4 ms·

it's thanks to the lying that he was elected in the first place, and no one around him dares to contradict him, what would be the incentives to stop?

Swoerd 1y ago
And now that the U.S. has a tyrannical government, there’s no one left to stand in its way, the Second Amendment has proven to be a paper tiger.
- mlrtime 1y ago
  Can you expand on what you mean exactly? I see these sentences like your littered throughout reddit, vague notions of violence/war?
  - jamincan 1y ago
    It was a common argument that ultimately all of the constitutional protections, balance of powers and all that were protected by the Second Amendment - that in the face of losing their liberty, Americans would rise up against an authoritarian government. Within this administration, a lot of people feel that there has been an assault on constitutional protections, but the people who trumpeted the Second Amendment as being fundamental to protecting American liberty and democracy have largely been silent in the face of it.
    - esseph 1y ago
      It was also avoided for decades as "vile" and now the groups that could most use the 2nd Amendment are (mostly) unarmed.
    - jibal 1y ago
      It was always BS .. the Founders never intended the 2nd Amendment as a means to overthrow the government they created--the Constitution explicitly says that treason can be punished by death. And the people making that argument were always hypocritical about how they would apply it.
  - kelseyfrog 1y ago
    It brought to mind the Four Boxes of Liberty[1]. It used to be toted out by conservatives during the gun control debates, but I haven't seen it used by anyone recently until now. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
lukan 1y ago
[flagged]
- spiderfarmer 1y ago
  Why are you attacking a point he didn't make? Trump lies. Almost every sentence is a lie. If you're allowed to lie during your campaign and you're immune from the repercussions, of course you're going to sway voters. Don't close your eyes to obvious truths.
  - throw0101a 1y ago
    > Trump lies. Almost every sentence is a lie. To be fair, a lie is when some knows the truth but says the not-truth. Trump may (a) actually believe the things he is saying (i.e., has no firm grasp on reality), or (b) doesn't care enough to actually find out what is true and just says whatever enters his mind to try to get to the destination he wants: > On Bullshit is a 1986 essay and 2005 book by the American philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt which presents a theory of bullshit that defines the concept and analyzes the applications of bullshit in the context of communication. Frankfurt determines that bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care whether what they say is true or false.[1]:61 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit
    - spiderfarmer 1y ago
      Yeah, that argument is bullshit in itself. Trump learned to double and triple down on his lies from Roy Cohn: https://forward.com/culture/431851/how-roy-cohns-shame-made-him-and-trump-shameless/ https://forward.com/culture/431851/how-roy-cohns-shame-made-... You'll never make me believe he doesn't do it on purpose. He thrives on it. There's no reason for him to stop lying before he's dead. Again, just like Cohn.
  - lukan 1y ago
    "Why are you attacking a point he didn't make?" Because I missunderstood. "If you're allowed to lie during your campaign and you're immune from the repercussions, of course you're going to sway voters" But in my world, lying is enough to not vote for them anyway.
Ekaros 1y ago
I wish there was simple three strike policy on any elected official. Three proven lies and they are remove from office for life. And these can be anything. And not knowing at time does not change it. Only silence or absolute truth should be accepted.
- growt 1y ago
  That way politicians would change every week. Probably not a bad thing :)
- delusional 1y ago
  "absolute truth" doesn't exist. I understand what you're saying, but the question of when a lie should then disqualify you from office must itself be a political question.
  - jibal 1y ago
    Absolute truth exists, and a claim that it doesn't is self-contradictory. The difficulty is in determining what is or isn't true, especially for empirical matters. (In math and logic the difficulty can vary. And some statements are true by definition, e.g., all unmarried men are bachelors.)
    - delusional 1y ago
      You're confusing logical/mathematic "truth" with philosophical/scientific "truth". While "politics should be based on scientific truth" is an opinion I have some sympathy for, even if it immediately falls apart under any scrutiny. "politics should be based on mathematical axiomatic truth" is a statement so laughable I can only imagine you forgot the context we were talking about.
    - jibal 1y ago
      P.S. I'm not confusing anything and not forgetting any context, and then I get slammed with an absurd strawman, "politics should be based on mathematical axiomatic truth"--not remotely anything I said. Gawd but some people are rude. The fact remains that absolute truth exists ... "delusional" seems to have no idea what the word "truth" even means.

