-54
Relatable
(lemm.ee)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
-54 points (37.5% liked)
Memes
45739 readers
424 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Would you believe that the people in a democracy look poorly on attempts to overthrow that democracy? Shocking stuff, but it's true.
Unrelated, I do have questions. I find myself wondering where you came by your taste for leather. Did you acquire it later in life or were you born with a boot in your mouth? And is the brain damage from licking up all the polish, or being dropped repeatedly on your head?
I've never seen someone both frothing at the mouth and have a raging hard on at the same time.
In my defense, those were both your mother's fault and you didn't knock before you walked in.
God damn
K. That's fucking funny! Imagine that, humor in a meme thread!!!
You can definitely tell both a person's level of intelligence and creativity, by how quickly they resort to "your mother" jokes.
I'll leave you to your sexually charged fantasies about hate-fucking the opposition.
But she doesn't seem opposed to it.
Also funny
Unappreciated wit is, thankfully, a tragedy you'll never have to experience.
Alternately: Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what you cheer for
And to be fair, the US isn't a "democracy". It's a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives. Semantics, I know, but accuracy counts.
Nobody means “universal direct democracy” when they say “democracy”. Not the ancient Athenians, not the Swiss, nobody.
This is a very disingenuous talking point.
It's not a talking point. Seems quite a few Americans don't know what our actual form of government is called. Accuracy counts.
Words mean what the people using them agree that they mean.
You are holding a minority position here. It would seem you do not know what your form of government is called.
Minority view or not, it's correct. Just because it's a majority doesn't make it correct.
Well, you are correct by a minority. But incorrect by the majority.
Its called perspective and language. Study papers need to define the word sometimes from the ground up so the paper becomes understandable.
Guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is. Hate it all you want, I'm right.
I guess your ego to be right is more worth than valuable conversations where people actually understand each other by being on similar wavelengths.
Congratulation. You are right. But I dont know where.
democracy /dĭ-mŏk′rə-sē/ noun
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.
Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people
Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government.
The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so called.
republic /rĭ-pŭb′lĭk/ noun
A nation that has such a political order.
A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
A specific republican government of a nation. "the Fourth Republic of France."
An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation. (Read:federation of states)
A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field. "the republic of letters."
I'm right, right here.
In other words it's a shitty democracy.
Democracy, by definition, is 50% +1 vote, otherwise known as "mob rule". That would be an even shittier system to live under.
Ok fascist.
I just want to point out that the majority of people are manipulated by massive corporations on a daily basis. They just use it for immediate profit by getting them to buy things. They could easily start manipulating people for political gain, of which they've tried in the past with varying degrees of success.
This is expressly what a constitutional federal republic (a specific type of democracy) is meant to prevent.
The fact that you called me a fascist proves you don't know what the word means
You mean this?
I know exactly what fascism is. Being anti-democracy does not in itself make you a fascist, but it's a very strong sign that you are. Either way you're an asshole and I don't particularly care what flavor of asshole you are.
And you're a fuckwit! Name calling is fun!
Never thought being pro-freedom meant fascist to intellectuals such as yourself. A system that could swing from election to election based on one vote seems pretty fucking horrible tbh, especially in the US with our deep partisan divdes. Imagine the sheer horror the libs would go through whe the country went 50.0000000001 to 49.9999999999 conservative and abortion became illegal for 4 years! Bet you'd hate democracy then!
For the record, I'm solidly pro choice, pro 2A, athiest and couldn't care less who you want to spend your naked time with. Find another lazy insult, fascist already wore itself out, and it doesn't describe the people you think it does - bet you agree with keeping Trump off the ballot. "Democratic", indeed.
Where were you on Jan 6, 2021?
At work, about 1,100 miles away. But I was there in spirit, so come get me!!!!
You don’t give a shit about the Constitution and rule of law obviously.
What, pray tell, gives you that idea? Considering i seem to know more about it than most of the people in this thread that want to pull some sort of "gotcha" on me, id argue the opposite. What do you find me to be in disagreement with the constitution on? Only arguments I've made here have been that there's no proof that Trump ordered an assault on the capitol. If your argument is that they were whipped up by his rhetoric (and I'd like to see it in context, including the "peacefully and patriotically let your voices be heard" part included), then way more people need to be imprisoned longer for their "involvement" in the BLM/antifa riots of 2020. Maxine Waters literally stated that if you see a "Trumper" in a public place to get in their face and tell them they're not welcome. Seems to be pretty inciting speech, yet she's free to roam about and squander our tax dollars (like both sides do, I'm not disputing that). You don't really believe any of this shit, you just hate Trump and see it as an excuse to remove him from politics and to serve as a warning to anyone who dares to stand in the way of your progressive agenda.
