Jump to content


Photo

Because Trump 2.0


  • Please log in to reply
15913 replies to this topic

#15901 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,767 posts

Posted Yesterday, 07:28 AM

 

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The bolded bit is not needed, it is a crutch, it is a shorthand Jefferson used instead of waxing on for pages and pages describing, in a secular manner, why this is so.  He actually explained it quite succinctly in his opening phrase, "We hold these truths to be self-evident."  And here's the thing, since for whatever reason he didn't want to appeal to secular reasoning beyond what he wrote, why didn't he offer proof of the endowment by the unnamed creator?  The answer is that there is none.  In fact if there were proof, if those rights were divinely endowed, there would be no need to state as much, there would be no need for the DoI, because the "creator" wouldn't have allowed the subjugation of a just people, as so much chattel, over the entirety of the human experience.


  • 0

#15902 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,691 posts

Posted Yesterday, 07:58 AM

President Trump intervened in cases of war crimes against three members of the U.S. military, issuing pardons for two and restoring the rank of a third, all despite Pentagon concerns that such actions could undermine the military justice system. https://t.co/7fm9qYTiJLvia @WSJ
  • 0

#15903 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,136 posts

Posted Yesterday, 08:08 AM

 

 

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The bolded bit is not needed, it is a crutch, it is a shorthand Jefferson used instead of waxing on for pages and pages describing, in a secular manner, why this is so.  He actually explained it quite succinctly in his opening phrase, "We hold these truths to be self-evident."  And here's the thing, since for whatever reason he didn't want to appeal to secular reasoning beyond what he wrote, why didn't he offer proof of the endowment by the unnamed creator?  The answer is that there is none.  In fact if there were proof, if those rights were divinely endowed, there would be no need to state as much, there would be no need for the DoI, because the "creator" wouldn't have allowed the subjugation of a just people, as so much chattel, over the entirety of the human experience.

 

You are of course entitled to your beliefs and respected in the understanding of why. You are wrong in your bolden reference however. People will argue pro and con on Jefferson's Christian beliefs, but I think you will find most people believe that Jefferson believed in God, it was his interpretations that causes discussions. Jefferson had intelligent but complicated religious beliefs and wrote about them in 17th century prose, hence "Creator" instead of today's "God."

When one believes, especially those in government and most specially the courts, that basic human rights come from God and not themselves, one is more humbled about imposing on said rights. 


Edited by Rick, Yesterday, 08:09 AM.

  • 0

#15904 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,155 posts

Posted Yesterday, 08:56 AM

I thought Jefferson, like with others such as Thomas Paine, were deist.
  • 0

#15905 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,846 posts

Posted Yesterday, 08:59 AM

 

Really? You think someone who still possesses a plausibility checking capability would fall for a hoax that born babies get killed by medical doctors?
No bullshit alarm regarding how this would get into trouble with the criminal code?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell. 
"...an American physician and former abortion provider who was convicted of murdering three infants who were born alive during attempted abortion procedures; he was also convicted of involuntary manslaughter of one woman during an abortion procedure."

 

 
So,
(1) we are in the singular case of malpractice, not plural
(2) people were not "fine" with it
(3) he ran a foul of criminal law, as I mentioned

(4) people certainly DID have a problem with the malpractice

TnTN was effectively lying or delusional when he insinuated that Democrats are fine with babies getting killed post-birth.

 

Obsess about a criminal case from years ago if you must, but it's lying if one baselessly claims that people are fine with crime and doctors killing born babies is not a real issue.

 

 

After all,we certainly didn't have a problem with post birth abortion did we?


That's just worthless, no-knowledge of real world posting of yours.
https://www.nytimes....bill-trump.html

You expose yourself as gullible and an easy target for lying propaganda.

 

 

That's still correct.

 

 

------------------------

 

The right wing is all about fear and hate, and in effect the puppeteers who instil the fear and incite the hate enrich themselves and the richest 10%.

Their actions in power are about enriching themselves, giving more power to themselves, and bullying the people (usually citizens) who were the targets of the hate campaigns.

