This is a tad hyperbolic and ignores the fact that Democrats attempt to do the same thing. — Thorongil

I'm not saying that they don't. I'm saying that the Republicans do, and so that they're not just guilty of turning a blind eye to Trump "destroying the republic in full view of everyone" (as Wayfarer puts it).

And I don't want to see a "legitimate democracy" if by that you mean a pure, direct democracy.

No, I mean that every citizen has a reasonable opportunity to vote. So none of the suppression tactics that are designed to practically disenfranchise certain groups of people.

I'm saying that the Republicans do, and so that they're not just guilty of turning a blind eye to Trump "destroying the republic in full view of everyone" (as Wayfarer puts it). — Michael

Yes, but you're neglecting to mention the fact that Wayfarer is a pink-cloud flying 60s liberal spirituality guy. That's expected from him.

But in all seriousness now, I don't think Trump is "destroying the republic" - he's just taking things on a completely different path compared to Obama. The break between Bush and Obama was big, but it's not as big as the break between Trump and Obama. That - combined with the fact that Trump has utterly humiliated the media - encourages a one-sided portrayal of his Presidency.

No, I mean that every citizen has a reasonable opportunity to vote. So none of the suppression tactics that are designed to practically disenfranchise certain groups of people. — Michael

Why not? Politics is a battle, which requires wits and intelligence to win. Yes, underhanded tactics can always exist, and as a political opponent you should be aware of them, even if you don't use them yourself. So failure to be aware of them and finding a way to counter them is YOUR failure.

Why not? Politics is a battle, which requires wits and intelligence to win. Yes, underhanded tactics can always exist, and as a political opponent you should be aware of them, even if you don't use them yourself. So failure to be aware of them and finding a way to counter them is YOUR failure. — Agustino

You might be OK with a one-party authoritarian state, but most of us would prefer a legitimate democracy.

That - combined with the fact that Trump has utterly humiliated the media - encourages a one-sided portrayal of his Presidency. — Agustino

What alternative reality are you living in? He's only humiliating himself.

You might be OK with a one-party authoritarian state, but most of us would prefer a legitimate democracy. — Michael

Politics is politics. The players of politics (that doesn't mean you the citizen) know this. Democracy, or oligarchy or dictatorship - they don't care. Just the means they have to employ to stay in power changes. For them, it's all the same, regardless of political system. That's one of the disadvantages of politics - it's all about power, even if the masks change. And that is true even if you're fighting for a good cause like Ghandi - Ghandi also had to be wise as a serpent and outmanoeuvre the British.

What alternative reality are you living in? He's only humiliating himself. — Michael

He did humiliate them DURING the elections - even merely by winning and then rubbing it in their faces.

Why not? Politics is a battle, which requires wits and intelligence to win. Yes, underhanded tactics can always exist, and as a political opponent you should be aware of them, even if you don't use them yourself. So failure to be aware of them and finding a way to counter them is YOUR failure.

...

Politics is politics. The players of politics (that doesn't mean you the citizen) know this. Democracy, or oligarchy or dictatorship - they don't care. Just the means they have to employ to stay in power changes. For them, it's all the same, regardless of political system. That's one of the disadvantages of politics - it's all about power, even if the masks change. And that is true even if you're fighting for a good cause like Ghandi - Ghandi also had to be wise as a serpent and outmanoeuvre the British. — Agustino

This coming from someone who complains so much about the supposed injustice of the moderation here. You really do have inconsistent principles.

Or is it that you have no principles and will just say and do whatever best pushes your agenda? 'Cause that would make responding to your complaints so much easier.

This coming from someone who complains so much about the supposed injustice of the moderation here. — Michael

Right, and since when is an internet forum the equivalent of politics? :s We're not here to battle out for political victory, so I don't understand at all why you're even making that reference. Do you consider the forum to be a political arena? And by the way Real Politik has little to do with principles. Ghandi had principles - he still had to be sly as a serpent though.

Anyway, this ad hominem does you well - saves you from addressing any of my points.

Right, and since when is an internet forum the equivalent of politics? :s We're not here to battle out for political victory, so I don't understand at all why you're even making that reference. Do you consider the forum to be a political arena? And by the way Real Politik has little to do with principles. Ghandi had principles - he still had to be sly as a serpent though.

Anyway, this ad hominem does you well - saves you from addressing any of my points. — Agustino

We're talking about justice, and how the Republicans are engaging in unjust political activity. You don't seem to care. And yet you do care about perceived injustice on this forum. This seems like inconsistent principles on your part.

So is justice important to you? Is it only important when it favours your agenda? Is it only important when it comes to discussing philosophy over the internet?

You don't seem to care. — Michael

Yes, because they're doing politics. I don't expect them to play fair to begin with. That's how politics is. If I have an opponent in politics, I wouldn't expect him to play fair - you have to be ready for everything.

So what I'm talking about isn't whether what they're doing is good or not. I'm talking about your silly expectation that they would be just. That's the bigger problem.

