Trump Can Become Dictator Due to a Loophole in the Constitution

[_Robert_Participant]

Your analogy is insignificant compared to creating a form of governance that would change the world forever. It appears to me that the founding fathers considered slavery to be ethically unsound but knowingly left that fight for another day as a matter of practicality. And if you happened to be born a son of a Virginia farmer in 1800, I would bet it would have been business as usual, or do you consider yourself above today’s values and are currently practicing the morality of the future?

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

Your analogy is insignificant compared to creating a form of governance that would change the world forever. It appears to me that the founding fathers considered slavery to be ethically unsound but knowingly left that fight for another day as a matter of practicality. And if you happened to be born a son of a Virginia farmer in 1800, I would bet it would have been business as usual, or do you consider yourself above today’s values and are currently practicing the morality of the future?

Whether something is insignificant is an opinion not a fact.

If you’re willing to go with “I’m gonna continue making my living by buying Africans and using them like beasts of burden so that I can experiment with what I think will be a better form of government (and one that really benefits me, too), as a defensible ethical notion…

Okay.

I think that’s terrible. But that’s an opinion, not a fact.

[Glen DParticipant]

@daughterofkarl

I don’t expect you or anyone else to be easy on me. It’s patronising and unhelpful. When I make a mistake in fact or in logic, I hope to be pulled up on it, so I can continue learning. That  is something I intend to do until I die or until the men with the butterfly nets come for me.

I’m not a strong philosopher, having had only a year’s philosophy at university. My discipline is Social Anthropology.All I’ll say about that is internet forums are a goldmine for studies. Or, more correctly, were. They have changed a great deal in the last  few years. Possibly due to Social Network platforms with much faster response times.

As for the point in question: Having read it again,I still  think the statement  is Tu quoque  However, I can see how you may not have meant to use that argument.

What I ask of you is to explain to me how I am in error.

 

 

[PopeBeanieModerator]

daughterofkarl wrote:

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.

Seriously folks, when I read this I took it as an objective, dispassionate view of how humanity has historically abused people with no power, and profited from their toil. Those last two sentences confirms (to me) that the paragraph isn’t about justifying the abuse, and in fact it emphasizes how humanity is still plagued by its after effects.

Meanwhile, back on topic, I disagree with posts from almost everyone at this point. Trump’s election was a statistical fluke, made possible by a large number of Hillary haters who placed their protest vote against her with NO CLUE that Trump had a chance of winning. Bannon and Trump (and other people with big money) studied the science of social manipulation to game the electoral college, and we forget that outsiders like Russia, for the first time in history, also had an effect. And _Robert_ has convinced me that the backlash against crazy ass noisy liberals plays a big part, too. I am a lefty for sure, but was blind to how far left, disgusting, and offensive they could get.

The right/left polarization (and some of the kind of polarization I see even here) hurts us all. But I’d bet money against those saying we’ll slip into dictatorship. Trump’s been a shocker all right, and I’m still seeing a significant populist following, but yes, if enough people vote instead of whining, screaming, or rolling over and dying from angst and depression, I think we can come back.

[DavisModerator]

Seriously folks, when I read this I took it as an objective, dispassionate view of how humanity has historically abused people with no power, and profited from their toil

Nope. Not when you begin an explanation of something atrocious with a “to be fair” disclaimer. Yes, it admits that it was bad, but it tries to jam it into a history of other’s also doing bad. And even qualifies as some of the others doing these horrible things worse or better! It’s irrelevant what happened in other places. An Indian tribe under attack doesn’t care what the Spaniards are doing in Argentina. The descendents of American slaves still suffering systemic racism doesn’t gain anything from considering the fact that the Dutch did horrible things in the Indies.

Imagine we are talking about LGTB issues to someone who has suffered LGTB discrimination or who has to deal with the fall out from previous generations. I can’t think of any reason to say “this is bad and not good…but to be fair…women had it pretty bad for a long time…even worse”. My response to this irrelevant commentary: WTF?

• This reply was modified 5 years, 8 months ago by  Davis.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

I still think, at worst, it was a bit of carelessness with words, and that you are wrongly inferring the writer’s intent. I could be wrong, but I am banking on what my philosophy instructor taught us is a “charitable interpretation”.

[Glen DParticipant]

Is trump stupid like a Fox?

That latest racist behaviour can also be seen as classic popularism. That behaviour would have appealed to a significant number of white males, who may have voted Democrat, but share the views expressed by Trump on the four female Democrats.

The guy ain’t operating in a vacuum. Popularism plays to the lowest common denominator, and most definitely not to the bourgeoisie, who are horrified. For them, Trump is a nightmare come true, and it may get a lot worse.

 

[DavisModerator]

but share the views expressed by Trump on the four female Democrats.

But the status-quo works out quite comfortable for us straight white men. All Trump is trying to do is maintain the same way of doing things forever and writing a few harmless spicy tweets for those hateful women who viciously attack the standard-operating-system. Imagine a world where you can just propose radical Earth shattering change on a daily basis? When in the history of America have people ever suggested a new way of doing things? How dare others try to take away from us a convenient and comfortable system of the same-ole?

• This reply was modified 5 years, 8 months ago by  Davis.
• This reply was modified 5 years, 8 months ago by  Davis.

[UnseenParticipant]

Davis wrote:

but share the views expressed by Trump on the four female Democrats.

But the status-quo works out quite comfortable for us straight white men. All Trump is trying to do is maintain the same way of doing things forever and writing a few harmless spicy tweets for those hateful women who viciously attack the standard-operating-system. Imagine a world where you can just propose radical Earth shattering change on a daily basis? When in the history of America have people ever suggested a new way of doing things? How dare others try to take away from us a convenient and comfortable system of the same-ole?

