Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Elegiac]

“The left” is an ideology, but it’s interesting you see people as generally being classed by their ideology...

You're the one who drew the distinction in the first place.

Which draws us back to the entire point of why no one buys this position of impartiality or being "apart from it" - because all the apologia, all the calls for sympathy are exclusively for the benefit of the far right. You deem fighting against the left going 'too far' as being a job of being human, but never at any point acknowledge why there is that impetus for change in the first place.

And the reason you don't do so is because acknowledging it would undermine your entire shtick of arguing that unjust systems should be left in place because any form of order, even an unjust one, is preferable to the alternative.

That's not a position of impartiality, that's one of collaboration.

- - - Updated - - -

Creating laws that punish people for not using pronouns

Didn't happen, Daddy Peterson. Try again.

or baking cakes for people they will not accept, is forced acceptance.

Lol, what? Not being able to discriminate is forced acceptance. Right.

Once again; forced acceptance is a nonsense term devised by people who can't be bothered to extend basic human dignity to others.

[Eviscero]

In that literally everyone was in that era. Many were overt deists, which was as close to atheism as one could publicly get without persecution and abuse.

They were also mostly slaveowners, so let's not give their views undue moral consideration. As much as Jefferson had some interesting ideas, he was still a slaveowner who raped his slaves. A proper understanding of the man cannot ignore those moral failings.

All true, but more to the point: Connal is simply giving undue significamce to the purported personal beliefs of the founders and not enough to the explicit statements they made in the Constitution itself and in many other contemporaneous writings that illuminate their motivstions and concerns.

They may have been universally Christian, but they were quite explicit about the role of the government being established. Here's a hint, it was absolutely not to promulgate whatever version of Christianity they may have practiced. Rather, they were quite aware of and fearful of religious tyrrany, of all forms including by Christians, corrupting the government and impinging on God granted liberties.

[callipygoustp]

Off topic, but I can't help thinking/asking:
Holy shit, wtf is this thread about again?

[Lanrefni]

Off topic, but I can't help thinking/asking:
Holy shit, wtf is this thread about again?

The last few pages have been Connal blatantly twisting shit off topic in an attempt to get the thread Thwarted and closed.

[Skroe]

Off topic, but I can't help thinking/asking:
Holy shit, wtf is this thread about again?

The Education of Connal has been an impressive way to end the year, that's for sure. What a read. Endus and Elegiac are saints for engaging in that. My personal favorite bit was where Connal tried to the lack of tradition sources of values governing society is cause of a percieved lack of morality in today's society, and then he was hit with the fact that those traditional sources, which changed greatly over their span, were the root of much of the suffering of the world, and that the progress, particularly in the last 100 years, of creating a better world has come in no small part from societal consensus being a filter in deciding what is moral and what is not and moving past churches and religions mandating it.

Connal's position isn't even historically consistent within the United States. Take Catholicism. One of the oldest religions there is with a central governing body that is pretty much the single oldest continuous rules-based organization on Earth. The Papacy of the late 18th century was eager to expand its ministry in the United States of America. They didn't feel particularly strongly one way or another about this new democracy thing. It was, after all, an ocean away.

The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars changed their views. The importation, and potential spread of democracy, and then the overthrowing of royalty and elites stretching back many hundreds of years was seen by the leadership of the Catholic church as an attack on the natural order, as created by the almighty. It was also deeply angered by the secularism of the United States and emerging liberal democratic movements. This lead to the Catholic Church being a promoter of the 19th century conservative (the other type of conservative) counter-revolution that arose at the end of the Napolenoic Wars and ruled Europe for the most part until World War I.

This is the source of America's Protestant majority being deeply suspicious and intolerant of Catholics, including as immigrants. The Catholic leadership was clearly espousing what amounts to a "Containment Strategy" in the the 19th century due to fears of the disruption that American-style secular democracy would bring if it spread (as they believe it had almost done in Europe during the French Revoution). This was more intent than action because the 19th Century Catholic Church in Europe had major political challenges of its own, particularly as nation states consolidated their power. But coupled with the Pope imploring Americans to be politically involved in their country, America's Protestants were suspicious that Catholics (all of them) were agents of the Pope. Sure, there was a major element in lingering Anglican/Protestant - Catholic ideological rivalry that stretched back to the religious schisms in the first place, but many 19th century American protestants saw official Catholic church policy as saying that American democracy was ungodly, and wondered "why the hell is it allowed here then? Can we trust these people?" It wasn't until the first half of the 20th century the Papacy made its peace with democracy, but the effects of this 19th century policy lingered so long that JFK had to make clear he wouldn't be subordinate to the Pope as President.

