|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 05 2018 03:25 Plansix wrote:
Sum’s description of his form of government lacks a lot of specifics, while also proposes to bring back form of aristocracy. The latter is going to cause a lot of posters in this thread to make some inferences about Sum’s world views and depth of his understanding of historical events.
To put it bluntly, installing a form of aristocracy to any level of government means stripping citizens of their ability to vote on who leads their government. This is considered a fundamental right in all modern democracies. Furthermore the concept of governance through the mandate of citizens was created as a way to solve the problem of transfers of power within governments/nations. Prior to full governance through the people, monarchies were a dominate form of government where power transferred through “legitimate” heirs. Of course the concept of legitimacy was subjective and often caused to civil wars, infighting, and general bedlam during the transfer of power. People who enjoy Game of Thrones might miss the undertone of the series that the concept of the “Throne” or rightful king is inherently bad. The faults of monarchy are so ingrained in modern culture that it is difficult to take someone advocating for the return of aristocracy seriously.
I agree, but just because it’s easy to make inferences about someone that allow us to rid ourselves of the need to take them seriously doesn’t mean we should (doubly so if we often accuse others on the other side of the political spectrum of doing the same thing). Regardless of whether those inferences turn out to be true.
EDIT - To reiterate, my only concern is that he be allowed the chance to explain himself further if he wishes, and not pass judgment on him as a person for his views as he may have good reasons that exist in his life for having them. I have no problem with people debating all of his points, disagreeing completely, and/or ignoring him/moving on when something better to talk about comes along.
|
He made the post 2 days ago and didn’t bother to do much with it after that. In the absence of his response, people are going to infer what they can. One cannot expect people to just let a hot take like “The Enlightenment is the worst thing to happen to humanity” at face value. Especially when the poster can’t be bothered to back that flaming hot take up with anything of substance.
|
On December 05 2018 04:07 Plansix wrote:
He made the post 2 days ago and didn’t bother to do much with it after that. In the absence of his response, people are going to infer what they can. One cannot expect people to just let a hot take like “The Enlightenment is the worst thing to happen to humanity” at face value. Especially when the poster can’t be bothered to back that flaming hot take up with anything of substance.
We've been through the same edgelord bait before. It is devoid of substance and usually ends relying on weird appeals to nature.
|
On December 05 2018 01:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2018 00:19 Ryzel wrote:On December 04 2018 23:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2018 08:02 Ryzel wrote:On December 04 2018 06:28 ReditusSum wrote:
The enlightenment was the worst thing to ever happen to humanity.
Can you elaborate on this? Please don’t. This thread got rid of really vague ideological discussions, it’s not something i miss. The whole “us should be a theocracy with lots of dukes and enlightenment suck » was really funny, but I’m not sure it’s a discussion we need to spend days of your lives on. Unless your plan is to convince RS that his ideas are truly fucking terrible, but if it didn’t occur to him spontaneously, I’m afraid you are losing your time. On December 04 2018 23:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I like vague ideological discussions. We should invite and unban xdaunt and danglars just for this "discussion". Putting aside the laughable implication that someone should not be allowed to debate their ideas on a public(ish) forum just because you disagree with your perception of their views, what meritorious discussions are we denying by allowing someone to debate their point? Multiple conversations can happen simultaneously in a forum (pretty sure the Roman ones were famous for having people screaming over each other). So if either of you have something in mind worth discussing, then by all means share it with us so we can discuss it. You have to understand that this is in the context of US politics as it exist post 2016. We endured so many bad faith arguments made by people who are aggressively and proudly ignorant that everyone in this thread is quick to call them out. This isn’t about dictating what is acceptable, but asking the simple question: Are folks sure they want to debate with a guy who thinks theocratic monarchy is a good idea in 2018? Have folks thought about how warped that view of history has to be to come to the conclusions theocratic monarchy were ever a good idea?
I'll defend them to the death in a historic context; when the world was smaller and people's needs simpler, a monarch provided a strong unifying symbol to - usually - keep order within society. In addition when people believed that some men were fundamentally superior to others, the King makes sense as the very image of what a man ought to be. Religion itself couldn't do it, there needed to be someone at the top, someone to give that sense of strength and security. But we outgrew the need for Kings, and developed a better understanding of the qualities of people.
Going back now wouldn't work in the slightest.
