|
Should troll Fancy Pelosi be allowed to stay? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
160 | 32.92% |
| No |
|
326 | 67.08% |
| Total: | 486 votes | ||
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:"The more powerful you are, the necessarily more evil you are" being a basic article of faith is concerning because it's quackery fueled by pop psychology (that is to say, political pseudoscience with nothing whatsoever to do with psychology). It removes the burden of responsibility for people in power of their actions just to neatly promote conservative superstitions about Those in Charge. If they can't prevent you from voting outright, they promote apathy and despair to convince you that voting is a hopeless exercise because some vague, evil psychosis is the natural state of leadership. As Grouchio alluded to, the way that I've used "sociopathy" as meaning "lack of empathy" in this context isn't even quite clinically correct, so the language we're using is already imprecise. And if people who are elected tend to be less empathetic than others, it doesn't mean they can't be effective leaders, or that one person with empathy deficiency can't be a demonstrably better ruler than another such person. It's more of an idle thought than a "something has to be done about this!", for me. Like, I'm just fascinated by the inner lives of people who are so goddamn famous that it's impossible for them, for even a second, to live a normal life. There's "famous" and then there's "near-universally world famous". Like, even Chuck Schumer can probably walk a couple city blocks without people noticing him, so can, say, Kevin Durant, or Tina Fey. But then there are your Oprahs and LeBrons and Swifts and DiCaprios and Presidents and their life experience, once they reach that "mountaintop", is so different from mine that I can't even begin to conceive of how they process it. (I always found it to be one of the more entertaining themes of "The Boys", which obviously doesn't have much nice to say about what that kind of exposure does to a person, although it doesn't uniformly condemn them either.)  Just discussin', not debatin'.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Kalit posted:You made up the lie that I already pointed out: Well you've got me, a single photo-op definitely disproves the notion that a man who waged a campaign of unaccountable genocide on the middle-east could somehow have trouble feeling empathy for others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
If people want to discuss Obama and his legacy/admin, feel free to make a thread for discussing just that, but unless Obama has released some new book or something, feel free to drop it ITT.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:
They don't. They are so wealthy that, unless they want to, they never have to interact with another human being in any way. It's also why that the ultra wealthy and ultra connected just become entirely divorced from understanding the world. A better way to do it would be to make sure that you elected based on a variety of factors and not having a single "decision point" as it were. That and an emphasis on how it is a civic duty and not something to aspire towards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
I think the trouble with saying Obama is unempathetic is that it kinda misunderstands the nature of empathy. Obama displayed earnest empathy for the families of victims of shootings on several occasions, but that is because their plight was easily visible to him and he was able to identify what it might be like if he were in their shoes. Meanwhile, war in the Middle East is easily reduced down to just numbers, not the toll on people. This is not to absolve him - Obama, like every modern president, is a war criminal, but the foreign affairs and military structure makes it easy to slip into that role.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
CroatianAlzheimers posted:Like, not that I doubt your claims here, but do you have some sources to back this up? Mostly so I can argue this point with facts behind me IRL. "There was a feeling that [the White House] needed to show the American public that you believed in enforcement, and that [we weren’t pushing for] open borders. But in hindsight I was like, what did we get for that? We deported more people than ever before. All these families separated, and Republicans didn’t give him one ounce of credit. There may as well have been open borders for five years." - Tyler Moran, deputy immigration policy director on Obama’s White House policy council There are plenty of other quotes like this, but the key to understanding this issue is that it's usually difficult to pin down motive. But in this case, Obama and his people admitted the motive in their memoirs. We don't have to guess why Obama deported tens of thousands of people while he was President. He did it to try and score points with racists because he believed that this grossly immoral act would give him more personal power and that racists would respect him more if he did it. Not only does this reveal how monstrous he is, but also how incredibly stupid. And yes, there is a particular "fascination" with Obama in this thread because Obama convinced most of America that he is a good person. Even otherwise smart, compassionate people believe this about him when it's demonstrably untrue. He is a very accomplished liar and charlatan. FLIPADELPHIA fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:It's probably a Capitalism thing "The monsters end up in charge" definitely ain't a Capitalism thing, considering how often it happens in non-capitalist situations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
Murgos posted:calvinnball with special rules for ideas you like or don't like This is the reality of how every government in the history of mankind has worked. Laws do not have magical powers like a fantasy geas. Moreover, the laws that do exist are always selectively applied by their enforcers. Once you reach a certain level of influence, you can very easily get away with being a druglord, a sexpest, or a murderer -- as long as you choose acceptable targets to victimize. JT Jag posted:Obama displayed earnest empathy for the families of victims of shootings on several occasions, but that is because their plight was easily visible to him and he was able to identify what it might be like if he were in their shoes. Ignoring the fact that you're essentially infantilizing Obama by saying that his behavior is caused by a childlike lack of imagination, what about, say, the victims of the Flint water crisis? Why did Obama pretend to drink the water? Why did he lie to them? He does not care and has never cared. Verus fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:"The monsters end up in charge" definitely ain't a Capitalism thing, considering how often it happens in non-capitalist situations. It's a hierarchies thing, it's why I added the important caveat. Immediately after it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
