- Joined
- Apr 15, 2025
Well ya ain't wrong there, but I was quite literally asked to explain what I meant, so I did.
Also, this thread is currently derailed as fuck, so I think I'm gunna quit speaking for a while before jannies get involved.
Debate @The Projects about various political stuff
- Thread starter The Projects
- Start date
-
🔎 If you see an alert for analytics.usips.org, this is a self-hosted system I am running as a test. It is GDPR compliant and collects no invasive information.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
Also, this thread is currently derailed as fuck, so I think I'm gunna quit speaking for a while before jannies get involved.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2025
You are trying much too hard with very bad examples to create a "judge not, lest ye be judged" equivalence. Tarrant was doing it for attention and out of a deep-seated, nihilistic malice. Pelosi's hammer time retard was a junkie lunatic, iirc. The people who shot at Trump and killed Charlie Kirk were not out of their minds or doing it for attention. They were doing it to kill political figureheads in the name of an ideology.
Have right wingers killed left wingers for rightist ideology in the past? Yes. Are leftists responsible, through the apparatchik of the media and the outright insane rhetoric peddled since Trump took office, for the kind of person that killed Charlie Kirk? Yes. These ideas are not incompatible and one side is provably, presently acting more violent than the other. You should not be surprised that those who identify with the targeted individuals are willing to meet violence with violence. You should also not try to high horse, even if the ideal of "let's talk it out instead of shooting it out" is noble. One side does not want to talk it out. They killed the one guy who was trying to talk it out. They blew his neck open in front of his kids. This stopped being a logical debate the moment they did that. Now the center cannot hold, and mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
Edit: You will most likely make a "not all leftists" argument, I realize. I don't deny that the person you imagine in your head exists, and that you could be one of them, but look and listen to what they're saying. I saw a poll in another thread, or maybe this one, where 80% of responding Democrats identified Trump as a fascist dictator. That goes beyond the "controversial movement head" characterization you put on Trump and Kirk. It is a sign of deep ideological rot. I hope you can see that.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2024
That's crazy.Yeah looks like he might be done
These
Are contradictions
Another sign that you should not be taken seriously. Anybody that unironically brings up that bizarre event to compare to TARGETED, PLAIN AS DAY ASSASSINATIONS,SUCCESSFUL OR NOT has always been disingenuous and moronic.
I believe you are a troll, you are unironically saying people should not fight people that want them killed.I ask, if chuds cheered on Charlottesville, and rallied fellow supporters to go to the streets to "fight the communist scourge", would you be "both-sidesing" ? I heavily suspect you would not.Write long essays and make your words as flowery as you want.
You are simply an Leftist-Apologist. Nothing else
The only exception i would encourage to this is family.
Now, why in the world did the thread devolve into Roman sperging and Star Trek yapping? Autism is strong here!
Last edited:
Sexual Chocolate
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2019
"Liberals" are just bad people.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2024
I can get along with people who disagree with me but you and me don't simply disagree. The people out on the streets right now, the faggots that colluded to kill C. Kirk and the tranny that shot at ICE go beyond civil disagreement. These people want me and my family dead, my kids raped and they think it would be both righteous and funny. My enemies are evil but you're worse than that, lower than that. You would tell me that after suffering all of the above I need to be the even bigger person and let them continue to attack me with no recompense. Fuck off! Seriously, just run into the nearest Forest and lay on the ground and let the earth take you if you're that eager to die.
They unironically do.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2024
They are revolutionary communists. This is their end goal.
FlappyBat
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Quoting here to not shit up the thread. It was getting to be just a debate thread so moving everything was a good choice. But it was better made posts than 90% of the usual left wing stuff.
I don't know if they're a concern troll, and I don't think it really matters when what they were arguing is a pretty reasonable reflection of what a lot of people in the middle think. I do think it's good for people to engage with those ideas.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2025
kek I really got me own thread thanks jannies, unfortunately I'm probably not going to be responding much
If you really want to have a thread with my name on it, I highly recommend sperging out over Star Trek and Rome
If you really want to have a thread with my name on it, I highly recommend sperging out over Star Trek and Rome
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2025
I'm still not really sure what that is!
Also since I can't reply or quote @Corgis thanks to the jan ban, I'm gunna write it here, it's probably for the better that I'm not allowed to post in there cuz when you're sperging out for 5 hours arguing with other spergs, that's when you know it's not healthy! So I think it's better if I stay in my comfy cow threads and the chatroom! Real funny guys in there!
