| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On May 14 2017 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Just to be clear you're saying they are a despicable political organization, but better than Trump, so preferred? he's just a classic German authoritarian is what he's saying. democracy is nice until the wrong sort of people vote for the wrong sort of person. best to have a "deep state" run everything. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 14 2017 03:45 IgnE wrote: he's just a classic German authoritarian is what he's saying. democracy is nice until the wrong sort of people vote for the wrong sort of person. best to have a "deep state" run everything. that seems rude and inaccurate. shame on you for making the discussion worse with that remark, shame I say! | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
And really, 'the will of the people' cannot be authoritarian? Have you taken a look around recently? I honestly can't believe you're still pushing this direct democracy stuff. Especially the left is being bullldozed by it. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On May 14 2017 03:42 zlefin wrote: Dunno how the office of head of FBI should be for firing. It's a difficult question what would be optimal (and what would be constitutional I'm not sure on). I dislike letting president's unilaterally fire them; there has to be some way to fire other than impeachment imho, or else it's too hard. a fixed non-renewable term to prevent someone from camping there forever like hoover, but with a hard to fire system may be best. not sure how you'd set it up though, and who would be involved. how does it work for the federal reserve? I vaguely recall some major agencies not being so directly undre the president/not subject to firing by him, only appointed by him. I just dislike the idea of somebody firing and replacing the head of a group investigating them, regardless of what effect it has. Maybe just have it be an option every 2 years? Within 2 weeks of inauguration or midterm elections? idk. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/us/politics/trump-threatens-retaliation-against-comey-warns-he-may-cancel-press-briefings.html?mtrref=www.axios.com | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On May 14 2017 04:01 Nyxisto wrote: also pretty weird to identify this as "classically German". The US is explicitly set up with about a million checks and balances to prevent any kind of mob rule, you weren't supposed to meme your president into office through twitter, don't put this on me. If anything we took a hint from you when we made the Federal Republic. And really, 'the will of the people' cannot be authoritarian? Have you taken a look around recently? I honestly can't believe you're still pushing this direct democracy stuff. Especially the left is being bullldozed by it. I'm saying you are an authoritarian who wants rule by unaccountable police forces. Both Trump and the head of the SS can be authoritarian. The difference is that the electorate voted for, and can vote out, only one of those people. The FBI director serves at the pleasure of the President. Simple as that. Besides if you guys love the deep state so much, why so much outrage over Erdogan? He's basically just entrenching himself, so is it really that different from an unaccountable combined intelligence and police force? Turkey still has a Parliament. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On May 14 2017 02:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Like anything would ever come of that even if it were true. Being the children of a billionaire president is like double legal immunity. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22487 Posts
On May 14 2017 04:45 IgnE wrote: I'm saying you are an authoritarian who wants rule by unaccountable police forces. Both Trump and the head of the SS can be authoritarian. The difference is that the electorate voted for, and can vote out, only one of those people. The FBI director serves at the pleasure of the President. Simple as that. Besides if you guys love the deep state so much, why so much outrage over Erdogan? He's basically just entrenching himself, but is it really that different from an unaccountable combined intelligence and police force? Turkey still has a Parliament. wtf are you talking about? No one here is advocating unaccountable forces. If anything moving discretion from the President to Congress would increase accountability. As shown by Trump, a man under investigation, being able to assign who should investigate him. On May 14 2017 04:54 Tachion wrote: Like anything would ever come of that even if it were true. Being the children of a billionaire president is like double legal immunity. That only works if those people want to keep you as their friend. Trump has very few friends left in the IC/Judiciary. Enemies a plenty tho. