7 ms·

Assassinating the president has little to do with denying him the power of the presidency, and more to do with what he is a symbol of. Kind of like how 9/11 wa

Assassinating the president has little to do with denying him the power of the presidency, and more to do with what he is a symbol of. Kind of like how 9/11 wasn't about killing some office workers

phpisthebest 4y ago
Symbols can be powerful... That is the issue, the foundational principle of the United States was that we were a federalist system with a weak and narrowly defined federal government. The office of Presidency should be inconsequential to the Everyday citizen of either the US or the world. The fact that we continually shift more power from Local / State government, then from Congress to the Executive is the exact reason the president is a "Symbol of Power" >Kind of like how 9/11 wasn't about killing some office workers Again the theory of Distribution apply here to building as well. World Trade Center was attacked because NYC is seen as the Central Place for world finance. NYC has become too powerful and that power should be distributed.
- marnett 4y ago
  I always thought the two WTC towers were more representative of global capitalism, not just good targets for attacking NYC.
- jancsika 4y ago
  > The fact that we continually shift more power from Local / State government, then from Congress to the Executive is the exact reason the president is a "Symbol of Power" This is all rank and dubious speculation wrt your general rule about POTUS needing a dedicated security team. Hell, Duane Johnson needs a dedicated security team. If you are positing a federal government so weak that POTUS is not widely known within the U.S. population, you're political views are more radical than you're letting on.
  - prottog 4y ago
    What part of GP's take on the American federalist system are you describing as radical? Seems to me that the truly radical thing is what the federal government has morphed into over the years, its founding constitutional document notwithstanding.
    - shkkmo 4y ago
      Reducing the federal government to that scale would involve getting ride or the DOD and almost every federal agency. It is "radical" because that position is completely unacceptable to the vast majority, while parts of that plan might appeal to parts of the political spectrum, taken as a whole it is a plan thay has miniscule support. Thus, it is considered a radical view point.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        hmmm... Following the Constitution is Radical now... The US Navy is the only constitutional branch of the DoD. How is that for being radical.
        shkkmo 4y ago
        Yes, advocating such widespread changes to society on the basis of a specific interpretation/understanding of the constitution (the root document of our government) fits the meanings of the word almost too perfectly: > Arising from or going to a root or source; basic. >Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme or drastic. > Relating to or advocating fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions. > designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue > of or relating to the origin > favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions > Favoring fundamental change, or change at the root cause of a matter.
        krapp 4y ago
        If we have to put up with mass shootings and forcing women to choose between unwanted pregnancies and prison because of specific interpretations of the Constitution based solely on 18th century idioms, then we should go all in.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
    Can you name the president of Switzerland? This is the nation that hosts the davos summit, is the hub of FIFA and red cross, plus several other high profile multinationals, NGOs, and wotld bodies, and is also the only core european country not parricipating in thr EU zone agreement. Surely if you know the PM of Spain, Norway or Poland you ought to know switzerland right?
    - detaro 4y ago
      The position of the Swiss president by design (i.e. the Swiss constitution) doesn't hold any special powers. That's quite different than the US president or even European PMs. A Swiss-style executive in the US would be a fascinating scenario, but it's really not how the systems in the US are set up (nor would the non-required aspects of it necessarily form the same way, e.g. the many-party nature is not strictly required and it could devolve into a two-party-system in Switzerland too in theory)
- aikinai 4y ago
  The Japanese emperor has zero power and lives in one of the safest countries in the world, but no one would be naïve enough to think he doesn’t need protection.
adolph 4y ago
It’s almost as if such an investment is a brittle monarchical single basket of collective eggs. The would be assassins are as backwards about the symbols as the sycophants. They don’t see symbols as a byproduct, a shelved trophy of societal achievement, rather than its cause. It is understandable that a religious person would invert cause and effect, as if the shine of wet streets made rain. It is a bad thing for the US to become a cargo cult of itself.
fijiaarone 4y ago
A lot of presidents have been assassinated in America. Not one assassination has affected the continuum of government or been more than a personal tragedy.
- dctoedt 4y ago
  > Not one assassination has affected the continuum of government or been more than a personal tragedy. The formerly-enslaved workers in the American South would like a word about Abraham Lincoln's assassination in 1865 and his replacement as president by the (Union-loyal) southerner and states-rights advocate Andrew Johnson, who had very different ideas about Reconstruction and the rights of Blacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson#Reconstruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson#Reconstruction EDIT: Recall as well the 1914 assassination of the Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife by a Serbian nationalist: That one murder started the dominos falling for a 30-year, continent-wide war (with a 20-year intermission) in which tens of millions of soldiers and civilians died — with millions of those being systematically murdered. Moreover, that new Thirty Years War (Churchill's term) destroyed the fairly-prosperous international commercial system of the early 1900s; devastated most of Europe's physical- and economic infrastructure; and catapulted Russia and the U.S. to the status of global hegemons. So yeah: Assassinations can indeed be quite a bit more than just personal tragedies ....
onetokeoverthe 4y ago
[dead]

