Planned Parenthood Perverting Our Kids!

[Tassman]

Like there is something morally wrong with totalitarianism in your ethically relative world - just animals being animals...

Sure! Just ask Moses when he slaughtered every man among the Midianites under God's instruction. "Just animals being animals". Of course it wouldn't have been acceptable according to the values that apply today consequent to the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'. Moses would have been summoned to the International Court of Justice at The Hague for crimes against humanity.

[seer]

Sure! Just ask Moses when he slaughtered every man among the Midianites under God's instruction. "Just animals being animals". Of course it wouldn't have been acceptable according to the values that apply today consequent to the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'. Moses would have been summoned to the International Court of Justice at The Hague for crimes against humanity.

That is nonsense Tass. First the context with Moses was war, like us firebombing Dresden or Tokyo. So no, we have not changed that much. And only a minority of the worlds countries have signed on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so it has no moral or legal authority in the universal sense. To date the court has only convicted about 30 people in the Rwandan genocide. After how many years? Impotent...

[carpedm9587]

That is nonsense Tass. First the context with Moses was war, like us firebombing Dresden or Tokyo. So no, we have not changed that much. And only a minority of the worlds countries have signed on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so it has no moral or legal authority in the universal sense. To date the court has only convicted about 30 people in the Rwandan genocide. After how many years? Impotent...

The emphasized statement is a bit misleading. The UDHR was signed in 1948, shortly after the conclusion of WWII. At the time there were only 58 members of the UN. 48 signed, 8 formally abstained, and two did not vote at all. Most of the countries that are not "formal" signatories gained sovereignty and joined the UN after 1948. As for moral authority, since morality is an individual construct, the degree to which it is morally significant is dependent on the individual's moral framework. The degree to which it has legal authority, that is more muddled. The UN has since voted that the document is binding on all member states. Note that it was the member states that voted for that. It drives UN decisions concerning resolutions, sanctions, etc. But many member states have internally rejected it as legally binding. Even the U.S. did that when SCOTUS, in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), ruled that the UDHR "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law."

According to this summary, the statement about the International Court of Justice does not appear to be correct.

[Sparko]

I think you mean that he couldn't get them to repeal healthcare, not pass healthcare. But they certainly tried, its just that they still have a couple of principled republicans amongst their ranks and thanks to just a couple of them, including the deciding vote of John McCain, they were not quite able to screw the american people over like they would have liked.

No they could not come up with a replacement plan.

But regardless, your idiotic conspiracy theory that Trump is some sort of dictator is moronic. Trump hasn't been able to get hardly anything done. Some dictator.

[carpedm9587]

No they could not come up with a replacement plan.

I have to admit I found this part odd. After years of railing against the ACA and promising to get rid of it, how is it possible that there was not a replacement plan close to ready to go once they gained power? Sometimes I wonder about the reasoning abilities of our major parties.

But regardless, your idiotic conspiracy theory that Trump is some sort of dictator is moronic. Trump hasn't been able to get hardly anything done. Some dictator.

If he hasn't been able to get hardly anything done, doesn't that suggest he has been able to get a great deal done?


(sorry CP - I saw it first!)

[Zymologist]

If he hasn't been able to get hardly anything done, doesn't that suggest he has been able to get a great deal done?


(sorry CP - I saw it first!)

Trump isn't getting hardly nothing done, no how!

[JimL]

No they could not come up with a replacement plan.

I know, and after how many years of complaining and saying they had better idea's?

But regardless, your idiotic conspiracy theory that Trump is some sort of dictator is moronic. Trump hasn't been able to get hardly anything done. Some dictator.

Well actually what I have been saying is that Trump is a wannabe dictator. At the moment we still have institutional constraints on his power, constraints like the Courts, FBI, DOJ, CIA, the media, all of which he has been doing his best to undermine.

[seer]

I have to admit I found this part odd. After years of railing against the ACA and promising to get rid of it, how is it possible that there was not a replacement plan close to ready to go once they gained power? Sometimes I wonder about the reasoning abilities of our major parties.

Because the Republicans never really wanted to get rid of it, it was just a campaign talking point.

[Sparko]

I have to admit I found this part odd. After years of railing against the ACA and promising to get rid of it, how is it possible that there was not a replacement plan close to ready to go once they gained power? Sometimes I wonder about the reasoning abilities of our major parties.