Verus posted:This is the reality of how every government in the history of mankind has worked. Laws do not have magical powers like a fantasy geas. Moreover, the laws that do exist are always selectively applied by their enforcers. Once you reach a certain level of influence, you can very easily get away with being a druglord, a sexpest, or a murderer -- as long as you choose acceptable targets to victimize.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
Verus posted:This is the reality of how every government in the history of mankind has worked. Laws do not have magical powers like a fantasy geas. Moreover, the laws that do exist are always selectively applied by their enforcers. Once you reach a certain level of influence, you can very easily get away with being a druglord, a sexpest, or a murderer -- as long as you choose acceptable targets to victimize. You don't even have to presume a sinistee superpower villain for that, cash bail is all one needs to establish that the rule of law is a fake ideal for credulous rubes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:23
|
|
|
It's not just capitalism because every system of government and economics we create has currency of some form, and greedy people will want to have more of that currency. Even in a system with "no money", there would still have to be some form of rations to prevent people wasting valuable resources endlessly. Those rations effectively become currency. And even aside from that, political or social power is it's own currency. If there's no money in a system, the amount of people supporting you or your party is the currency, and greedy people will do everything they can to get more of it and prevent other people from taking it away from them. It is an inherent human behavior problem that every system needs to account for and constantly remain vigilant against.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:If people want to discuss Obama and his legacy/admin, feel free to make a thread for discussing just that, but unless Obama has released some new book or something, feel free to drop it ITT. Well, yesterday CNN posted a story about a recent Obama interview. Are things recently posted on CNN not current US News? https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/07/politics/obama-fatherhood-leadership-legacy-political-landscape-cnntv/index.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
Murgos posted:And? Yes, the DOJ must defend the laws enacted by congress from challenges. Enforcing and defending unjust laws makes you a despot in everything but absolute power. This idea of playing by the rules and "if you don't like them, change them" is only applicable to the poor, which naturally have very little chance to change the rules. Murgos posted:If you get rid of equality under the law and rule of law your just advocating for authoritarian despotism with arbitrary window dressing. There's nothing "equal" about this situation and the rule of law can be right down despotic. Judakel fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Well, yesterday CNN posted a story about a recent Obama interview. Okay? Except no one was discussing that particular news item when I dropped my warning to drop Obama legacy chat and take it elsewhere, so I'm not entirely sure what your award winning rebuttal is meant to be other than dumb rules lawyering. My warning still stands. If you want to discuss what Obama specifically said this week in regards to the news, go nuts. But beyond that, this thread ain't the venue for it. Take it elsewhere. Handsome Ralph fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Sure you don't mean the 13th Amendment? Sorry yes, 13th amendment. Whoops. John Brown was not a representative of the government, nor empowered to adjudicate it's laws and definitely not the president so I am not sure why you think there is a parallel to the current discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
Judakel posted:There's nothing "equal" about this situation and the rule of law can be right down despotic. Rule of law is that the law applies equally to all regardless of any personal attribute or office. It is a requirement of democracy. If the law unfairly targets a class of people (whether by wealth, or location or color of their skin) then it is not 'rule of law' but rather 'law and order' which is something else entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Rule of law is that the law applies equally to all regardless of any personal attribute or office. It is a requirement of democracy. If the law unfairly targets a class of people (whether by wealth, or location or color of their skin) then it is not 'rule of law' but rather 'law and order' which is something else entirely. And yet we have US citizens who are not getting something that all US citizens are entitled to if they are disabled. It is a farce. If democracy is unable to meet the needs of the working glass, then you just have window dressing. Rule of law, in this instance, certainly seems to mean stand by a law that is targeting Puerto Ricans. Judakel fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:58
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Rule of law is that the law applies equally to all regardless of any personal attribute or office. It is a requirement of democracy. If the law unfairly targets a class of people (whether by wealth, or location or color of their skin) then it is not 'rule of law' but rather 'law and order' which is something else entirely. That's what he's saying, he's saying that the current situation is not equal, which is why he and many others want to either fix it or get rid of it entirely. There does need to be equal law, it is necessary for society to function. How it's written and enforced are the details, but the basic requirement of laws that apply equally to everyone designed to protect everyone is what is needed. And that is exactly what the US is lacking in some very key areas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:58
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Rule of law is that the law applies equally to all regardless of any personal attribute or office. It is a requirement of democracy. If the law unfairly targets a class of people (whether by wealth, or location or color of their skin) then it is not 'rule of law' but rather 'law and order' which is something else entirely. Man, I wish the law applied equally to all in the US