Tiki torches, tasing brown people for no reason, cages, burning synagogues - pretty much the same mechanic.

 

The right wing can bully, it cannot solve problems - particularly not in countries where it opted to reject the scientific method to enable fossil fuel industry/tobacco/sugar industry/private prison industry buddies to keep enriching themselves.

 

Rightwingers are fearful haters, useless to the cause of improving a nation.

The right wingers in this thread fit the description very well.

They are easily motivated by fear, easily motivated by hatred, drop all scepticism when some claim fits the fear/hate narrative, and they utterly lack principles such as upholding the principle of rule of law (and thus constitutionalism). I don't remember them pointing out that the constitution is a legitimate limiter on what they want. I only saw cherrypicking and distortions. Same with the bible, which is overwhelmingly not about what the political right says it is when it comes to giving a guide on what policies should the country have.

 

They deserve no respect IMO. I don't quite call them "demon rats", but I call them useless to any effort to improve the country's prosperity or liberty.


Edited by lastdingo, Yesterday, 09:00 AM.

  • 0

#15906 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,424 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:24 AM

 

 

Who cares? Once people have convinced themselves that all politicians are criminals anyway, none of that matters any longer.

 

 

Not quite - you've twisted one key detail.  What people actually believe is that nobody in politics can stand up to the level of scrutiny that the system can unleash, and the existing laws on the books are so numerous, detailed, jumbled, contradictory, and open to new "innovative" interpretations, that anyone can be ensnared.  With Trump, for example, the Democrats have decided that investigating Biden's kid in Ukraine is interference with the 2020 election and therefore a violation of the laws about not using personal office for campaign purposes.  This level of twisting of existing laws to suit political purposes, (Biden is not yet even the Democratic nominee!) is what is at the heart of the current cynicism.


  • 0

#15907 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,136 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:57 AM

 

 

 

Who cares? Once people have convinced themselves that all politicians are criminals anyway, none of that matters any longer.

 

 

Not quite - you've twisted one key detail.  What people actually believe is that nobody in politics can stand up to the level of scrutiny that the system can unleash, and the existing laws on the books are so numerous, detailed, jumbled, contradictory, and open to new "innovative" interpretations, that anyone can be ensnared.  With Trump, for example, the Democrats have decided that investigating Biden's kid in Ukraine is interference with the 2020 election and therefore a violation of the laws about not using personal office for campaign purposes.  This level of twisting of existing laws to suit political purposes, (Biden is not yet even the Democratic nominee!) is what is at the heart of the current cynicism.

 

This!


  • 0

#15908 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,846 posts

Posted Yesterday, 01:38 PM

 

 

 

Who cares? Once people have convinced themselves that all politicians are criminals anyway, none of that matters any longer.

 

 

Not quite - you've twisted one key detail.  What people actually believe is that nobody in politics can stand up to the level of scrutiny that the system can unleash, and the existing laws on the books are so numerous, detailed, jumbled, contradictory, and open to new "innovative" interpretations, that anyone can be ensnared.  With Trump, for example, the Democrats have decided that investigating Biden's kid in Ukraine is interference with the 2020 election and therefore a violation of the laws about not using personal office for campaign purposes.  This level of twisting of existing laws to suit political purposes, (Biden is not yet even the Democratic nominee!) is what is at the heart of the current cynicism.

 

 

1) The lying moron withheld funds that HAD to be released in pursuit of personal gain. That's corruption.

2) The lying moron tried to solicit foreign assistance - something of value - to benefit his political campaign. That's illegal in itself.

3) The extortion aspect is not really of interest becuase American diplomacy extorts all the time. the lying moron's speeches about how American diplomacy was too soft were all lies.

4) Most American right wingers are wilfully blind to the law in their devotion to their cult leader.

5) Most American right wingers put party before country and dear cult leader before party.

 

https://video.foxnew.../#sp=show-clips


  • 0

#15909 Mobius

Mobius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,874 posts

Posted Yesterday, 01:43 PM

 

 

 

Who cares? Once people have convinced themselves that all politicians are criminals anyway, none of that matters any longer.

