Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - crutonius

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23  Next >
1
Great.  Now they can be drafted.

2
Vote is almost legit....Guess who wins?



Hmm... Voting with a gun to one's head. I suspect that may affect the legitimacy of those vote somewhat.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 23, 2022, 02:00:48 PM »
If Trump declassified them by thinking about it, I'm sure Biden has been keeping up to speed with the case, and has thought about re-classifying them all already.

So they are all classified again now. Prove me wrong.

Touche.

However there is a nonzero possibility that Trump will be re elected in 2024.  If so then he can retroactivately declassify/reclassify documents through space and time in the past.

He is the National Security Kwizatz Haderach!

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 22, 2022, 11:10:40 PM »
Ah but there's a counter for that.  Trump simply wills it to be classified the moment anyone does a foia request.  And immediately after wills it back to be unclassified.
Two problems with that.  One: Trump lost that magic power the instant Biden was sworn in.  Two: some of the charges being investigated don't depend on those documents being classified.

There is that.  However Trump, being the smartest man ever, no doubt anticipated the need to rapidly unclassify and reclassify information and did so during his presidency.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 22, 2022, 09:56:33 PM »
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/21/trump-i-could-declassify-documents-by-thinking-about-it-00058212

Ah.  Some clarity on the matter.  Trump can declassify documents just by thinking about it and this ability transcends space and time.

I wonder if he can also classify documents just by thinking about them...
He doesn't need to let anyone know that he thought about declassifying documents either.  After all, what business is it of anyone else if he thinks about declassifying a document?

So... Trump declassified EVERYTHING.
So fire up those freedom of information requests!  We got us some national secrets to read!



Ah but there's a counter for that.  Trump simply wills it to be classified the moment anyone does a foia request.  And immediately after wills it back to be unclassified.

6
Even if they did buy an 8 million dollar house I don't see what that has to do with anything unless it's somehow skimmed from the international aid that Ukraine is receiving.

The pic is also misleading.  I don't think Zelenskyy has even left the country since the invasion.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 22, 2022, 11:55:58 AM »
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/21/trump-i-could-declassify-documents-by-thinking-about-it-00058212

Ah.  Some clarity on the matter.  Trump can declassify documents just by thinking about it and this ability transcends space and time.

I wonder if he can also classify documents just by thinking about them...

8
Disney needs to fucking stop the live action remakes. They all suck. Also, who gives a fuck what the cartoon Ariel looked like? It still exists. Just watch that one instead because it'll be better anyway. The constant whining about remakes not looking 100% like the original is so dumb.

I suspect it was Disney's attempt to troll conservatives for free advertising.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Queen
« on: September 20, 2022, 10:12:55 PM »
If Trump were still president then Queen Elizabeth would still be alive.

There.  I said it.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Queen
« on: September 16, 2022, 05:56:43 AM »
So instead of me asking when Prince Charles wins an election, let me know when the UK has a head of the monarchy which was elected by the people.
Referring to the same individual with different words is not a fundamentally different response.

Then I believe this conversion has unfortunately run its course.

I believe that words have meaning so when I describe something as "democratic" it means someone voted for it.

You whoever seem to believe in "opposite day"  That a leader who governors with the will of the people is a tyrant.  And that a leader who has inherited his  title without any input of the people he rules is in fact more democratic than someone you would have to vote for.

This is an interesting way to assess things.  It's not without it's merits.  I have a 6 year old daughter who I will know doubt fine the mental exercise very simulating.  My son might see through it and think that it's a bit silly.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Queen
« on: September 16, 2022, 05:49:40 AM »
Bro, I own a dictionary.
Then use it to look up "elective monarchy".

Holing on.  I'm looking. It up.

The first few hits just showed the definition of 'contradiction'.

Went to wiktionary. I see one exmale about 1400 years ago.  I assume this had something to do with a dragon and a lady of the lake.


12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Queen
« on: September 15, 2022, 06:36:05 AM »
Bro, I own a dictionary.  Let me know when Prince Charles wins the elections.
Once again, you are focusing on the monarch (an individual) and not the monarchy (a system of government). You are not listening to what I am saying, and instead replacing the subject of my posts with something else.

Ah okay.  I see how I was confused with.  My mistake.  I feel very silly getting it wrong.

So instead of me asking when Prince Charles wins an election, let me know when the UK has a head of the monarchy which was elected by the people.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Queen
« on: September 14, 2022, 06:08:59 AM »
I was perfectly content to discuss England's dragon problem but you had to take a far more farcical turn, that a monarchy is more democratic than a democracy, which I was happy to oblige for a time.
You continue to use those words as though they are contradictory. They are not. We are not comparing a monarchy to a democracy, but two different forms of democracy, and until you acknowledge that it makes perfect sense that you would not understand what I am saying.

Bro, I own a dictionary.  Let me know when Prince Charles wins the elections.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Queen
« on: September 14, 2022, 05:46:55 AM »
I thought this was obvious from the subtext but I was mocking the monarchy not because of any problem with that form of a government.  I was mocking it because it makes me think that England is a land besot with wizards and knights who say "ni" and all manner of arthurian legend.
And why is that a problem?
We've been like that for a millennium. It's going fine, thanks.
I mean...it isn't going fine, our government is a car crash and things are going to shit. But that's not because of the monarchy, it's actually because of the people we have elected, not because of the people we don't.
Seems to me that it's democracy causing the problems.

No problem whatsoever.  I like dragons and arthurian legends.

Ask your new King to appoint your government then.  I'm sure that would go swimmingly.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Queen
« on: September 13, 2022, 06:09:15 AM »
you seem to be making the claim that constitutional monarchies are very democratic because they always have impotent executives
That is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that, all else being equal, a constitutional monarchy with a democratic culture tends to be more stable and more democratic than a system with an elected president and a democratic culture. I have also made the point that this is far less important than many other factors.

