Total posts: 28,020
-->
@Sidewalker
Maybe stop trying to assassinate your president? Stop telling Democrats to assassinate other Democrats for enforcing immigration laws?
Created:
Posted in:
"Einstein couldn’t stand fawners, people who worshipped genius instead of understanding it. He was regularly dismayed at the hero-worship and celebrity treatment he got, calling it "an unhealthy attitude of adulation" and even mocking the idea that his opinions on unrelated matters should carry weight just because of his fame. To him, truth was sacred, not the person who discovered it. He wanted people to think, not follow. Einstein wanted company in the search for truth, not applause for already finding it. Einstein found people who refused to challenge him worse than idiotic. He found that behavior an abhorrent lifestyle choice"
-Wolfgang Pauli
Created:
-->
@WyIted
So she was killed for refusing to let illegal invaders extort her.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Democrats getting what they wanted when they decided lawlessness was more important than democracy.
Created:
Mencken created Trump. Hail Menkin.
Remember that John Adams said we’re a government ruled by laws, not by men.
Yes, John Adams famously said, “We are a government of laws, not of men.” It sounds noble, like nobody is above the rules, and everything should be fair. But if you take that too literally, like some retarded people do, you start thinking that laws magically enforce themselves and we don’t need leaders of law to actually carry them out. Laws are like blueprints for a house, they tell you what should be built, but they don’t build anything by themselves. You still need someone with tools, materials, and the authority to get the job done. If everyone just stares at the blueprint and argues about it, nothing ever gets built. That’s why a government can’t run on laws alone, you need people of law and in charge to carry them out, or they’re just dead words collecting dust. John Adams wasn’t saying laws work in a vacuum, he was saying the law must guide the people in power, not replace them.
Laws are just words on paper until a real person like a cop, a judge, or yes, a president, men of law, gives them life. Imagine if Mom made a rule that you can’t eat cookies before dinner, but then she leaves the kitchen and nobody’s watching. You eat the cookies anyway. Who enforces the rule? Not the rule itself. Someone has to act. That’s why Adams helped create an executive branch in the first place because laws need enforcemen by men of law.
Now imagine if every time Mom tried to stop you, your older cousin, let’s call him Judge Joey, says, “Hmm, I’m not sure if Mummmy’s allowed to stop you. Let me think about it for a few months. In the meantime, eat as many cookies as you want.” That’s what happens when judges start overruling the executive branch before anything even gets done. That’s not a country ruled by laws, that’s a country ruled by delay and dysfunction. That's the chaos of unstoppable men in robes Adams warned us.
The Founders didn’t want kings. But they also didn’t want a government so weak and chaotic that mobs, courts, or bureaucrats could ignore the people’s chosen leader. They created a balance: the executive carries out the laws, the legislature writes them, and the courts interpret them when there's a real conflict. Not whenever a district judge feels like it. If you flip that balance and let district judges run the show, then we’re not ruled by laws, we’re ruled by whoever can file the first lawsuit with the right judge.
So yes, Adams was right that the law should rule. But also by men of law. Without strong, lawful leadership, without someone willing to act boldly within bounds, then laws become suggestions, and democracy becomes a game of who can gum up the system fastest. And that, little one, is how you lose your republic while thinking you're using chaos to save it.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Executive leaders do not "dictate" the will of the people. That's called a dictatorship, the literal opposite of democracy.Executive leaders carry out the will of the people - in accordance with the constitution and laws they are sworn to protect.That's why we have judges. It turns out that laws are quite meaningless when it's up to the executive leader to decide for himself whether he's acting in accordance with them.
