Donald Trump says America should “forget about” the separation of church and state
Attention Required! | Cloudflare
Donald Trump says America should "forget about" the separation of church and state
Country with a second amendment refuses to use it.
You first. Unless there's some reason you're keen for others to risk their lives but not your own.
Plenty of reasons to ask others to risk their lives without being willing to risk your own.
At the most basic level, that's how specializations work: do you whip out your own drill when your tooth hurts? Or do you ask someone with the means and expertise to get the job done to do it for you?
If you're a US tax payer, then you're actively paying a shit ton of people to risk their lives on your behalf. All of those people swore an oath to defend the Constitution from all threats foreign and domestic - they are literally oath bound to engage Donald Trump the same way they do any other enemy of the US. Why shouldn't we ask those people to do their fucking job?
The 2nd Amendment is a last-ditch effort kind of thing, but the longer we get nothing but crickets from the previous paragraph the more relevant it becomes. Fortunately (in this very specific context at least) the US is stuffed with absolute enthusiasts for the 2nd Amendment - why condemn someone for asking one of those people to act on their passion? These fuckers' wet dream is to swoop in with their trusty ol' boom stick and make themselves a national hero by slaying a home-grown tyrant. So go on, Cletus: make us proud ya wraskly ol' cowboy!
In any case, we have a fuck ton of people either obligated or enthused to be the one to single-handedly step up and solve the Trump problem. As someone who's neither obligated nor enthused, I don't see any issue with calling on either of those two crowds to put their money where their mouth is, knowing full well that I'm not personally willing to risk my own life or freedom.
I wasn't talking about asking others to risk their lives without risking your own though, I specifically said 'especially keen', as in eager to sacrifice others for their own enjoyment (or whatever.)
As a way of calling out the hypocrisy of the people who claim to be all gung-ho to stamp out tyranny from behind the barrel of a gun I have no issue with it, but 'why aren't you sacrificing yourself to satisfy my vicarious moral outrage' is a bit fucking rich coming from someone who isn't also lining up to do the same thing. One might even call that a kind of hypocrisy too.
That's not what the previous poster said though, nor is that what 'keen' means.
I'm especially keen for someone to step up and do the deed, but that has nothing to do with my enjoyment, and goes way beyond just the morality of what's happening (although that part of the situation is also fucked). But no, my country is under attack, and I want that attack to stop. And in every thread like this one where we express frustration with the people whose job is to stop the attack just standing idle and letting it happen; some jackass always chimes in with "well why don't you do it??" as though it's hypocritical to tell people to do their job. It's not.
You might be shocked to learn that other countries exist and that the internet works in those countries and that your joke of a fucking constitution doesn't apply there.
Hint: I live in such a country.
And you might likewise be shocked to learn that non-Americans don't have a lock on the understanding of how maps work, or that the idea of hurling yourself pointlessly at a professional army/police force is just as unappealing here as it is in any of those countries. It's easy to say 'Someone should do something' when you're not the one who is going to be at risk in the doing, isn't it? But I'm sure wherever you're from is perfect, and even if it's not there's no reason to worry because others will no doubt be lining up to sacrifice themselves to satisfy your vicarious moral outrage so that you don't have to get your own hands dirty.
Or, and hear me out, the country that built itself in part on being prepared to meet tyranny with force is the one who ought to actually meet tyranny with force when the time comes. Other countries, which did not do this, have every right to call out hypocrisy and cowardice for what it is, especially after decades of watching the cowards be cowardly.
And no, my country is far from perfect. Surely you see how irrelevant that is to this discussion.
UPDATE: How nice! You understood me after all. You also assumed some facts not in evidence, but in a discussion such as this, that's likely to happen. I'm not "keen", I'm merely fucking exhausted.
