sculptor
Valued Senior Member
define crisis?
somewhere between catastrophe and quandary?
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
- Status
somewhere between catastrophe and quandary?
If you were to make use of the word crisis how would you define it?
context:
health crisis
Political crisis
Constitutional crisis
etc..
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
none of the above
perhaps "crisis of confidence" which would equate crisis with quandary
fair enough...
I have nothng more to say to you... thanks for your time...
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
and yours
i like your circular reasoning. you've unfairly tarred me a malcontent and than say i can be ignored for being a malcontent. its a shame i used to have so much respect for you till you decided to get so petty at me. its funny how everyone who has anything critical to say about you is lying or has a grudge. how's the saying the go, if everyone you meet is an asshole you are the asshole. you are not above reproach. the reason i typically agree with tiassa and hell bells is they generally treat me with respect even when giving warnings. you have been openly antagonistic towards me in most of your most recent communication. you have gone out of your way to try and start fights with me. id have a whole lot more respect for you if youd just admit you want me gone instead of playing games.
i'm not. again you not liking to be called on something doesn't make it a lie
so do you have a sock puppet cause i wasn't singling you here. mods wasn't a typo. i think too many of the mods here play favorites and are willing to cause problems to their own ends. its not just you. most of you could improve on objectivity, you are just the most petty when people misstep your issues, in fairness you are probably the best at not forgetting you are a mod and keeping a level of discourse appropriate for some whose position requires an expectation of impartionality, which makes it such a shame that you are so petty when questioned. if you could handle criticism in an even remotely healthy way you'd be the best mod here by far. but as you've shown in this post you can't. to through your own words back in your face im on your side you'd just have to let me be.
and im sure you will punish me for it.
you seem to forget i was a big supporter of the moderation team until you showed first hand your penchant for a fluid interpertation of the rules based on who needed the moderation.
will find out in a week how fucked the US is. there are reports they are planning another "protest". if the US falls to a nutjob authortarian we as a species are pretty well fucked.
pjdude:
Most of the warnings you have been issued with over the years have not come from me, but from other moderators, some of whom are no longer active moderators here. At one time or another, you have been warned by just about every moderator on this forum.
Now, it's possible that I have it in for you, I suppose. But that doesn't really explain the pattern of warnings you have received, which were given independently by a whole bunch of different moderators. Maybe all the moderators have it in for you. If that's the case, maybe this is not the forum for you; you ought to find one where the moderator team is more friendly towards you and your behaviours.
Looking at what you have been warned for, repeatedly, over the years, two particular categories of offence stand out significantly above all others: (1) flaming other members, and (2) insulting other members. You seem to have trouble controlling yourself when it comes to dishing out insults and making false accusations against other people, moderators included.
In summary, you might want to consider the possibility that you are treated like a malcontent when you act like a malcontent. Where there's smoke, just maybe there's fire. Of course, the rest of our membership can also make their own evaluations, based on what they see from you. They don't have to take my word for it, or yours.
It's nice to hear that you used to have some respect for me, at least. These days, given your history, it doesn't affect me greatly if you have lost that. Respect is earned, as I'm sure you'll agree.
You have chosen to keep coming back here since 2006. If you've had enough, you've had enough. If not, it's not hard not to get yourself banned. You've had practice. You know how things work around here. The ball is entirely in your court.
You might also like to consider why you're not gone if I want you gone, which is what you say you believe. On the one hand, it could be that I'm a stickler for the rules and so my hands are tied by the very rules I helped to draft (damn it!). On the other hand, it could be that you're so clever or important that it would make me look really bad to ban you - so bad that the members would revolt if I ever tried to ban you, and would rise up in revolution, demanding my head. Or maybe there's some other reason. Surely it couldn't be because it doesn't particularly worry me if you decide to stay or go, either way.
There are 43 warnings on record that have been issued to you since 2007. Your busiest years for attracting warnings were 2009 and 2010. Since then, you have backed off a bit. I'm not sure whether that's just because you've been here less often lately than back then, or because you've learned something about what is acceptable here and what is not. (I suspect it's the former, but I could be wrong.)