And thanks to everyone who argued against me, it's honestly a lot of fun, because I've been a bit down lately and it's nice to have a dumb flamewar now and then, but I'll be sure not to act so retarded next time!
(retard did a double post again)
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
Generally a concern troll is something who acts worried over a scenario that hasn't happened, in order to imply that something negative has or will happen.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2025
Well, Trump isn't le ebil facist dictator a lot of people make him out to be, if he was, then things would be a lot different already.
But again, my main concern isn't "THE IMMINENT DESTRUCTION OF OUR DEMOCRACY!!!!!!! LOOK AT THE ICE RAIDS!!!!! WE'RE NEXT!!!!!", it's that I personally believe that by executing policy goals via executive order, then having the Supreme Court back it up sets a bad precedent. I am a hardline democrat (wait for that to be taken out of context lmao), and I believe in the separation of powers. Trump in fact has achieved a lot of goals that I am in support of or ambivalent towards with this method, but it isn't the executive's job to legislate, it is the job of Congress.
I'm not going to support a victory for my beliefs if it means erosion of balance of power, because it slowly concentrates power to make nationwide decisions into fewer hands, and is therefore less representative. In Congress, every locality in the nation sends someone to represent them, and they can argue for things that will benefit their people. In theory, that is. Congress is currently very flawed due to lobbying and the filibuster that I've spoken about many times throughout my posts. Contrast this with a president, in the American system, for all intents and purposes there are basically only two choices every 4 years, which means the nation as a whole, has to pick one guy or the other.
With this method of legislating through executive order, this means the nation as a whole gets to choose between one of two guys choosing how government is ran, and creating new precedent for laws, both without input of Congress, OR because this method is so reliant on having the Supreme Court to back it up, an even worse outcome is this: One guy gets to do whatever he wants when he gets into office, because his loyalists are in the Supreme Court, and if the other guy wins, he either has to go through the broken, money-driven Congress, getting filibustered everytime his party tries to do anything, or else try the executive order trick, at which point everything he does gets shot down by activist judges taking it to the Supreme Court packed with the other guy's loyalists! Again without any input from Congress!
Now, I want to make something clear, this is not me saying "GUISE THIS IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN, DRUMPF IS LITERALLY HITLER, THE RIGHT IS EVIL, EVERYTHING THEY DO IS EVIL!" It's that if the door is open to doing this, then it stands to reason that our wily, political shenanigan-loving politicians will probably try it. To me, this is like hearing that the drunk drivers are trying to take their seatbelts off. Balance of power in government is the seatbelt. This is something that is already happening, and the outcome described above is less of a "will happen" as consequence versus a "could happen" as consequence. I intend this less as a portent for the future, so much as an examination of the systems of power at play. I haven't even gotten into the use of States of Emergency. I also really hate the close partnership between Trump and Big Tech, Elon Musk in particular, but I can't say that's anything unique, Obama did a lot of that too.
Personally, I don't like that it's on the table, I advocate for reform, I want Congress to be the only legislators in the country, and I want them to do it without open air lobbying or filibustering.
I must apologize if I have come off as that concern troll you've told me about, I have no intention of using scare tactics, or false information, everything I say is said in earnest. The problem is that I'm an idiot, I'm a very scatter-brained person, and I haven't done a very good job of arguing my point. I must also admit I am no expert in the legalities of government, so if this concern for abuse can be proven wrong (Shouldn't be difficult, given that I work totally off of memory and use no sources), I will eat my words and admit I'm wrong, if I don't, the best thing you can do is quote this sentence back at me.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2025
You actually gotta stop doing this, I will lose patience with you.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2025
The door has been open for the past 80 years. FDR used executive orders to put the Americans of Japanese descent (and others) in internment camps. FDR was a Democrat. The balance of power has been eroding for the past 100 years (WW1 and Woodrow Wilson, another Democrat), 150 if you count Lincoln's (Republican) suspension of habeas corpus.
Is there any president you can point to, as a hardline democrat, that didn't continue the trend of eroding the balance of powers?
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2025
This is a complicated statement, I don't disagree with the sentiment, so much as I don't think these are very good analogues to what is currently going on.
