President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
oh I am not saying it's nice but it's the consequence.
and no j didn't mean breaking any law needs the death penalty.
I meant what I wrote.
if there is a law , any law, you need to accept law enforcement intervening when that's broken.
if they intervene and the subject disregards the intervention you need to be willing for law enforcement to use violence.
You can walk it back if you want, but what you actually wrote is the following:
Which is why you should only write a law or agree with it if you are willing to have people being assassinated if they don't follow it.
The only reasonable interpretation of what you wrote is that if I pass a law that makes it illegal to steal gum, then I need to be willing to have people assassinated if they that don't follow that law, i.e. the law that makes it illegal to steal gum.
In other words, your statement wasn't limited only to instances in which the person committed an additional crime (i.e., resisting arrest). I'm not saying that the qualifier would have entirely solved the problem, but at least it would have made Luciomtopia slightly less horrifying.
You may say that's the only reasonable interpretation but you will very often be wrong about what people mean. We drop or loosely use qualifiers the time.
Few dont include common actions when considering consequences. Definitely should when making laws - people very normally wont cooperate and we should take that into account when making laws and enforcement rules
I just watched a documentary on ISIS and you sound exactly like them. They interviewed one former fighter who proudly stated that he took part in the executions of drug users and dragged a gay guy up the top of a building and threw him off it. He stated they were "harsh but fair".And before you gimme this disclaimer- - you still sound like ISIS. And your disclaimer would just
For sure or any totalitarian or dictatorship .
Or a good old empire !
1980s russia ideas .
Not mentioning , regardless what kinda of government you have, they will always tries to expand power eventually.
Can u imagine what kind of “government “ u can end up with that kind of rules and power luciom advocate ….
Luciom libertarian ? lol….
people very normally wont cooperate and we should take that into account when making laws and enforcement rules
I didn't say anything to the contrary.
Yeah snd some of the ludicrous open carry plus stand your ground laws make it possible for people to get into wild west style shoot outs in public with no laws being broken. To most same people that would be a sign there’s a mistake somewhere.
Didn't help to miss out teh rest but generally ignoring plausible assumed stuff just because of the 'words have meanings' thingy will result in misunderstanding.
One of many ways to misunderstand what people are saying and then have the very silly 'but you said' discussion.
Didn't help to miss out teh rest but generally ignoring plausible assumed stuff just because of the 'words have meanings' thingy will result in misunderstanding.
I know that giving people the benefit of the doubt when they say crazy **** is your personal hobby horse, but given the way that Trump and other authoritarians use language, there is much greater risk in not attaching value to the "words have meaning thingy."
Also, when it comes to property rights, Luciom is more than happy to be perceived as extreme. Ask him whether he thinks shopkeepers should be able to open fire on shoplifters.
Peanuts. Ask him what he thinks should happen to immigrants denied the right to stay, if they can't be deported for any reason.
I know that giving people the benefit of the doubt when they say crazy **** is your personal hobby horse, but given the way that Trump and other authoritarians use language, there is much greater risk in not attaching value to the "words have meaning thingy."Also, when it comes to property rights, Luciom is more than happy to be perceived as extreme. Ask him whether he thinks
It's nothing at all to do with benefit of the doubt
I had hoped we were getting past the idea that trying to understand what people mean is a bad thing to do.
and lucium is very extreme. There is no need to misunderstand him to get that.
It's nothing at all to do with benefit of the doubt
I had hoped we were getting past the idea that trying to understand what people mean is a bad thing to do.
and lucium is very extreme. There is no need to misunderstand him to get that.
Fwiw I’m not sure if u talk about yourself or luciom but just taking at face value what Luciom says is good enough to see how his not what he says he is by just applying what he says and believes …
No need to try to « understand » what he means …
It's nothing at all to do with benefit of the doubt
I had hoped we were getting past the idea that trying to understand what people mean is a bad thing to do.
and lucium is very extreme. There is no need to misunderstand him to get that.
I also try to understand that what people mean to say. But my starting assumption is going to be that they meant exactly what they said.
I also try to understand that what people mean to say. But my starting assumption is going to be that they meant exactly what they said.
Which is probably how trump gets so many passes compare to anyone else in history beside few exceptions .
« nah trump said that but he didn’t mean it » .
Once that is ingrain into people mind , the guy can do and says w.e he wants -> cult .
I also try to understand that what people mean to say. But my starting assumption is going to be that they meant exactly what they said.
