DBP66 Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 On 12/9/2019 at 8:56 AM, concha said: Imagine if the Democratic Party Cavalcade of Morons actually had evidence of something. like a transcript of him asking for a favor???.....or not releasing the $$ until after he got caught??.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted December 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 29 minutes ago, Hardcore Troubador said: THIS close to keeping your thread interesting... ...that being said thank you for posting the initial article. As you noted, a good read. So, what is it that you ddn't agree with about my connecting the story to actions of the current president, or as you say, turned you off from being interested? Apparently, nobody can disagree with this president attempting to expand his already vast constitutional powers, without someone either losing interest, or rejecting the premise without debate. Do you not think that is his intentions? It can't even be denied that he is forcing many things to go through the supreme court that most presidents before him accepted as norms. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 57 minutes ago, DBP66 said: like a transcript of him asking for a favor???.....or not releasing the $$ until after he got caught??.... You can't even read. He didn't ask for a personal favor. Do you understand the difference between "me" and "us"? Did you see in the transcript how the "us" is clearly in reference to our country? It's fascinating how you people change what was said and then put people on trial for things that you WISH they had said. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Troubador Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 1 hour ago, HawgGoneIt said: So, what is it that you ddn't agree with about my connecting the story to actions of the current president, or as you say, turned you off from being interested? Apparently, nobody can disagree with this president attempting to expand his already vast constitutional powers, without someone either losing interest, or rejecting the premise without debate. Do you not think that is his intentions? It can't even be denied that he is forcing many things to go through the supreme court that most presidents before him accepted as norms. I think the entire concern with President Trump precipitating a “constitutional crisis”®️©️™️ is overblown, dangerous, incorrect, and tired. You’re free to disagree with anyone or anything you like, on this board or out in public; I simply disagree with you. The article you posted provided commentary on a concern political philosophers have had since time immemorial [democracy’s (inevitable?) turn to tyranny] and was good enough to stand on its own without any reference to Trump (for the love of God not everything has to be about this man!!!). Plus the connection you made between the two was tenuous at best, IMHO. I do not think Trump has “intentions” as we understand them. He is mostly/all id. And to the extent he does have intentions I don’t think precipitating a constitutional crisis so he can accrue more power is anywhere near the top of that list. You want to argue about whether his actions warrant impeachment, fine. But the House has conducted an inquiry and is going to vote on Articles. They will be taken up by the Senate. If convicted, Trump will leave the White House, either by himself or escorted out by the military or Secret Service on the order of President Pence. All according to the Constitution. There will be no crisis. If he is acquitted then vote him out. As to his forcing Congress to go to the courts, what do you expect? Congressional inquiries and impeachment are by nature political things. So he doesn’t comply with subpoenas? So what? I expect nothing less. The number of times I have adversaries force me to go to court to file a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena or discovery request would blow your mind. Is that a crisis? No, it’s just part and parcel of an inherently adversarial process. This is the same thing on the biggest stage imaginable. When President Obama didn’t put AG Holder in cuffs after the Congress voted him in contempt was it a constitutional crisis? No. The vote was a political act, which Congress knew would never get enforced. Even if they had gone to the courts and Obama still refused. I have a lot of faith that our institutions are more durable than any one man, whether there’s an R or D after their names. Again, thanks for posting the article. FWIW I was riveted yesterday reading WaPo’s expose on the “Afghanistan Papers”. Highly recommend if you can get past the paywall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted December 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 27 minutes ago, Hardcore Troubador said: I think the entire concern with President Trump precipitating a “constitutional crisis”®️©️™️ is overblown, dangerous, incorrect, and tired. You’re free to disagree with anyone or anything you like, on this board or out in public; I simply disagree with you. The article you posted provided commentary on a concern political philosophers have had since time immemorial [democracy’s (inevitable?) turn to tyranny] and was good enough to stand on its own without any reference to Trump (for the love of God not everything has to be about this man!!!). Plus the connection you made between the two was tenuous at best, IMHO. I do not think Trump has “intentions” as we understand them. He is mostly/all id. And to the extent he does have intentions I don’t think precipitating a constitutional crisis so he can accrue more power is anywhere near the top of that list. You want to argue about whether his actions warrant impeachment, fine. But the House has