Jump to content
tanknet.org

Because Trump 2.0


Recommended Posts

 

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The bolded bit is not needed, it is a crutch, it is a shorthand Jefferson used instead of waxing on for pages and pages describing, in a secular manner, why this is so. He actually explained it quite succinctly in his opening phrase, "We hold these truths to be self-evident." And here's the thing, since for whatever reason he didn't want to appeal to secular reasoning beyond what he wrote, why didn't he offer proof of the endowment by the unnamed creator? The answer is that there is none. In fact if there were proof, if those rights were divinely endowed, there would be no need to state as much, there would be no need for the DoI, because the "creator" wouldn't have allowed the subjugation of a just people, as so much chattel, over the entirety of the human experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stuart Galbraith

    2009

  • DKTanker

    1550

  • Murph

    1521

  • Paul G.

    1455

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

 

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The bolded bit is not needed, it is a crutch, it is a shorthand Jefferson used instead of waxing on for pages and pages describing, in a secular manner, why this is so. He actually explained it quite succinctly in his opening phrase, "We hold these truths to be self-evident." And here's the thing, since for whatever reason he didn't want to appeal to secular reasoning beyond what he wrote, why didn't he offer proof of the endowment by the unnamed creator? The answer is that there is none. In fact if there were proof, if those rights were divinely endowed, there would be no need to state as much, there would be no need for the DoI, because the "creator" wouldn't have allowed the subjugation of a just people, as so much chattel, over the entirety of the human experience.

 

You are of course entitled to your beliefs and respected in the understanding of why. You are wrong in your bolden reference however. People will argue pro and con on Jefferson's Christian beliefs, but I think you will find most people believe that Jefferson believed in God, it was his interpretations that causes discussions. Jefferson had intelligent but complicated religious beliefs and wrote about them in 17th century prose, hence "Creator" instead of today's "God."

When one believes, especially those in government and most specially the courts, that basic human rights come from God and not themselves, one is more humbled about imposing on said rights.

Edited by Rick
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really? You think someone who still possesses a plausibility checking capability would fall for a hoax that born babies get killed by medical doctors?

No bullshit alarm regarding how this would get into trouble with the criminal code?

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

"...an American physician and former abortion provider who was convicted of murdering three infants who were born alive during attempted abortion procedures; he was also convicted of involuntary manslaughter of one woman during an abortion procedure."

 

 

So,

(1) we are in the singular case of malpractice, not plural

(2) people were not "fine" with it

(3) he ran a foul of criminal law, as I mentioned

(4) people certainly DID have a problem with the malpractice

TnTN was effectively lying or delusional when he insinuated that Democrats are fine with babies getting killed post-birth.

 

Obsess about a criminal case from years ago if you must, but it's lying if one baselessly claims that people are fine with crime and doctors killing born babies is not a real issue.

 

 

After all,we certainly didn't have a problem with post birth abortion did we?

That's just worthless, no-knowledge of real world posting of yours.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/health/abortion-bill-trump.html

 

You expose yourself as gullible and an easy target for lying propaganda.

 

 

That's still correct.

 

 

------------------------

 

The right wing is all about fear and hate, and in effect the puppeteers who instil the fear and incite the hate enrich themselves and the richest 10%.

Their actions in power are about enriching themselves, giving more power to themselves, and bullying the people (usually citizens) who were the targets of the hate campaigns.

Tiki torches, tasing brown people for no reason, cages, burning synagogues - pretty much the same mechanic.

 

The right wing can bully, it cannot solve problems - particularly not in countries where it opted to reject the scientific method to enable fossil fuel industry/tobacco/sugar industry/private prison industry buddies to keep enriching themselves.

 

Rightwingers are fearful haters, useless to the cause of improving a nation.

The right wingers in this thread fit the description very well.

They are easily motivated by fear, easily motivated by hatred, drop all scepticism when some claim fits the fear/hate narrative, and they utterly lack principles such as upholding the principle of rule of law (and thus constitutionalism). I don't remember them pointing out that the constitution is a legitimate limiter on what they want. I only saw cherrypicking and distortions. Same with the bible, which is overwhelmingly not about what the political right says it is when it comes to giving a guide on what policies should the country have.

 

They deserve no respect IMO. I don't quite call them "demon rats", but I call them useless to any effort to improve the country's prosperity or liberty.