On December 05 2018 03:51 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2018 03:25 Plansix wrote:
Sum’s description of his form of government lacks a lot of specifics, while also proposes to bring back form of aristocracy. The latter is going to cause a lot of posters in this thread to make some inferences about Sum’s world views and depth of his understanding of historical events.
To put it bluntly, installing a form of aristocracy to any level of government means stripping citizens of their ability to vote on who leads their government. This is considered a fundamental right in all modern democracies. Furthermore the concept of governance through the mandate of citizens was created as a way to solve the problem of transfers of power within governments/nations. Prior to full governance through the people, monarchies were a dominate form of government where power transferred through “legitimate” heirs. Of course the concept of legitimacy was subjective and often caused to civil wars, infighting, and general bedlam during the transfer of power. People who enjoy Game of Thrones might miss the undertone of the series that the concept of the “Throne” or rightful king is inherently bad. The faults of monarchy are so ingrained in modern culture that it is difficult to take someone advocating for the return of aristocracy seriously. I agree, but just because it’s easy to make inferences about someone that allow us to rid ourselves of the need to take them seriously doesn’t mean we should (doubly so if we often accuse others on the other side of the political spectrum of doing the same thing). Regardless of whether those inferences turn out to be true. EDIT - To reiterate, my only concern is that he be allowed the chance to explain himself further if he wishes, and not pass judgment on him as a person for his views as he may have good reasons that exist in his life for having them. I have no problem with people debating all of his points, disagreeing completely, and/or ignoring him/moving on when something better to talk about comes along.
There is no environment on earth where 'the enlightenment is the worst thing to happen to humanity' should be allowed to stand as a statement and not be mocked brutally. That is not a mic drop, that is an O RLY???
To someone who's studied history like myself and others, to even think such a thing requires a profound level of ignorance or a profound level of insight such that he should have a lot better things to do with his time than post in this thread; either read a book in the former case or publish one in the latter. And I'd still have to hear the argument to consider it.
And within the specific context of a US Politics thread, the ideals of the enlightenment led to the formation of the United States of America.
|
On December 05 2018 04:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2018 04:07 Plansix wrote:
He made the post 2 days ago and didn’t bother to do much with it after that. In the absence of his response, people are going to infer what they can. One cannot expect people to just let a hot take like “The Enlightenment is the worst thing to happen to humanity” at face value. Especially when the poster can’t be bothered to back that flaming hot take up with anything of substance. We've been through the same edgelord bait before. It is devoid of substance and usually ends relying on weird appeals to nature.
Personally, I’m just waiting for him to go after the Enlightenment and Post-Modernism like they are the same thing. And do so with such confidence that no one notices that he has no fucking idea what he is talking about because we are dealing with copy paste from 4chan and Jordan Peterson youtube videos.
|
Ryzel, we are not seeking to censor him, so you can stop typing as if we are already. So as it is being free to post we are free to reply. Or does it only work one way? But, can you find a single positive statement from this guy? Any statement which doesn't display a total lack of knowledge of history or reality? What do you find something positive about a catholic theocratic monarchy? Not only would that be an oxymoron in itself, but then you got the monarchy part, where I think there are only 3 monarchies as a government type in the world and they are all would be a terrible place for a Catholic to live in, the theocratic part is also untenable in any country apart from Iran, which sees constant unrest from anger at theocratic elements, never mind the USA, which expouses freedom of religion.
He wrote what he wrote, we wrote what we wrote, and yet you are acting as if he is being repressed for his views, which by the way, he certainly will be under his own imaginary ideal system of government.
|
On December 05 2018 04:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Ryzel, we are not seeking to censor him, so you can stop typing as if we are already. So as it is being free to post we are free to reply. Or does it only work one way? But, can you find a single positive statement from this guy? Any statement which doesn't display a total lack of knowledge of history or reality? What do you find something positive about a catholic theocratic monarchy? Not only would that be an oxymoron in itself, but then you got the monarchy part, where I think there are only 3 monarchies as a government type in the world and they are all would be a terrible place for a Catholic to live in, the theocratic part is also untenable in any country apart from Iran, which sees constant unrest from anger at theocratic elements, never mind the USA, which expouses freedom of religion.
He wrote what he wrote, we wrote what we wrote, and yet you are acting as if he is being repressed for his views, which by the way, he certainly will be under his own imaginary ideal system of government.