As a way of calling out the hypocrisy of the people who claim to be all gung-ho to stamp out tyranny from behind the barrel of a gun I have no issue with it [...] https://lemmy.world/comment/16821307
That country doesn't exist anymore, and it hasn't in generations. Anyone who believes otherwise has been drinking a bit too much of the kool-aid. What we have left is a bunch of rednecks who trot out that line about tyranny to justify holding onto their guns, and otherwise a bunch of fat, happy people who have little to no real idea about what's going on at home, much less around the world.
Mind you, as you pointed out in my comment elsewhere, I agree that it's hypocrisy and cowardice, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with expecting people to sacrifice themselves (especially when you're not willing to put yourself on the line too) for some heavily-propagandized patriotic ideal that is pure fabrication at this point. Especially when the reality is that tyranny has been winning here for a long time and most people seem fine with it as long as things aren't too uncomfortable for them (which amounts to: they get to drive their big stupid SUVs and watch football and pretend that they're temporarily-embarrassed millionaires.) The idea of 'rugged individualism' has been drilled into this country's head for at least the last 40 years I've been paying attention to politics, not because it comes from the core of our national identity, but because it divides us and hampers efforts to engender class consciousness.
What I'm trying to do here is thread the needle: yes there is hypocrisy and it should be called out, but, as the rest of the sentence you quoted says, it's also a little bit hypocritical to expect others to do what you aren't here doing too. I understand the frustration non-Americans feel at the direction this country is going and the implications it has for them, and trust me when I say that some of us feel the same way too. But I'm a disabled man in my 50s, I'm more useful on the information/ideas/inspiration side of things than on the front line.
I’m not “keen”, I’m merely fucking exhausted.
Me too, man, me fuckin' too.
I’m not “keen”, I’m merely fucking exhausted.
Me too, man, me fuckin' too.
I feel you. Let's be exhausted together. Cheers.
Country with a second amendment refuses to use it.
Donald Trump has a First Amendment-protected right to say this. It may be irresponsible or outrageous, but the First Amendment protects irresponsible and outrageous speech.
On the outrageous-things-Donald-Trump-has-done list, this is probably one of the more-clearly-legal things that I can think of.
But on my personal list of "thoughts that make me shit my pants" living in a real-world Handsmaid's tale ranks pretty high, though.
When will you folks understand what your first amendment actually means?
I'm not asking your government to silence him. I'm not asking a court to sentence him. I'm not looking for a police force to arrest him.
If you want to kill a national leader because he does something lawful that you don't personally agree with, go do in someone yourself in your own country, who I suppose would be Ulf Kristersson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
The four boxes of liberty is a 19th-century American idea that proposes: "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge (or ammo). Please use in that order."
That is, one speaks out against things one objects to, one votes out leaders one objects to, one goes to the judicial system, and only then does one resort to violence.
We've no issue with speaking out against Trump --- I've done so many times on here, quite publicly. That has not failed.
Trump's tried to ignore an election that he lost, but the system rejected it. That has not failed.
Trump's been stopped on a number of occasions by judicial rulings. There are certainly a few questionable cases, like trying to find a legal loophole to not reverse deportions that had occurred by trying to get people outside US jurisdiction, there's a long list of Presidents who have looked for legal loopholes; Bush Junior tried a very similar tactic with Guantanamo. That has certainly not reached a point where the judicial system is ineffective.
If all three of those had been rendered inoperative, then and only then would the use of violence against him be warranted.
James Madison, the Founding Father who drafted the Constitution, addressed the subject in Federalist Paper No. 46:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0261
The only refuge left for those who prophecy the downfall of the state governments, is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the states should for a sufficient period of time elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the states should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the state governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield in the United States an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprizes of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone, they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition, that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures, which must precede and produce it.
You don't go assassinate someone because he does something that you don't like. You fight someone if they actually break with democracy.
"Let's ignore the constitution." This is fine.
And then:
You fight someone if they actually break with democracy.
What kind of break with democracy the motherfuck are you waiting for?
Your country in a nutshell. I wouldn't care if we didn't catch a cold from you sneezing.