Remember, this conversation got started when I replied to someone who implied that a monarchy is necessarily undemocratic. I am only asserting that that position is absurd, nothing more.

Oh what a terrible thing it is for someone such as myself to walk through life so terribly misunderstood.

I thought this was obvious from the subtext but I was mocking the monarchy not because of any problem with that form of a government.  I was mocking it because it makes me think that England is a land besot with wizards and knights who say "ni" and all manner of arthurian legend.

I was perfectly content to discuss England's dragon problem but you had to take a far more farcical turn, that a monarchy is more democratic than a democracy, which I was happy to oblige for a time.  For a time I assume you were in on the joke but then I realized that you are in fact serious and were making an earnest effort to defend the Monarchy in the same way that a southerner in the 1800s might defend slavery.

I do not blame you.  I blame myself.  I have not had many serious conversations in this particular form and I don't know everyone's sense of humor or lack thereof.

Mea Culpa.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Britain's Pedo Prince
« on: September 13, 2022, 05:59:40 AM »
But it's a good thing you see.  Countries that have a pedo monarch are much more stable and democratic than countries without a pedo monarch.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 12, 2022, 06:25:09 PM »
This classified document affair is turning somewhat like Trump’s botched attempt to steal the 2020 election. We have people saying Trump had a standing order to classify documents, but none of their filings or arguements so far have positively asserted that the documents in Trump’s possession were unclassified, just that the DOJ purports them to be “classified” and that they are Trump’s presidential records. Pretty funny.

I heard the "special master" needs a Top Secret coearance level too.  Which Trump's team is saying.  And thst can take months to get.

The names put forth by both sides for the position might already have ts/sci.  Well the DOJ side would anyways.

This classified document affair is turning somewhat like Trump’s botched attempt to steal the 2020 election. We have people saying Trump had a standing order to classify documents, but none of their filings or arguements so far have positively asserted that the documents in Trump’s possession were unclassified, just that the DOJ purports them to be “classified” and that they are Trump’s presidential records. Pretty funny.

An invisible standing order from when he was president to declassify...

I wonder if he'll do the same thing for any pardons anyone needs in the future.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 11, 2022, 03:28:04 PM »
Well at least he has this guy:

One of his attorneys works at a firm that lists one of its specialties as RV law.

Yes, because only poor people have RVs.



You don’t want an RV lawyer when you are defending against espionage claims being brought by the DOJ.

What if the classified material is rv related?

Ever think of that?

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 10, 2022, 06:33:30 PM »
Rudy Giuliani is in his own legal trouble with Georgia which I thi k will eventually involve trump. Not sure Rudy is allowed to represent trump at this time.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Queen
« on: September 09, 2022, 07:44:06 PM »
Actually, we don't need to assume anything. We have centuries of the monarch just letting Parliament get on with governing the country without interference, because starting a civil war that you are likely to lose for no reason is an absolutely insane idea.

You have to understand that this hypothetical of yours is comparable to the POTUS trying to pass an executive order declaring himself emperor for life. It is such an astoundingly absurd thing to do that, were it to receive even a modicum of support from anyone with the power to enforce it, the result would be a completely new regime and existing laws would be irrelevant anyway.

The point of what I said isn't that the system ensures victory for parliamentarians in a civil war. It is that a civil war is so obviously undesirable to all involved that it wouldn't even be contemplated. You are proposing radical, untested alterations to a system that has been working well for centuries in order to deal with an apocalyptic hypothetical that is extremely unlikely to ever occur.

It seems to me that the UK has had the good fortune of having a reasonable monarchy made up of reasonble people.  This is not the same thing as having a well designed government. The test of how well a government is designed is what happens when unreasonable people gain control. 

That is not an answer to the question I asked, given the context. We have just established that you don't think every member of a government needs to be democratically elected. What is it about a head of state that means that person specifically needs to be able to be fired by popular vote, while others don't?

We elect someone as the head state through a not so great electoral college process.  I believe it should be a direct vote but that's a discussion for a different time.  We also elect the legislative branch, mostly democratically some with caveats but that's also a discussion for another time.

So now we have a democratically elected government.  They need to appoint quite a subject matter experts to make this government function such as judges, cabinet members, heads of institutions etc.  These members of the government, while not directly elected, are accountable to the first two branches of the government which are.  If any of these appointed members does something the public finds egregious we can threaten the elected members of the government to remove them or we'll vote them out.  One only needs to look at the Trump presidency to see this system in action.

If the head of state was not accountable to the people in this country then our world would be very different today and probably not in a good way.

You could ask the same question about any political system. If any system changed to be less democratic, then it would become less democratic.

Fair point.
Yes, because the monarch exercising certain powers on the advice of the prime minister is an integral part of how the British political system works.

Do you mean ceremonial roles or actual decisions?  I only mean that question half rhetorically.  I can't actually find an article detailing any time that Queen Elizabeth intervened in government.

Of course not. If there is a problem to be solved, then we should solve the problem. My objection is to you claiming that we should solve a problem that doesn't exist.

I understand why it hasn't been fixed.  It takes expenditure of political capitol to change such things. 

The monarchy has very little power, in practical (as opposed to hypothetical) terms. The institution of the monarchy is an insurance policy against an executive presidency, which is demonstrably less democratic than a constitutional monarchy.

This is an interesting idea.  Is there some UK doctrine where this is stated explicitly or is this something that we hope they'll do in the event of a crisis?

Also, I have to say, if we're calling a president, who is elected, less democratic than a monarch who isn't then we're doing great violence to the English language.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23  Next >