Connal talks of traditional sources and their influence upon America's moral character. It's the Saturday Morning Cartoon version of American history, because in reality, Americans were deeply suspicious of almost any other traditional source of morality other than their specific one to a degree that modern American political discourse may find strange. Or maybe not. Consider how far right Americans think Muslims want to bring Sharia law into the US... not exactly too far removed from the suspicions and prejudices against Catholics in the 19th century, isn't it?

One of the central pillars of my conservatism is the elimination of moral relativism and reaffirming a shared sense of morality within our society. I do believe that moral decays is real and we're witnessesing its corrosive effects. And one of the sources of that morality is certainly religious. Where Connal gets it wrong though is that there has not been a degeneracy in the sources of moral influence. If anything, the secular moral examples of the past 70 years have only been a boon for enhancing a Moral center in society. The problem is that we've gone to complete shit at teaching children the value of a moral code, and societally impairing that code with consequences for violations. It's not a lack of existence, rather a failure to practice, that is at issue.

Let me give a kind of side example. One of the teachings of Pope Francis in the last couple of years is that the Catholic Church has spent decades focusing an enormous energy on divisive esoteric issues - birth control, abortion, homosexuality - that's it has completely slacked (and thereby let decay) the focus of its traditional ministries which amounts to 99% its reason for being, such as care for the sick and poor, what we would call social justice in a modern context, bringing hope and promoting peace and a moral code in living. As Francis puts it, the focus on the small subset of issues has redefined the so-called "Universal Church" as an exclusionary thing, and thus driven people out (and kept out people who would potentially be believers), when it's reason for being is supposed to be highly inclusive. I think it's a pretty accurate read of the decline of the Church in the Western world, where the definition of what the church is against has become so strongly associated with it, it seemingly completely overwrites what the church is for.

I believe in our national secular moral system, we've basically done the same thing, and that is the core problem. Maybe part of it is due to hijacking of our shared national morality by political forces for partisan ends in the last third of the 20th century. But whatever the reason, I think our national secular moral system has similarly become exclusionary and that's lead to people not teach it, not live by it, and not see value in it. During World War II, tens of millions of American men volunteered for the US Army because they felt they had a societal and moral duty to do so. And while Patriotism and moral character in the contemporary United States takes many different forms than just that, there is something very fundamental about volunteering to fight for the beliefs and safety of your society, and with that could we say today there is any situation that if China attacked Guam, that millions of American men and women would volunteer today within the span of a few years? Unlikely. Because the exclusionary nature of our national moral system has created something that many people are cynical about and sneer at.

The way forward is for a moral national leader to spend their time, probably as President, not focusing on the political fight of the day, but tending our national civil religion whose flock need to be educated in that a shared secular moral system is something (A) worthwhile to live by and hold others accountable to (B) something they can easily enter to and (C) something they can shape and not be a slave to.

- - - Updated - - -

The last few pages have been Connal blatantly twisting shit off topic in an attempt to get the thread Thwarted and closed.

True, but as is typical of Trumphadis, he unintentionally hit upon an interesting conversation. But as we see here:

Moving away from xenophilia and too much diversity.

He's just another internet-educated cryptofascist looking to rationalize his outlandish positions.

[Machismo]

Off topic, but I can't help thinking/asking:
Holy shit, wtf is this thread about again?

Connal is still trying to derail the thread by saying fascists and racists are "very fine people."

Mind you, he's already admitted to trolling to get a response, admitted to being an alt-righter, and said he's supporting racists and fascists in order to "see where things go."