Most of the warnings you have been issued with over the years have not come from me, but from other moderators, some of whom are no longer active moderators here. At one time or another, you have been warned by just about every moderator on this forum.
Now, it's possible that I have it in for you, I suppose. But that doesn't really explain the pattern of warnings you have received, which were given independently by a whole bunch of different moderators. Maybe all the moderators have it in for you. If that's the case, maybe this is not the forum for you; you ought to find one where the moderator team is more friendly towards you and your behaviours.
Looking at what you have been warned for, repeatedly, over the years, two particular categories of offence stand out significantly above all others: (1) flaming other members, and (2) insulting other members. You seem to have trouble controlling yourself when it comes to dishing out insults and making false accusations against other people, moderators included.
In summary, you might want to consider the possibility that you are treated like a malcontent when you act like a malcontent. Where there's smoke, just maybe there's fire. Of course, the rest of our membership can also make their own evaluations, based on what they see from you. They don't have to take my word for it, or yours.
I think you vastly overestimate the brain space I devote to you. I don't think you're very special, pjdude. You're just one more on the list of members that need a bit more watching than average, because you're more prone to flying off the handle than average.
It's nice to hear that you used to have some respect for me, at least. These days, given your history, it doesn't affect me greatly if you have lost that. Respect is earned, as I'm sure you'll agree.
It is funny, that, isn't it? Maybe it's because I usually only go toe to toe with liars and people who are prone to developing grudges. Add wilful fools to that, too, if you like. Generally speaking, though, I'm not difficult to get along with.
Phew. At least I have nothing to worry about on that score. How about you?
I agree. Nobody's perfect.
I can't comment on that, without seeing some example of where you allege I have been disrespectful when giving a warning. You need to understand, of course, that the act of giving a warning is not, in and of itself, disrespectful.
Well gee, pjdude. Go figure why that might be. Could it have anything to do with how you started up?
Not that I know of.
Seriously, whether you stay or go is entirely up to you. If you want to leave, leave. If you want to go out with a bang, maybe post something offensive enough to get yourself permanently banned; you won't be the first to think he's making a glorious exit. On the other hand, if you want to stay, behave yourself and you can stay. It's not hard. Some other members on this forum have never received a single official warning from a moderator, despite being here for years.
You have chosen to keep coming back here since 2006. If you've had enough, you've had enough. If not, it's not hard not to get yourself banned. You've had practice. You know how things work around here. The ball is entirely in your court.
You might also like to consider why you're not gone if I want you gone, which is what you say you believe. On the one hand, it could be that I'm a stickler for the rules and so my hands are tied by the very rules I helped to draft (damn it!). On the other hand, it could be that you're so clever or important that it would make me look really bad to ban you - so bad that the members would revolt if I ever tried to ban you, and would rise up in revolution, demanding my head. Or maybe there's some other reason. Surely it couldn't be because it doesn't particularly worry me if you decide to stay or go, either way.
If you're going to make accusations, you need to document them carefully.
Thanks for the feedback, pjdude!
Don't worry. I think we'll manage to get by without your support.
to the non american posters here i gotta ask how do you all view the attack on the capitol?
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Many parties don't help too. In Germany, the same oligarchy rules with 5 parties. Now a 6. party has appeared in the Bundestag, and the political fight has been reduced to 5 parties together against nr. 6. So, that 5 parties were one party in disguise, and now we have a de facto two party system in disguise.
In fact, the democracy has a problem. The parties have to trust each other, in some weak sense, that the other side after taking power will not destroy democracy and repress them. Now both sides have lost this trust in the US. On both sides. Each side sees the other side as fascist.
