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
How China beat Trump before the trade battle even started
No, it is not is a "nice" principle, is in fact often aggressively "not nice". Like I said, most of the time it is easy. Sometimes it is very difficult.However, it is a necessary principle. And it is the third in a matter of days where you are left with no argument to defend this president and his administration, so you have to offer up milquetoast #bothsidesbad excuses, this t
I don't need to "defend this president". I don't like politicizing the armed forced very much. I just think it's inevitable and the other side did it a lot worse recently, as mentioned.
So i do not believe for a second you do hold that principle unless you admit that pushing LGBTQ propaganda through armed forces was an absurd violation of that principle.
Btw it's not "both sides". Here democrats are clearly exceptionally worse.
As mentioned again and again, here in this forum the representation is basically a united front against anything rightwing (not only in the USA, so it's not just about trump: you guys are against Milei as well, were against Bolsonaro, and so on).
If i was in a place with the opposite representation i would focus a lot more on republican mistakes because we already would agree that democrats did a lot of monstrous , indefensible things.
Like i just came out of a convo yesterday in which i heavily criticized rightwing people for attempting to criminalize flag burning yet again. and you know what? some of them got convinced that no matter how much they deeply hate flag burners, it would be a 1a violation to criminalize it.
But the fact is leftwing people argue in bad faith so often, it's incredible. Democrats politicized the armed forces with one of the most divisive topics of our era. Can't really come there and criticize trump for having a political speech in front of armed forces if you didn't decry that, simple as that.
When your model of how situations should be handled deviates this far from reality you’ll tend to attract weaker minds to your ideas. Serious people in politics , and more importantly serious people in governance don’t care about arguments that do not relate to reality in any kind of tangible way. The idea of gunning down a bunch of protestors for not following proper etiquett
rioting destroying everything, setting cars on fire, throwing bricks over law enforcement cars, looting shops -> "not following proper etiquette".
rioting destroying everything, setting cars on fire, throwing bricks over law enforcement cars, looting shops -> "not following proper etiquette".
Right, people routinely do all those things after football games and those are negative things. There are many reasons people riot, they range from rational to highly irrational. But if you gun down all the rioters, you’re talking about an unprecedented massacre in many areas. decades of lawsuits and blood fueds. A collapse in trust in local police forces. And yes inhumane treatment for many who could have simply been detained. Keep in mind, many rich families have sons and daughters that attend protests that get quite rowdy.
Your thesis is wrong as well the idea that murder would eliminate dangerous rioting presumes a level of rationality on both sides that doesn’t exist.
Right, people routinely do all those things after football games and those are negative things. There are many reasons people riot, they range from rational to highly irrational. But if you gun down all the rioters, you’re talking about an unprecedented massacre in many areas. decades of lawsuits and blood fueds. A collapse in trust in local police forces. And yes inhumane trea
You pointing out that our societies are rotten to the core and what is evidently the proper response to rioting might incur in endless roadblocks isn't a denial that it is the proper response.
It's just a red flag that should clarify to you why we from the right think a significant shift in culture is necessary , because we truly have enough of whatever it is that makes it impossible to quell domestic violence.
I think it is possible to solve domestic violence within the rule of law and while respecting the constitution, and that it is necessary to do so ASAP otherwise the growing number of people that want that fixed at any cost will start accepting ACTUAL FASCISM, that's literally how fascism comes to power.
After Italy reacted with a small fraction of the actual violence i am proposing the state should use against the Genoa rioters (it was at the time of the Seattle, anti-WTO, riots), we never had any such episode again.
The violence used there was going after where they slept later at night (they occupied schools) and beating the hell out of them. It helped that many were foreigners who came to riot in our country, what happened is that people started to understand if you are a commie from germany and try to riot in italy, we will destroy you and promote the police officers that lead that effort.
And predictabily, those commie rioters didn't come anymore to riot in our country.
Now it could be different within domestic borders. But i don't think that's the case actually.
spaceman do you realize the USA had far less violence from striking workers than all of europe in the 20th century (almost none), because it massacred them with a glee and no remorse whatsoever, when they tried in the late 19th century? that's the ethos we need today as well.
[URL="https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/06/11/guard-soldiers-deployed-trumps-la-crackdown-arent-getting-paid-yet.html"]Guard Soldiers Deployed in Trump's LA Crackdown Aren't Getting Paid Yet
[/URL]
Not feeding or paying your soldiers. Historically, an interesting strategy.
As for the riots, idea is you order to desperse. 5 min later they are not dispersed, you start shooting not-to-kill. 5 min later they still don't disperse, you start shooting to kill. 5-10 down, you wait 2-3 min. They still don't disperse, you kill them all.
As someone who has zero sympathy for rioters, I gotta say this is absolute insanity and smacks of Ceauscescu or Al Assad style authoritarianism. Also what do you mean re shooting not to kill? Warning shots? How to you know warning shots won't accidentally kill someone anyway?
Also re your other post, the Lgtbq issue apart from some very specific trans issues isn't hugely controversial or controversial at all as no normal person cares what consenting adults do with other consenting adults.
[...]
so what happens when the president breaks the constitution? Which takes precedence, 'support and defend of constitution' or 'obey the orders of the President' ?