Edited by lastdingo
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Who cares? Once people have convinced themselves that all politicians are criminals anyway, none of that matters any longer.

 

 

Not quite - you've twisted one key detail. What people actually believe is that nobody in politics can stand up to the level of scrutiny that the system can unleash, and the existing laws on the books are so numerous, detailed, jumbled, contradictory, and open to new "innovative" interpretations, that anyone can be ensnared. With Trump, for example, the Democrats have decided that investigating Biden's kid in Ukraine is interference with the 2020 election and therefore a violation of the laws about not using personal office for campaign purposes. This level of twisting of existing laws to suit political purposes, (Biden is not yet even the Democratic nominee!) is what is at the heart of the current cynicism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Who cares? Once people have convinced themselves that all politicians are criminals anyway, none of that matters any longer.

 

 

Not quite - you've twisted one key detail. What people actually believe is that nobody in politics can stand up to the level of scrutiny that the system can unleash, and the existing laws on the books are so numerous, detailed, jumbled, contradictory, and open to new "innovative" interpretations, that anyone can be ensnared. With Trump, for example, the Democrats have decided that investigating Biden's kid in Ukraine is interference with the 2020 election and therefore a violation of the laws about not using personal office for campaign purposes. This level of twisting of existing laws to suit political purposes, (Biden is not yet even the Democratic nominee!) is what is at the heart of the current cynicism.

 

This!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Who cares? Once people have convinced themselves that all politicians are criminals anyway, none of that matters any longer.

 

 

Not quite - you've twisted one key detail. What people actually believe is that nobody in politics can stand up to the level of scrutiny that the system can unleash, and the existing laws on the books are so numerous, detailed, jumbled, contradictory, and open to new "innovative" interpretations, that anyone can be ensnared. With Trump, for example, the Democrats have decided that investigating Biden's kid in Ukraine is interference with the 2020 election and therefore a violation of the laws about not using personal office for campaign purposes. This level of twisting of existing laws to suit political purposes, (Biden is not yet even the Democratic nominee!) is what is at the heart of the current cynicism.

 

 

1) The lying moron withheld funds that HAD to be released in pursuit of personal gain. That's corruption.

2) The lying moron tried to solicit foreign assistance - something of value - to benefit his political campaign. That's illegal in itself.

3) The extortion aspect is not really of interest becuase American diplomacy extorts all the time. the lying moron's speeches about how American diplomacy was too soft were all lies.

4) Most American right wingers are wilfully blind to the law in their devotion to their cult leader.

5) Most American right wingers put party before country and dear cult leader before party.

 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6089161341001/#sp=show-clips

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Who cares? Once people have convinced themselves that all politicians are criminals anyway, none of that matters any longer.

 

 

Not quite - you've twisted one key detail. What people actually believe is that nobody in politics can stand up to the level of scrutiny that the system can unleash, and the existing laws on the books are so numerous, detailed, jumbled, contradictory, and open to new "innovative" interpretations, that anyone can be ensnared. With Trump, for example, the Democrats have decided that investigating Biden's kid in Ukraine is interference with the 2020 election and therefore a violation of the laws about not using personal office for campaign purposes. This level of twisting of existing laws to suit political purposes, (Biden is not yet even the Democratic nominee!) is what is at the heart of the current cynicism.

 

Without a Special Prosecutor most of those process crimes would never be prosecuted. Remember Eric Holder lied to Congress and only got censured. Who knew it was a real crime? To get process crimes of persons not remembering what they said years past you need a Witch Hunt to get people under oath.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean, like faking that Benghazi!!! was a big scandal with multiple investigations over years, only to find that it's a nothingburger (something most people understood all along)?

 

The Republicans who got convicted of crimes were convicted because they committed crimes. They had their due process.

 

By the way; it's usually Republicans who commit crimes in federal government. Somehow, Democrats hardly ever get caught. Now I bet if it was the other way around, R would consider this evidence of Democrats being more corrupt. Yet with facts underscoring that Republicans are vastly more corrupt and crook-y, R look away and attack process & witnesses.

 

Republicans defend crooks becuase the crooks are Republicans. Party before country.