Saying I was "there in spirit, so come get me" was pretty obviously a joke. If you don't like it, that's on you.
Trump didn't "order an assault", he incited it via his negligent speech; there's a big difference in intent. Now if you want to debate on who was involved that's fine; because shit fuckers like
QAnoncult were involved along with other trash; but it's a fact that Trump's speech and even his entire campaign was negligent and rallied much attention from radicals even just leading up to it, his speech was just the straw that killed the camel and was the perfect excuse for these psychos. Even with "peacefully and patriotically let your voices be heard" included, his campaign had already riled up the radicals and as we know once radicals are riled up their delusions make them only hear the "They're attacking our democracy, march down to the capital... Be strong... Fight like hell... If you don't fight like hell your not going to have a country anymore... Fight like hell".Now I'm not going to argue wether or not he meant to incite the riot or wether or not it's a reflection of Trump or even wether it or not it was an inside job (it likely partially was considering the parties involved, ~~some even glowed θ‿θ~~), but it's pretty clear that his campaign was negligent at the least.
Don't get me wrong, I have a pretty negative opinion of both Trump and Biden. Biden is an incompetent mental not there puppet with half his body in the grave and Trump openly supports Putin... So... Yeah... I'm not huge fan of the Democratic party or Republican party as is either. Wether I'm more right or left leaning is extremely questionable but I can tell you one thing, I'm very much openly critical of both parties and the "vote for the lesser evil" bs.
Finally a well thought out and reasonable response. I appreciate that, along with the lack of name-calling.
The issue at hand is, mere negligence, even if it was ruled as such, rarely elicits a conviction, and oftentimes won't even resort in charges. Stack that with the resentment that roughly 50% of the voting public (not ongoing to argue numbers, just using it as a rough guide) would see it as an attack on the person whom they believed in and voted for (or saw as a foil to someone they liked less, in this case Biden).
There's also the issue that criminal negligence is notoriously hard to convict on, and in the highly unlikely scenario it were charged, convicted and sentenced, it wouldn't take a dream team of lawyers to overturn based on unequal application of the law, which, in this case, wouldn't take more than watching the nightly news.
None of this is stating that it's my belief that he was criminally negligent by using the terms "fight like hell" and such, I do not. It's common enough vernacular in the English language that to try and indict, let alone convict on it is pretty paper-thin.
Look, I understand that roughly half of the country dislikes him, if not outright hates him. However, that isn't enough to throw out precedent in an attempt to remove him from the ballot. The fact that it is being tried in several states is, in its pure form, fascism.
Interesting that you bring up the possibility of false flag actors, I wasn't going to go there, but I do appreciate the honesty in that it is quite possible there were some there.
I can at least partially agree, however I want to preference that with had he actually intentionally incited the riot he should be removed given the nationalistic bases making it pretty fascist in it own right. However, it has already been found that there's insufficient evidence (specifically for the riot at least) in a court of law and in so removing him at this point would indeed be pretty unjust.
I'm nearly 100% sure that there were, like we already know that the QAnon cult was there because they were very public about their presence and I had already seen them planing it on their brain rot forums prior to it. The other parties are a bit more dubious to varying degree but I'm not going to pretend like there isn't any evidence because there most certainly is even if it's not completely solid. There's also the given that the QAnon cult have their own connections and intersections with other radical parties that were said to have been involved.
As for the glowies involvement; though the most dubious; It'd not be surprising either, Biden would make for a pretty good puppet considering his mental state and it's not like they haven't puppeteer-ed before, for example... The NSA & FBI capitalizing on 9/11 by exploiting their connection with president Bush to sign in the patriot act authorizing them to violate privacy and civil liberties via the conduct of warrantless wiretaps and surveillance on international phone calls and emails of American citizens as part of the President's Surveillance Program and Terrorist Surveillance Program. Which the NSA's mass surveillance programs was then exposed by Edward Snowden, a former contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA), in 2013.
You won't find much of an argument with me on any of these points. We see our freedoms get trampled on in the name of... whatever, and too many people just say "thank you sir, may I have another".
It seems that a lot of anti-trump/pro-biden folk just downvote anything even slightly differing in opinion without even understanding the nuance and that's a big character flaw on their part, granted pro-trump/anti-biden folk can be the same way; however I've found the pro-biden folk to be more so.
Like I've already said previously, I'm pretty anti-both and criticize them more or less equally but anti-trump folk seems to be "if you're not with me, your against me", when in reality I'm neither; the only thing I'm 'with' is human rights, but they don't care; all they see is an attack on their beloved and completely ignore the true nature of my standing.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.