Sarah and the Red Hen
terp said:
It's not about blaming Obama. It's more realizing the general trajectory of things when Trump took over. I've been talking about this on this board from way before Trump.
You suggested at one point that the trajectory started with Teddy Roosevelt.
Under the second President of the US, John Adams, the Alien and Sedition Laws were enacted.
Not sure what Jefferson's authority was for the Louisiana Purchase.
Jackson didn't give a hoot about Congress or the Supreme Court. (Trump's favorite ex-President)
Lincoln did things that were clearly extra-constitutional. Of course we were having a civil war.
Perhaps it's in the very nature of the Constitution that the Presidency would slowly and steadily accrue more power.
Smedley said:
Steve said:Happy to hear your views on the topics at hand. Not much to say to a seven-word potshot.
That's a lot of #privilege speaking there.
When you describe an administration that does even some of the following:
dave23 said:- Trying to throw people off of their health insurance plans
- Muslim ban
- Separating migrant parents and children
- Disinterested response to suffering Puerto Ricans
- Praising dictators and spurning allies
- Opting into trade wars
...then you might not find an opposition candidate worth of your vote.
as "jerky" because it doesn't impact you personally, that's privilege. These actions have already led to the deaths of innocent people.
I've said nothing about what does or does not impact me personally -- so you have no basis for saying my "jerky" characterization was because it doesn't impact me personally, other than your own imagination.
But, w/e. Sorry if jerky isn't enough for you. Go ahead and turn up the volume and the profanity.
LOST said:
Smedley said:You use "probably" and "doubt". I could throw something out of my window and I'd vote for whomever it hit over Trump.
Look I probably want to see Trump lose in 2020 -- depends on the candidate of course, but I doubt I'd dislike anyone more than Trump.
I'd vote for a canned ham over Trump.
Smedley said:
I think the best way to unseat him is for the Democratic Party to focus on the issues, find a good candidate, and keep things civil (easier said than done of course).
When you come across a bully kicking the last ounce of life out of some bloody pulp of a man who's sprawled on the ground, the civil thing to do is to grab a 2x4 and smack the bully in the head.
We need to save our civility, empathy and compassion for the very real victims of this illegitimate soiled diaper of a President.
(Please note, any smacking of the burning orange dung heap in the White House and his souless minions should be purely rhetorical)
drummerboy said:
Here's the problem - by the time that you recognize authoritarianism, it will be way too late.
This is the truth. People are in DENIAL. We are in the precursor to fascism right now. If Dems don't take back at least one house of Congress in November, you all who think this is an exaggeration better start thinking very clearly. Look. Watch.
terp said:
PVW said:I'm not mad at all. It's just a really smarmy point. Centralization must be good because states seceded in the south. But, for the generations prior was it decentralized powers that established and perpetuated the Atlantic Slave trade or what is the French and British Empires? Was it decentralization when northern states fought against the Fugitive Slave Act?
Do you have a specific objection, or are you just mad because I disagree with you?
Because I disagree with your premise that less centralization means more freedom, you presume I'm arguing the opposite -- but binary thinking leads you astray here. My point was what I actually wrote -- that there doesn't seem to be much relationship at all between freedom and the degree of government centralization. There are plenty of examples of both more and less centralized governments acting in ways that expand freedom, and more and less centralized governments acting in ways that reduce it. If your concern is liberty, then history suggests that focusing on centralization is to be barking up the wrong tree.
We can see that in our present moment. Take Trump's actions in regards to the police power of the state. On the one hand, he's been acting to centralize it -- pushing the unitary executive theory and claiming the powers to start, stop, and direct any federal investigation for any reason whatsoever. On the other hand, he's also been decentralizing -- scaling back federal involvement in addressing civil rights violations by local police departments, for instance.
So he's been simultaneously centralizing and decentralizing -- but consistently favoring the police power of the state over the rights of individuals.
PVW said:
terp said:Because I disagree with your premise that less centralization means more freedom, you presume I'm arguing the opposite -- but binary thinking leads you astray here. My point was what I actually wrote -- that there doesn't seem to be much relationship at all between freedom and the degree of government centralization. There are plenty of examples of both more and less centralized governments acting in ways that expand freedom, and more and less centralized governments acting in ways that reduce it. If your concern is liberty, then history suggests that focusing on centralization is to be barking up the wrong tree.
PVW said:I'm not mad at all. It's just a really smarmy point. Centralization must be good because states seceded in the south. But, for the generations prior was it decentralized powers that established and perpetuated the Atlantic Slave trade or what is the French and British Empires? Was it decentralization when northern states fought against the Fugitive Slave Act?
Do you have a specific objection, or are you just mad because I disagree with you?
We can see that in our present moment. Take Trump's actions in regards to the police power of the state. On the one hand, he's been acting to centralize it -- pushing the unitary executive theory and claiming the powers to start, stop, and direct any federal investigation for any reason whatsoever. On the other hand, he's also been decentralizing -- scaling back federal involvement in addressing civil rights violations by local police departments, for instance.