 

 

 

Who's more corrupt in Congress between the Republicans and the Democrats? " When comparing criminal indictments of those serving in the executive branch of presidential administrations it's so lopsided as to be ridiculous. Yet all I ever hear is how corrupt the Democrats are. So why don't we break it down by president and the numbers.
Obama (D) - 8yrs in office. zero criminal indictments, zero convictions and zero prison sentences. so the next time somebody describes the Obama administration as "scandal free" they aren't speaking wishfully, they're simply telling the truth.
Bush, George W. ® - 8yrs in office. 16 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 9 prison sentences.
Clinton (D) - 8yrs in office. 2 criminal indictments. one conviction. one prison sentence. that's right nearly 8yrs of investigations. tens of millions spent and 30yrs of claiming them the most corrupt ever and there was exactly one person convicted of a crime.
Bush, George H. W. ® - 4yrs in office. one indictment. one conviction. one prison sentence.
Reagan ® - 8yrs in office. 26 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 8 prison sentences.
Carter (D) - 4yrs in office. one indictment. zero convictions and zero prison sentences.
Ford ® - 2 1/2 yrs in office. one indictment and one conviction. one prison sentence. Pardoned Richard Nixon.
Nixon ® - 6yrs in office. 76 criminal indictments. 55 convictions. 15 prison sentences.
Johnson (D) - 5yrs in office. zero indictments. zero convictions. zero prison sentences.

So, let’s see where that leaves us. in the last 53 years Democrats have been in office for 25 of those years while Republicans held it for 28. in their 25yrs in office Democrats had a total of three executive branch officials indicted with one conviction and one prison sentence. That's one whole executive branch official convicted of a crime in two and a half decades of Democrat leadership. In the 28yrs that Republicans have held office over the last 53yrs they have had a total of (a drum roll would be more than appropriate), 120 criminal indictments of executive branch officials. 89 criminal convictions and 34 prison sentences handed down. That's more prison sentences than years in office since 1968 for Republicans. If you want to count articles of impeachment as indictments (they aren't really but we can count them as an action), both sides get one more. However, Clinton wasn't found guilty while Nixon resigned and was pardoned by Ford. So, those only serve to make Republicans look even worse. With everything going on with Trump and his people right now, it's a safe bet Republicans are gonna be padding their numbers a bit real soon. So let's just go over the numbers one more time shall we. 120 indictments for Republicans. 89 convictions and 34 prison sentences. Those aren't "feelings" or "alternate facts" those are simply the stats by the numbers. Republicans are, and have been for my entire lifetime, the most criminally corrupt party to hold the office of the presidency.?

 

^ months old copy & paste, the lying moron administration is piling up on convictions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think this depends on what you want to compromise on. What today on the federal level needs to be "compromised" on?

 

That which has the potential to fester if not. The reparations for slavery issue comes to mind, as well as the blanket tax exemption for churches and religious organizations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Who cares? Once people have convinced themselves that all politicians are criminals anyway, none of that matters any longer.

 

 

Not quite - you've twisted one key detail. What people actually believe is that nobody in politics can stand up to the level of scrutiny that the system can unleash, and the existing laws on the books are so numerous, detailed, jumbled, contradictory, and open to new "innovative" interpretations, that anyone can be ensnared. With Trump, for example, the Democrats have decided that investigating Biden's kid in Ukraine is interference with the 2020 election and therefore a violation of the laws about not using personal office for campaign purposes. This level of twisting of existing laws to suit political purposes, (Biden is not yet even the Democratic nominee!) is what is at the heart of the current cynicism.

 

 

1) The lying moron withheld funds that HAD to be released in pursuit of personal gain. That's corruption.

2) The lying moron tried to solicit foreign assistance - something of value - to benefit his political campaign. That's illegal in itself.

3) The extortion aspect is not really of interest becuase American diplomacy extorts all the time. the lying moron's speeches about how American diplomacy was too soft were all lies.

4) Most American right wingers are wilfully blind to the law in their devotion to their cult leader.

5) Most American right wingers put party before country and dear cult leader before party.

 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6089161341001/#sp=show-clips

 

Did you arrive here by short bus? Because 5 minutes of search I found that your source is a lying sack.

 

Clinton (D) - 8yrs in office. 2 criminal indictments. one conviction. one prison sentence. that's right nearly 8yrs of investigations. tens of millions spent and 30yrs of claiming them the most corrupt ever and there was exactly one person convicted of a crime.

Yeah right. l

 

The Clinton-Gore years.