conducted an inquiry and is going to vote on Articles. They will be taken up by the Senate. If convicted, Trump will leave the White House, either by himself or escorted out by the military or Secret Service on the order of President Pence. All according to the Constitution. There will be no crisis. If he is acquitted then vote him out. As to his forcing Congress to go to the courts, what do you expect? Congressional inquiries and impeachment are by nature political things. So he doesn’t comply with subpoenas? So what? I expect nothing less. The number of times I have adversaries force me to go to court to file a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena or discovery request would blow your mind. Is that a crisis? No, it’s just part and parcel of an inherently adversarial process. This is the same thing on the biggest stage imaginable. When President Obama didn’t put AG Holder in cuffs after the Congress voted him in contempt was it a constitutional crisis? No. The vote was a political act, which Congress knew would never get enforced. Even if they had gone to the courts and Obama still refused. I have a lot of faith that our institutions are more durable than any one man, whether there’s an R or D after their names. Again, thanks for posting the article. FWIW I was riveted yesterday reading WaPo’s expose on the “Afghanistan Papers”. Highly recommend if you can get past the paywall. Of course we can all disagree, I suppose that I prefer an actual reason for disagreement over the simple and stupid thumb down, as I took the time to offer a thought out post to begin with. I could have posted... Don J. Trump 👎 constiution, but, I didn't. I presented an article, from a professor, and then, however tenuously, attempted to make a connection through a thought out post. As far as disagreeing about his attempts to expand the powers of the office, it's not even debateable. He has looked directly into the cameras and said into the numerous microphones before him that he is doing it for future presidents. This is one of the most amazing things with him, and his supporters, that he can say things directly to you through a camera and the next day people will be on here saying he didn't say that, or, that even if he did he didn't mean it as such. It's a crazy phenomenon with him and his general support. Let's just remove his name from the equation. I'm of the opinion, that, the attempts at expanding the office are in fact dangerous to our democracy. If the office is able to usurp oversight or any other authorities from congress, then the actual most local representation portion of our government is being weakened. Period. That again is another thing that really can't be debated. The office is less representative of my personal view and the people in my congressional district than is my senator, who is less representative of my personal view than my congressman. We should not applaud the office for attempting to usurp my most local representative person's powers for itself. The reasons why I believe there is an attempt to do this are certainly something that would be better introduced at a different time and different albeit likely directly connected subject. Now, is it better for you, and debate purpose that I call it the office rather than apply the president's name? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted December 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 I think the general support group, especially on here, for this president, not only applaud these attempts, but it's exactly what they want. They have issue with the representation from another area of the country than their own, so, they not only wish they could usurp that representative's authority, but they encourage the president to do it. It's definitely dangerous and very problematic for our democracy in general, whether we agree or disagree with the current president philisophically or not. It's just as problematic as shouting the words impeach him on day one of his presidency. For the record, I disagree with that as well, because it certainly weakens the institution if and when an actual need to impeach arises. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 2 hours ago, concha said: You can't even read. He didn't ask for a personal favor. Do you understand the difference between "me" and "us"? Did you see in the transcript how the "us" is clearly in reference to our country? It's fascinating how you people change what was said and then put people on trial for things that you WISH they had said. "us" was campaign champ...how naïve can someone be.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 54 minutes ago, DBP66 said: "us" was campaign champ...how naïve can someone be.... He literally makes it clear in the transcript what he meant. He literally says "country". You continue to be proof that Darwin was really, really wrong. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 13 minutes ago, concha said: He literally makes it clear in the transcript what he meant. He literally says "country". You continue to be proof that Darwin was really, really wrong. he makes it clear he wanted a foreign country to investigate his political rival (ask Soundland who testified to that)...and he didn't give them our tax dollars that Congress appropriated because they didn't do what he wanted...anyone with a 1/2 a brain can see what he did...Darwin??..LOL..you got some nerve champ!... "country" or "us"??...make up your silly mind...and why did he say "though" champ?..and what's Rudy's roll in all this since your in the know?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 17 minutes ago, concha said: He literally makes it clear in the transcript what he meant. He literally says "country". You continue to be proof that Darwin was really, really wrong. LOL...yea because he always puts the country before his personal needs...like a real Patriot!.