anarchy and chaos

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sculptor, Oct 9, 2018.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,493
    I seem to be seeing a lot of
    not my president, not my supreme court, not my constitution
    by seeming spoiled brats who seem to think that it is their right to change the rules if they lose

    does it not follow
    not my president, not my supreme court, not my constitution, not my country?
    then not my laws?

    what then?
    Every (wo)man is a law unto him/her self
    do we all get armed and form into warlord gangs
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,785
    So you finally looked in the mirror and noticed what you were saying back when Obama was in charge?

    Of course that's the solution, isn't that why you keep insisting on the need to have guns?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,493
    And:
    Your (realistic!)solution would be..........................................................................................
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,619
    What the hell are you talking about? Where is this anarchy and chaos?
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,633
    Ah. You are watching FOX News.
    Nope. Just the use of the 25th Amendment, and Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution. Do you think following the Constitution is the equivalent of "all get armed and form into warlord gangs?"
     
  9. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,194
    That is usually true of some groups, whether they're disenfranchised, dispossessed, oppressed, discriminated-against or shoved into concentration camps.
    That's how amendments are passed, when there is a consensus. However, when the administration is not proposing an amendment, but striking down legitimately passed amendments, or misrepresenting articles in the original document, what people disavow is not the Constitution, but its abuse.
    You can only change the rules if you win - even if you win by cheating.
    But you can't make the other players pretend that's right or good; it doesn't take 'spoiled brats' to call you a cheat.
    They may have to accept it - but only until they get a chance to change it again. That's how democracy is supposed to work.
    This is not a game of catch, where you just need to be a good sport. This is about people's life and death situations. The powerless get run over, in real time, on a real pavement.

    Very often, yes.

    No, anarchy and gang warfare don't follow incompetent, oppressive and corrupt governance .
    What follows is one of the three traditional outcomes: civil war, revolution or repressive military dictatorship.
     
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,493
    EEEEEEK
    Oh my god
    You want Pence to be president?

    From a kucinich leaning liberal like myself:
    That seems totally insane.

    ..............................
    Speaking of Kucinich

    "The political process of the United States of America being under attack by intelligence agencies and individuals in those agencies," Kucinich said Wednesday night.

    Kucinich said Americans must put party politics aside and acknowledge that the federal government is "under attack from within."

    "You have politicization of agencies that is resulting in leaks from anonymous, unknown people and the intention is to take down a president," former Rep. Kucinich said. "Now, this is very dangerous to America. It's a threat to our republic, it constitutes a clear and present danger to our way of life. So we have to be asking, what is the motive of these people? Who's putting these leaks out? Why doesn't somebody come forward and make a charge and put their name and reputation behind it, instead of attacking through the media and not substantiating their position?"

    "Our first allegiance is to our country," Kucinich said. "This isn't about one president, this is about the political process of the United States of America being under attack by intelligence agencies and individuals in those agencies, yes, as you said there might be good people in there, but there are certain individuals who are lifers who want to be able to direct the policy of the country. And if the president stands in their way whether it's a Democrat or Republican they'll just try to run that person out."

    .............................
    and
    “I don’t believe that Russia is currently a threat to U.S. security,”
    Kucinich condemned the U.S. sanctions on Russia for its interference in Ukraine. “We need to stop playing Cold War games,”... “Enough of the BS about #Russia stealing the election. This is CIA & State Dept propaganda trying to legitimatize their increased hostilities towards Russia.”
     
  11. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,019
    you are not a liberal by any streach of the imagination
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,633
    Everyone likes to think they are a reasonable centrist. I expect Sculp thinks the same.

    Note that his meme - "angry mobs" - is a meme that right wingers are trying to push as a sound bite for this election. Objection to Kavanaugh? Angry mob! People who dislike Trump using his position to enrich his companies? An angry mob said that! People who demand that crimes are investigated? Why listen to an angry mob that demands that? They are hoping that the "angry mob" meme can both marginalize actual protests and get more conservatives experiencing Trump disillusionment to vote.

    Never mind that Trump's "angry mobs" are real; actual white supremacist mobs who march with torches, assault minorities and murder protesters.
     
  13. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,194
    Mobs get angry for a reason: either something is very wrong, or somebody riled them up. Look for the cause of the anger: if you address that, the mob will disperse by itself; if you don't, the mob will grow bigger and angrier.
     
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,493
    streach? rhymes with screech?

    Dude as to my being a liberal------------you ain't got no idea.

    Do you even know what a liberal is
    ...
    A)open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values

    B)(of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.

    or, from wiki:
    Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender and race equality, and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets.

    ........................
    When you had the chance did you vote for Kucinich?
    If not
    Why not?
     
  15. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,225
    I find your disingenuousness disgusting. Liberals petition their government for their greviences and all of a sudden it's "mob rule". While for 8 years you guys talked about second amendment remedies and don't tread on me. It seems to me its only your side talking about civil war because you want one more than anything. No one is talking about that on the liberal side. Far left groups talk about universal health care. Far right groups talk about throwing liberals from helicopters.
     
  16. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,019
    yes i did. i still voted for him after he dropped out. i just don't believe you have. you have shown your self as holding mostly conservative views from your posting here. so you claiming to be a liberal is just a bald face lie.
     
  17. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,019
    i could buy that he actually believes him self to be a reasonable centrist and while he presents conservative not no nuts out side of one rather notable incident. i wouldn't have a problem with that but that is not what he claimed. he claimed to be a liberal which is requires a some rather tenuous leaps of logic.

    thats kind of my point
     
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,493
    <------------Libertarian socialist

    see definition in #11 above

    ..................
    If, when in here, I feel obliged to argue with pseudo liberal nutjobs that just may have given some the wrong opinion.
     
  19. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,019
    you miss the point, i understand the definition just fine. i just fail to see how it describes you in any shape or form. you can't call your self a liberal while rejecting most of the core tennents of liberalism

    you can repeat the definition all you like but until you start actually supporting liberal ideas i can't actual believe you are. If you'd like i can spend so time running down all your none liberal view points
     
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,493
    What, exactly do you think the core tenets of liberalism are?
     
  21. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,019
    your definition is rather good. I just think your delusional if you think a description of your beliefs and views. your not listening. you keep asking me to redefine liberalism so you'll agree you don't fit missing the point that i just don't think it fits you to begin with. saying you support ideals and actually supporting them are two very different things.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,564
    No, you aren't.
    If you think you are, take off the Fox Goggles and pay better attention to reality.
    No. So?
    And an allegiance to reason.
    Which would have had you noticing that the "angry mobs" - at least, the ones opposing Trump - are trying to enforce the rules, not change them, not disregard them,

    and not break them wholesale in pursuit of illegitimate power, as Trump did and is doing (including with Kavanaugh).
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,564
    Speaking of the rules and who wants to break them to get what they want, this happened during the Kavanaugh furor:
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/house...d-wasserman-schultzs-russia-probe-transcripts

    Note that Wasserman-Schultz had no objection to her transcript's responsible and careful release - any more than other Democrats, both old guard and new wave, have ever had any objection to public disclosure of the major findings in what FBI investigation of Kavanaugh was done (miserably inadequate, according to everybody with information except the Republicans in the Judiciary Committee).

    That isn't anarchy, or chaos. That's power holding on to power.
    Because rule-breaking is largely done with impunity, presumed or real. People who feel entitled break rules, and that entitlement includes avoiding consequences.
    And that is part of the description of a spoiled brat, no?
    A term that could hardly have been better illustrated, in high level politics, than by Kavanaugh's performance - or Trump's, Donny's, various Republican pundits (Erick Erickson), and so forth.
     

Share This Page