Ultimately, Justice Department prosecutors secured the conviction of several fund-raisers for various offenses. John Huang served 500 hours of community service and paid a $10,000 fine. Johnny Chung served 3000 hours of community service. Charlie Trie served four months of in-home detention. Maria Hsia served 90 days of home detention and paid a $5,300 fine. Indonesian billionare James Riady was fined $8.6 million. Ernest Green served three months home detention. Michael Brown served 150 hours of community service and paid a $5000 fine. In all, the Justice Department task force secured criminal convictions against 22 people by 2001.[39]

Edited by Mobius
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mobius, fund raisers aren't necessarily part of the administration.

John Huang was the only one in your quote who was part of the administration (a deputy assistant secretary), though apparently not any more by the time of the violation.

 

Which makes you a lying sack, I suppose?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think this depends on what you want to compromise on. What today on the federal level needs to be "compromised" on?

 

That which has the potential to fester if not. The reparations for slavery issue comes to mind, as well as the blanket tax exemption for churches and religious organizations.

Agree with the festering potential but an odd set of choices on your part. Reparations are a none starter for various reasons: the original slavers are long dead, it is a liberal idea that even liberals can't agree on, it's not (now) legal, the majority of voters think it is wrong. I'm sure there others. In the U.S. you can take a tax-deduction for charitable donations, the church is a prime and stellar example of this. The absolute greed of the left--Beto O'Rouke--on repealing this for the sake of the sin of homosexuality and transgenderism is an evil that even the left-at this time-thinks is wrong.

Edited by Rick
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://kaus.substack.com/p/the-maidans-tale

 

But, within the foreign policy (“interagency”) world, these annoying thoughts could be safely buried. It's not the job of the State Department to observe every jot and tittle of another country's election laws. It's the job of the State Department to pursue U.S. interests. If that also involves meddling in another country's politics to a degree that would send Robert Mueller into permanent state of shock if Russia did it to us -- well, welcome to the world.

 

The problem is that the “interagency" establishment's attitude toward Ukraine has apparently now been transferred to domestic politics, where — led by the same foreign policy establshment, in a controversy not coincidentally involving Ukraine- — Democrats are too cavalierly attempting to throw out a constitutionally elected president. It’s not a stretch to say this attitude provides the background music for the parade of Ukraine-desk bureaucrats (Taylor, Kent, Yovanovitch, and soon Vindman) currently appearing before cameras in Rep. Schiff’s impeachment hearings. They seem, almost reflexively, to be willing to do to their own country what they supported doing to Ukraine.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

In the U.S., why is this so?

 

Because 25-30% of the population will find arguments of something being "anti-god", irrational and a sign of religious fundamentalism. If you want to promote understanding for your position, that might not be a good foundation to have a discussion on.

There is no higher authority than God and no higher law than the bible. America can only prosper if returns to be a Christian society in unity with God.

And yet somehow Asian nations prosper.

They are not America and they are not sharing American values. Wealth is one thing, moral superiority is another and America is only great because of the morals that made the country great.

There is nothing that gives the US moral high ground outside of being white.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since 1783, the United States has been the exemplar of democracy in action - flawed though it was and flawed(though much less so( it remains. There is good reason why it is the number one destination of immigrants, especially those of colour, and it ain't because of the paleness of most of the people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since 1783, the United States has been the exemplar of democracy in action (...)

 

The Netherlands were more democratic (in Europe, not in colonies - but the U.S. still doesn't give its overseas territories full representation) than the U.S. since 1848, especially considering slavery, Jim Crow et cetera..

Switzerland easily has the strongest claim for being the exemplar of democracy since 1971, and probably also during the 1815-1848 period simply because they had no slavery and no oppressed natives.

 

The United States are merely a very large country with the 2nd modern constitution ever enacted.

Its disenfranchising of voters - including millions of felons - and its gerrymandering are abhorrent to people from functional democracies.

Edited by lastdingo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Peolsi and the rest of the evil, corrupt, America hating scumbag Democrats now turn the legal system on its head and instead of being innocent until proven guilty, they demand Trump prove his innocence!!!!! Can it get any more evil? Can they do anything else to destroy our nation? Have they finally admitted they have abandoned the rule of law long ago?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Since 1783, the United States has been the exemplar of democracy in action (...)

 

The Netherlands were more democratic (in Europe, not in colonies - but the U.S. still doesn't give its overseas territories full representation) than the U.S. since 1848, especially considering slavery, Jim Crow et cetera..