 

 

Not quite - you've twisted one key detail.  What people actually believe is that nobody in politics can stand up to the level of scrutiny that the system can unleash, and the existing laws on the books are so numerous, detailed, jumbled, contradictory, and open to new "innovative" interpretations, that anyone can be ensnared.  With Trump, for example, the Democrats have decided that investigating Biden's kid in Ukraine is interference with the 2020 election and therefore a violation of the laws about not using personal office for campaign purposes.  This level of twisting of existing laws to suit political purposes, (Biden is not yet even the Democratic nominee!) is what is at the heart of the current cynicism.

 

Without a Special Prosecutor most of those process crimes would never be prosecuted.  Remember Eric Holder lied to Congress and only got censured.  Who knew it was a real crime?  To get process crimes of persons not remembering what they said years past you need a Witch Hunt to get people under oath.  


  • 0

#15910 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,846 posts

Posted Yesterday, 02:05 PM

You mean, like faking that Benghazi!!! was a big scandal with multiple investigations over years, only to find that it's a nothingburger (something most people understood all along)?

 

The Republicans who got convicted of crimes were convicted because they committed crimes. They had their due process.

 

By the way; it's usually Republicans who commit crimes in federal government. Somehow, Democrats hardly ever get caught. Now I bet if it was the other way around, R would consider this evidence of Democrats being more corrupt. Yet with facts underscoring that Republicans are vastly more corrupt and crook-y, R look away and attack process & witnesses.

 

Republicans defend crooks becuase the crooks are Republicans. Party before country.

 

 

 

Who's more corrupt in Congress between the Republicans and the Democrats? " When comparing criminal indictments of those serving in the executive branch of presidential administrations it's so lopsided as to be ridiculous. Yet all I ever hear is how corrupt the Democrats are. So why don't we break it down by president and the numbers.
Obama (D) - 8yrs in office. zero criminal indictments, zero convictions and zero prison sentences. so the next time somebody describes the Obama administration as "scandal free" they aren't speaking wishfully, they're simply telling the truth.
Bush, George W. ® - 8yrs in office. 16 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 9 prison sentences.
Clinton (D) - 8yrs in office. 2 criminal indictments. one conviction. one prison sentence. that's right nearly 8yrs of investigations. tens of millions spent and 30yrs of claiming them the most corrupt ever and there was exactly one person convicted of a crime.
Bush, George H. W. ® - 4yrs in office. one indictment. one conviction. one prison sentence.
Reagan ® - 8yrs in office. 26 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 8 prison sentences.
Carter (D) - 4yrs in office. one indictment. zero convictions and zero prison sentences.
Ford ® - 2 1/2 yrs in office. one indictment and one conviction. one prison sentence. Pardoned Richard Nixon.
Nixon ® - 6yrs in office. 76 criminal indictments. 55 convictions. 15 prison sentences.
Johnson (D) - 5yrs in office. zero indictments. zero convictions. zero prison sentences.

So, let’s see where that leaves us. in the last 53 years Democrats have been in office for 25 of those years while Republicans held it for 28. in their 25yrs in office Democrats had a total of three executive branch officials indicted with one conviction and one prison sentence. That's one whole executive branch official convicted of a crime in two and a half decades of Democrat leadership. In the 28yrs that Republicans have held office over the last 53yrs they have had a total of (a drum roll would be more than appropriate), 120 criminal indictments of executive branch officials. 89 criminal convictions and 34 prison sentences handed down. That's more prison sentences than years in office since 1968 for Republicans. If you want to count articles of impeachment as indictments (they aren't really but we can count them as an action), both sides get one more. However, Clinton wasn't found guilty while Nixon resigned and was pardoned by Ford. So, those only serve to make Republicans look even worse. With everything going on with Trump and his people right now, it's a safe bet Republicans are gonna be padding their numbers a bit real soon. So let's just go over the numbers one more time shall we. 120 indictments for Republicans. 89 convictions and 34 prison sentences. Those aren't "feelings" or "alternate facts" those are simply the stats by the numbers. Republicans are, and have been for my entire lifetime, the most criminally corrupt party to hold the office of the presidency.?