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 25 minutes ago, concha said: He literally makes it clear in the transcript what he meant. He literally says "country". You continue to be proof that Darwin was really, really wrong. The dude is waaay beyond help! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said: The dude is waaay beyond help! nice wave of the pom-poms mam!... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 22 minutes ago, DBP66 said: he makes it clear he wanted a foreign country to investigate his political rival (ask Soundland who testified to that)...and he didn't give them our tax dollars that Congress appropriated because they didn't do what he wanted...anyone with a 1/2 a brain can see what he did...Darwin??..LOL..you got some nerve champ!... "country" or "us"??...make up your silly mind...and why did he say "though" champ?..and what's Rudy's roll in all this since your in the know?? Done dealing with the village idiot for the day. You can either read and understand standard English or you can't. You obviously cannot. You literally can't understand this: "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, concha said: Done dealing with the village idiot for the day. You can either read and understand standard English or you can't. You obviously cannot. You literally can't understand this: "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country..." and the "favor" was investigating his political rival...what don't you understand??...you're NOT ALLOWED TO ASK FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO INTERFER IN OUR ELECTION...unless you're a POS traitor and think it's ok...like Trump does... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 1 minute ago, DBP66 said: and the "favor" was investigating his political rival...what don't you understand??...you're NOT ALLOWED TO ASK FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO INTERFER IN OUR ELECTION...unless you're a POS traitor and think it's ok...like Trump does... OK. One last point: In that part of the transcript, please show where Biden is mentioned. He is talking about Crowdstrike and the 2016 election: The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Testadura Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 On 11/11/2019 at 6:01 PM, HawgGoneIt said: At the dawn of democracy, Plato foresaw an unfortunate end. vangelis aragiannis/Shutterstock.com Why tyranny could be the inevitable outcome of democracy Lawrence Torcello, Rochester Institute of Technology November 11, 2019 9.11am EST Plato, one of the earliest thinkers and writers about democracy, predicted that letting people govern themselves would eventually lead the masses to support the rule of tyrants. When I tell my college-level philosophy students that in about 380 B.C. he asked “does not tyranny spring from democracy,” they’re sometimes surprised, thinking it’s a shocking connection. But looking at the modern political world, it seems much less far-fetched to me now. In democratic nations like Turkey, the U.K., Hungary, Brazil and the U.S., anti-elite demagogues are riding a wave of populism fueled by nationalist pride. It is a sign that liberal constraints on democracy are weakening. To philosophers, the term “liberalism” means something different than it does in partisan U.S. politics. Liberalism as a philosophy prioritizes the protection of individual rights, including freedom of thought, religion and lifestyle, against mass opinion and abuses of government power. What went wrong in Athens? In classical Athens, the birthplace of democracy, the democratic assembly was an arena filled with rhetoric unconstrained by any commitment to facts or truth. So far, so familiar. Aristotle and his students had not yet formalized the basic concepts and principles of logic, so those who sought influence learned from sophists, teachers of rhetoric who focused on controlling the audience’s emotions rather than influencing their logical thinking. There lay the trap: Power belonged to anyone who could harness the collective will of the citizens directly by appealing to their emotions rather than using evidence and facts to change their minds. Pericles gives a speech in Athens. Philipp von Foltz/Wikimedia Commons Manipulating people with fear In his “History of the Peloponnesian War,” the Greek historian Thucydides provides an example of how the Athenian statesman Pericles, who was elected democratically and not considered a tyrant, was nonetheless able to manipulate the Athenian citizenry: “Whenever he sensed that arrogance was making them more confident than the situation merited, he would say something to strike fear into their hearts; and when on the other hand he saw them fearful without good reason, he restored their confidence again. So it came about that what was in name a democracy was in practice government by the foremost man.” Misleading speech is the essential element of despots, because despots need the support of the people. Demagogues’ manipulation of the Athenian people left a legacy of instability, bloodshed and genocidal warfare, described in Thucydides’ history. That record is why Socrates – before being sentenced to death by democratic vote – chastised the Athenian democracy for its elevation of popular opinion at the expense of truth. Greece’s bloody history is also why Plato associated democracy with tyranny in Book VIII of “The Republic.” It was a democracy without constraint against the worst impulses of the majority. Comment on this article Lawrence Torcello Associate Professor of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology Lawrence