Basically you just hope that does not happen.
This is not me being a sarcastic. And no it is not a joke, even though it might be darkly funny. A lot of things we take for granted in society is convention, and it hinges on people. Sometimes that is problematic.
Of course now it is very problematic. The US has an American president who does not understand what a constitution is, let alone knows the contents of the one he is supposed to follow. It also unclear whether he would care even if he was more informed. We can conclude that it is a bit of a pickle.
Some might have pointed out that too much polarisation is incompatible with democracy. Something about the awesome stupidity of running off huge swathes of the electorates into the welcoming arms of the extremists/populists. Similar regarding inequality etc
Maybe the response could be better than 'so we made them do it'. if we want democracy to work then we have to work at it.
Or we can rely on hope. Dodging bullets as I call it.
As someone who has zero sympathy for rioters, I gotta say this is absolute insanity and smacks of Ceauscescu or Al Assad style authoritarianism. Also what do you mean re shooting not to kill? Warning shots? How to you know warning shots won't accidentally kill someone anyway?Also re your other post, the Lgtbq issue apart from some very specific trans issues isn't hugely controv
Ye warning in the air, to clarify weapons are charged and ready.
LGBTQ issues are controversial, and not only because of the T. It's one thing to claim that homosexuals aren't a controversial issue per se (anymore). But teaching about anal sex to 7y old is controversial for ex, see Florida curricular issues like 1 year ago.
The pride flag isn't just about "homosexuals exist".
As for the "ceauscescu or Al assad style", the idea is that their style isn't wrong per se, that's the whole point. They were bad because they were dictators, not because they managed to keep society ordered.
The whole point is accepting some of the things bad people do are good things, if done for the proper reasons. Killing rioters and criminals in general is NOT what made Al Assad a monster (!!).
Refusing to do what is proper because "otherwise you look like a dictator" is how dictators get power.
Godwin's law et al, but keep in mind that if German authorities had behaved like i say here, Hitler and his fellows would have been brutally assassinated within the rule of law in 1923 because of the beer hall putsch.
And the army in Italy could have assassinated the top 20 fascists or whatever they were, during the march on Rome, same thing. Not only if would have been fully legal to do so, failing to do so allowed fascism to take power.
Trump has broken the constitution already, is my understanding. So it kind of already has.
Trump has broken the constitution already, is my understanding. So it kind of already has.
I think the modern day "conservative" argument in the more serious American circles (well, as serious as they go these days) is that
a) constraints on the president's control of the executive branch are unconstitutional
b) the executive branch holds any power not specifically vested in other branches
c) other branches have been vested far too much power that should be vested in the executive branch
d) the supreme court can decide which laws the president is not bound by
e) there should exist no mechanism by which the president can legally be bound to follow a court order
Of course, this barely coherent potpurri of dubious legal theories combines into a set of loopholes so glaring that in effect it provides the American president with more power and less accountability than poor old George III ever held. So you sort of have to wonder what on earth was the point of the revolution.
I think the modern day "conservative" argument in the more serious American circles (well, as serious as they go these days) is that a) constraints on the president's control of the executive branch are unconstitutionalb) the executive branch holds any power not specifically vested in other branchesc) other branches have been vested far too much power that should be vested in t
why are you strawmanning the right like this?
a) is true yes (in the sense they think that), for "independence" . The notion of "independent agencies" is not in the constitution. b) isn't at all, they actually claim congress holds those powers if any, but mainly states do (10a).
c) is literally the opposite, they claim delegation of congressional powers to the executive is unconstitutional
d) is agreed upon by all jurists
e) was never ever claimed
After Italy reacted with a small fraction of the actual violence i am proposing the state should use against the Genoa rioters (it was at the time of the Seattle, anti-WTO, riots), we never had any such episode again.
All of which is an argument not in favour of but against your loser incel street massacres bloodlust.
I looked at the oath of enlistment..."I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to r
The thing is that the donks who wrote that hadn’t come across a Hitler or Stalin before and believed that the enlisted and elected would honour their commitment to the constitution over fear, coercion and bribery, and if a rogue president appeared then congress would hold them to account. lol at them.
Interesting passage from the bible for our resident bible-thumping immigrant haters
“Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”
there is no "libertarian collective".and no lack of principles either on my side.Hayek fled communist horrors and was always from day one in favor of the state existing almost solely to have a tool to kill violent criminal socialists before they got power.and it all works perfectly with NAP, that's the principle.
I heartily endorse this message.
Important caveat: The level of violence employed should proportional to the specific situation. For example, lethal force should only be an option if innocent lives are at stake.
Interesting passage from the bible for our resident bible-thumping immigrant haters
Where have I ever said or even implied that I hate immigrants?
You are a ridiculous person who needs to be wished into the cornfield.
I haven't even opined one way or another on Trump's immigration policies or methods. (Nor do I plan to atm)
All people are made in the Image of God and should be treated accordingly.
I heartily endorse this message.
Important caveat: The level of violence employed should proportional to the specific situation. For example, lethal force should only be an option if innocent lives are at stake.
This seems pretty straightforwardly at odds with some stuff Jesus once said.