Assassinating the president has little to do with denying him the power of the presidency, and more to do with what he is a symbol of. Kind of like how 9/11 wasn't about killing some office workers

phpisthebest 4y ago

Symbols can be powerful... That is the issue, the foundational principle of the United States was that we were a federalist system with a weak and narrowly defined federal government. The office of Presidency should be inconsequential to the Everyday citizen of either the US or the world. The fact that we continually shift more power from Local / State government, then from Congress to the Executive is the exact reason the president is a "Symbol of Power" >Kind of like how 9/11 wasn't about killing some office workers Again the theory of Distribution apply here to building as well. World Trade Center was attacked because NYC is seen as the Central Place for world finance. NYC has become too powerful and that power should be distributed.

marnett 4y ago
I always thought the two WTC towers were more representative of global capitalism, not just good targets for attacking NYC.
jancsika 4y ago
> The fact that we continually shift more power from Local / State government, then from Congress to the Executive is the exact reason the president is a "Symbol of Power" This is all rank and dubious speculation wrt your general rule about POTUS needing a dedicated security team. Hell, Duane Johnson needs a dedicated security team. If you are positing a federal government so weak that POTUS is not widely known within the U.S. population, you're political views are more radical than you're letting on.
- prottog 4y ago
  What part of GP's take on the American federalist system are you describing as radical? Seems to me that the truly radical thing is what the federal government has morphed into over the years, its founding constitutional document notwithstanding.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    Reducing the federal government to that scale would involve getting ride or the DOD and almost every federal agency. It is "radical" because that position is completely unacceptable to the vast majority, while parts of that plan might appeal to parts of the political spectrum, taken as a whole it is a plan thay has miniscule support. Thus, it is considered a radical view point.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      hmmm... Following the Constitution is Radical now... The US Navy is the only constitutional branch of the DoD. How is that for being radical.
      - shkkmo 4y ago
        Yes, advocating such widespread changes to society on the basis of a specific interpretation/understanding of the constitution (the root document of our government) fits the meanings of the word almost too perfectly: > Arising from or going to a root or source; basic. >Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme or drastic. > Relating to or advocating fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions. > designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue > of or relating to the origin > favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions > Favoring fundamental change, or change at the root cause of a matter.
        krapp 4y ago
        If we have to put up with mass shootings and forcing women to choose between unwanted pregnancies and prison because of specific interpretations of the Constitution based solely on 18th century idioms, then we should go all in.
- IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
  Can you name the president of Switzerland? This is the nation that hosts the davos summit, is the hub of FIFA and red cross, plus several other high profile multinationals, NGOs, and wotld bodies, and is also the only core european country not parricipating in thr EU zone agreement. Surely if you know the PM of Spain, Norway or Poland you ought to know switzerland right?
  - detaro 4y ago
    The position of the Swiss president by design (i.e. the Swiss constitution) doesn't hold any special powers. That's quite different than the US president or even European PMs. A Swiss-style executive in the US would be a fascinating scenario, but it's really not how the systems in the US are set up (nor would the non-required aspects of it necessarily form the same way, e.g. the many-party nature is not strictly required and it could devolve into a two-party-system in Switzerland too in theory)
aikinai 4y ago
The Japanese emperor has zero power and lives in one of the safest countries in the world, but no one would be naïve enough to think he doesn’t need protection.

adolph 4y ago

It’s almost as if such an investment is a brittle monarchical single basket of collective eggs. The would be assassins are as backwards about the symbols as the sycophants. They don’t see symbols as a byproduct, a shelved trophy of societal achievement, rather than its cause. It is understandable that a religious person would invert cause and effect, as if the shine of wet streets made rain. It is a bad thing for the US to become a cargo cult of itself.

fijiaarone 4y ago

A lot of presidents have been assassinated in America. Not one assassination has affected the continuum of government or been more than a personal tragedy.

dctoedt 4y ago
> Not one assassination has affected the continuum of government or been more than a personal tragedy. The formerly-enslaved workers in the American South would like a word about Abraham Lincoln's assassination in 1865 and his replacement as president by the (Union-loyal) southerner and states-rights advocate Andrew Johnson, who had very different ideas about Reconstruction and the rights of Blacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson#Reconstruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson#Reconstruction EDIT: Recall as well the 1914 assassination of the Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife by a Serbian nationalist: That one murder started the dominos falling for a 30-year, continent-wide war (with a 20-year intermission) in which tens of millions of soldiers and civilians died — with millions of those being systematically murdered. Moreover, that new Thirty Years War (Churchill's term) destroyed the fairly-prosperous international commercial system of the early 1900s; devastated most of Europe's physical- and economic infrastructure; and catapulted Russia and the U.S. to the status of global hegemons. So yeah: Assassinations can indeed be quite a bit more than just personal tragedies ....

onetokeoverthe 4y ago

[dead]