There are a lot of monarchies globally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_monarchies
Even if we limit it to absolute ones there are 7:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy#Contemporary_monarchies
One absolute monarchy would be decent for Catholics. The Vatican state is counted as an Elective absolute monarchy.
|
NC continues to be lit as fuck. He paid people to pick up ballots which never got counted and the people who did it are all like “Yeah, this was totally legit. Been doing it for years. Gotta get money for Xmass. Why would it be illegal?”
Apparently this reporter has found four more people who did this. The democrats are gunna have a good time pushing their voters rights ac 2.0 and election reform with all this fuel the GOP is feeding them.
|
To be fair, the really fucked up thing is more fundamental.
That Dowless guy was convicted and imprisoned for felony fraud, and charged with perjury. If you chose that guy to do your ballots, you intend to cheat.
|
The part that interests me is the state GOP claims that Dowless and others were only paid to follow up on voters. But the people who collected the ballots claimed paid them. Who was bankrolling Dowless’s operation?
|
Years? Oh shit.
Question: At what point would we start invalidating past elections? Lets say we had 100% certain evidence an election 2 years ago was stolen. What do we do? I am assuming this is uncharted territory and we don't actually have anything in place for something major.
|
On December 05 2018 06:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Years? Oh shit.
Question: At what point would we start invalidating past elections? Lets say we had 100% certain evidence an election 2 years ago was stolen. What do we do? I am assuming this is uncharted territory and we don't actually have anything in place for something major.
You just keep digging and seeing where the rabbit hole ends.
They still got their years in office to do whatever they wanted, all that can happen is to make a harsh example of Dowless. You could invalidate the election, but that'd only matter if they still held office.
On another note, some Republican senators have pretty much confirmed that Khashoggi's murder was done by Saudi Arabia, and the white house is lying about it. What would the ramifications of applying the Magnitsky act to the Saudis? It's pretty obvious that Putin hated it, what'd the impact to Saudi Arabia be if a few family members got put on the list?
|
On December 05 2018 06:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Years? Oh shit.
Question: At what point would we start invalidating past elections? Lets say we had 100% certain evidence an election 2 years ago was stolen. What do we do? I am assuming this is uncharted territory and we don't actually have anything in place for something major.
It depends on the state and how their election laws work. North Carolina can call for a new election for that seat in the House under their laws. They will do that if it turns out this thing throws the legitimacy of the election into doubt. That is as subjective as it sounds, but I will be shocked if they don't hold a new election.
|
|
|
On December 05 2018 07:36 JimmiC wrote:There is now multiple GOP senators that are saying that they KNOW that the Saudi Prince ordered and controlled the killing of Khashoggi. Which is basically a pretty blatant shot by them at Trump calling him a liar since he heard what they did and said he was unsure. I wonder if this will push more GOP members to push to some more transparency into Trumps dealings with the Saudi's. https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/04/politics/haspel-briefing-khashoggi/index.html
"We may never know what happened to Khashoggi"
|
|
|
On December 05 2018 05:33 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2018 04:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Ryzel, we are not seeking to censor him, so you can stop typing as if we are already. So as it is being free to post we are free to reply. Or does it only work one way? But, can you find a single positive statement from this guy? Any statement which doesn't display a total lack of knowledge of history or reality? What do you find something positive about a catholic theocratic monarchy? Not only would that be an oxymoron in itself, but then you got the monarchy part, where I think there are only 3 monarchies as a government type in the world and they are all would be a terrible place for a Catholic to live in, the theocratic part is also untenable in any country apart from Iran, which sees constant unrest from anger at theocratic elements, never mind the USA, which expouses freedom of religion.
He wrote what he wrote, we wrote what we wrote, and yet you are acting as if he is being repressed for his views, which by the way, he certainly will be under his own imaginary ideal system of government. There are a lot of monarchies globally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_monarchiesEven if we limit it to absolute ones there are 7: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy#Contemporary_monarchiesOne absolute monarchy would be decent for Catholics. The Vatican state is counted as an Elective absolute monarchy.