And yet you do care about perceived injustice on this forum. This seems like inconsistent principles on your part. — Michael

No it's not. I am concerned about injustice in those places where I can make a difference. If I was a political actor in America, I might be concerned about the injustice there too, because I could do something about it. But what's the point about being concerned about something you can't do anything about? You're not a political actor. Let political actors sort it out themselves, and don't have expectations of them. If you don't want to do that, then join politics and make a difference. But don't sit on the sidelines crying about X or Y. That's useless.

So is justice important to you? — Michael

To me personally, yes. But I don't expect this to hold true for others by necessity.

Yes, because they're doing politics. I don't expect them to play fair to begin with. That's how politics is. If I have an opponent in politics, I wouldn't expect him to play fair - you have to be ready for everything.

So what I'm talking about isn't whether what they're doing is good or not. I'm talking about your silly expectation that they would be just. That's the bigger problem. — Agustino

I'm not saying that they would be just. I'm saying that they're not, and that this is a bad thing.

No it's not. I am concerned about injustice in those places where I can make a difference. If I was a political actor in America, I might be concerned about the injustice there too, because I could do something about it. But what's the point about being concerned about something you can't do anything about? You're not a political actor. Let political actors sort it out themselves, and don't have expectations of them. If you don't want to do that, then join politics and make a difference. But don't sit on the sidelines crying about X or Y. That's useless.

What's the point? Jesus, are you just not human? People care about terrible things that happen in the world even if there's nothing they can do to stop them.

How do you respond to the recent terror attacks? With a "meh, it happened; but I can't turn back time, so it's useless to dwell"? That's pretty sociopathic.

To me personally, yes. But I don't expect this to hold true for others by necessity.

Then you should condemn the Republican party for their gerrymandering and voter suppression attempts, because they're being unjust. Instead you seem to be trying to excuse them.

Then you should condemn the Republican party for their gerrymandering and voter suppression attempts, because they're being injustice. — Michael

Why? So that I give them the joy of laughing in my face?

I'm not saying that they would be just. I'm saying that they're not, and that this is a terrible thing. — Michael

Yeah, so what? It's a terrible thing. So? Is that gonna change it?

What's the point? Jesus, are you just not human? People care about terrible things that happen in the world even if there's nothing they can do to stop them. — Michael

I care about terrible things that I can do something about. If I can't do something about it then the energy I spend caring about it is wasted energy. It ain't going to change whatever happened. It's just going to fill my soul with negativity and put me down.

How do you respond to the recent terror attacks? — Michael

I'd say:

(1) No point crying about spilt milk.
(2) Need to be careful in public spaces which are potential terrorist targets.
(3) Tragedy can hit at any moment.
(4) If I was in politics (or I ever get elected), I'd do something about it.
(5) Do I know any of the victims, and is there anything I can do for them?

That's pretty sociopathic. — Michael

So you'd rather be like one of those little girls crying about injustices around the world while sitting in their comfortable homes and doing nothing right? That's being a nice person right? Just sit back and say the right words, that will certainly fix the world up. Yeah that's certainly the way of fighting injustice. Condemning the Republicans... they must be rolling on the floor with laughter.

The world doesn't care about cries. The world only changes with actions. You or me or anyone can cry as much as we want about all injustices. The world itself is silent. And God only helps those who dare take action.

I don't see any proposals for action in this thread. All I see is crying about this and that.

What will be discovered is that Trump did not collude with the Russians and that his firing of Comey, while ill advised, was not obstruction of justice. At best, the Dems will interfere with Republican progress, despite having a majority in all branches, which is all they're trying to do anyway.

Politics is about power, not truth seeking, and the Dems are no holier than anyone else.

This thread is interesting (and I'm not being sarcastic) to the extent that I get to hear how the choir talks among itself after a sermon.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2252532-despite-allegations-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion-found/

What will be discovered is that Trump did not collude with the Russians and that his firing of Comey, while ill advised, was not obstruction of justice. — Hanover

Trump or Trump's campaign?

I actually do agree with you here whole heartedly on the point that talk without action is self righteous thumb twiddling. Sitting in the pew knodding with the preacher does nothing for anyone if it doesn't motivate you to act.

Trump and his campaign.

Will you offer better odds than Paddy Power? They have it at 8/11.

I actually do agree with you here whole heartedly on the point that talk without action is self righteous thumb twiddling. Sitting in the pew knodding with the preacher does nothing for anyone if it doesn't motivate you to act. — Hanover

Nobody was saying that condemnation without action achieves anything. My point is that he's showing inconsistent principles by arguing against perceived injustice here but responding to political injustice by simply saying that that's how the game is played.

And also that it's sociopathic to not care about things just because you can't change them.

if the GOP had any real conservative principles, Trump would never have become leader — Wayfarer

How come I supported Trump's election then? I'm a conservative, and everyone knows that.

My point is that he's showing inconsistent principles by arguing against perceived injustice here but responding to political injustice by simply saying that that's how the game is played. — Michael

I'm responding to the injustice here because there's something I can do about it, and it's certainly not expected of an online forum to turn political.

And also that it's sociopathic to not care about things just because you can't change them. — Michael

No, I'm pretty sure that's not what sociopathic means.

The DSM-5 defines antisocial personality disorder as "[a] pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

• Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
• Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.
• Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
• Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.
• Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.
• Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
• Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another."