DoubleR, your entire argument hinges on a cartoonish misunderstanding of democracy, the kind that sounds good in a freshman poli-sci seminar but collapses under the weight of actual day to day governance. Okay, you say, “executives don’t dictate the will of the people" as if the word dictate implies dictatorship by default. But the root of “dictate” simply means to declare or carry out with authority. In a republic, the executive HAS TO dictate, not arbitrarily, but decisively, in order to fulfill the mandate granted by the people through election. Otherwise, he's a ceremonial puppet, not a president. (like Biden)
You claim that laws are "meaningless" if the executive decides for himself whether he's acting within them. But that’s not how the system was designed. The president doesn’t wait for pre-approval from district judges. He acts. The courts may later evaluate legality, but that's review, not permission or authority. What you’re promoting is a perversion of checks and balances, where the judiciary gets to preemptively neuter the executive branch any time it disagrees politically. That’s not democracy. That’s a judicial oligarchy. Far worse than anything you accuse the executive branch as being.
The Founder Fathers justifiably feared legislative and judicial overreach just as much as tyranny from above. For example: Washington crushed the Whiskey Rebellion not because he hated dissent, but because he knew the republic wouldn’t survive if people could decide which laws to obey and which leaders to ignore. He didn’t hand that rebellion over to a circuit court. He handled it with force, and with legitimacy. If you think that made him a dictator, you should probably stop quoting the Constitution you clearly haven’t read. There's many similar times Lincoln had to do the same.
And Hamilton is the guy who literally wrote the playbook on executive power. The guy said energy in the executive is essential to good government. Not a threat to it. He warned against a feeble presidency, because he knew delay, hesitation, and judicial meddling would destroy the unity and direction a republic needs to function. What you want isn’t democracy with accountability. What you are asking for is a democracy without authority. That’s just chaos in the streets, or the status quo.
So no, DoubleR, we don’t need an executive leader who waits around patiently while every policy gets chopped up by partisan judges. America needs one who can act decisively within the limits of the law and defend the Constitution not just in theory, but in motion. If that scares you, maybe you don’t trust the people as much as you pretend to. maybe you don't trust democracy. Maybe you don't trust the freedom of the public to make rules to secure our country. Or maybe it’s because you only like checks and balances when they check your enemies and balance your ideology. Yeah, that's probably it.
When every executive action gets blocked by cherry-picked district judges, instead of checks and balances, what we have is one branch nullifying another. Disaster.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
If one's fear of dictatorship leads a nation to dismantle executive authority altogether, you’re not saving democracy. You’re burning it down.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
You mean a wannabe dictator
A country with no functioning executive branch is toast. Democracy can't work if an executive leader can't dictate the will of the people. This is why you really haven't thought out the imminent disaster it is to replace the executive branch with district judges. That's the end of democracy and the start of rebellion.
Hamilton in Federalist No. 70
“A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government.”
Washington:
“Laws can only be executed in a spirit of moderation and justice when resistance to them is forcibly checked.”
“Whereas combinations to defeat the execution of the laws... do exist, and open resistance to the execution of the laws has been manifested... such proceedings are subversive of good order and government.”
Trump is channeling Washington's vigor as when he crushed the Whiskey rebellion with an iron fist.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No matter how many times you repeated that.
Created:
It's extremely hard to confuse Biden. You have to be a genius to do that.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You forgot saint Garcia, patron saint of MS-13
You become a double plus fascist for jailing him.
Created:
We have many people born in the USA that have yet to assimilate as well as Melania to American culture.
#TDSfatigue
Created:
-->
@WyIted
When the left does it, it's law and order. When the right does it, it's fascism.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
#trumpfatigue
Created:
-->
@WyIted
also:
#fascistfatigue
Created:
-->
@WyIted
#Democratfatigue
Created:
-->
@Double_R
He didn't. You know there's video of this incident right?
yah, I saw the video. They asked for physical ID, and he pulled the "do you know who I am?" card.
Then he pushed through anyway and FAFOed.
Republicans are not fucking around in a climate where Democrats are promoting more violence and assassination attempts on law enforcement and elected leaders instead of condemning it. Republicans, love them or hate them, are making it very clear: rules are rules, and security comes first. No more passes, no more games. If Democrats want to be taken seriously on law and order, they have to start acting like it, not crying foul when the rules they ignore come back to bite them.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Well said.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Yes, that was literally all he did.