See how the pro-Trumpers look at this Capitol story: A busload of Antifa activists in disguise, and a nicely inviting (Dem-rules) police force, and you can at least create something like a "storm" of the Capitol and attack the leadership directly. (As I have read on that "parler" or so. Given the news that that "parler" was banned from appstore by google because it is a pro-Trump Twitter alternative, I had to take a look at it. As unusable as twitter, plausibly even worse, but, whatever, if one wants to see what the left-wing mob cries, read twitter, but for the right-wing mob you have to switch to parler.)
Even more funny is that we had a few weeks ago a test run here in Germany - a "storm of the Reichstag" by "right-wing extremists". It was later found out (visible, of course, only to those with "alternative" sources of information) that that storm was provoked by undercover Antifa. What could not be hidden that all the "storm" consisted of some hundred of people, no more prevented by any police below, run up on the stoops of the Reichstag and made selfies. Three (three) policemen were there and prevented, without much having to do, the entry of those "right-wing stormtroops" into the Reichstag itself. And the press behaved similarly insane, a horrible attack on democracy and so on, the AfD (the only opposition party in the Bundestag) accused of having somehow some moral responsibility or so, the chief of the three heroes getting the Bundesverdienstkreuz and other laughable reactions. Comparing this, I tend to think that that "storm of the Reichstag" was a test run, training the for that "storm of the Capitol". (A milder version would be that those those have started this have copied this technique, with the necessary improvements, like that it is necessary to allow them to go inside.)
What is the really good news out of this for the world: Freedom of speech in the US is now directly and openly attacked, not only by twitters lifelong ban for Trump, but by the consequent and coordinated attack of all the tech giants against everything pro-Trump. So the big firms now actively fight the right replacements for Twitter, Facebook and Co with all available means (taking them out of the appstores and so on).
That means, their have now openly united in a social media monopoly and fight openly against one-half of the US population. That one-half will find solutions, don't worry, and these alternative will have one-half of the US as customers for the start. Don't think that tech solutions will help - if really necessary Huawei will find a solution. So, the big US firms have now compromised themselves as having the aim to censor in the political interest of the US Dem party. Not one of them, but them all together. This is certainly a great danger for the US power given by this monopoly. That's very dangerous for their own monopoly, and I'm sure they know it. So, are they so stupid? All of them together at the same moment? Or don't they have the power to decide about their own policies and have to discredit the base of their business, their neutrality, once the deep state gives the command?
Hm, if one thinks about it, it is a plausible criterion to find out if some firm is independent or controlled by the deep state. When a firm makes decisions which are plain stupid and harmful from a commercial point of view of the firm itself but are in the interest of the deep state, then the firm is deep state controlled.
Whatever, now all those asocial media are no longer something supporting free speech wherever it is suppressed by evil dictators, but it it is only supporting the pro-US-Dem-globalists speech. Whatever color revolution is now started, closing access to those asocial networks is now an obvious necessary and reasonable act to prevent US-American meddling, and, even more, can be compared with what they have done themselves fighting Trump. So it can no longer be questioned as a suppression of free speech. The US destroys its own actually most powerful propaganda weapons. At the Christmas party in the Kreml they were very thankful for such a nice Christmas present from the US, I would guess. (Orthodox Christmas is 7. Jan.)
You talk as if freedom of speech is the ideal in it's own right when in fact freedom of speech is utterly useless and dangerous is the speaker fails to take responsibility for the consequences of the freedom employed. Freedom with out self restraint is insanity. Not having self restraint means that restraint has to be applied by external sources to avoid insanity.
In terms of physics, for example, think of what absolute freedom means to see my point. With out the laws of physics what would the universe look like if it even managed to exist at all...?
The paradox is that with out self restraint freedom is utter chaos and does not exist yet with self restraint freedom while oppressed by order does exist relatively.
That being said, Trump exercised his freedom of speech with out responsibility or self restraint befitting a POTUS. This led to multiple deaths and chaos. The restraint is therefore beholden upon the platform that allowed it's publication ( to prevent further legal liability for example).
They determined that due to the irresponsible nature of Trumps tweets and his obvious lacking in self restraint he needed to be banned so as to prevent further chaos and liability to the platform that facilitates it.
It is really quite simple.
