405
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 16 Jun 2024
405 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19097 readers
2150 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If you notice the contrast between jurors that convicted dementia donnie vs. those that convicted Hunter....the difference between the two "sides" here is thrown into stark contrast.
No matter how much the "liberal media" tries to bothsides the two parties, they just cannot cover it up.
What do you mean by the juror comparison? I didn't follow the Hunter trial (because who the fuck cares lol) so I might be out of the loop
The jurors for Hunter were out there giving interviews after the fact. The jurors for donnie are more or less in hiding as far as I can tell.
And for good reason. It's not "both sides"; the Republicans have been getting crazier and more violent every year and they adore donnie the wanna-be dictator. They were trying to dox the jurors, and the jurors would be right in trying to keep quiet and lay low and hope to keep their identity secret. Honestly, if he "wins" this fall, and I were them? I'd get the fuck out of this country. A great many of the donnie leg-humpers are crazy and murderous.
Meanwhile, as you point out - who GAF about Hunter, honestly. His plea deal being spiked and this trial is likely entirely political, but if he faces consequences for misfiling some paperwork while addicted to crack, I doubt any Democrat or leftist is going to be making death threats to anyone, least of all the jurors that found him guilty.
Ahh yeah that makes sense, thanks for the explanation, 100% agree with you
Leftism is a disease spread by leftist plague rats
Likening your ideological opponents to rats and other vermin was used by the Nazis to brutally persecute Jews and other minorities.[1]
By portraying a group's ideology as a sickness or infestation, it becomes easier to justify segregating, oppressing, or even killing them under the guise of social hygiene or self-defense against this perceived plague.[1][2] This dehumanizing rhetoric lays the groundwork for escalating violence.
Citations: [1] Losing France's Imperial War on Rats - U-M Library Digital Collections https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/idx/w/wsfh/0642292.0047.006/--losing-frances-imperial-war-on-rats?rgn=main%3Bview%3Dfulltext [2] Anti-LGBT rhetoric - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-LGBT_rhetoric
Don't bother, check their comment history
What do you think about when unvaccinated were called plague rats during covid? Do you think we could have ended up down the same path with them?
If you want to get philosophical, society always has to turm authoritarian when it needs to deal with people who reject society. You either forcefully reject the ones who refuse to partake or you let them warp society in their image.
Being anti-vax is the same as being against society. Now, completely trying to get rid of them, like nazis tried with jews, is a bit extreme but penalizing antivaxxers IMO is perfectly fine. You can't simply endanger others just because you refuse to partake in society.
When it comes to laws, I agree that the whole point of laws is to benefit society and that people who don't want to follow the laws are subject to an authoritarian response. In the case of covid vaccines, the law stopped short of requiring them by law. It nearly did so through executive mandates, but not quite. But even if it were so, dehumanizing language like "plague rat", and it being a step towards a dark societal path, is not the same as consequences for breaking the law in the context of what a healthy society looks like. ANY dehumanizing language is bad and dangerous and there are no exceptions.
That animosity is a policy failure because they should have just vaccinated and castrated all resistance just like farmers do with sheep. I can say that because I am a Christian, so it's fine as the connotations are different.
You can't jump to full authoritarian without going through the first steps. I actually don't understand your second point at all though, about being a Christian.
Sheep hold significant symbolism in Christianity, representing God's people and their relationship with Jesus as the Good Shepherd. Here are some key points about the symbolism of sheep in Christianity:
Sheep represent God's followers who are helpless and in need of guidance, protection, and provision from the Shepherd (Jesus).[1][2] They are portrayed as defenseless, prone to wandering, and entirely dependent on the Shepherd's care, mirroring humanity's need for God's guidance and salvation.
Jesus refers to himself as the "Good Shepherd" who lays down his life for his sheep (John 10:11).[1][2] This metaphor highlights Jesus' sacrificial love, leadership, and intimate knowledge of his flock (believers).
Sheep are contrasted with goats, representing the separation of believers and non-believers on the day of judgment (Matthew 25:31-46).[1] The sheep (believers) will inherit eternal life, while the goats (unbelievers) will face punishment.