So he's been simultaneously centralizing and decentralizing -- but consistently favoring the police power of the state over the rights of individuals.
I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously from here on out. Why don't you tell this story to 20th century Russians and German Jews? A little known fact: Hitler and Stalin, not big fans of decentralization.
Quick Question: So, 1 guy is making decisions that favor the police power over the state. Exactly how is that an example of "Some Decentralization". Your argument is remarkable in how ridiculous it is. Do you not know what decentralization means?
terp said:
I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously from here on out. Why don't you tell this story to 20th century Russians and German Jews? A little known fact: Hitler and Stalin, not big fans of decentralization.
Quick Question: So, 1 guy is making decisions that favor the police power over the state. Exactly how is that an example of "Some Decentralization". Your argument is remarkable in how ridiculous it is. Do you not know what decentralization means?
I'm surprised to learn you were taking me seriously in the first place. I've always gotten the impression that you believe pretty much everyone here on MOL besides yourself to be an idiot.
And you still seem to be missing the point -- of course centralization can lead to tyranny, as it did in the case of Hitler and Stalin. But what you can't seem to concede is that decentralization can too -- as it did under Jim Crow. I certainly wouldn't try to tell a Russian or German Jew that centralization can't lead to tyranny, but it appears you'd like to tell a 20th century African American that decentralization always means freedom?
terp said:
I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously from here on out.
Welcome to the club, PVW. It’s a pleasure to have you.
terp said:
Why don't you tell this story to 20th century Russians and German Jews? A little known fact: Hitler and Stalin, not big fans of decentralization.
Interestingly, the premise of communism is "Power to the people". Communist theory desires to decentralize power into a Utopian communal society. But reality seems to be that human nature has a much stronger desire to power-grab than to allow for equity in individual power.
Smedley said:
I've said nothing about what does or does not impact me personally -- so you have no basis for saying my "jerky" characterization was because it doesn't impact me personally, other than your own imagination.
You did write this, however:
Smedley said:
Right now I feel I live in a free and open society; I have abundant personal freedom; I have the right to protest and openly criticize my government; I have the right to vote in democratic elections. And I don't feel any of those rights are threatened.
Steve’s way of pointing it out may not have encouraged you to give it more thought, but as you’ve acknowledged, not all Americans feel this way. When you ask yourself why they don’t, what’s your conclusion?
I've just read this comment below-the-line in a Guardian Australia article on the Red Hen incident, thought you might enjoy it.
In response to potential escalating social unrest as a result of small acts of civil disquiet and lack of courtesy:
"Nobody is talking about violence. How much of a quivering snowflake does someone have to be to equate being asked to leave a restaurant with political violence? Good grief."
DottyParker said:
Sarah Sanders will now have Secret Service protection.
food tasters?
DottyParker said:
Sarah Sanders will now have Secret Service protection.
Now? She didn’t need it before?!? That’s odd
PVW said:
terp said:I'm surprised to learn you were taking me seriously in the first place. I've always gotten the impression that you believe pretty much everyone here on MOL besides yourself to be an idiot.
I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously from here on out. Why don't you tell this story to 20th century Russians and German Jews? A little known fact: Hitler and Stalin, not big fans of decentralization.
Quick Question: So, 1 guy is making decisions that favor the police power over the state. Exactly how is that an example of "Some Decentralization". Your argument is remarkable in how ridiculous it is. Do you not know what decentralization means?
And you still seem to be missing the point -- of course centralization can lead to tyranny, as it did in the case of Hitler and Stalin. But what you can't seem to concede is that decentralization can too -- as it did under Jim Crow. I certainly wouldn't try to tell a Russian or German Jew that centralization can't lead to tyranny, but it appears you'd like to tell a 20th century African American that decentralization always means freedom?
First, I'm sorry. I'm not sure why reacted so viscerally to your post. I think it came across as playing the race card to make a point. That clearly isn't what you were doing. You did not deserve that reaction.
And while I think decentralization is the path to most people being happy, it's probably a more nuanced discussion than my first impression. I will point out though that even in horrors of Jim Crow that you rightly reference, people had the opportunity to vote with their feet and move north as part of the Great Migration. However, it is a fair point that the Federal Government ultimately needed to step in to overturn laws that were clearly meant to disenfranchise.
I think in the long term we should trend towards allowing individuals to control their own fate. Centralization leads to the "roll of the historical dice". You may get a benevolent ruler, or you may get a tyrant. I heard a quote recently:
"I am, at the Fed level, libertarian; at the state level, Republican; at the local level, Democrat; and at the family and friends level, a socialist."--Geoff and Vince Graham
I think that's pretty good.
LOST said:
terp said:You suggested at one point that the trajectory started with Teddy Roosevelt.
It's not about blaming Obama. It's more realizing the general trajectory of things when Trump took over. I've been talking about this on this board from way before Trump.
Under the second President of the US, John Adams, the Alien and Sedition Laws were enacted.
Not sure what Jefferson's authority was for the Louisiana Purchase.