Also before this absolute wall of text commences, I do hope you recognize that in saying I am a hardline democrat, I am not referring to the political party, but to the system of democratic republicanism! Hence why I said:
So let's get into it, Lincoln is actually a moot point in my arguments, given that I was speaking about executive orders, the suspension of habeas corpus was actually done through an act of Congress, the act was done exclusively within the bounds of the Civil War. (it was explicitly written such as the policy would end with the war.) This can be understood not as a power-grab by the executive, but Congress temporarily delegating its power to the executive. If Lincoln is going to be brought up in this conversation, then the question is not, "Did Lincoln erode the checks and balances of government?", but instead ought to be, "Should Congress be allowed to censor people's freedom of speech via arrest in wartime?" or even, "Should Congress be allowed to delegate its powers to another branch of government, even temporarily?"
And those questions are something different entirely, the first one largely comes down to your interpretation of the first amendment, and the second one is a big can of worms, on one hand, if you say no they shouldn't, then that means that there can be no government agencies whatsoever under the executive branch, because they all have power delegated by Congress. No FDA, no Department of Agriculture, no DOJ, no FBI, CIA, none of that. (A libertarian wet dream), but if you say yes, then theoretically Congress can hand over all powers to the executive legally, as long as they don't hand over the actual power to legislate, that's not Constitutional.
Beyond this, if we are going to examine Lincoln's example within the same light, then it should be noted firstly that Lincoln imprisoned secessionist spies, prisoners of war who were actively in rebellion against the Union, and people speaking positively of secessionists, quite literally a threat to the integrity of the Union. (All Lost Cause believers be damned, even if you support what they fought for, it must be acknowledged that if one group of people can secede, everyone can.) This act ended with the Civil War, and even within the context of the Civil War, Lincoln understood well how grave and controversial his actions were. He released the majority of political prisoners, and granted amnesty.
Again, however, this is a moot point in the executive order debate, because it was not done via executive order, it was an act of Congress.
Wilson too was working under acts of Congress, the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which again, boils down to whether you believe Congress has the right to restrict freedom of speech/expression in particular circumstances, and whether or not they should be allowed to delegate power of execution to other branches of government. Though legal, I find the reasoning behind this legislation to be pretty faulty, the Espionage Act was passed a bit after we entered WWI, it granted a lot of powers to the executive to prosecute people attempting to work against the military. This had a lot of broad-sweeping measures, anyone disseminating classified documents, committing sabotage, providing aid or information to an enemy of the US, in any way shape or form could be prosecuted. It also granted the President the ability to determine what could be classified as espionage.
The Sedition Act went even further, allowing the arrest of anyone obstructing conscription efforts, advocating support for a wartime enemy, it allowed the government to prosecute anyone criticizing the United States, or its war efforts during times of war. Note, times of war, there's that same thing that Lincoln did, except it wasn't just for the one war, it was for all wars.
Now, a few things about the circumstances behind the Espionage and Sedition Acts, one, the Sedition Act was repealed in 1921, meaning that much of the extreme censorship did come to an end. Two, most of the people prosecuted under the Sedition Act in particular were granted clemency. Three, the Espionage Act was NOT repealed, meaning that a lot of these wartime measures are actually still in place.
Let me step back from the nitty gritty and look at the big picture, these former actions are, again, not proper analogues to the current situation, as they were done with the consent of Congress. However, being technically legal does not mean that I support it, or think they were inherently correct. Lincoln's actions are the most prim and proper of the two, exclusively done within the confines of the Civil War, and by-and-large only affecting actual secessionists. Makes enough sense. Wilson's and Congress' actions were wildly irresponsible, but technically legal without a fundamental change to the interpretation of the Constitution, or an explicit amendment to it.
However, it must be stated that these acts are more about the citizen-governmental relationship, as opposed to inter-governmental relationships, that is to say, the balance of power in government. As far as delegation of power goes, this is broadly understood to be completely Constitutional, and legal.
You might immediately say this is quibbling, and in fact, I agree! Even if Congress has consented to delegating power to the Executive, it does not override the fact that it has invested unbalanced power within the Executive branch! Especially given that it isn't something like managing the interior, or agriculture, but is something so fundamental as censorship, imprisonment, and even death, and is so wide-reaching with unchecked power invested in the Executive to decide what is considered Espionage.
Legal or not, it should not be, and in this respect, I think we need a new Constitutional Congress, might I suggest that Congress shouldn't be allowed to delegate such powers as these to the Executive?
Now, let's get onto Roosevelt, the only true analogue to the current situation. Roosevelt imprisoned (unjustly.) thousands of recent immigrants via an executive order. This was done under the impression that these people could have dual loyalty to a nation we were in open war with, that had just recently bombed American soil in a sneak attack. Before we continue, we should outline the Executive Order, Executive Orders are essentially just directives given to departments of government on how to execute laws and how to conduct themselves within the law. They are not codified in the Constitution and are only upheld by precedent. This legal precedent has essentially concluded that they can be done as long as they are upholding and executing either Constitutional law, or laws written by Congress, and are only allowed as long as they are considered to be faithfully executing the law or the Constitution.