Switzerland easily has the strongest claim for being the exemplar of democracy since 1971, and probably also during the 1815-1848 period simply because they had no slavery and no oppressed natives.

 

The United States are merely a very large country with the 2nd modern constitution ever enacted.

Its disenfranchising of voters - including millions of felons - and its gerrymandering are abhorrent to people from functional democracies.

 

Lets throw a million or 2 illegals into Switizerland and see how things turnout.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Since 1783, the United States has been the exemplar of democracy in action (...)

 

The Netherlands were more democratic (in Europe, not in colonies - but the U.S. still doesn't give its overseas territories full representation) than the U.S. since 1848, especially considering slavery, Jim Crow et cetera..

Is it really a democracy if you don't have freedom speech?

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4819/netherlands-free-speech

 

 

More problematic is that the prosecution of Wilders's query goes beyond the standard concerns about political correctness. It reaches a point where discussion or debate is impossible because the questions themselves become a crime.

But aren't discussion and debate exactly what democracy is supposed to be about?

Speech laws are abhorrent to people from functional democracies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

In the U.S., why is this so?

 

Because 25-30% of the population will find arguments of something being "anti-god", irrational and a sign of religious fundamentalism. If you want to promote understanding for your position, that might not be a good foundation to have a discussion on.

There is no higher authority than God and no higher law than the bible. America can only prosper if returns to be a Christian society in unity with God.

And yet somehow Asian nations prosper.

They are not America and they are not sharing American values. Wealth is one thing, moral superiority is another and America is only great because of the morals that made the country great.

There is nothing that gives the US moral high ground outside of being white.

 

 

Well it saved the world from Fascism, Japanese Imperialism, and international Communism. So there is that.

 

The Americans are a great beacon for the future of humanity. They are a multicultural state, and considering the melting pod, what they have produced from that is impressive. Its the protoype of what the future will inevitably be for all of us. Despite the problems surrounding the Trump Presidency, its notable what is not happening.

1 There is no civil war. People are talking about it, but nobody is doing it. In fact, nobody is even preparing for one. The South prepared for years before they kicked off the American civil war. Nobody is now.

2 There are no assassinations. OK, perhaps the secret service can take part of the credit for this, but nobody it seems is even willing to try executing their political leaders.

3 There is stability. America is, despite the political roller coaster right, still making economic progress. Highly partial it seems to me, but hey, the economy is heading in the right direction. I dont believe it has much to do with Trump, which to me suggests the fundamentals of the American economy, not relying on political input, are good ones.

 

Compare and contrast with China, where Hong Kong is ripping itself to shreds, to Russia, where political debate is suppressed, or in its worst moments, murdered, then I would say America has a lot to celebrate. Things still have not reached the nadir they did in the 1970's, when you were militarily weak, politically weak, economically weak. Only one of those would seem to be true. As long as the other two pillars are strong, America will at length sort itself out. If it sorted itself out from the Civil War, and the 1970's, then It will this time too. And if the 70's are any guide, be better for the experience.

 

If there is anything in LD's comments I agree with, id say the US is disenfranchising its voters. I dont think its the political system that is causing this, I think its the 2 party system, and the deliberate attempt to make binary choices on things that defy them, like civil rights, or regional development, or the myriad of other issues. Its not the political system that is the problem here, is the lobbying and the party system that is at fault. Which is remarkably close to the same problems I believe we have, though at least having a third party does go some way to give us alternatives.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuart, whenever you bring up something about Japanese imperialism in a "had to be removed" kind of way, and then I make rebuttlas, each and every time, you never elabroate on a counter rebuttal that takes in the points made. If I'm wrong, I would like to have a good reason to it. Japanese Imperialsim was inherently but in general not really worse than British or French imperialism, certainly not worse to the extent of crossing over the line of "must be terminated". Circumstances were different to make direct and straight comparisons invalid really. But ultimate, humans are shit, and the Japanese did some really awful things which means they really don't deserve to be rhetorically defended so much, and so I get tired of it. But if one is not going to be scholoastically honest about it, then the defense is coming. And also, IMHO, it is also about learning history as it is and not about narrating the history in preferable ways. What was the phrase used all so often? "People don't learn from history". I would argue that people have not even learned the history. And why? Because it is unpleasant to pride and is contrary to what has been broadacsated as if its obvious and indisputable.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...