And he did it with wings and a halo while the federal agents wore helmets with demon horns.
You cannot argue they were right to throw him down on the floor and hand cuff him.
You shove a federal officer, it's game over. Period.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Crypto is how you hold the crony feds who are manipulating inflation to help the ultra rich accountable. Just the threat of players dropping out of the USD game is enough.
Created:
-->
@MayCaesar
Lol, one shallow pleasure follows another. Enjoy my good friend.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Either the standards for the Capitol police are razor paper-thin, or someone’s intentionally weaponizing grief to create a martyr myth for strategical political convenience.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
all fair points
Jan 6th resulted in many cops committing suicide later...
I agree, if law enforcement is so weak willed that flagpoles and cosplay larpers wearing horns makes them unalive themselves days later, then the country is already gone. How could we stand against a real armed insurrection? It would drive the entire DC capital police force to huddle around a poisoned vat of Jonestown juice....
Created:
-->
@MayCaesar
And there it is. Enjoy winning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I cant play GTA V, my reflexes are shot and I can't progress the campaign....too lazy to look for cheats.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
that denied a democratic election..
Well, deny and challenge are two different words afaik....
So if you were accurate and used the word challenge, Trump is the latest in a long line of election challengers.
and incited violent overthrow
If people genuinely feel the country could be toppled by a bunch of larpers with horns and flagpoles and no guns, then the country is already gone long before and after Trump.
Created:
-->
@MayCaesar
that was a very well crafted non-sequitur to the point you were not interested in discussing.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Ironically, Trump is trying to restore democracy to the USA instead of having the country run by corporate interests using alphabet agencies to launder power and influence. The fact that district judges are wielding power to decide national and foreign policy is proof that we lost the power of a democracy long ago. The current meme going around is that Trump should have run for district judge instead of president if he really wanted to fix the country.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
They also call Trump a king when district judges regularly override his authority.
Americans need a real dictator to let them know what real outrage is. So soft.
We literally had a 400 pound woman complaining to the Congress that her 22 year old child couldn't get food stamps anymore. And that's Faaaassssccchhhisssmm.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
and arrested a sitting US senator for the crime of asking a question at a press conference.
Yes, clearly that was the only thing he did.
So in just the past week Trump has deployed the US military onto US streets...
Remember when people were mad that Trump prevented Pelosi from deploying the national guard on Jan 6?
Both times he was a fascist dictator. Obviously.
Created:
-->
@MayCaesar
Actually, it's extremely easy to find people that will be willing to concede and see other points. Explore solutions. Wylted, adreamofliberty, savant, barney, whiteflame, among many others.
Feel free to do the you-do-you though. Some people find joy in winning. Others find joy in learning. i.e.- good faith discussions.
Created:
-->
@MayCaesar
I did not see that point relevant to the discussion, because you have not explained how the disaster could have been avoided with a different set of policies.
This is why i say you debate in bad faith. I'm not asking for a steelman, but tinfoilman would be a good 1st step.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I found the game to be a fun way to play as evil.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Stopping the caravans did far more at stopping mules and child sex traffic than any fence. The simple idea that there would be no sanctuary for illegals was the only factor stopping caravans, not a wall. The wall was simply a monument to an idea of enforced legal assimilation. Not a tool to defend an actual invasion. That alone makes the monument worth it. The results matter. Without caravan surges, traffic across the border becomes way too risky for the cartels.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
People using the word Fascism how you are, would call most communist regimes fascist.
Absolutely not. Fascism promotes a certain ethnic makeup. Communism doesn't care about ethnicity, its the polar opposite of fascism. Communism cares about class, not culture.
But a Globalist Fascist does something very different: they actively promote engineered ethnic mixtures across the globe, enforcing quotas and targeting demographics with surgical precision.
This isn’t about national pride or class warfare. It’s about manufactured identity as an ideological mandate. The goal isn’t to erase ethnicity or elevate one group. A Globalist Fascist seeks to design a master mix by spreadsheet quotas.
