4 ms·

Funny how principes are unevenly distributed too... Like, by the same principles (called, the law), the man that you made your president today should have been

Funny how principes are unevenly distributed too... Like, by the same principles (called, the law), the man that you made your president today should have been in jail for months, if not years; or, as in any decent democracy, should not have been able to run with so many pending lawsuits (hey, principles). But, somehow, he got a pass. And he got elected, so that gave him another pass. And now he disrupts the principles he's supposed to uphold (a thing called the Constitution). And he gets another pass. But. Sure. Principles. Of course.

cmrdporcupine 2y ago
The dominant "principle" at work in American politics domestically and in foreign relations and trade today is only this: "might makes right." As their neighbours to the north we recognize this as always having been there in the form of "manifest destiny" and talk of "God's Favoured Nation" and "greatest nation on earth" and so on, and were on the receiving end of this mindset in 1812 and prior and other times... but there's also always been (small-l) liberal counter-veiling forces that led to a more just balance and the encouragement of trade and legality and constitutionality and cultural interchange over dominance and control (for some). What we've seen from the American people is that at least 50% of them now want those guard rails completely removed. I see it all over comments sections on social media now. A bully mentality. Appeals to justice or sanity are met with a Nelson Muntz "ha-ha" and "what are you going to do about it?" It's very hard to feel hopeful right now.
- Juliate 2y ago
  I completely understand you as a European. I see the same thing, here, on social media, in some newspapers, even in some family. After WWII, we had found kind of an agreement of balance, and a dynamic indeed to institute legality and coordination across nations for peace and progress. And the USA were the foundation and support of that, almost even as if it had been its mission. No wonder UN is based in New York for that matter. The most striking is the pace at which this unfolds. It's hard to feel hopeful, but hard to feel hopeless too. It's like grief. Something is broken and lost forever, but also, with darkness comes clarity of where the light comes from. So resolute to speak up and organise, yes.
milesrout 2y ago
I don't know of any reason why having some convictions should prevent you from running for political office. That would make it too easy to prevent your political opponents from running for office in any system where there is some political influence over prosections. That is exactly what happened to Trump! His so-called "felony convictions" were for misdemeanor offences and it was a transparently politically motivated prosecution. It likely backfired and helped him get electes. Why would you need such a rule anyway? If the convictions were disqualifying, the candidate would be unelectable. It is up to the electorate who wins the election. He certainly hasn't done anything I am aware of to deserve to be in prison for years. I don't see any evidence that he is ignoring the constitution. Do you apply the same standard to every president or governor that has signed blatantly unconstitutional gun control legislation? People test the boundaries of the constitution all the time. When Trump does it, he is held to a different standard.
- Juliate 2y ago
  > in any system where there is some political influence over prosections. That's why you got to trust your democracy, and in the balance and independence of each branch; and work on maintaining that trust. If you ever get your trust broken in the institutions, it's all downhill from there. It's a constant effort. > It is up to the electorate who wins the election. That point of view makes might prevail over law. Doing so invites corruption, systematically. And that's precisely not how a democracy works. > If the convictions were disqualifying, the candidate would be unelectable. I don't know how you can judge a character morally and strength-fit for presidency, of someone paying a prostitute to shut up about it, and denying having done so when caught. It's a telling trait for someone vulnerable to corruption or kompromat. That single bit alone should be a basic repellant (it would be a matter of dismissal for any high ranking public service officer, and for any CEO), but... obviously not for everyone. See, in France, we've had our own corruption issues (and still have some, it's a constant struggle too). And finally, hopefully, a past president has been convicted recently (Sarkozy). And boy, as much as I have trusted this guy, and voted for him, twice, as much am I relieved that the justice made things clear: being a president does not make you apart, you get to live by the same rules as everyone. I'm relieved too because it revealed how much the right and hard-right in France are against the independence of the judiciary breach, while unfunding it (for obvious reasons), and how it opened my eyes: democracy is so, so far from a given. And it's been a terrible realisation that today, you have the right fighting actively against democracy, the left not realising and complacent about it, the center about the same, and the far-right and far-left just waiting for it to fall. > I don't see any evidence that he is ignoring the constitution. Ok. Cool. Obviously we don't read the same events. See you in 4 years then. I promise I won't ever come to the USA (to your relief). And, believe it or not, I promise I will eat at least a piece of my hat if there is a next election and if Trump concedes willingly and peacefully to the result then. > Do you apply the same standard to every president or governor I am not defending any other president, I'm telling on yours, right now. > that has signed blatantly unconstitutional gun control legislation? You're telling on yourself right there, on a different plane. The USA is the only country in the world that has such a permissive regulation on fire arms, with an equally permissive and disdainful result in civil casualties. Yemen comes next.