If person can apply no or little self restraint/responsibility then someone else will do it for them...thus we have a legal system to act as a way of compensating for a lack of self restraint and responsibility.
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
As a formal "theorem" Zinoviev's theorem (he is a logician) can be, of course, applied only to a rule of law "by the letter". But no real system works in such a formal way, your "reasonable person" test is essentially used everywhere, may be in different formulations.
But the mechanism works also in that real world approach. So, either you accept that "given that saying A would be forbidden, as a law-abiding citizen I will not say A, so I remain silent about this" is legal, or not. How a "reaonable person" evaluates this? If that's legal, fine, the the only ones persecuted are the stupid or those who don't care about their security. Everybody else can effectively say A, everybody understands, and forbidding A is worthless. Or it is not, then the law is open to misuse, and arbitrary, innocent people (in particular those who really mean A') can be imprisoned.
(The other question is if it would not be better, in a state of law, where anyway AI will be used to identify violations of such laws, to use an openly accessible AI as a legally decisive tool. So that you can use it, ask if a given text is legal, and get a digitally signed result which is, then, a legal proof that you have not violated the law. Given Zinoviev's theorem one can circumvent this, and many people will try to find various A'. So, it would be essentially useless, if the aim is forbidding to say what one thinks or to hide a military secret A or so. But it would be useful for other aims of censorship, namely preserving civil standards of discussion by courtesy rules or hiding some conflicts from children or other irresponsible persons. To find some A' is some intellectual work, thus, only the educated/clever will be able to use this possibility.)
In fact, I don't think that freedom of speech is an ideal. My ideal is that every restriction of freedom of speech should follow from an own obligation by a contract (promise). This contract should contain the penalties as well as the judges.
The physics example makes no sense, human laws are something quite different than natural laws.
What is the point of freedom of speech? It is necessary in a democracy, in a form that allows the opposition to say what it likes against the government, in particular before elections, when there is, almost unavoidable, a heavy rhetorical fight between different candidates. If you stop this political freedom of speech to attack the actual government, that's simply the end of democracy. And one should be clear about the fact that to morally justify forbidding the free speech of its opponents is never a problem. And therefore this cannot be allowed to justify cutting free speech.
Of course, there never has been real free speech in the West, there were always restrictions on obscene, pornographic speech, laws against libel, incitement of violence and so on. Spies are also not allowed to use their free speech to tell something to foreign governments. All this is essentially unproblematic for a democracy because it does not endanger the only relevant freedom of speech of a democracy - the political one to speak against the government, the rulers. If that political freedom of speech is attacked, we have the end of democracy. It is that simple. The political freedom of speech is what matters, and here the boundaries should be at least so wide to allow what one can see during election campaigns from both sides.
Not even close. Even if you don't believe that this was the job of Antifa provocateurs together with supporting Dem-ruled police forces, you should recognize that the use of provocateurs to incite violence is a well-known political technology. And the deaths, as I understand from both sides, follow an established scheme of the technology of color revolutions. There are two such cases were snipers have been used to shoot both sides, police as well as demonstrators, to enhance the conflict. The first one was Ukraine, where around some 100 or so demonstrators as well as policemen have been murdered by snipers now known to come from Georgia. This was the immediate action which started the coup - after that Yanukovic fled and the fascists took power. The other one was Iraq. Here, the anti-government demonstrations were already going, and the leader of the government was explicitly blackmailed by US diplomats that if he does not submit, snipers will shoot both sides. He did not, and the shooting happened. He remained in power. He told about this in the parliament session when they decided about the fate of the US bases. (They have been there with the agreement of the Iraq, no there is no longer such an agreement, thus, now they are simply occupants, as in Syria.) So, deaths can be easily created if necessary, and there have been precedents of such things done by the US deep state recently.
So, if those (even if aggressive) speeches of Trump and Co before that suspect "storm of the Capitol" are sufficient for legal actions like impeachment or worse, then that's essentially the end of democracy in the US.