Swoerd 1y ago

And now that the U.S. has a tyrannical government, there’s no one left to stand in its way, the Second Amendment has proven to be a paper tiger.

mlrtime 1y ago
Can you expand on what you mean exactly? I see these sentences like your littered throughout reddit, vague notions of violence/war?
- jamincan 1y ago
  It was a common argument that ultimately all of the constitutional protections, balance of powers and all that were protected by the Second Amendment - that in the face of losing their liberty, Americans would rise up against an authoritarian government. Within this administration, a lot of people feel that there has been an assault on constitutional protections, but the people who trumpeted the Second Amendment as being fundamental to protecting American liberty and democracy have largely been silent in the face of it.
  - esseph 1y ago
    It was also avoided for decades as "vile" and now the groups that could most use the 2nd Amendment are (mostly) unarmed.
  - jibal 1y ago
    It was always BS .. the Founders never intended the 2nd Amendment as a means to overthrow the government they created--the Constitution explicitly says that treason can be punished by death. And the people making that argument were always hypocritical about how they would apply it.
- kelseyfrog 1y ago
  It brought to mind the Four Boxes of Liberty[1]. It used to be toted out by conservatives during the gun control debates, but I haven't seen it used by anyone recently until now. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty

lukan 1y ago

[flagged]

spiderfarmer 1y ago
Why are you attacking a point he didn't make? Trump lies. Almost every sentence is a lie. If you're allowed to lie during your campaign and you're immune from the repercussions, of course you're going to sway voters. Don't close your eyes to obvious truths.
- throw0101a 1y ago
  > Trump lies. Almost every sentence is a lie. To be fair, a lie is when some knows the truth but says the not-truth. Trump may (a) actually believe the things he is saying (i.e., has no firm grasp on reality), or (b) doesn't care enough to actually find out what is true and just says whatever enters his mind to try to get to the destination he wants: > On Bullshit is a 1986 essay and 2005 book by the American philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt which presents a theory of bullshit that defines the concept and analyzes the applications of bullshit in the context of communication. Frankfurt determines that bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care whether what they say is true or false.[1]:61 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit
  - spiderfarmer 1y ago
    Yeah, that argument is bullshit in itself. Trump learned to double and triple down on his lies from Roy Cohn: https://forward.com/culture/431851/how-roy-cohns-shame-made-him-and-trump-shameless/ https://forward.com/culture/431851/how-roy-cohns-shame-made-... You'll never make me believe he doesn't do it on purpose. He thrives on it. There's no reason for him to stop lying before he's dead. Again, just like Cohn.
- lukan 1y ago
  "Why are you attacking a point he didn't make?" Because I missunderstood. "If you're allowed to lie during your campaign and you're immune from the repercussions, of course you're going to sway voters" But in my world, lying is enough to not vote for them anyway.

Ekaros 1y ago

I wish there was simple three strike policy on any elected official. Three proven lies and they are remove from office for life. And these can be anything. And not knowing at time does not change it. Only silence or absolute truth should be accepted.

growt 1y ago
That way politicians would change every week. Probably not a bad thing :)
delusional 1y ago
"absolute truth" doesn't exist. I understand what you're saying, but the question of when a lie should then disqualify you from office must itself be a political question.
- jibal 1y ago
  Absolute truth exists, and a claim that it doesn't is self-contradictory. The difficulty is in determining what is or isn't true, especially for empirical matters. (In math and logic the difficulty can vary. And some statements are true by definition, e.g., all unmarried men are bachelors.)
  - delusional 1y ago
    You're confusing logical/mathematic "truth" with philosophical/scientific "truth". While "politics should be based on scientific truth" is an opinion I have some sympathy for, even if it immediately falls apart under any scrutiny. "politics should be based on mathematical axiomatic truth" is a statement so laughable I can only imagine you forgot the context we were talking about.
  - jibal 1y ago
    P.S. I'm not confusing anything and not forgetting any context, and then I get slammed with an absurd strawman, "politics should be based on mathematical axiomatic truth"--not remotely anything I said. Gawd but some people are rude. The fact remains that absolute truth exists ... "delusional" seems to have no idea what the word "truth" even means.