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Man, I wish the law applied equally to all in the US Judakel posted:And yet we have US citizens who are not getting something that all US citizens are entitled to if they are disabled. It is a farce. If democracy is unable to meet the needs of the working glass, then you just have window dressing. Rule of law, in this instance, certainly seems to mean stand by a law that is targeting Puerto Ricans. Orthanc6 posted:That's what he's saying, he's saying that the current situation is not equal, which is why he and many others want to either fix it or get rid of it entirely. There does need to be equal law, it is necessary for society to function. How it's written and enforced are the details, but the basic requirement of laws that apply equally to everyone designed to protect everyone is what is needed. And that is exactly what the US is lacking in some very key areas. You are all confused. I am not saying that all laws are just. I am saying that the DOJ needs to defend all laws that are constitutional. That is what majority rule and constitutional government mean. If you can't see the problem with where what laws get to exist is dependent on the whims of one politically appointed office then I don't know what to tell you. edit: The idea that Bill Barr or Merrick Garland can effectively veto congress and the presidency and circumvent judicial review is so wild that I just have to think that none of you are even bothering to argue in good faith. Murgos fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
Murgos posted:You are all confused. I am not saying that all laws are just. I am saying that the DOJ needs to defend all laws that are constitutional. That is what majority rule and constitutional government mean. This sounds like your complaint is with a portion of the system being unjust, which is our complaint. It sounds like we are just blaming different parts of the system for the failure. It also bears mentioning it is entirely possible for a law written and enforced by a majority to also be immoral, though at the moment the problem is mostly laws being written and upheld by a rich and/or entitled minority to suppress the majority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:18
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Their published methodology for determining “true tax rate” seems really problematic. Comparing absolute wealth change to the taxes paid that year is apples and oranges, and doesn’t really tell you anything important. Like, it calls out a buy-and-hold person like Buffett as extremely low, but that ignores an implied tax bill due when you finally sell. Lots of other rules at play, too, like amortization of capital expenditures. It may be problematic academically, but it seems pretty smart perceptually. B/C the narrative I'm seeing on the web right now is "oh they actually don't have that income... they haven't capitalized on it. So their income tax SHOULD be low." But in reality they're only exploiting loopholes to make their income *seem* low. They lead exorbitantly lavish lifestyles. That is not done by keeping everything tied up and non-liquid. So if their wealth is allowing them to live a lavish lifestyle - then that wealth should be considered what's taxable (in order to get their true tax rate) b/c it's that wealth that provides their material goods. Regardless of how they can use tax law to retcon their income to 0. That's what is going to make the direct connection with a person struggling to pay their bills. Not an "actually their income was technically..." edit: I don't feel like I made that really clear, but if my end goal is to convince people that allowing people to become billionaires is bad (it is), then I don't give a gently caress what their actual taxable income is. I give a poo poo what their wealth is, what that allows them to get and then comparing that to what they're paying in to the system (that they take advantage of) compared to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
Murgos posted:You are all confused. I am not saying that all laws are just. I am saying that the DOJ needs to defend all laws that are constitutional. That is what majority rule and constitutional government mean. There is absolutely zero reason to continue repeating that they have to do this or else we will be hurled into a vortex of despotic rule. Not only is this not true, but wannabe despots do not care if the opposition is following the letter of the law, and their supporters care even less. Now, as to what SHOULD happen: Joe Biden and his Justice Department should refuse to defend this nonsense and Biden himself should push for a change in the law. This, believe it or not, would not make him a despot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
Judakel posted:There is absolutely zero reason to continue repeating that they have to do this or else we will be hurled into a vortex of despotic rule. Not only is this not true, but wannabe despots do not care if the opposition is following the letter of the law, and their supporters care even less. If we didn't have it then you wouldn't need some Machiavellian "competent Trump" (who remains wholly hypothetical) in order to take down our institutions; the dumb one could've just done it himself, with no effort.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:We just saw a wannabe despot fail to achieve his true aims because of the rule of law. Like, it's literally the most recent thing to happen in politics. Barely. Barely failed because of the rule of law, and only because someone grew some balls in the National Guard and Governors started taking it seriously. The next despot is going to learn from this and not make the same mistakes. If they had not, if the FBI has not showed up, if the Governors had not taken the initiative to activate the National Guard, there is a real chance 1/6 could've gone full on coup.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
Also it's unhelpful to think of "the rule of law" as a binary. It's not. If Biden were to decide to not enforce an obviously unjust law, we would not go from a 1 Just, Lawful Society to a 0 Anarchy immediately. It would be one small adjustment on the continuum, if you even believe there is a meaningful continuum (I do). Law enforcement deciding to not pursue marijuana arrests as vigorously does not mean we're edging toward chaos. Enforcement agencies practice selective enforcement all day, every day. FLIPADELPHIA fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