Torcello does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. Rochester Institute of Technology provides funding as a member of The Conversation US. You can just go to de Tocqueville, who wrote the greatest book on democracy. He wasn't a huge fan of democracy (I know there's a debate, but there really shouldn't be) because he felt it could lead to tyranny of the majority. Madison et al. felt they solved this acknowledged problem with checks and balances, separation of powers, conflicting interests, the Bill of Rights, etc., but de Tocqueville wasn't as convinced. But he saw democracy as Providential--it was a long time coming (sort of a historical determinism) and was here to stay--we can't stop it. So, what kind of democracy do you want, he posed? He didn't like what he saw in France. He thought American democracy was gentle and mild, respectful of Liberty, which was his primary concern (and JS Mills's and many other later Enlightenment thinkers', too). Early Enlightenment thinkers thought that Liberty and Equality went hand in hand in a democracy. Wrong. Rousseau, he, and others, though, correctly saw tension between the 2 goals, which only a blind person could miss today. Read Isaiah Berlin's and his "Four Essays" to understand negative Liberty (Libertarians, Classical Liberals, most Liberals pre-1960s) and positive Liberty (Progressives, Socialists, Commies). The Associate Professor is right about this: "To philosophers, the term “liberalism” means something different than it does in partisan U.S. politics. Liberalism as a philosophy prioritizes the protection of individual rights, including freedom of thought, religion and lifestyle, against mass opinion and abuses of government power." Equality is a separate concept. And Europe doesn't call American liberalism liberalism--it's something else entirely to Europeans. After the French Revolution, Liberals sat and sit on the "right" in Europe--meaning to the right of the executive (before him or her, the executive was the King or Queen). Before the French Revolution, those who sat to the Right supported Throne & Altar--they lost, much to the chagrin of those who didn't romanticize the "masses." But as Nietzsche pointed out, after that Revolution, Conservatism was fighting a read-guard action, and he thus tried to create indirectly a form of Conservatism without God. Btw, Plato was arguably a communist (he advocated equality among peers, or at least questioned how that could not be the case), and he was called a totalitarian by Karl Popper and many others for contending that the wisest ought to rule, among many other completely unrealistic proposals, though some thought that Plato was being ironic and trying to show how true Justice in a regime was unattainable. Plato gets reprehended endlessly for his anti-Democratic and "totalitarian" views, though many of our greatest thinkers and writers have been anti-Democratic. Democracies do have problems, and our Founders called this an "Experiment": "It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind." Hamilton, Federalist #1. What an undertaking, and they knew exactly what it was: The Fate of the World. ****************** With due respect to the Associate Professor, nothing went wrong in Athens that wasn't before and hasn't been the case thru today. Philosophy and logic existed in a very sufficient and usable forms--just simply read Socrates (Plato), Aristotle, the pre-Socratics, the Greek tragedians, Aristophanes, etc. See also Thucydides' descriptions of the debates among free Athenians in the Assemblies. People who may vote today are probably not much smarter (and to be sure, they are more dependent on the government, and thus, skewed), and if they are better trained in a more-formalized logic, they are more confused and manipulated. Liberal Democrat & Globalist Walter Lippmann said in the 1930s: "For the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations." (Emphasis not added by me). Again, in the '30s during FDR's terms, Lippmann said that. And Kahneman, Thaler, and others won Nobels demonstrating that people are not wholly rational as a cognitive matter (despite Aristotle's formalizing of logic--that is a hysterical contention that the A.P. makes above), as the Chicago School had thought and still largely thinks, and that people use short cuts and have biases. We have 3 brains so to speak, and we use all of them: reptilian, mammalian, and human, whether we want to or not. Our brains as an evolutionary matter haven't changed much since Plato. And in MY experience, some of the MOST irrational people are those with high IQs and upper-crust schooling. Read Jonathan Haidt's explanation why high IQs and education mean very little for forming views on politics, morality, and religion. Plato's human "rider on the horse" (rational thought) cannot control the "horse" (our emotions), which was David Hume's position. Hume argued that our emotions cast the die, and our brains back fill the reasons for our emotional views. Finally, there are demagogues on BOTH sides. The Globalists in both parties believe in rule of the wisest, which makes them Platonists in some sense. I'm sure that they have other qualities, too. Don't think that the aristocracy, plutocracy, and oligopoly just went away forever. Don't think that leaders in our democracy don't look at how nimble and effective Communism, fascism, and types of totalitarianism can be. This battle has been fought since post-Homeric Greece. Welcome to the age-old discussion, proper treatment of which cannot be done on a Board. 