i'm opposed to keeping any president at all. i'm opposed to the senate conducting any business. you can't think the people who were at j6 thought they were pulling an insurrection. at least, i don't believe that.
I'm an insurrectionary anarchist in the tradition of Luigi Galliani, and I am sick of seeing people call the J6 crowd "insurrectionists".
You might disagree with their opinion of what is "lawful" or "constitutional", but they believed what they were doing was both, and that they were upholding the constitution. However misguided you might think they are in that belief, they are still patriots.
But I fucking hate patriots. They're almost as bad as outright nazis, and in america, I don't see any difference at all. The pledge of allegiance is fascist. The speaker of the house is flanked by fasces. The primacy of the state is obvious: everyone accepts now secret courts (fisa) and "continuity of governance" plans.
I don't need to be governed. I am interested only in liberation for myself and my comrades.
And I am sick of people labeling the J6 patriots as insurrectionists. I guarantee they don't know what propaganda of the deed is. It's a convenient label that liberals have chosen to apply because there is a law about insurrectionists holding office. And upholding such a law is fucking fascist.
i'm not far right at all.
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/dictionary/true-facts-and-false-facts/
i hope this helps you
baby, i'm an anarchist
You have every reason to believe he was and is trying to overthrow the government, but you are deliberately ignoring them.
your interpretation of his intentions cannot supercede his authority over his intentions. he solely knows what he meant and what he believes, and no evidence can subvert his own claims.
consider: what evidence can you produce about whether he thought he was trying to over throw the government that, if disputed by him, would not immediately fall flat? even if you could produce a letter signed by him at the moment claiming exactly what you do, if he made a claim now disavowing it and saying he nevermeant it, that letter would not prove his intention.
it's my reading that you think facts are incontrivertible, but, actually, they are claims that can be proven or disproven. therefore some facts are false.
right. i have no reason to believe he believes he was trying to overthrow the government nor that he was planning to end democracy.
your argument supposes they believe that. you literally said that's a premise.
he disputes that accusation
i've seen explications before, but i'm open to the possibility that you have a novel theory that is testable, falsifiable, and valid.
No one in the government should say “I’m going to dictate policy that I have control over, but this policy can be overturned by the other two branches. Thus, I’m a dictator.” That’s not what that word means. You are trying to use a nonspecific definition out of context to justify defending a wannabe dictator.
i'm not defending a wannabe dictator. i'm explicitly saying i think trump's stupid, and i don't believe he meant "dictator" in the same sense that you insist he must have meant it.
These are not my “pet definitions” but accepted definitions of what a dictator/dictatorship is in the political sphere. It’s called context.
can you substantiate this claim, that governing by dictate is not an accepted definition"in the political sphere". while we're on it, what do you define as "the political sphere"?
i think he's a dummy, and he may be operating on my folksy definition of "dictator". my assumption is just as valid as yours.
so it's dumb to say it that way, but i don't believe he ever said he's planning to "end democracy" or even meant to imply that.
Both abstaining from vot8ng and voting third party are mathematically equivalent to voting for a capitalist
no, they're not. calling your storytelling "math" doesn't change its veracity.
That’s not what a dictatorship is. A dictatorship is where one person (the dictator) has almost complete control over the government with few, if any, restrictions.
they are literally creating policy by dictate. your pet definition seems crafted to exclude this obvious use of dictate.
To link executive orders to a dictatorship shows a misunderstanding of executive orders, dictatorships, or both.
Also, in the quote of being a “dictator for just one day,” executive orders were not mentioned
no one is accusing trump of being a knowledgeable statesman.