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On May 14 2017 04:45 IgnE wrote: I'm saying you are an authoritarian who wants rule by unaccountable police forces. Both Trump and the head of the SS can be authoritarian. The difference is that the electorate voted for, and can vote out, only one of those people. The FBI director serves at the pleasure of the President. Simple as that. Besides if you guys love the deep state so much, why so much outrage over Erdogan? He's basically just entrenching himself, so is it really that different from an unaccountable combined intelligence and police force? Turkey still has a Parliament. I think Erdogan, the walking irrational, erratic one-man show who purges the administration is not what I was going for. He is exactly the kind of person that a functional, strong state might prevent. Turkey is an interesting example because they actually have a history of the military, a very undemocratic institution, upholding the secular constitutional order over and over. Erdogan wants to take more of that power away. is that desirable? And what if the people support it? Trump's travel ban and some other of his more digusting ideas are actually fairly popular. The only thing that stops them are the justices. Who are, in democratic terms, unaccountable too. Isn't that an asset given the current climate? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On May 14 2017 04:59 Gorsameth wrote: wtf are you talking about? No one here is advocating unaccountable forces. If anything moving discretion from the President to Congress would increase accountability. As shown by Trump, a man under investigation, being able to assign who should investigate him. That only works if those people want to keep you as their friend. Trump has very few friends left in the IC/Judiciary. Enemies a plenty tho. nope. all you are doing is insulating the FBI from the elected President's juridical and political priorities. Congress can remove the President if it wants to too, and yet how many times has that ever happened? On May 14 2017 05:08 Nyxisto wrote: I think Erdogan, the walking irrational, erratic one-man show who purges the administration is not what I was going for. He is exactly the kind of person that a functional, strong state might prevent. Turkey is an interesting example because they actually have a history of the military, a very undemocratic institution, upholding the secular constitutional order over and over. Erdogan wants to take more of that power away. is that desirable? And what if the people support it? Trump's travel ban and some other of his more digusting ideas are actually fairly popular. The only thing that stops them are the justices. Who are, in democratic terms, unaccountable too. Isn't that an asset given the current climate? the "justices" are part of the judicial branch. maybe we should rewrite the Constitution to change our government from a tripartite system of governance to a quadrapartite system. that way we can really shore up the legal basis for the newfound prominence of our fourth, all-seeing, technocratic paramilitary branch | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22487 Posts
On May 14 2017 05:14 IgnE wrote: why hasn't Congress appointed an independent investigator yet? it would move this discussion past all this nonsense you guys are talking if you would just recognize that Congress already has the power to fix this situation. this isn't about the FBI. even Comey knows he served at the pleasure of the President and could be fired at his whim. Because politics is divided, as you well know. But by that same function it would (probably) have been to divided to even fire Comey in the first place if Congress had to do it, thus maintaining the status quo and preventing a single authoritarian figure (Trump) from influencing an investigation against him. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On May 14 2017 05:14 IgnE wrote: why hasn't Congress appointed an independent investigator yet? it would move this discussion past all this nonsense you guys are talking if you would just recognize that Congress already has the power to fix this situation. this isn't about the FBI. even Comey knows he served at the pleasure of the President and could be fired at his whim. but isn't that exactly part of the problem? Everyone knows why Congress isn't appointing an independent investigator: they don't want to. Hence why if that check is out of the game maybe the FBI should be another check on the president. The point that the Republican side can just stop the investigation (not FBI one I'm talking about here) by refusing to put their signatures under anything and then just go "see, nothing is showing up. Maybe we should all just get past this investigation that's not revealing anything" is kind of troubling | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 14 2017 04:16 NewSunshine wrote: Sarcastic comments in general really don't do this thread any favors imo. When the facts themselves are regularly questionable, someone's off-hand snark is often based on an assumption I don't necessarily know or agree with. It makes already difficult discourse unnecessarily tricky. Say what you mean, because if you attempt sarcasm based on a premise that someone else doesn't agree with, you're confusing someone for no reason, and you have to explain yourself before you get to go back to the discussion. Just say what you mean. Imo practice what you preach. It really seems you're pro-sarcastic comments, anti other people doing so. On May 11 2017 13:14 NewSunshine wrote: Ah, the golf course, the true office of the presidency. Guess it helps to own 50 of them. On May 08 2017 04:42 NewSunshine wrote: Bitches love them some golf. Also money laundering. On May 09 2017 04:10 NewSunshine wrote: The thumbnail full of smiling white people is the best part, I think. Some of them even have a tan! | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2656 Posts