Judakel posted:There is absolutely zero reason to continue repeating that they have to do this or else we will be hurled into a vortex of despotic rule. Not only is this not true, but wannabe despots do not care if the opposition is following the letter of the law, and their supporters care even less. Now, as to what SHOULD happen: Joe Biden and his Justice Department should refuse to defend this nonsense and Biden himself should push for a change in the law. This, believe it or not, would not make him a despot. FLIPADELPHIA posted:Also it's unhelpful to think of "the rule of law" as a binary. Its not. If Biden were to decide to not enforce an obviously unjust law, we would not go from a 1 Just Society to a 0 Anarchy. Just this once it's okay? Sure. How do you know it's just this once? How do you know that when Trump gets reelected in '24 he just doesn't void out all laws by selective defense all the election laws that he doesn't care for? What's the point of having a congress if you can just void out a law when you feel like it? What's the point of having a judiciary if you don't need to respect their ruling on if the law is valid?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:37
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Also it's unhelpful to think of "the rule of law" as a binary. It's not. If Biden were to decide to not enforce an obviously unjust law, we would not go from a 1 Just, Lawful Society to a 0 Anarchy immediately. It would be one small adjustment on the continuum, if you even believe there is a meaningful continuum (I do). This is a good point for both sides of the argument. It almost never happens, even with extreme revolution that a system flips in a day or even a year. Trump broke all kinds of laws in the open, even got impeached twice for doing so, but it didn't flip the US from democracy to full on dictatorship. It moved it that direction, but it wasn't a full flip the moment Trump called on the Proud Boys to "stand by".
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Just this once it's okay? Sure. How do you know it's just this once? Obama ignored multiple laws, as did Bush, in pursuing the goals of the GWOT. Does this mean we live in an anarchical society? Presidents already ignore laws all the time. Immigration enforcement swings wildly between administrations, for example. Is that anarchy? By your stated definition it seems so and any one of those previous examples of laws being ignored would be just as good an excuse for Trump to suspend all law in 2024. The more appropriate question for me is, what is special about this instance that you think it will be the one, unique incident to cause an end to the American republic? FLIPADELPHIA fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:We just saw a wannabe despot fail to achieve his true aims because of the rule of law. Like, it's literally the most recent thing to happen in politics. The rule of law had nothing to do with it. By his own definitions, this is "law and order". A bunch of chuds who own jet ski dealerships failed to pull off a coup. An incredibly dumb moment in American history. Murgos posted:Just this once it's okay? Sure. How do you know it's just this once? Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy for a reason. If Trump gets reelected in '24 and voids out all the election laws, it will be because he wants to do it, not because Joe Biden wanted to give people SSI. Following the rules isn't going to prevent a bully from bullying you. Judakel fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
Murgos posted:You are all confused. I am not saying that all laws are just. I am saying that the DOJ needs to defend all laws that are constitutional. That is what majority rule and constitutional government mean. Why? The federal government chooses not to enforce federal law in many, many, many situations, often deferring to states. Why is the defense of a law when its constitutionality is being challenged necessarily different?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
karthun posted:In 2007 he didn't want to be elected President in 2008, just to raise is profile. He ended up capturing lightning in a bottle and didn't know what to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
Looks like Alyssa Milano may wind up running for Congress. It'd be against a Republican in pretty Republican district so more power to her I guess. https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/557389-alyssa-milano-says-she-could-potentially-run-for-house-in-2024
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
The Justice Department could stop trying to uphold this rule surrounding blanket immunity of the president to prosecution, but everyone on that level holds it as sacronsanct not just because it enshrines executive power, but because presumably they imagine a future where any president is constantly under legal assault from day one.Inferior Third Season posted:This isn't true. Hillary was the favorite to win, but Obama was considered her biggest rival from the day he announced. Yeah essentially some party elders who apparently didn't like Hillary, Tom Daschle and I believe Harry Reid among them, liked Obama as the alternative and worked to make that happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1402369388335054856?s=20 time for some more ~reconciliation~
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
Please do keep in mind something like the 13th amendment abolished some slavery but what it really did was backhand another way to permit it through incarceration. Slavery is constitutionally legal in the United States in the year of our lord 2021 if someone is in convicted and this is how law and law enforcement marginalizes people of color through legislation, disenfranchisement, and for profit prison industry. I am also honestly surprised there is no major campaign nationally to adjust it. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.“
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 22:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1402369388335054856?s=20 Aw but they barely wasted any time at all
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 22:00
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:even if you're philosophically okay with absolute rule, this is a fatal flaw with "absolute rule by someone who has my exact opinion on every issue" The secret is cloning or actually finding the Holy Grail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Don't worry, eventually someone will let a strong AI out of a box and that will become our eternal master.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 22:11
|
|