Progressives had better realize that going all-in on progressiveness will propel Trump back into The White House. They don’t seem to have absorbed the fact that they are in a political arena and that politics is about the art of compromise.

I had a professor explain once that radicals of both the right and left have one thing in common: the need for doctrinal purity. Compromise is anathema to them, and yet politics has been defined as “the art of compromise.” For a radical, keeping his/her hands clean is more important than winning.

Well, enough of them did that by boycotting the 2016 election or opting to vote for doomed third party candidates, and so now the Supreme Court is being packed with reactionary evangelical Christian judges and women are going to lose their reproductive rights.

We also have a President who is proudly racist.

We’ve come a long way…in the wrong direction.

And progressives bear a lot of the blame.

[DavisModerator]

And progressives bear a lot of the blame.

You guys have lived apart from the rest of the advancing world for so long you’re so completely out of touch with what progressive even means. What these people are proposing is absolutely nothing revolutionary, controversial or extraordinary. They are proposing a very minor (and I’d say even conservative) version of mixed system programs the rest of the civilized world has had in place for decades. These four ladies are actually quite restrained by their suggestions on how to bring America into the 21st century because honestly, what they suggest are just a few baby steps. Extremely rational, sensible and totally tried and tested and extremely successful policies absolutely EVERYWHERE in the 1st world.

Radical would be those proposing the banning of all meat. Fundamentalist progressive would be proposing collectivisation and the full out banning of all pronouns and absolute wage-parity for all. A very very very elementary and basic healthcare system, low tuition, humane immigration policies and some general social services so people don’t rot homeless in the street ARE POLICIES CONSERVATIVES AND PROGRESSIVES ALL AGREE WITH ALL OVER THE WORLD!!!

Not compromising and not working with one another is the absolute definition of American politics. Is there a less polarized less combative and less win or lose political environment anywhere else? Not compromising is hardly a “progressive problem” but one systemic in all branches of both parties. Democrats and Republicans don’t bear the responsibility of Trump’s racism. Trump does. And not far behind are Americans who deserve the rest of the blame. Those who vote for the shithead. They’re responsible for letting themselves be fooled by radical “small government” propaganda spinners into rejecting policies that the 21st century painlessly and easily offer the wealthy part of the world. In a place where proposing the extremely light version of simple useful easy painless policies is considered “subversive” or “communist” or “dangerous” or “radical” or “scary”, you’ve been so ridiculously fooled and you only have yourselves to blame. Not the politicians.

[UnseenParticipant]

Davis wrote:

You guys have lived apart from the rest of the advancing world for so long you’re so completely out of touch with what progressive even means. What these people are proposing is absolutely nothing revolutionary, controversial or extraordinary.

What progressive is, in any place, is relative to its surroundings, as you point out.

A lot of the progressive agenda items you listed as extreme, are far too extreme and overbearing for anyone who values their freedom and is wary of monolithic change imposed from the top down. Most people I know here—including those of us who love animals—are ready to give up pork chops, beef ribs, cheese, and scrambled eggs for tofu, kale, and acai berries.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 8 months ago by  Unseen.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Unseen wrote:

Most people I know here—including those of us who love animals—are ready to give up pork chops, beef ribs, cheese, and scrambled eggs for tofu, kale, and acai berries.

I believe that!

[UnseenParticipant]

PopeBeanie wrote:

Unseen wrote:

Most people I know here—including those of us who love animals—are ready to give up pork chops, beef ribs, cheese, and scrambled eggs for tofu, kale, and acai berries.

I typoed. It’s supposed to be “unready to give up…’ LOL

I believe that!

[_Robert_Participant]

I turned 95% vegetarian 38 years ago. I will have a  turkey sandwich once or twice a month. I enjoy fishing the surf, so I also allow myself to kill and cook a few small fish once in a while. It’s a cave man thing, seems so primal securing dinner from the wild and cooking over an open fire. I have a fairly productive garden for spring and fall and a few fruit trees . We make our own compost from table scraps and algae from the pond. That also feels like a primal accomplishment, eating off the land. It would be a lot better for the planet if we didn’t raise so much cattle and pigs. Eventually if things go downhill….beef, pork will become too expensive for most. Certain fish stocks have collapsed and many are on the verge. Yes, there will be many more vegetarians in the future.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

At least once a week for the last 4 years I have been buying a few chicken fillets from my local butcher shop. I make a point of buying from him, a small business, rather than the nearby large chain. We usually have good conversations if it is not too busy.

A few weeks back he told me that he had some really good fillet steak if I was interested. I thanked him but declined and said I seldom eat meat. When I explained that the chicken was for the stray cat that “adopted me” he asked me if it was for “some weird religious reason” that I did not but looked at me with a certain undisguised anger that only pious Christians can conjure up.

“Yes, I agree, reasons for being religious are weird, but I am not religious”.

He struggled to find the words to say and muttered that he did not know what was going on with people anymore. Apparently even some of the foreigners can be very fussy too. It was like he was a different person. I asked did he mean people in general or just people that did not hold the same beliefs as he did. This only antagonized him more, which was my intention once his “holier than thou” attitude appeared.

He then announced he was a good Catholic man. I wondered what sins he must be trying to cover-up with such an announcement as he was now positively aggressive towards me. This allowed me to once again get my “Catholic and Vegetarianism” routine going. I never miss the chance.

“Well you must know that any vegetarian cannot be a Catholic as they cannot partake in eating the flesh of Jesus”??

Unfortunately he did not claim it was “only symbolic” as many “Catholics” do, which did not allow me the chance to ask him if he knew that meant when he had accidentally converted to Protestantism. A great thing to say to an Irishman!

I still shop there in the hope he will refuse to serve me. Everything he says has religious overtones to it which allows me the chance to offer him Bible quotes to suggest the opposite is true.

[Author]

Posts