 

^ months old copy & paste, the lying moron administration is piling up on convictions.


  • 0

#15911 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,132 posts

Posted Yesterday, 02:31 PM

I would think this depends on what you want to compromise on. What today on the federal level needs to be "compromised" on?

 

That which has the potential to fester if not. The reparations for slavery issue comes to mind, as well as the blanket tax exemption for churches and religious organizations.


  • 0

#15912 Mobius

Mobius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,874 posts

Posted Yesterday, 02:49 PM

 

 

 

 

Who cares? Once people have convinced themselves that all politicians are criminals anyway, none of that matters any longer.

 

 

Not quite - you've twisted one key detail.  What people actually believe is that nobody in politics can stand up to the level of scrutiny that the system can unleash, and the existing laws on the books are so numerous, detailed, jumbled, contradictory, and open to new "innovative" interpretations, that anyone can be ensnared.  With Trump, for example, the Democrats have decided that investigating Biden's kid in Ukraine is interference with the 2020 election and therefore a violation of the laws about not using personal office for campaign purposes.  This level of twisting of existing laws to suit political purposes, (Biden is not yet even the Democratic nominee!) is what is at the heart of the current cynicism.

 

 

1) The lying moron withheld funds that HAD to be released in pursuit of personal gain. That's corruption.

2) The lying moron tried to solicit foreign assistance - something of value - to benefit his political campaign. That's illegal in itself.

3) The extortion aspect is not really of interest becuase American diplomacy extorts all the time. the lying moron's speeches about how American diplomacy was too soft were all lies.

4) Most American right wingers are wilfully blind to the law in their devotion to their cult leader.

5) Most American right wingers put party before country and dear cult leader before party.

 

https://video.foxnew.../#sp=show-clips

 

Did you arrive here by short bus?  Because 5 minutes of search I found that your source is a lying sack.

 

Clinton (D) - 8yrs in office. 2 criminal indictments. one conviction. one prison sentence. that's right nearly 8yrs of investigations. tens of millions spent and 30yrs of claiming them the most corrupt ever and there was exactly one person convicted of a crime.

Yeah right. l

 

The Clinton-Gore years.
Ultimately, Justice Department prosecutors secured the conviction of several fund-raisers for various offenses. John Huang served 500 hours of community service and paid a $10,000 fine. Johnny Chung served 3000 hours of community service. Charlie Trie served four months of in-home detention. Maria Hsia served 90 days of home detention and paid a $5,300 fine. Indonesian billionare James Riady was fined $8.6 million. Ernest Green served three months home detention. Michael Brown served 150 hours of community service and paid a $5000 fine. In all, the Justice Department task force secured criminal convictions against 22 people by 2001.[39]


Edited by Mobius, Yesterday, 02:50 PM.

  • 0

#15913 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,846 posts

Posted Yesterday, 07:48 PM

Mobius, fund raisers aren't necessarily part of the administration.

John Huang was the only one in your quote who was part of the administration (a deputy assistant secretary), though apparently not any more by the time of the violation.

 

Which makes you a lying sack, I suppose?


  • 0

#15914 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,136 posts

Posted Today, 04:52 AM

I would think this depends on what you want to compromise on. What today on the federal level needs to be "compromised" on?

 

That which has the potential to fester if not. The reparations for slavery issue comes to mind, as well as the blanket tax exemption for churches and religious organizations.

Agree with the festering potential but an odd set of choices on your part. Reparations are a none starter for various reasons: the original slavers are long dead, it is a liberal idea that even liberals can't agree on, it's not (now) legal, the majority of voters think it is wrong. I'm sure there others. In the U.S. you can take a tax-deduction for charitable donations, the church is a prime and stellar example of this. The absolute greed of the left--Beto O'Rouke--on repealing this for the sake of the sin of homosexuality and transgenderism is an evil that even the left-at this time-thinks is wrong. 


Edited by Rick, Today, 04:52 AM.

  • 0