Jackson didn't give a hoot about Congress or the Supreme Court. (Trump's favorite ex-President)
Lincoln did things that were clearly extra-constitutional. Of course we were having a civil war.
Perhaps it's in the very nature of the Constitution that the Presidency would slowly and steadily accrue more power.
Those are good points. The Civil War was definitely and obviously an inflection point in terms of the relationship of the states with the Federal Government.
I think the original intent was to limit these powers, but that requires vigilance. I do think that Congress has been all to eager to cede powers to the president.
sprout said:
terp said:Interestingly, the premise of communism is "Power to the people". Communist theory desires to decentralize power into a Utopian communal society. But reality seems to be that human nature has a much stronger desire to power-grab than to allow for equity in individual power.
Why don't you tell this story to 20th century Russians and German Jews? A little known fact: Hitler and Stalin, not big fans of decentralization.
E.O. Wilson has a great quote on Marxism. Wonderful theory, wrong species.
Trump supporting demonstrators at the Red Hen -
“This town is full of people who don’t know Jesus Christ and rebel against Jesus Christ through their sins,” shouted Dianna Orea, 50. Saying she was from Michigan but traveled the country preaching, she held a sign that said “LGBT — Let God Burn Them.” Her companion, Edgar Orea, began railing against “Sodomites.”
Yes, all the times Jesus ranted against gays, telling all they'll be burned by his Father. I'm sure they know someone very well. 
There is a terrible lot of them out there. And yet they forgive Trump his transgressions.
terp said:
sprout said:E.O. Wilson has a great quote on Marxism. Wonderful theory, wrong species.
terp said:Interestingly, the premise of communism is "Power to the people". Communist theory desires to decentralize power into a Utopian communal society. But reality seems to be that human nature has a much stronger desire to power-grab than to allow for equity in individual power.
Why don't you tell this story to 20th century Russians and German Jews? A little known fact: Hitler and Stalin, not big fans of decentralization.
But a similar result seems likely with our species under Libertarianism. Except, instead of one dictator, it could be a large number of 'mob boss' types constantly emerging to battle for power against each other.
PVW said:
terp said:I'm surprised to learn you were taking me seriously in the first place. I've always gotten the impression that you believe pretty much everyone here on MOL besides yourself to be an idiot.
I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously from here on out. Why don't you tell this story to 20th century Russians and German Jews? A little known fact: Hitler and Stalin, not big fans of decentralization.
Quick Question: So, 1 guy is making decisions that favor the police power over the state. Exactly how is that an example of "Some Decentralization". Your argument is remarkable in how ridiculous it is. Do you not know what decentralization means?
And you still seem to be missing the point -- of course centralization can lead to tyranny, as it did in the case of Hitler and Stalin. But what you can't seem to concede is that decentralization can too -- as it did under Jim Crow. I certainly wouldn't try to tell a Russian or German Jew that centralization can't lead to tyranny, but it appears you'd like to tell a 20th century African American that decentralization always means freedom?
Great point.
terp said:I will point out though that even in horrors of Jim Crow that you rightly reference, people had the opportunity to vote with their feet and move north as part of the Great Migration.
That is one of the most feeble defenses I've seen here. And "feeble" is the mild term.
shoshannah said:
drummerboy said:This is the truth. People are in DENIAL. We are in the precursor to fascism right now. If Dems don't take back at least one house of Congress in November, you all who think this is an exaggeration better start thinking very clearly. Look. Watch.
Here's the problem - by the time that you recognize authoritarianism, it will be way too late.
If Dems do take back the House we must pay particular attention to Trump's reaction.
nohero said:
terp said:I will point out though that even in horrors of Jim Crow that you rightly reference, people had the opportunity to vote with their feet and move north as part of the Great Migration.That is one of the most feeble defenses I've seen here. And "feeble" is the mild term.
It's kind of like "why don't Ethiopians just move to where the food is?"
ridski said:
nohero said:It's kind of like "why don't Ethiopians just move to where the food is?"
terp said:I will point out though that even in horrors of Jim Crow that you rightly reference, people had the opportunity to vote with their feet and move north as part of the Great Migration.That is one of the most feeble defenses I've seen here. And "feeble" is the mild term.
And why don't poor people just decide to make more money?
Libertarian solutions are so simple!
ridski said:
nohero said:It's kind of like "why don't Ethiopians just move to where the food is?"
terp said:I will point out though that even in horrors of Jim Crow that you rightly reference, people had the opportunity to vote with their feet and move north as part of the Great Migration.That is one of the most feeble defenses I've seen here. And "feeble" is the mild term.
It was kinda funny in an uncomfortable sort of way when Sam Kinison railed on the topic, however.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Good question.
I can't be sure my assessment is correct and others are wrong. My opinion is based on what I experience and what I feel I guess. Right now I feel I live in a free and open society; I have abundant personal freedom; I have the right to protest and openly criticize my government; I have the right to vote in democratic elections. And I don't feel any of those rights are threatened.
I think it can be likened to the old quote about pornography, ie you'll know what it is when you see it. And right now, I'm not seeing that we're moving towards a fascist and authoritarian state. Others may feel differently.