1 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 7 minutes ago, concha said: OK. One last point: In that part of the transcript, please show where Biden is mentioned. He is talking about Crowdstrike and the 2016 election: The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible. The Pre·sident: Good because I· heard you had a prosecutor who· was very·good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. ·A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your ery good prosecutor down and you had some ery bad people involved. Who "shut down" the prosecutor champ??...could that have been Biden?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 10 minutes ago, concha said: OK. One last point: In that part of the transcript, please show where Biden is mentioned. He is talking about Crowdstrike and the 2016 election: The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible. and who did Crowdstrike employ??...could that have been Biden son???... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 33 minutes ago, DBP66 said: nice wave of the pom-poms mam!... Nice job once again displaying what a biased hate Trump at all costs moron you are champ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted December 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Testadura said: You can just go to de Tocqueville, who wrote the greatest book on democracy. He wasn't a huge fan of democracy (I know there's a debate, but there really shouldn't be) because he felt it could lead to tyranny of the majority. Madison et al. felt they solved this acknowledged problem with checks and balances, separation of powers, conflicting interests, the Bill of Rights, etc., but de Tocqueville wasn't as convinced. But he saw democracy as Providential--it was a long time coming (sort of a historical determinism) and was here to stay--we can't stop it. So, what kind of democracy do you want, he posed? He didn't like what he saw in France. He thought American democracy was gentle and mild, respectful of Liberty, which was his primary concern (and JS Mills's and many other later Enlightenment thinkers', too). Early Enlightenment thinkers thought that Liberty and Equality went hand in hand in a democracy. Wrong. Rousseau, he, and others, though, correctly saw tension between the 2 goals, which only a blind person could miss today. Read Isaiah Berlin's and his "Four Essays" to understand negative Liberty (Libertarians, Classical Liberals, most Liberals pre-1960s) and positive Liberty (Progressives, Socialists, Commies). The Associate Professor is right about this: "To philosophers, the term “liberalism” means something different than it does in partisan U.S. politics. Liberalism as a philosophy prioritizes the protection of individual rights, including freedom of thought, religion and lifestyle, against mass opinion and abuses of government power." Equality is a separate concept. And Europe doesn't call American liberalism liberalism--it's something else entirely to Europeans. After the French Revolution, Liberals sat and sit on the "right" in Europe--meaning to the right of the executive (before him or her, the executive was the King or Queen). Before the French Revolution, those who sat to the Right supported Throne & Altar--they lost, much to the chagrin of those who didn't romanticize the "masses." But as Nietzsche pointed out, after that Revolution, Conservatism was fighting a read-guard action, and he thus tried to create indirectly a form of Conservatism without God. Btw, Plato was arguably a communist (he advocated equality among peers, or at least questioned how that could not be the case), and he was called a totalitarian by Karl Popper and many others for contending that the wisest ought to rule, among many other completely unrealistic proposals, though some thought that Plato was being ironic and trying to show how true Justice in a regime was unattainable. Plato gets reprehended endlessly for his anti-Democratic and "totalitarian" views, though many of our greatest thinkers and writers have been anti-Democratic. Democracies do have problems, and our Founders called this an "Experiment": "It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind." Hamilton, Federalist #1. What an undertaking, and they knew exactly what it was: The Fate of the World. ****************** With due respect to the Associate Professor, nothing went wrong in Athens that wasn't before and hasn't been the case thru today. Philosophy and logic existed in a very sufficient and usable forms--just simply read Socrates (Plato), Aristotle, the pre-Socratics, the Greek tragedians, Aristophanes, etc. See also Thucydides' descriptions of the debates among free Athenians in the Assemblies. People who may vote today are probably not much smarter (and to be sure, they are more dependent on the government, and thus, skewed), and if they are better trained in a more-formalized logic, they are more confused and manipulated. Liberal Democrat & Globalist Walter Lippmann said in the 1930s: "For the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations." (Emphasis not added by me). Again, in the '30s during FDR's terms, Lippmann said that. And Kahneman, Thaler, and others won Nobels demonstrating that people are not wholly rational as a cognitive matter (despite Aristotle's formalizing of logic--that is a hysterical contention that the A.P. makes above), as the Chicago School had thought and still largely thinks, and that people use short cuts and have biases. We have 3 brains so to speak, and we use all of them: reptilian, mammalian, and human, whether we want to or not. Our brains as an evolutionary matter haven't changed much since Plato. And in MY experience, some of the MOST irrational people are those with high IQs and upper-crust schooling. Read Jonathan Haidt's explanation why high IQs and education mean very little for forming views on politics, morality, and religion. Plato's human "rider on the horse" (rational thought) cannot