I'm not violating anyone's rights by not caring about things I can't do nothing about.

What will be discovered is that Trump did not collude with the Russians — Hanover

I'm actually interested in how you came to this conclusion, but since you've turned radioactive again... nevermind.

So you'd rather be like one of those little girls crying about injustices around the world while sitting in their comfortable homes and doing nothing right? That's being a nice person right? Just sit back and say the right words, that will certainly fix the world up. Yeah that's certainly the way of fighting injustice. Condemning the Republicans... they must be rolling on the floor with laughter.

The world doesn't care about cries. The world only changes with actions. You or me or anyone can cry as much as we want about all injustices. The world itself is silent. And God only helps those who dare take action.

I don't see any proposals for action in this thread. All I see is crying about this and that. — Agustino

I think this is a false dichotomy. The choice is not between manning the barricades and being a whiny little girl.

One of the main things citizens do is talk to each other. If your government does something you disagree with, it is important to talk about it. That doesn't have to be some big public display. You talk to your family and friends, just like you talk about anything else you care about. There will likely be plenty of other people talking to their family and friends. Over time, public opinion shifts, and that matters.

It is important to keep ideas circulating, to keep talking. If you don't, the idea will be gone. One way you help keep a democracy alive is by being informed and keeping the level of discourse from falling. Some people will engage in more directly political activity, and they have to come from somewhere. You want them to come from an environment of careful thought, healthy debate and respect for the truth. If you were a dictator, you'd worry more about that than about the little armed rebellion your massive security forces easily put down. But imagine that out there, beyond the palace, they're all talking, it's impossible to stop, some of your own staff are probably talking.

Talk is important. Do it often; do it well.

If you were a dictator, you'd worry more about that than about the little armed rebellion your massive security forces easily put down. — Srap Tasmaner

Not true. If I were a dictator I'd worry most about those close to me betraying me, or organising rival factions. They control the power, not the public. The public can be used BY THEM to overthrow me. The public is always a political tool, never an actor. The public always requires someone to be led by. So someone from my entourage can use the public's lack of satisfaction with me to overthrow me, but it will always be someone who has control of state apparatus, whether it is secret services or military. They can quickly move the public to act, backed up by part of the state.

Talk is important — Srap Tasmaner

Talk changes nothing. It may even be good for smart dictators. Let the dogs bark is one of the most effective way of appeasing public unrest, provided that the public isn't too intelligent to catch on. Just ask Michael, he likes applying the tactic ;)

But hey, why bother, amirite? — Srap Tasmaner

Apparently, you're being sarcastic here, but about what I have no idea.

I'm saying that the Republicans do, and so that they're not just guilty of turning a blind eye to Trump "destroying the republic in full view of everyone" — Michael

To which my retort is, once again, that this is hyperbolic fear-mongering. If both sides do it, but you choose to make lunatic statements like the above when only one side does it, then I can't take you seriously.

No, I mean that every citizen has a reasonable opportunity to vote. So none of the suppression tactics that are designed to practically disenfranchise certain groups of people. — Michael

You'd have to be more specific, of course, but no reasonable person would disagree with this as stated.

How come I supported Trump's election then? — Agustino

Beats me. I never understand why you come out all guns blazing for Putin, either. That's why I've decided to 'never discuss politics with Agustino'. Works out a lot better.

Okay, then check my "Atheists" thread, I think there's things you can provide some unique insights there given your perspective.

[...] politics. I don't expect them to play fair to begin with. — Agustino

Maybe you should? Just sayin'.

[

One of the main things citizens do is talk to each other. If your government does something you disagree with, it is important to talk about it. That doesn't have to be some big public display. You talk to your family and friends, just like you talk about anything else you care about. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, in a lot of cases active opposition isn't required, we just need to reduce support for bad policies or bad actors and talking sense to people is the most effective way of achieving that.

Talk changes nothing. It may even be good for smart dictators. — Agustino

The reason dictators suppress talk is because that's how revolutions get started. Sometimes active resistance is necesary, but the only way a resistance gains support is through talk. Are you aware of any smart dictators who allow free speech?

Resistance is not sufficient for revolution. What must happen is support from within the institutions of the state for a revolution to succeed. It is true that public unrest does give courage to traitors from within to form factions and try to topple the current dictator to put themselves in his place. Nut public unrest by itself isn't enough

How do you respond to the recent terror attacks? With a "meh, it happened; but I can't turn back time, so it's useless to dwell"? That's pretty sociopathic. — Michael

I don't get any more worked up over that than I do over the 15,000 or so murders that happen every day in the world. Do you just walk around perpetually horror​ stricken and if not why are those people more important to you than the rest? I keep rationally detached from the horror of the world by keeping in mind that while most people don't deserve it hardly any of us are inculpable either. We all collectively have created this world and if it's a bloody horror show then we're all in part responsible for that.

I think, whatever Mueller says, the GOP and the 'Trump supporters', and Trump, will just continue to lie. As he can now lie with the weight of the Presidency behind him, then it's quite conceivable that all of the organs of justice will become impotent in the face of such organised mendacity. And that will be the end of America.