On May 14 2017 05:21 Toadesstern wrote: but isn't that exactly part of the problem? Everyone knows why Congress isn't appointing an independent investigator: they don't want to. Hence why if that check is out of the game maybe the FBI should be another check on the president. The point that the Republican side can just stop the investigation (not FBI one I'm talking about here) by refusing to put their signatures under anything and then just go "see, nothing is showing up. Maybe we should all just get past this investigation that's not revealing anything" is kind of troubling It is troubling, and that's exactly what Senator Richard Burr is doing. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 14 2017 05:22 Danglars wrote: Imo practice what you preach. It really seems you're pro-sarcastic comments, anti other people doing so. Perhaps my statement could be more nuanced. My sarcasm has been confined to jokes about reports that you'd be a fool to defend. I never made any assumptions about someone else's beliefs, or pin something on somebody, while simultaneously obfuscating my own message with sarcasm(or hyperbole, exaggeration, etc.). I stuck to jokes, which is a different animal and you know that. But instead of taking note of my point, you instead elect to argue why i shouldn't have said it in the first place. And I'm getting the feeling that's all you seem to want to do in this thread. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On May 14 2017 05:21 Toadesstern wrote: but isn't that exactly part of the problem? Everyone knows why Congress isn't appointing an independent investigator: they don't want to. Hence why if that check is out of the game maybe the FBI should be another check on the president. The point that the Republican side can just stop the investigation (not FBI one I'm talking about here) by refusing to put their signatures under anything and then just go "see, nothing is showing up. Maybe we should all just get past this investigation that's not revealing anything" is kind of troubling Democracy is troubling. Erecting a "deep state" (that of course operates under the right kind of ideology, that produces and reproduces the right kind of liberal society) is a symptom of the very kind of unreflective, undemocratic violence that has resulted in Trump/LePen/Erdogan. It is the well-spring of the virulent ressentiment that seeks to overturn the status quo. Of course Congress is divided. Why would you expect otherwise? It is just another superficial facet of the same problem. But rather than reflect upon that well-spring, fed by the snowy hatred of rising resentment, the liberal "fascists" on this board (and elsewhere) want to insulate the "deep state" from the public. "We must stop Trump" is the face of the more malignant sentiment "we must preserve the status quo," "we must preserve the circuits of capital (while we pay lip service to a "reform" that will never be enough)." | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 14 2017 06:02 IgnE wrote: Democracy is troubling. Erecting a "deep state" (that of course operates under the right kind of ideology, that produces and reproduces the right kind of liberal society) is a symptom of the very kind of unreflective, undemocratic violence that has resulted in Trump/LePen/Erdogan. It is the well-spring of the virulent ressentiment that seeks to overturn the status quo. Of course Congress is divided. Why would you expect otherwise? It is just another superficial facet of the same problem. But rather than reflect upon the well-spring, fed by the snowy hatred of rising resentment, the liberal "fascists" on this board (and elsewhere) want to insulate the "deep state" from the public. "We must stop Trump" is the face of the more malignant sentiment "we must preserve the status quo," "we must preserve the circuits of capital (while we pay lip service to a "reform" that will never be enough)." that's not what it seems like to me; it seems like you're spewing some weird fauxlosophical garbage; or at any rate something with an inadequate foundation, and highly irregular definitions which make it incomprehensible. can other people make out what Igne is saying when he says stuff like this? I can get a vague gist, but past that there's a lot of weirdness which I can't decipher. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games gofns12140 tarik_tv8336 Grubby3713 ToD320 C9.Mang0182 ROOTCatZ144 elazer118 JuggernautJason69 UpATreeSC29 Chillindude21 |
|
RSL Revival
Clem vs ByuN
Rogue vs Lambo
OSC
Online Event
WardiTV Weekly
Sparkling Tuna Cup
INu's Battles
Cure vs herO
ByuN vs Rogue
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
Patches Events
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