control the "horse" (our emotions), which was David Hume's position. Hume argued that our emotions cast the die, and our brains back fill the reasons for our emotional views. Finally, there are demagogues on BOTH sides. The Globalists in both parties believe in rule of the wisest, which makes them Platonists in some sense. I'm sure that they have other qualities, too. Don't think that the aristocracy, plutocracy, and oligopoly just went away forever. Don't think that leaders in our democracy don't look at how nimble and effective Communism, fascism, and types of totalitarianism can be. This battle has been fought since post-Homeric Greece. Welcome to the age-old discussion, proper treatment of which cannot be done on a Board. This of course went very deep and I will certainly be in agreement with most of it. I should like to delve into study of some others that you mentioned, as you have clearly been more educated in this area than myself. I certainly appreciate the reasoned response. I think the knee jerk reaction of Bormio immediately following my initial posts, go directly to the issue we are currently having as a society. It wasn't exactly the debate I was looking to have, but, it became that. In a way, it proved that he sees the same thing I see in the current office holder as he immediately saw it as an attack on him. I think in his instance, even though I see him as a highly intelligent person, he allowed tribalism to override common sense at the moment he initially posted, and at the same time, he found himself slobbering at the sound of a bell just as Pavlov's dog did. I still didn't point that out at the time, because it really wasn't the debate I was looking for nor was it my wish to try one upping or whatever. I was looking to get people that may not normally do so to think further than their nose. Even if I had not previously thought that I could be right in the opinion that the current office holder is/was attempting to usurp the powers of the other branches, the type of response I got initially would have helped to solidify the opinion as a potential truth. Every president has been frustrated by having to deal with lawmakers that do not see eye to eye with him, but, not every one has looked right at the camera and basically said his intent is to expand the boundaries of the office not only to their preconceived limits, but, potentially beyond if he can so get the courts to side with him in the endeavour, thereby weakening the institutions he is frustrated with and giving himself more power over them. As I previously stated, somewhat in this thread and in other threads over time here, I may not like the person, or the philosophy of the person that the Selena Kansas congressional district elected, but, that representative isn't for me to like as it doesn't represent me anyway. Why would I cheer on a president to "stick it to" that representative? Why would I wish the president to steal away the voice of the people of that district by usurping the authorities of the body of government that person is a part of, to the detriment of my own voice through my own representative? That type of thought process was the one I was looking to stimulate, but, as per the norm here, it became another tribal head bash. Just another waste of time, until just earlier. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AztecPadre Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 3 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said: Of course we can all disagree, I suppose that I prefer an actual reason for disagreement over the simple and stupid thumb down, as I took the time to offer a thought out post to begin with. I could have posted... Don J. Trump 👎 constiution, but, I didn't. I presented an article, from a professor, and then, however tenuously, attempted to make a connection through a thought out post. As far as disagreeing about his attempts to expand the powers of the office, it's not even debateable. He has looked directly into the cameras and said into the numerous microphones before him that he is doing it for future presidents. This is one of the most amazing things with him, and his supporters, that he can say things directly to you through a camera and the next day people will be on here saying he didn't say that, or, that even if he did he didn't mean it as such. It's a crazy phenomenon with him and his general support. Let's just remove his name from the equation. I'm of the opinion, that, the attempts at expanding the office are in fact dangerous to our democracy. If the office is able to usurp oversight or any other authorities from congress, then the actual most local representation portion of our government is being weakened. Period. That again is another thing that really can't be debated. The office is less representative of my personal view and the people in my congressional district than is my senator, who is less representative of my personal view than my congressman. We should not applaud the office for attempting to usurp my most local representative person's powers for itself. The reasons why I believe there is an attempt to do this are certainly something that would be better introduced at a different time and different albeit likely directly connected subject. Now, is it better for you, and debate purpose that I call it the office rather than apply the president's name? Brother, if you are looking for an actual conversation over differing political issues, you came to the wrong place. Here, if you don't bow down to the messiah, you are attacked in every possible. way. How dare you have a differing opinion? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted December 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 8 minutes ago, AztecPadre said: Brother, if you are looking for an actual conversation over differing political issues, you came to the wrong place. Here, if you don't bow down to the messiah, you are attacked in every possible. way. How dare you have a differing opinion? Not everything needs to be viewed through a tribal lens. I understand that is the norm in this day and especially here, which is why I muse on over much here less often than before. It's very counter-productive to our society so I choose to not engage in furthering us down the proverbial shitter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World Citizen Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 4 hours ago, Hardcore Troubador said: I think the entire concern with President Trump precipitating a “constitutional crisis”®️©️™️ is overblown, dangerous, incorrect, and tired. You’re free to disagree with anyone or anything you like, on this board or out in public; I simply disagree with you. The article you posted provided commentary on a concern political philosophers have had since time immemorial [democracy’s (inevitable?) turn to tyranny] and was good enough to stand on its own without any reference to Trump (for the love of God not everything has to be about this man!!!). Plus the connection you made between the two was tenuous at best, IMHO. I do not think Trump has “intentions” as we understand them. He is mostly/all id. And to the extent he does have intentions I don’t think precipitating a constitutional crisis so he can accrue more power is anywhere near the top of that list. You want to argue about whether his actions warrant impeachment, fine. But the House has conducted an inquiry and is going to vote on Articles. They will be taken up by the Senate. If convicted, Trump will leave the White House, either by himself or escorted out by the military or Secret Service on the order of President Pence. All according to the Constitution. There will be no crisis. If he is acquitted then vote him out. As to his forcing Congress to go to the courts, what do you expect? Congressional inquiries and impeachment are by nature political things. So he doesn’t comply with subpoenas? So what? I expect nothing less. The number of times I have adversaries force me to go to court to file a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena or discovery request would blow your mind. Is that a crisis? No, it’s just part and parcel of an inherently adversarial process. This is the same thing on the biggest stage imaginable. When President Obama didn’t put AG Holder in cuffs after the Congress voted him in contempt was it a constitutional crisis? No. The vote was a political act, which Congress knew would never get enforced. Even if they had gone to the courts and Obama still refused. I have a lot of faith that our institutions are more durable than any one man, whether there’s an R or D after their names. Again, thanks for posting the article. FWIW I was riveted yesterday reading WaPo’s expose on the “Afghanistan Papers”. Highly recommend if you can get past the paywall. Great post and very much appreciated. I have just 2 things to respond to. The first is this part "I do not think Trump has “intentions” as we understand them. He is mostly/all id.", have you ever seen or know about any other President that you could say that about? I agree with you and I can't think of anybody else who comes close. They all exhibited, even in a limited way, some respect for and understanding of the responsibility that comes with trust the people put in whomever is in the office. Secondly, I do not share the faith you have in our institutions to withstand the damage one man can do. The idea that we must continuously work to keep this idea/experiment going tells me that without diligence and the rule of law being adhered to, it will have no choice but to fail and we shouldn't lose sight of that. The fact that a considerable % of this country celebrate when the President ignores his oath of office, which includes protecting and upholding the constitution. Of course those who celebrate do not look at it like that, they see the President as just sticking it to the vile and anti-American Democrats, and that sentiment is now constant regardless of what particular topic is being discussed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 2 hours ago, DBP66 said: ..and what's Rudy's roll in all this since your in the know?? Rudy is a career prosecutor's office type guy.... People from that type office usually climb the political ladder very quickly, given the dirt they dig up...(and hold or not 🙄) You will probably get your answer on Thursday or Friday.... He is supposed to be releasing a report then... PS. So you can start buttering your corn now 🍿 ... LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World Citizen Posted December 10, 2019 Report Share Posted December 10, 2019 2 hours ago, Testadura said: Read Jonathan Haidt's explanation why high IQs and education mean very little for forming views on politics, morality, and religion. Plato's human "rider on the horse" (rational thought) cannot control the "horse" (our emotions), which was David Hume's position. Hume argued that our emotions cast the die, and our brains back fill the reasons for our emotional views. This makes me highly qualified to form brilliant views on politics, morality, and religion as I am extremely uneducated and am actively destroying IQ points as I type this. Lol I agree with this. "Men are not troubled by the things that happen, but by their opinion of the things that happen." Epictetus. This I believe is where we can exhibit free will. How we think about things that happen and the journey to understanding ourselves. Great post. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.