Now, why do I have a problem with the Executive Order? Because it allows the Executive to direct the government to execute the law in a particular way according to the President's interpretation. In theory, this is not an issue, the President is merely ordering the government to operate in accordance with the law... IF you have an unbiased court system and Supreme Court. If the president's orders are not "faithfully executing the law", the order can be thrown out by a judge, if they fight it and bring it all the way up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will make an unbiased decision on whether it is legal or not, and voila, the executive order is proven lawful or unlawful.
But what happens when you have a court packed full of your own guys?
This is exactly what happened with Executive Order 9066, beginning the removal of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent to internment camps. By this point, 7 out of 9 Justices of the Supreme Court had been appointed by Roosevelt, an 8th, the Chief Justice, Stone, was a Coolidge appointee, who Roosevelt appointed Chief Justice. There was only one Justice of the Supreme Court that was not a Roosevelt appointee, Roberts.
In 1944, the Supreme Court ruled on Executive Order 9066 in Korematsu v. United States, deciding 6-3 that the removal was completely legal. Today this is broadly seen as a complete mishandling of the law, as there was no proof of their disloyalty to the United States, it was based entirely on ethnicity, and they were not given trials. A violation of the Fifth Amendment.
But with a court full of Roosevelt appointees, this obviously illegal Executive Order was given legal basis.
Prior to all of this there was a massive scandal as Roosevelt attempted to pass through Congress an act that would allow the President to appoint 6 additional Justices, which of course would be Roosevelt. This was after the Supreme Court struck down many of his New Deal Reforms, and would have given his supporters a majority in the court. Essentially, this was an attempt to expand the court to sway it in his own favor.
Quite the authoritarian, no? If you can control the body who decides the legality of your actions, you can basically do whatever the hell you want.
Now to the central question you asked, who can I point to that didn't continually erode the balance of power in government? Given the facts as I understand them, I don't see Lincoln as eroding the balance of power given that the powers delegated to him were temporary and bound exclusively to the war. After Wilson and Roosevelt, and the new status quo of sweeping powers being delegated to the Executive indefinitely, there really isn't a single president who didn't continue the trend of eroding balance of power! The best you could say is that some presidents did not further expand it, but none have tried to reverse it.
Now, on top of this situation with extended delegation of power, Trump has functionally recreated the circumstances that Roosevelt had, (admittedly, mostly through luck, not by having four terms) a court tipped in favor of him, and he is bent on using it. A President who prefers to direct the government through orders and not through legislation has a court full of his own appointees, his own loyalists. Even if you assume that Trump has no intention of violating the law, with these orders, he can influence the execution of the law to his heart's content, and he has the Supreme Court to back up his decisions. This is a clear conflict of interest, and I do not support the current status quo, and it would be no different if it were a different president with a different set of policies. I once again advocate for reform.
Also this post was written across about four hours, and I'm quite tired, so I hope you will forgive my extreme rambliness. They say that brevity is the soul of wit, so I must be a fucking retard. Admittedly, my argument changed partway through, and you can pretty clearly see it in my writing, but I'm too lazy to go back and revise for the tenth time, winning this argument isn't life and death, so I needn't treat it like that. That being said, if you find any flaws in my argument here, please be sure to tell me!
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2025
What kind of reform? A complete overhaul? Another amendment to restrict the bloat of the executive? Column A and B?
Also your post is very good, don't worry about it.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2023
This may sound harsh but a part of me wants to strand The Projects in the projects
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2025
amogus
It's easier to complain about problems, it's a lot harder to find the solution. Fact of the matter is, I'm not a jurist or a legal scholar, and even if I might be smart enough to notice there's something wrong, that does not in anyway qualify me to make recommendations to fix it, too many interconnected moving parts, too many legal shenanigans that can be created by poor wording, I'm nowhere near that level. Remember in Idiocracy where the guy is trying to help them grow plants and they keep putting gatorade on it? I'm no botanist, but this clearly is not working correctly.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2023
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2025
Heh, pretty funny how relevant my posts ended up being, given that Trump is trying to end the filibuster now. Gotta say, however, this is not the turn I was expecting. True clown world politics, perhaps he's not an authoritarian, just kind of a moron with zero guiding philosophy. That being said, I'm all for ending the filibuster, Go, Trump! Go!