They are not monarchies as a form of government. And you'll note that they are all absolutely terrible places for a Catholic to be in. Maybe not Swaziland though. No one in their right mind, even when they are feeling particularily patriotic on the Queen's birthday would ever call the UK as a monarchy as a form of government. Or as someone would like to put it, a hereditory position of absolute power. Sure we can call it a constitutional monarchy, where the monarchy has no real power except for tradition, where upon we can agree to call it a democracy broadly speaking. The Pope is not a monarch as it is not a hereditory position, no matter what wikipedia decides to tell you. And when what is now called the Vatican State was a million times more powerful, it was called The Papal State, a theocracy of Catholicsm. I'll leave it for you to find out how it faired.
|
On December 05 2018 07:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2018 05:33 Yurie wrote:On December 05 2018 04:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Ryzel, we are not seeking to censor him, so you can stop typing as if we are already. So as it is being free to post we are free to reply. Or does it only work one way? But, can you find a single positive statement from this guy? Any statement which doesn't display a total lack of knowledge of history or reality? What do you find something positive about a catholic theocratic monarchy? Not only would that be an oxymoron in itself, but then you got the monarchy part, where I think there are only 3 monarchies as a government type in the world and they are all would be a terrible place for a Catholic to live in, the theocratic part is also untenable in any country apart from Iran, which sees constant unrest from anger at theocratic elements, never mind the USA, which expouses freedom of religion.
He wrote what he wrote, we wrote what we wrote, and yet you are acting as if he is being repressed for his views, which by the way, he certainly will be under his own imaginary ideal system of government. There are a lot of monarchies globally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_monarchiesEven if we limit it to absolute ones there are 7: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy#Contemporary_monarchiesOne absolute monarchy would be decent for Catholics. The Vatican state is counted as an Elective absolute monarchy. They are not monarchies as a form of government. And you'll note that they are all absolutely terrible places for a Catholic to be in. Maybe not Swaziland though. No one in their right mind, even when they are feeling particularily patriotic on the Queen's birthday would ever call the UK as a monarchy as a form of government. Or as someone would like to put it, a hereditory position of absolute power. Sure we can call it a constitutional monarchy, where the monarchy has no real power except for tradition, where upon we can agree to call it a democracy broadly speaking. The Pope is not a monarch as it is not a hereditory position, no matter what wikipedia decides to tell you. And when what is now called the Vatican State was a million times more powerful, it was called The Papal State, a theocracy of Catholicsm. I'll leave it for you to find out how it faired.
I don't see why an elected heir would make it less of a monarchy? The Holy Roman Empire had an elected position for its ruler as just one other example of that happening. Though that wasn't much of an absolute realm due to the lower tiers having most of the power in their areas.
If you don't want to consider constitutional monarchies as monarchies that is up to you.
|
On December 05 2018 07:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2018 07:44 Mohdoo wrote:On December 05 2018 07:36 JimmiC wrote:There is now multiple GOP senators that are saying that they KNOW that the Saudi Prince ordered and controlled the killing of Khashoggi. Which is basically a pretty blatant shot by them at Trump calling him a liar since he heard what they did and said he was unsure. I wonder if this will push more GOP members to push to some more transparency into Trumps dealings with the Saudi's. https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/04/politics/haspel-briefing-khashoggi/index.html "We may never know what happened to Khashoggi" The "smoking saw" says otherwise. This seems like a big deal to me because it is not democrats it is GOP, so there is no saying this is a bipartisan attack.
This is a very strange time to be a member of T_D. They basically hate everything about Saudi Arabia, yet Trump is the only man in the country defending Saudi Arabia.
I don't see how any red hat makes sense of this.
|
On December 05 2018 08:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2018 07:51 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2018 07:44 Mohdoo wrote:On December 05 2018 07:36 JimmiC wrote:There is now multiple GOP senators that are saying that they KNOW that the Saudi Prince ordered and controlled the killing of Khashoggi. Which is basically a pretty blatant shot by them at Trump calling him a liar since he heard what they did and said he was unsure. I wonder if this will push more GOP members to push to some more transparency into Trumps dealings with the Saudi's. https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/04/politics/haspel-briefing-khashoggi/index.html "We may never know what happened to Khashoggi" The "smoking saw" says otherwise. This seems like a big deal to me because it is not democrats it is GOP, so there is no saying this is a bipartisan attack. This is a very strange time to be a member of T_D. They basically hate everything about Saudi Arabia, yet Trump is the only man in the country defending Saudi Arabia. I don't see how any red hat makes sense of this.
Oh man, you should have seen the backflips that happened on T_D when trump said they need to shrink the budget of the military
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
