promethean75 wrote:indeed, but that's a truism and explains nothing. what needs to be understood is the behavior of soliciting sympathy, the purpose it serves. here morality becomes weaponized; those who lose must resort to hijacking the conscience of the winners into experiencing feelings of guilt because they lack the means to directly regain power over them. but what is forgotten in the criticism of the 'loser' is that the loser is doing the same thing the winner is doing... trying to gain the upper hand. so when the winners win, it's noble, but when the losers win, it's ignoble and underhanded.
this demarcation ironically reverses the slave-mentality (i did a vocaroo audio on this very thing a year ago). first we have the stage; slave interprets master's caprice as bad, as 'evil'. second stage; winner/master interprets slave's revolt as 'bad', as 'evil'. here, the master/winner engages in the same weaponized moralizing that the slave engaged in directly following his loss of power. now, it is 'bad' to not want to remain the loser, says the winner... and that's the dumbest shit i have ever heard.
now it becomes especially ugly when we apply this analysis to what has been done, and is being done, in the dialectic between the ruling class and the working class. note that the initial power gained by the ruling class was not established by direct force, but rather through the same kind of underhanded deception that is now being scrutinized in the hands of the losers, the working class. the ruling class was able to convince the working class that something other than a direct show of force gave them their right to their position... and this would involve telling the long story of the rise of the aristocratic class to power (which i'm not obliged to tell because it would take too long). suffice it to say that this initial rise to power was not the result of an affirmative show of strength by the ruling class, but rather the result of a lack of organized effort by the working class to keep their power. and what caused this long, drawn out process of losing executive power to the ruling class was cateorically identical to the moralizing that the losers, the slaves, the workers, now execute in an attempt to regain their original power.
promethean75 wrote:so you have a 'master' class that gained its status by underhanded and deceptive means... then has the audacity to try and convince the 'slave' class, which it successfully subordinated by weaponizing morality, that they should accept their fate rather than revolt. like i said... the dumbest shit i have ever heard.
i take a great leap here and say something you'll not understand... something that will immediately shock you and strike you as absurd. i'm using a metaphor you like to think in terms of, here. the aristocratic/capitalistic ruling class's entire pathos is feminine and ignoble. in the same way you might see women as being experts at manipulation and able to access power through indirect means, the ruling class has done the same thing through 'philosophy', through 'ideology'. the rise to power of the bourgeois class is an activity perfectly characterized as feminine; accessing power deceptively and then persuading those from whom it was taken that they should feel guilty in wanting it back.
now i'd not use that metaphor myself because it over-generalizes... but i did anyway because it's in a way you might be able to understand. i'm trying to simplify something extremely complicated so it's easily accessible to you.
it's another irony i sit nicely on as i watch the political philosophers go with great amusement. conservatism is the very incarnation of the feminine pathos, while... let's just call it 'marxism ' because that's how everyone understands it these days... is at its core is the embodiment of ultra-masculinity and nobility. okay... let's say that capitalism is dionysian, while socialism is apollonian. will that work for you?
i know, i know. this is probably very disturbing to you and i apologize for that. i've been known to turn whole centuries upside down in one fell swoop.
if you can't protect those profits by a standing army. You seem to have a philosophical blindspot in this area. The historic 'high' classes are aligned with military might. The upper-classes dictate the order of the armies. Any hypothetical "redistribution of wealth" presumes a military uprising.
Many ethnic groupings are elitist and want no party in any hypothetical "universal brotherhood" or "proletariat of the workers".
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Attempting to impeach the duly-elected President of the United States, without a charge...
Carleas wrote:You're right, it's time to bring those charges!
I wonder what you call the process by which they bring charges against a duly-elected President... maybe accusement?
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Did Obama "gain personally" through his president? Did Bush "gain personally"? Did Clinton? Did Reagan?
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Quid Pro Quo?
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Trump was/is investigating Crime and Corruption in Ukraine.
Carleas wrote:The question isn't whether they 'gained personally', it's whether they abused the powers of the office for personal gain.
Carleas wrote:What do you mean by this? Several witnesses have testified that Trump withheld military aid to the Ukraine on the condition that the Ukraine announce an investigation of Biden. Quid = military aid, quo = Biden investigation.
Carleas wrote:This is implausible. If that were the real motivation, it would have been handled by the Department of Justice, not by the President's personal attorney (who is not an employee or agent of the United States).
Urwrongx1000 wrote:The question still stands.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:I like how you Liberal-Leftists make it a "crime" to investigate your Liberal-Left leaders
Urwrongx1000 wrote:DOJ is corrupt too. Trump knows how deep the swamp is, and has to take matters into his own hands.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:That's why the people Hired him, Voted him, into office.
Carleas wrote:Two things:
1) "Maybe Obama did it too" is a boring question. Make a specific allegation and show your evidence.