cmrdporcupine 2y ago

The dominant "principle" at work in American politics domestically and in foreign relations and trade today is only this: "might makes right." As their neighbours to the north we recognize this as always having been there in the form of "manifest destiny" and talk of "God's Favoured Nation" and "greatest nation on earth" and so on, and were on the receiving end of this mindset in 1812 and prior and other times... but there's also always been (small-l) liberal counter-veiling forces that led to a more just balance and the encouragement of trade and legality and constitutionality and cultural interchange over dominance and control (for some). What we've seen from the American people is that at least 50% of them now want those guard rails completely removed. I see it all over comments sections on social media now. A bully mentality. Appeals to justice or sanity are met with a Nelson Muntz "ha-ha" and "what are you going to do about it?" It's very hard to feel hopeful right now.

Juliate 2y ago
I completely understand you as a European. I see the same thing, here, on social media, in some newspapers, even in some family. After WWII, we had found kind of an agreement of balance, and a dynamic indeed to institute legality and coordination across nations for peace and progress. And the USA were the foundation and support of that, almost even as if it had been its mission. No wonder UN is based in New York for that matter. The most striking is the pace at which this unfolds. It's hard to feel hopeful, but hard to feel hopeless too. It's like grief. Something is broken and lost forever, but also, with darkness comes clarity of where the light comes from. So resolute to speak up and organise, yes.

milesrout 2y ago

I don't know of any reason why having some convictions should prevent you from running for political office. That would make it too easy to prevent your political opponents from running for office in any system where there is some political influence over prosections. That is exactly what happened to Trump! His so-called "felony convictions" were for misdemeanor offences and it was a transparently politically motivated prosecution. It likely backfired and helped him get electes. Why would you need such a rule anyway? If the convictions were disqualifying, the candidate would be unelectable. It is up to the electorate who wins the election. He certainly hasn't done anything I am aware of to deserve to be in prison for years. I don't see any evidence that he is ignoring the constitution. Do you apply the same standard to every president or governor that has signed blatantly unconstitutional gun control legislation? People test the boundaries of the constitution all the time. When Trump does it, he is held to a different standard.

Juliate 2y ago
> in any system where there is some political influence over prosections. That's why you got to trust your democracy, and in the balance and independence of each branch; and work on maintaining that trust. If you ever get your trust broken in the institutions, it's all downhill from there. It's a constant effort. > It is up to the electorate who wins the election. That point of view makes might prevail over law. Doing so invites corruption, systematically. And that's precisely not how a democracy works. > If the convictions were disqualifying, the candidate would be unelectable. I don't know how you can judge a character morally and strength-fit for presidency, of someone paying a prostitute to shut up about it, and denying having done so when caught. It's a telling trait for someone vulnerable to corruption or kompromat. That single bit alone should be a basic repellant (it would be a matter of dismissal for any high ranking public service officer, and for any CEO), but... obviously not for everyone. See, in France, we've had our own corruption issues (and still have some, it's a constant struggle too). And finally, hopefully, a past president has been convicted recently (Sarkozy). And boy, as much as I have trusted this guy, and voted for him, twice, as much am I relieved that the justice made things clear: being a president does not make you apart, you get to live by the same rules as everyone. I'm relieved too because it revealed how much the right and hard-right in France are against the independence of the judiciary breach, while unfunding it (for obvious reasons), and how it opened my eyes: democracy is so, so far from a given. And it's been a terrible realisation that today, you have the right fighting actively against democracy, the left not realising and complacent about it, the center about the same, and the far-right and far-left just waiting for it to fall. > I don't see any evidence that he is ignoring the constitution. Ok. Cool. Obviously we don't read the same events. See you in 4 years then. I promise I won't ever come to the USA (to your relief). And, believe it or not, I promise I will eat at least a piece of my hat if there is a next election and if Trump concedes willingly and peacefully to the result then. > Do you apply the same standard to every president or governor I am not defending any other president, I'm telling on yours, right now. > that has signed blatantly unconstitutional gun control legislation? You're telling on yourself right there, on a different plane. The USA is the only country in the world that has such a permissive regulation on fire arms, with an equally permissive and disdainful result in civil casualties. Yemen comes next.