A Jewish professor who comes from a long line of rabbis and is critical of Israeli policy is currently being investigated for ‘#antisemitism’ by a Dean who is the WASPiest person ever
Attached: 2 images “A Jewish professor who comes from a long line of rabbis and is critical of Israeli policy is currently being investigated for ‘#antisemitism’ by a Dean who is the WASPiest person ever and whose blue blood ancestors barred Jews from their clubs. You just can’t make this stuff up....
lemmy.world/c/politicalmemes mods ban people for reports but not for violating rules
Hey,
I think it would be best if you guys stopped responding to each other on this post: https://alexandrite.app/lemmy.world/post/11141507 The many many reports you have made do not qualify for removal. Calling someone a fed is not a personal attack, you are, however abusing the reporting system. I don’t want to have to take action so this is your warning to stop reporting things that aren’t actual rule violations. Also it seems like your argument is pretty circular now, continueing will probably lead one or both of you to some action that will result in concequences you may not want.
As always we want to keep things on the rails as much as possible it is not our place to silence people you don’t agree with or try to cool opposing viewpoints.
---------------
calling someone a fed is literally an ad hominem: it attempts to undermine their position not by dealing with their actual claims but, instead, by implying that they are a bad person. either the rule should not be written as it is or you are not enforcing it properly.
-------------
Banned from the community Political Memes reason: Abusing reporting system expires: in 3 days
Removed Comment in c/politics unjutifiable: the accusation of any of the people mentioned in this comment being a "russian owned asset" is actually exactly the sort of thing this comment debunks.
Removed Comment edit: added legacy media Not sure if /s but will add info to push back a bit on legacy media's Russiagate, for the curious. FYI for those that forgot, Bernie Sanders was also called a Russian asset in 2016. --- >Veteran New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth dissects the role of the media in concocting a false narrative portraying Trump as a 'Russian asset' rather than a homegrown horror. How the media misled us about Russiagate w/Jeff Gerth | The Chris Hedges Report [32:18 | Feb 24 2023 | The Real News Network] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IiefPIKp9XY --- >Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave discuss yesterday's new report from special-counsel John Durham over Former President Donald Trump. Russiagate Hoax: Rising Reacts To Damning Durham Report [09:30| May 20 2023 | The Hill] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_dwmNxaqUY by USERNAMEREDACTEDBECAUSEITDOESN'TMATTERWHOWROTEIT reason: Misinformation. Videos from Russian owned asset
Internet fora, long-form responses, and the Gish gallop
I have had a comment removed today because, purportedly, I was spamming too many responses to a single other comment. I find this reasoning to be specious: I provided just as much evidence for my position as the other commentor did for theirs, and did so succinctly. This isn't spam: it's a conversation.
I have noticed, in my tenure on the internet, that it is common for people to produce quite long, meandering comments in response to some quip they didn't like. A failure to address each of these points is, eventually, and almost without exeception, greeted with "you didn't answer my questions" or some variation. This tactic smacks of the Gish gallop: a rhetorical technique where you throw every concievable argument, no matter how specious, into the debate, attempting to make it seem as though a failure to answer ANY point means that point must stand.
I reject being told how long or thorough a response must be to any particular comment: if a claim can be rebutted in a single word, then that word should suffice. Further, if someone produces a great, meandering rant on the topic du jour, surely they understand each of the points tehy made, and can defend them even in isolation from the other, tangentially related points. So responding to each point in single comments, even if that means many single comments, breaks up the gish gallop, and allows the readers to see the problems with each point without subjecting them to multiple walls of text.
Finally, no rule explicitly says that a comment must meet an objective standard for length, nor that you may not respond to a comment more than once if you have two different things to say to that comment. It is my conclusion that the removal of my comment was, therefore, capricious and unwarranted.
Tim Pool just suggested that democrats are gonna nominate haley by switching parties. Is that really the plan?
and would she be any better than biden/trump/obama? i honestly haven't paid her any attention.
Delta Chat is a messaging app that works over e-mail 💬 Message anyone with an e-mail address even if they don’t use Delta Chat. 🥳 Enjoy interactive chat experiences through webxdc apps. 🔒 End-to-En...
I don't understand why it took us 50 years to figure out how to do encrypted messaging-over-email. Anyone wanna swap email addresses?
jordanlund is a power tripping lib ruining lemmy.world c/politics with his hypersensitive rad lib sensibilities
I don't think you need me to elaborate. I will not be linking their profile