What you think they said rather than what theyre saying is going to be wrong a great deal. And it's a mistake that compounds as they say other things
Some seem to think it helps the likes of trump to misunderstand a lot but the reverse is true.
You can walk it back if you want, but what you actually wrote is the following:The only reasonable interpretation of what you wrote is that if I pass a law that makes it illegal to steal gum, then I need to be willing to have people assassinated if they that don't follow that law, i.e. the law that makes it illegal to steal gum. In other words, your statement wasn't limited on
I should have added a "down the line of causality" or something like that. Because it's obvious I didn't intend to mean all laws having the death penalty as the only sentence, given that is not the case.
Peanuts. Ask him what he thinks should happen to immigrants denied the right to stay, if they can't be deported for any reason.
Define the "can't" and the "any reason".
Pretty hard to see a situation where physically you can't parachute them in their original country (or the last country they entered from) as a last resort.
It's nothing at all to do with benefit of the doubt
I had hoped we were getting past the idea that trying to understand what people mean is a bad thing to do.
and lucium is very extreme. There is no need to misunderstand him to get that.
I am extreme on some stuff, but I think for this specific topic you guys wrongly estimate where the median opinion is.
What I mean is that an order of magnitude more people agree with me with the idea that shooting thieves even in their back is absolutely moral and good for society than they agree with my idea of abolishing credentialism for physicians.
You guys probably either don't talk with working class people enough or talk with people who know it's better to pretend you don't like the idea of assassinating a thief even if you do, in "polite society".
At the second bottle of wine (= in veritas) a lot people start agreeing with assassinating anyone who en flagrante is committing any violent crime while they still want DUI rules, physicians to be licensed, and taxes on capital gains
I appreciate we disagree. I'm also somewhat extreme on justice but well towards the opposite end of the spectrum to supporting shooting thieves in the back.
Popular support is a different issue. I dont feel 'my side' is winning at the moment.
I am extreme on some stuff, but I think for this specific topic you guys wrongly estimate where the median opinion is.What I mean is that an order of magnitude more people agree with me with the idea that shooting thieves even in their back is absolutely moral and good for society than they agree with my idea of abolishing credentialism for physicians.You guys probably either d
You should definitely see or read movie/book « Les misérables » and focus on
Inspector javert …..
I’m dumbfounded that you can’t add how it’s inhuman to believe how wealth inequality means nothing and isn’t a problem while ready to kill thief on petty crimes (for sometimes just to survive or feed a family …😉.
Yup Les misérables….
his character is defined by his legalist tendencies, authoritarian worldview, and lack of empathy for criminals of all forms.
Hugo writes that Javert is composed of two "simple" sentiments, which are "respect for authority" and "hatred of rebellion". In Javert's eyes, "murder, robbery, all crimes, are only forms of rebellion".[3] He also "(envelops) in a blind and profound faith everyone who had a function in the state, from the prime minister to the rural policeman".[3] Reflective thought is "an uncommon thing for him, and singularly painful" because thought inevitably contains "a certain amount of internal rebellion".[4]
Javert has been described as a legalist: His "moral foundation... is built strictly on legalism";[5] he is "one of the most tragic legalists in Western literature"[6] and "the consummate legalist".[7]
Remember when Kamala was called a radical communist for talking about price gouging?
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump...
Trump wants to institute price controls by executive order.
Remember when Kamala was called a radical communist for talking about price gouging?
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump...
Trump wants to institute price controls by executive order.
Even if he does make this executive order, how does he
(1) exercise control of drug prices for companies that are not American
(2) and how could an executive order dictate what other countries pay? For example, if a drug is made in Switzerland by ABC company, Trump's executive order is going to dictate that ABC lower American prices and charge India (for example) 30 to 80% more to make up for the loss of subsidized drugs purchased in the US?
Even if he does make this executive order, how does he(1) exercise control of drug prices for companies that are not American(2) and how could an executive order dictate what other countries pay? For example, if a drug is made in Switzerland by ABC company, Trump's executive order is going to dictate that ABC lower American prices and charge India (for example) 30 to 80% more t
He’s an idiot and this is prima facie unconstitutional.
I don’t want to go back ITT cuz it looks like a lot of Lucy but has Qatar gifting Trump a luxury jumbo jet used as the new Air Force one that will be singularly for his presidency been summarily clowned on by the MAGAs ITT yet?