2) Assume every president to now has done what Trump is accused of doing -- are you saying that they were all OK, or are you saying that they should all have been removed (including Trump)?
Carleas wrote:This is non-responsive. You said there was no quid pro quo, I gave you the quid and the quo. Reconcile those things.
Carleas wrote:Whether or not that's true, ours is a government of laws. Trump isn't king, he's the head of the executive in a democracy, whose powers are explicit and limited and flow from the Constitution and laws written by Congress. If he senses corruption, his job is to clean house, not to employ mercenaries because he doesn't trust the employees of the executive branch.
Carleas wrote:Most people who voted voted for someone else, and almost half the population didn't vote.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Evidence? Who needs evidence, these days? Certainly not the Democratic party!
Urwrongx1000 wrote:It's not a Quid Pro Quo when you investigate corruption
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Law?! What law?
Urwrongx1000 wrote:304 -- 227
Carleas wrote:It seems like you're trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you're claiming there was no quid pro quo; on the other, you're claiming that Trump was trying to make a deal (i.e. a quid pro quo) to fight corruption. Put differently, you're arguing both that he didn't do it, and that he did it with the best of intentions.
Carleas wrote:The power of the Presidency is circumscribed by law. The President only has that authority given to the position by the Constitution, the largest part of with is in executing the laws as passed by the Legislature. The President's authority is limited by the set of laws he's charged with executing.
So, when you ask, "Law? What law?", the burden is on the President and his defenders to point to a law that permits him to hire a personal attorney to conduct state affairs, as opposed to using the apparatus that the Legislature has provided for him.
Carleas wrote:Are you under the impression that a total of 531 people voted in the 2016 election?
Urwrongx1000 wrote:No testimony, no fact, that there is "Quid Pro Quo"
Urwrongx1000 wrote:It's called the Electoral College.
Carleas wrote:Describe, in specific, what Trump was doing to "ensure Ukraine wasn't corrupt". As far as I can tell, the only theory of the case that includes Trump acting to eliminate corruption has Trump withholding military aide in order to force the Ukraine to investigate Biden. That is a quid pro quo.
So either there was no quid pro quo, no withholding of aide, or there was no attempt to deal with corruption in the Ukraine. Not both.
...right. And electoral votes are different from the popular vote, yes? And if we're talking about "the people", we care about the popular vote, not the Electoral College. And if we look at the popular vote, it's clear that "Most people who voted voted for someone else, and almost half the population didn't vote."[/quote]Urwrongx1000 wrote:It's called the Electoral College.
promethean75 wrote:there's no difference here. national socialism is pseudo-marxism by country and is concerned only with the interests of one's own working class. in this way its an immature and underdeveloped full marxism.
marxism in the form of nationalism was fashionable for 20th century fascists because at that point in history, 'race' was still important. well except for mussolini, who was light years ahead of hitler in this respect.
you do not understand what the master of cynical negation si telling you.Zero_Sum wrote:promethean75 wrote:there's no difference here. national socialism is pseudo-marxism by country and is concerned only with the interests of one's own working class. in this way its an immature and underdeveloped full marxism.
marxism in the form of nationalism was fashionable for 20th century fascists because at that point in history, 'race' was still important. well except for mussolini, who was light years ahead of hitler in this respect.
Race is still important and this will become abundantly clear as more white people begin to notice there's a whole lot less of us out there in existence becoming the new population minority. Marxism didn't have any influence on national socialism or fascism from what I can see.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Where in the call is it implied or even remotely suggested that "investigate Biden OR ELSE?!"
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Popular Vote is meaningless, literally doesn't mean anything.
Carleas wrote:Urwrongx1000 wrote:Where in the call is it implied or even remotely suggested that "investigate Biden OR ELSE?!"
1) We don't have a transcript, because the White House refuses to provide a transcript that they insist contains nothing worth hiding.
Carleas wrote:I find the people saying this also put a lot of weight on the notion that "the people" elected Trump. It's true that the system elected Trump, but most people who voted voted for someone else.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Pretty weak arguments...
obsrvr524 wrote:How did that get into your bubble of belief?
obsrvr524 wrote:And there is a damn good reason for that to be the law.
Carleas wrote:obsrvr524 wrote:How did that get into your bubble of belief?
- Irregularities in the released transcript, together with testimony of others on the call, show that we don't have an actual transcript.
Carleas wrote:- Mulvaney said they have tapes from which the transcript was produced.
Carleas wrote:obsrvr524 wrote:And there is a damn good reason for that to be the law.
Whether or not it's a good policy, its pedantically the case that winning the Electoral College and winning the popular vote are different things, and if you appeal to the will of the people, you expose yourself to pedants like me pointing out that, wellactually, the people mostly preferred someone else.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]