It’s not a single ethnic supremacy. It’s spreadsheet supremacy. Ethnicity to a globalist fascist is data, managed, manipulated, and enforced like a professional breeding program.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
No you can have pride in promoting global ethnicity as a means to prosperity and have the authority to force it to happen. Globalist Fascism.
What do you call it when a ruling class promotes borderless ethnic integration as a moral good, uses propaganda to enforce conformity, and punishes dissent with legal and social ruin and social credit? That’s not democracy. That’s Globalist Fascism. Soft on slogans, hard on freedom.
Canada went all-in on Globalist Fascism when it declared itself the 1st nation with no national culture.
No national culture = no resistance. It’s a blank canvas for bureaucratic control.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Do you identify as a Globalist Fascist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Democracy is why America has such open borders.
Lol, no. We voted long ago to assimilate migrants with various immigration acts. That was Democratic Nationalism. Welcoming newcomers into a shared culture and identity.
We have open borders only because of the tyranny of presidential fiat ignoring the laws and will of the people, or you could say it's globalist fascism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Democratic Nationalist.
Believing in national borders, a national language, voting, and national identity based on Lockean culture doesn’t make you a fascist. It makes you a participant in a functioning democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Its been over 150 years, and we still haven't assimilated generations of former imported slaves. That objectively shows up in poor academics, poor family values, poor criminal choices....a culture that still scorns education, scorns due process, scorns sacrifice for the whole, embraces tribalism, embraces instant gratification, embraces merit based on skin color. If we knew how much our country would degrade as a result of this failed assimilation, we would have made reservations for them like we did for the Indians 150 years ago.
I get that we have an obligation to keep trying, but we have zero obligations to do that for fence hoppers swinging Mexican flags and blasting shops with cinder blocks and gas filled bottles.
Created:
Posted in:
If it's African countries that count, the US has significantly impacted Nigerian culture.
No no no.
No, the United States certainly did not successfully export liberty to Nigeria. Sure, Nigeria has adopted many surface-level features of Western democracy, such as a constitution, elections, and formal civil rights, but those institutions exist largely on paper. In practice, the cultural foundation required to sustain liberty is weak. Freedom of speech is regularly undermined, with journalists and activists harassed or detained for criticizing the government. Religious liberty is compromised, particularly in the northern states where Sharia law is enforced, often in direct conflict with civil rights. Corruption is rampant, and loyalty to ethnic or religious groups frequently outweighs any commitment to national identity or constitutional principles. Like I said before paper liberty is far less impressive than a culture of liberty.
Despite massive investment by the U.S. and Western NGOs in democracy-building programs, Nigeria has not embraced the cultural values that underpin American-style liberty: rule of law, individual rights, civic accountability, and the restraint of state power. Liberty cannot and will never be exported through paperwork or elections alone. It has to grow from a cultural soil that respects and defends it. In Nigeria, that soil remains divided and unstable. What we exported wasn’t liberty, it was the illusion of it, disconnected from the civic fabric based on a culture of liberty needed to make it real. Nigeria: The paper tiger of all free tigers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
you can’t export freedom to cultures that don’t want itI mean, the US did do that? Ending slavery was by no means easy, but it did happen.
Tell me, exactly which African nation did we export our culture to successfully and ended the ongoing slavery in Africa?
The idea that America can simply export its culture, especially American liberty and democracy, is one of the most persistent and dangerous myths of the last hundred years. It assumes that freedom is a global system, as if handing culturally diverse people a constitution, an election, and some NGOs will automatically produce a stable republic. But that’s not how culture works.
Every time we’ve tried to export American-style liberty to foreign nations, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Africa, it’s ended in failure or chaos. These efforts ignored the truth: freedom isn’t a system, or a set of laws, it’s a culture. And it only survives in places where people have been raised, generation after generation, to value individual rights, free speech, civic duty, and moral restraint like the founders demanded.
