Congressman implies armed insurrection if president does not obey the Constitution

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: ketsuko

The problem is that no one trusts government

That's a very broad statement that I don't think is completely true.
Of course we trust our government. Our elections prove it but so do the posts here.
We have complaints and thankfully we can express that in the election booth. We may or may not trust individuals but we do trust the process.

We do?

If we trusted our elections, why so much time, money, and effort spent on attempting to overturn the results of the last one?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ketsuko

I am well aware you don't think highly of me and that doesn't bother me.

Because I do not think highly of your opinions does not mean I do not think highly of you. You are entitled to your opinions, even if we disagree.

The problem I have with globalization is the attempt to make the governance pools ever larger and more dilute. There are scant protections for the individual in it.

The example of the United States proves that it is possible to create a federal system that balances the needs of society with the rights of individuals. International agreements are a form of wider federalism. Agreements that protect the environment protect your environment. Agreements that protect human rights protect yur human rights.

There will never be a One World Government because the world is too big and complex for top down management. That is the lesson of Soviet government. Society is an organism with mutually nurturing parts, not a machine that requires outside programming.

The nationalism that is threatening to tear the international order apart and set the world on the path to war is a reaction to the overwhelming complexity of the modern world. It is based on fear. Fear of change. Fear of the unknown.

It's a lack of respect and there is no international order.

Your country, my country, don't try to change it, stay home if you want to try to turn mine into yours.

Simple.

a reply to: ketsuko

Culturally speaking, how do you propose this take place?

In the United States, through democratic processes. Elsewhere... who knows?

Uhder whose cultural regime will we operate?

Under ours, of course. Liberal democratic institutions, the rule of law, minimally regulated markets, civil rights, religious tolerance... all that good stuff in the Constitution.

What will you tell all the other cultures?

If they want the benifits that come with trading with us, you need to comply with the rules we all agree to.

How do you make a set of laws that fits all those different cultures or do you just tell a bunch of them they're SOL?

I think the case of North Korea speaks for itself. And Russia, at the moment.

You understand some places are the way they are because of their cultures, right?

Of course. Ah! I see now. You are confusing "culture" with "political economy." The British and some European cultures have monarchs, yet are liberal democracies. Monarchism has gone from a political to a cultural force.
"

That means some of the third world hell holes are third world hell holes because of the cultures of the people and not many other reasons.

It is not necessarily due to traditional culture. The last wave of globalization was Great Power imperialism. Traditional societies were disrupted at the point of a musket. After the colonial powers withdrew, power seekers began to create corrupt governments.

Are you going to protect those cultures or erase them for the greater goodc?

It is not America's place to impose anything on anybody. All we can do is provide an example of how a prosperous society functions. We may sometimes offer carrots, but we should refrain from using unnecessary sticks.

Those cultures have proven remarkably resilient in the face of modernity so far.

Not really. Except for undiscovered tribes, all cultures have been impacted by modernity. Some grow, others stagnate, forming weird hybrids. Specifically, some Islamic majority countries want all the benefits of modern technology without embracing the freedom of thought that makes its development possible. There is a reason, for example, Iran has never developed nuclear weapons... anyone educated enough to do the physics and engineering is going to resent the Mullahs and the gangsters masquerading as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

originally posted by: Nyiah
a reply to: ketsuko

So, f# it, due process later.

Gotcha, Ket. Thanks for being honest with everyone, as much as you're beating around the bush.

WHo said anything about due process, one way or the other? You do know that due process is expensive though, right? How many people without much money would bother to fight an accusation in court against the bottomless pockets of the state?

a reply to: DJW001

We are talking about your enlightened Global System.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Triggered much.

Come at me bro?
Really?
Lol.

lol, right?!

Just saying it won't be as easy as some of yous thinks.

Won't be going quietly into that good night.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Got the Proof?

Send it on to mueller or the NYT.

If you actually read the New York Times you would know they have the proof.

They get it from Schiffhead?

He's always quoting Mulder, The truth is out there scully.

a reply to: ketsuko

If we trusted our elections, why so much time, money, and effort spent on attempting to overturn the results of the last one?

You are confusing investigating possible crimes with an attempt o overthrow an election. If Trump is impeached there will still be a Republican in the White House.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Nyiah

Well then, no due process for you...

I expect nothing less in the Kingdom of Trumpistan.

Move.

I hear matt has an extra room to rent.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DJW001

We are talking about your enlightened Global System.

You clearly think you know what I think, but have not understood a single word. Please go back and read what I wrote. I am not claiming you are a violent anarchist am I? Yet I could interpret what you have said as espousing that.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Move.

Nope. He's transient, I'm not.

You may have chosen to abandon your country but I'm not so fickle.

a reply to: nOraKat

Uh. . .

If the president doesn't follow the Constitution, it's not our immediate responsibility to attack.

It would be the other branches of government's responsibility to counter a rogue president.


Now if government decided to go anti-Constitution, then the idiot might have a point.





But it just sounds like another leftist who wants someone to assassinate Trump because he doesn't like his policies.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

It's a lack of respect and there is no international order.

There is always an international order. Sometimes it works and nations trade peacefully, sometimes it devolves into conflict and war. Which way do you see it heading under Putin, Trump, Xi, and Erdogan?

a reply to: DBCowboy

It would be the other branches of government's responsibility to counter a rogue president.

And that's exactly what's happening, so stop getting triggered.

a reply to: DJW001

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ketsuko

If we trusted our elections, why so much time, money, and effort spent on attempting to overturn the results of the last one?

You are confusing investigating possible crimes with an attempt o overthrow an election. If Trump is impeached there will still be a Republican in the White House.

Nah, you guys are still trying to control or ya wouldn't be pulling this witch hunt.

Ya'll are no Sherlocks that's for sure or it would be over by now.

So are ya'll that dumb? Need to cheat on a crossword puzzle?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

So... how is that "voter fraud investigation" going?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Move.

Nope. He's transient, I'm not.

You may have chosen to abandon your country but I'm not so fickle.

I have 2 countries, now.

China and the USA.

The best of both worlds.

Just in case the left wins.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Move.

Nope. He's transient, I'm not.

You may have chosen to abandon your country but I'm not so fickle.

I have 2 countries, now.

China and the USA.

The best of both worlds.

Just in case the left wins.

Communism and socialism alike are horrible for the US, so you depart to set up shop in....China.

Guess communism ain't so bad after all, since you're in it's LAP.

a reply to: nOraKat

HA!!!!

A Democrat invoking the Second Amendment to fight against a Tyrannical Government?

Now I know I'm in the Mandela Effect.

What a crazy loon. Every Democrat knows that guns are evil and using the Second Amendment to defend against a Government is so 18th Century.

Hate to break it him, but the armed Democrats are severely outgunned by every other side and most of them probably don't even exercise and practice their Second Amendment rights.