The imagery of a shepherd tenderly caring for his sheep is used to depict God's compassionate love and attentive care for his people (Isaiah 40:11, Psalm 23).[1][3] Sheep recognize the Shepherd's voice and follow him, just as believers are called to follow Christ's guidance.
Jesus is also called the "Lamb of God" (John 1:29), symbolizing his sacrificial death to take away the sins of the world.[1][3] This connects the imagery of sheep and lambs to Christ's atoning work on the cross.
Citations: [1] What is the significance of sheep in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org https://www.gotquestions.org/sheep-in-the-Bible.html [2] Why are Christians Called Sheep? — BLOG POSTS — ILI Team https://iliteam.org/coreleadership/why-are-christians-called-sheep [3] Sheep of Christ https://godcangodcares.com/sheep-of-christ/ [4] Why Jesus compares us to sheep (it's kinda funny) https://www.christianparenting.org/articles/why-jesus-compares-us-to-sheep-its-kinda-funny/ [5] Christianity literally degrades its own followers by calling them sheep https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/comments/jtbv4i/christianity_literally_degrades_its_own_followers/
OK so in your analogy, the government is the shepherd, which is Jesus? Pretty sure that's not how Christians view the government...
What do you think the phrase 'Jesus is King' means? It's a political statement.
I guess it's political in that it is an acknowledgement that Jesus is the highest authority, higher than governments on earth. I don't think it's saying that the king of the land (or the government) is Jesus. Most Christians view government as being subjects of God, subject to God's authority. The government makes laws that are within its scope to do, but cannot exceed that scope. The constitution was written with this in mind, very intentionally, as a way to limit the power of government, although they used the term natural law I think, which Christians interpret as God's authority.
But that said, obedience to government is a duty and obligation for Christians as well.
I'm still not really sure what your point is, so I'm kinda just spewing what I know on that general topic.
It's about the divine right of kings, you probably know the Chinese version which is the mandate of heaven
The divine right of kings was a political and religious doctrine that asserted monarchs derived their authority directly from God, not from the people or any earthly authority.[2][3] It held that kings were accountable only to God and rebellion against them was a sacrilegious act.[2][3]
The key principles were:
The doctrine emerged in Europe during the medieval period, rooted in the idea that God bestowed earthly power to kings, just as He gave spiritual authority to the church.[3] It gained prominence under monarchs like James I of England and Louis XIV of France in the 16th-17th centuries, justifying their absolute authority in political and spiritual matters.[2][3]
Citations: [1] Divine right of kings - Oxford Reference https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110810104754564 [2] Divine right of kings - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings [3] Divine Right of Kings - New World Encyclopedia https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Divine_Right_of_Kings [4] What is the divine right of kings? | GotQuestions.org https://www.gotquestions.org/divine-right-of-kings.html [5] divine right of kings - Britannica Kids https://kids.britannica.com/kids/article/divine-right-of-kings/476251
Yes well the nature of government is changed now, so the divine right of kings would be more like the divine right of the democratically elected government, including all of the limits, checks and balances established by that government. As such, a government exceeding its own authority, as determined by itself, is not within the established divine rights.
And so your argument about forcibly vaccinating the populace (as though they were sheep), and it being justified by a divine right to rule, does not hold up unless laws were written specifically to allow that. But even that might be exceeding the scope of current western governments and would certainly be challenged along those lines.
Jesus is King. The United States is part of God's Kingdom on Earth irregardless of whatever form of government it has, and God would not permit any individual to hold power in government without His consent and blessing. Man's opinion on this is irrelevant.
I'm still not seeing how that justifies forced vaccinations.
Then you've never lived in a rural area with animal herds. The Sheppard has a responsibility to take care of the animals, he doesn't ask the sheep if it's comfortable getting a shot.
I'm saying that the government is not the same as the Shepherd and that your analogy is flawed.
Your view implies that God is not all powerful
My view states specifically that the government is not the same as God.
The government operates with God's blessing, or it does not operate
Well in any event, the government did not in fact hold people down and vaccinate them like shepherds do with their sheep. They also don't shear us and make clothing from our hair, or butcher us for food. So the shepherd analogy isn't meant to be literal in every sense.
Found the fascist.
Well aren't you just a barrel of laughs