Even Europe despite being culturally close never fully adopted the American view of liberty. Most European countries restrict speech, enforce hate speech laws, and criminalize dissent they deem socially disruptive. If our First Amendment ideals couldn’t even fully take root among people with shared history and values, what makes anyone think it can succeed in societies built on tribal loyalty, religious absolutism, or authoritarian tradition? JD Vance was right, we don't have a shared culture anymore, so even importing white fuckers from the EU without assimilation will result in the 1st Amendment going byebye.
The reality is this: liberty can’t be exported. It has to be cultivated. And importing cultures that fundamentally don’t believe in liberty undermines the very foundation the Constitution depends on. We didn’t build freedom by mailing pamphlets overseas. We built it by sustaining and promoting a culture willing to live, fight, and die for it. When we forget that, we stop being champions of liberty and start being morticians.
America, fuck yeah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
The debate is whether America can rise up against the corporate interests to preserve American culture, or unlike England who took steps in 1981, is American culture just not worth saving?
Created:
Posted in:
The last century was a brutal lesson in Constitutional suicide pacts: you can’t export freedom to cultures that don’t want it, and you definitely shouldn’t import those cultures here and expect different results. Over a hundred years of exporting liberty to the Middle East, and nothing to show. Why? Because we ignored John Adam's warning about the fabric of a moral culture.
We thought in our ethnocentric bubble liberty was a global idea. That the Constitution was a magical owner's manual.
Actually, it’s generational, cultural, and painfully rare. And the Constitution was simply a heart monitor for the culture of America.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
The right to own slaves.Like the right to drink alcohol or the right not to have income taxed.
Was never in the constitution.
I specifically said eliminating constitutional rights, not adding more. Not a single Constitutional right has been written out of the constitution by Americans. That will most certainly change if we import and embrace a culture predisposed to abolishing those rights. The Constitution isn’t self-sustaining. It survives only as long as the culture upholding it believes in its values. If you flood America with a culture that sees liberty as a threat instead of a gift, it’s only a matter of time before “amendment” becomes “abolition.” The founding fathers always said a Constitution can only exist within the fabric of a moral society with a culture for liberty. Specifically John Adams.
They are still correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
The constitution has a process for amending it, so yes it was. Every amendment was a rejection of the previous version.
I specifically said eliminating constitutional rights, not adding more. Not a single right has been written out of the constitution by Americans. That will most certainly change if we import and embrace a culture predisposed to abolishing those rights. The Constitution isn’t self-sustaining. It survives only as long as the culture upholding it believes in its values. If you flood America with a culture that sees liberty as a threat instead of a gift, it’s only a matter of time before “amendment” becomes “abolition.” The founding fathers always said a Constitution can only exist within the fabric of a moral society with a culture for liberty. Specifically John Adams.
They are still correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
The Constitution was never meant to protect ideologies that openly reject the Constitution itself. That’s not liberty. That’s suicide by appeasement.
Does everyone on the planet deserve free speech no matter what?
Only if they’re not using it to abolish the very thing they’re exploiting. When you use liberty to dismantle liberty. Otherwise, it’s not a right, it’s a weapon of control. Either the American culture that created these guarantees of liberty is worth preserving, or it is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Are any rights inalienable? You strike me as generally libertarian, so surely you believe there are some rights that exist without a government granting them.
Only within a John Lockean culture can that idea exist.
So you want to limit speech but also deport other people for wanting to limit speech?
I want to reserve rights for a culture that preserves those rights. This is the urgency and importance of cultural assimilation. We had an intergenerational cold war over this only to lose it in 2025 by declaring cultural assimilation pointless. I am not calling for censorship, I am calling for preservation. There’s a huge difference. We spent decades holding the line against authoritarian cultures precisely because they crushed free expression, dissent, conscience, and civic liberty. And now, somehow, we’re expected to import those same ideologies, tolerate them in the name of ‘diversity,’ and abandon the expectation of assimilation?
No thanks to that suicide pact.
Created: