a rich country gentleman, not a real roll-up-your-sleeves-and-get-behind-the-plow-from-sunup-to-sundown kind of FARMER.

    He didn’t want to get his hands dirty, but in the end he did, just in a sleazier way. I have to be thankful that he founded the country as a republican democracy, but beyond that I have no need for mythology.

    Oh, let’s not forget his rogering an attractive slave girl, too.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Unseen.
    #26961

    Davis
    Participant

    If the USA was founded on theft, murder and genocide, the charges must be answered by themselves. What other countries did is irrelevant.

    It was and this is glossed over in most American history books and barely seen in Americana. All colonial empires did unspeakable things and all but Russia admit so. They appologized unreservedly and gave some, even if meager compensation. They study this in school and younger generations feel disgust and even shame.

    Same with colonies like New Zealand or Uruguay. Canadians are aware of what the French and British colonialists did, including completely wiping out natives on Newfoundland

    (recognized as an unplanned genocide) and slaughters in Manitoba. To say the native population was screwed is an understatement. Canadians know the short history of slavery and are extremely appalled by it and relieved that it was banned shortly and proud of helping in the underground railroad. They don’t pretend it never happened nor write it off as a short historical blimp. They are conscious of institutionalized racism against black-Canadians in the following century. They also learn about indentured-servitude (mini-slavery), clique land ownership (mini-feudalism) and extreme discrimination against Metis (french-indiginous population) and study the uncomfortable details of these policies.

    Canada had no civil war or revolution but they know about local massacres and civil crimes like hangings of Metis, the Winnipeg strike deaths and recent acts of extremism like the murder of female students at a university which led to instant apologies by the government for lack of planning, education and gender policy and swift gun regulation, restrictions, licensing and monitoring.

    Every Prime Minister in recent memory (except Harper) apologized for the treatment of some immigrant community, native-Canadians, massacres, police abuse, government crimes etc including those before the formation of the country. Trudeau does it all the time. Outside of old treaties, compensation is never direct money to descendents (unless in a treaty) but social programs, opportunities subsidies and development. Not everyone is over the moon for every single apology and pay-out but its generally accepted as logical, fair, makes the government stronger, more legitimate, good for easing of social tension and the clearly moral thing to do. “Sorry” and compensation does not equal personal responsibility nor weakness. It’s simple open recognition and offers opportunities to a group of people who didn’t have them until now. Next to no one seriously says “yeah but it happened all over the Americas” or “Yeah well it’s the British who should pay this” or is personally insulted by the suggestion. Apologies and compensation is easily done, costs relatively little money and includes significant benefits. It’s a no-brainer.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Davis.
    #26970

    Unseen
    Participant

    The British empire allowed slavery in it’s colonies including North America, Africa and the Islands. Jefferson was a Southerner. The South was agricultural. He had a black mistress. Like I said, they knew that Boston wasn’t gonna defeat the crown alone. Not that Boston isn’t full of racists bigots to this day. It is. Describe what you would do. Split the colonies, South with Britian and fight Britain? Is that your big plan?

    I’m unsure what your point is. Let’s say you need a babysitter for your child, but you can’t afford one. Still, you need one in order to continue to be a stock broker and enjoy the night life. Let’s assume slavery exists and that’s how everyone else who wants a high-paying job and a night life and child care does it. The alternative is a lower-paying job and little time for going out dancing. The obvious solution is buy a slave, right? Maybe even a pretty one who will do double duty for ya.

    #26974

    daughterofkarl
    Participant

    Glen D and Unseen,

    I am not ignoring you.  I am taking a Summer writing seminar for my job, and I have a paper due this week.  I’m on a deadline, so I need to give that my attention.

    Glen:  In retrospect, I was kind of hard on you.  Sometimes I forget what it was like to have been new to discussion/debate forums, and I let my frustration get the better of me.   I will get back to you!

    Unseen:  I have not had a chance to review your links on Jefferson, but I am not sure there is any real point in doing so, as you seem completely incapable of grasping my point or demonstrating any serious engagement.  Your shallow approach to the subject matter means there is no real benefit for me in further interaction with you at this time.  I find it interesting that, having again reiterated your strawman (that my point was that slavery/genocide in the US was “OK”) you then go on, without apparent irony, to make an assertion that only confirms the point I actually did make:  Jefferson’s acceptance of the institution of slavery was rooted in his desire for material wealth “Because he wanted to be a rich, country gentleman,…”

    I’m not interested in disingenuous bullshit.    All you seem interested in is sloppy arguments, and “rogering an attractive slavegirl,” so fuck off.   You’re wasting my time.

    And, yes.  I am being condescending AF, and I’m not sorry, so spare me all the manipulative “Have you ever noticed how…” crap.  It’s a diversionary tactic designed to put me on the defensive, and I don’t show up for that shit.   You get the respect you earn.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 122 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.