If he hasn't been able to get hardly anything done, doesn't that suggest he has been able to get a great deal done?


(sorry CP - I saw it first!)

sorry but your grammarian nitpick is incorrect. Not being able to get hardly anything done means that he has been able to get some things done.

I just find it funny that people like JimL call Trump a "dictator" - if he were a dictator he would be the most ineffectual dictator in history.

[JimL]

sorry but your grammarian nitpick is incorrect. Not being able to get hardly anything done means that he has been able to get some things done.

I just find it funny that people like JimL call Trump a "dictator" - if he were a dictator he would be the most ineffectual dictator in history.

Wannabe dictator, Sparko, wannabe dictator!

[Sparko]

Wannabe dictator, Sparko, wannabe dictator!

I am NOT a wannabe dictator. I am the defacto Tweb dictator.

[carpedm9587]

sorry but your grammarian nitpick is incorrect. Not being able to get hardly anything done means that he has been able to get some things done.

Stop nitpicking my nitpicking!

I just find it funny that people like JimL call Trump a "dictator" - if he were a dictator he would be the most ineffectual dictator in history.

I think it would be more appropriate to call him a "wannabe" dictator/strongman. He clearly admires strong men (has voice this for several of them), wants many of the trappings common to dictators/strongmen (military parades, heavy military representation on his staff, etc.), and he has many of the personal attributes of a dictator/strongman (e.g., ego, thin skin, undermining the press, bullying tactics, etc.). To be fair, some of these are common to politicians in general - but when you combine all of them in one person...?

I have to admit that I was concerned about our country when he was first elected. Since then I have come to realize that our institutions are strong enough to contain even a person like Trump. And his election may serve a larger good - showing us the dangers of putting too much power in the presidency, and perhaps finally showing us the futility of putting such an amazingly inept person in the highest office in the land.

[Sparko]

Stop nitpicking my nitpicking!



I think it would be more appropriate to call him a "wannabe" dictator/strongman. He clearly admires strong men (has voice this for several of them), wants many of the trappings common to dictators/strongmen (military parades, heavy military representation on his staff, etc.), and he has many of the personal attributes of a dictator/strongman (e.g., ego, thin skin, undermining the press, bullying tactics, etc.). To be fair, some of these are common to politicians in general - but when you combine all of them in one person...?

I have to admit that I was concerned about our country when he was first elected. Since then I have come to realize that our institutions are strong enough to contain even a person like Trump. And his election may serve a larger good - showing us the dangers of putting too much power in the presidency, and perhaps finally showing us the futility of putting such an amazingly inept person in the highest office in the land.

it's also funny the same people who call him dictator/wannabe dictator also want him to take away their guns and some of them go around protesting free speech too. It's like they WANT to live in a totalitarian state, just not run by Trump.

As far as too much presidential power, don't forget Obama and his Pen!

[carpedm9587]

it's also funny the same people who call him dictator/wannabe dictator also want him to take away their guns and some of them go around protesting free speech too. It's like they WANT to live in a totalitarian state, just not run by Trump.

Yeah - I'm familiar with that meme. I don't find it convincing.

As far as too much presidential power, don't forget Obama and his Pen!

Obama: Average 34.6 executive orders per year (ranks 22 out of 45 presidents, pretty close to the middle of the pack)
Trump: Average 55 executive orders per year (ranks 15th out of 45 presidents)

The average number of executive orders per year by all presidents is 58.18, so Obama was well below that level and Trump is just slightly below.

I'm sure there will be a reason why this is OK with Trump, but not OK with Obama...

[Sparko]

Yeah - I'm familiar with that meme. I don't find it convincing.



Obama: Average 34.6 executive orders per year (ranks 22 out of 45 presidents, pretty close to the middle of the pack)
Trump: Average 55 executive orders per year (ranks 15th out of 45 presidents)

The average number of executive orders per year by all presidents is 58.18, so Obama was well below that level and Trump is just slightly below.

I'm sure there will be a reason why this is OK with Trump, but not OK with Obama...

I don't think it is the number but the topic of the EO that counts. And why it was used.

And one of Obama's EOs is causing a lot of problems today, DACA. If Congress would just put it into law the problem would go away. But for decades now, congress has been a hindrance to good government. They are so obstructionist. I think it is because they don't have term limits and they somehow think they are American Royalty.