Simply think about what should be the rules, given that
- There cannot be a democracy if there is no freedom to criticize the government even in very harsh ways (like naming then criminals, liars, murderers, whatever, without proof).
- The government strongly does not like this type of criticism by the opposition and would like to stop it, even using manipulation, propaganda and so on.
- The government is very strong and can do a lot of things, using, in particular, secret services.
It looks like the Dems want to fight now seriously against Trump and some important pro-Trumpers personally. Can they be really that stupid to imprison him? (If Putin would be really that evil person, he would wait some time after the takeover of power and then murder Trump. Leaving clear proofs of BLM murdering him. That would be a good starting point for a civil war. Of course, that's only a joke - Putin is not interested in a civil war in the US, that would be far too dangerous for the whole world.)
It was a dangerous attempt at insurrection - a deliberate attack on the government of the United States that was freely elected by its people.
The only silver lining on the cloud is that Trump is incompetent, as are many of his followers. You could consider this a trial run by the far right to practice how they will seize power and install a dictator. If no lessons are learned from this, then later on, once a smart right-wing ideologue comes to the fore, a more careful and better-planned attack will be possible.
The Trumpists managed to break into the Congress. America was lucky that, once they were there, they didn't have any plan as to what to do next. The next time - if there is a next time - they will have a plan.
Democracy is a fragile thing. If you take it for granted, it could very well disappear. Americans need to wake up and decide what it is about their country that they actually value, and think about what they need to do to preserve that. One thing that is guaranteed not to help is inequality and division. That is what Trump has spent his term promoting, more than anything else. You guys need to decide whether this is what you all want.
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
This may be a simplistic question but, if the call for impeachment doesn't happen, does Trump just go his merry way at noon 20th Jan?
It seems nuts to see him walk away scot free after inciting a riot resulting in deaths and injuries.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Imho
playing with impeachment is just one more grandstanding stunt which will, most likely be a total waste of time.....
one more damned excuse for not doing their jobs
..................................
but, then again, I may be just a tad on the cynical side?
................................................
as/re James R
Democracy is a fragile thing
pity that we do not have one?
playing with impeachment is just one more grandstanding stunt which will, most likely be a total waste of time.....
one more damned excuse for not doing their jobs
..................................
but, then again, I may be just a tad on the cynical side?
................................................
as/re James R
Democracy is a fragile thing
pity that we do not have one?
Bells
Staff member
Impeachment is not just about removing from power before he can do even more damage.
It will also ensure he can never run or hold office again.
As well as the fact he would a lose all the benefits former Presidents get to enjoy, such as the cushy slush fund, staff, travel allowances of around one million dollars, access to intelligence briefings (the man cannot be trusted), etc.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
OK
when do you expect the trial to take place?
Bells
Staff member
The impeachment hearing?
Probably after the election.. If it gets that far.
Given the sway he still has over the GOP and your voting base, the party may be reluctant to agree with the Democrats about him.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
The election is over
inauguration is in 9 days
Trump will be out of office in 9 days
impeachment is used to remove someone from office and requires a conviction
impeachment and trial within 9 days is a no starter
ergo
i reiterate
playing with impeachment is just one more grandstanding stunt which will, most likely be a total waste of time.....
one more damned excuse for not doing their jobs
....................................
some days, it seems that many of our elected officials are either stupid, totally bull goose loonie, or playing a grandstanding game of smoke and mirrors
The constitution and amendments only have 7,591 words
assuming 370 words per page (12 font, 8.5 x 11 ") that's about 20 pages
smaller font---my pocket constitution only has 20 pages
It's an easy read.
And, highly recommended
the thing that scares me the most is that unsuccessful attempts to overthrow the government tend to be followed by more attempts and they keep happening till one is successful. i know you probably don't follow american news, you got better things to do with your time than keeping an eye on the shit show that is america, but there is already evidence that they are planning something between the 17th and 20th. they feel betrayed by the police because the police actually used a modicum of force on them when you know when they stormed the seat of government. i think this was the start of the violence not the end.
- Status