[Saucexorzski]

The Education of Connal has been an impressive way to end the year, that's for sure. What a read. Endus and Elegiac are saints for engaging in that. My personal favorite bit was where Connal tried to the lack of tradition sources of values governing society is cause of a percieved lack of morality in today's society, and then he was hit with the fact that those traditional sources, which changed greatly over their span, were the root of much of the suffering of the world, and that the progress, particularly in the last 100 years, of creating a better world has come in no small part from societal consensus being a filter in deciding what is moral and what is not and moving past churches and religions mandating it.

Connal's position isn't even historically consistent within the United States. Take Catholicism. One of the oldest religions there is with a central governing body that is pretty much the single oldest continuous rules-based organization on Earth. The Papacy of the late 18th century was eager to expand its ministry in the United States of America. They didn't feel particularly strongly one way or another about this new democracy thing. It was, after all, an ocean away.

The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars changed their views. The importation, and potential spread of democracy, and then the overthrowing of royalty and elites stretching back many hundreds of years was seen by the leadership of the Catholic church as an attack on the natural order, as created by the almighty. It was also deeply angered by the secularism of the United States and emerging liberal democratic movements. This lead to the Catholic Church being a promoter of the 19th century conservative (the other type of conservative) counter-revolution that arose at the end of the Napolenoic Wars and ruled Europe for the most part until World War I.

This is the source of America's Protestant majority being deeply suspicious and intolerant of Catholics, including as immigrants. The Catholic leadership was clearly espousing what amounts to a "Containment Strategy" in the the 19th century due to fears of the disruption that American-style secular democracy would bring if it spread (as they believe it had almost done in Europe during the French Revoution). This was more intent than action because the 19th Century Catholic Church in Europe had major political challenges of its own, particularly as nation states consolidated their power. But coupled with the Pope imploring Americans to be politically involved in their country, America's Protestants were suspicious that Catholics (all of them) were agents of the Pope. Sure, there was a major element in lingering Anglican/Protestant - Catholic ideological rivalry that stretched back to the religious schisms in the first place, but many 19th century American protestants saw official Catholic church policy as saying that American democracy was ungodly, and wondered "why the hell is it allowed here then? Can we trust these people?" It wasn't until the first half of the 20th century the Papacy made its peace with democracy, but the effects of this 19th century policy lingered so long that JFK had to make clear he wouldn't be subordinate to the Pope as President.

Connal talks of traditional sources and their influence upon America's moral character. It's the Saturday Morning Cartoon version of American history, because in reality, Americans were deeply suspicious of almost any other traditional source of morality other than their specific one to a degree that modern American political discourse may find strange. Or maybe not. Consider how far right Americans think Muslims want to bring Sharia law into the US... not exactly too far removed from the suspicions and prejudices against Catholics in the 19th century, isn't it?

One of the central pillars of my conservatism is the elimination of moral relativism and reaffirming a shared sense of morality within our society. I do believe that moral decays is real and we're witnessesing its corrosive effects. And one of the sources of that morality is certainly religious. Where Connal gets it wrong though is that there has not been a degeneracy in the sources of moral influence. If anything, the secular moral examples of the past 70 years have only been a boon for enhancing a Moral center in society. The problem is that we've gone to complete shit at teaching children the value of a moral code, and societally impairing that code with consequences for violations. It's not a lack of existence, rather a failure to practice, that is at issue.

Let me give a kind of side example. One of the teachings of Pope Francis in the last couple of years is that the Catholic Church has spent decades focusing an enormous energy on divisive esoteric issues - birth control, abortion, homosexuality - that's it has completely slacked (and thereby let decay) the focus of its traditional ministries which amounts to 99% its reason for being, such as care for the sick and poor, what we would call social justice in a modern context, bringing hope and promoting peace and a moral code in living. As Francis puts it, the focus on the small subset of issues has redefined the so-called "Universal Church" as an exclusionary thing, and thus driven people out (and kept out people who would potentially be believers), when it's reason for being is supposed to be highly inclusive. I think it's a pretty accurate read of the decline of the Church in the Western world, where the definition of what the church is against has become so strongly associated with it, it seemingly completely overwrites what the church is for.

I believe in our national secular moral system, we've basically done the same thing, and that is the core problem. Maybe part of it is due to hijacking of our shared national morality by political forces for partisan ends in the last third of the 20th century. But whatever the reason, I think our national secular moral system has similarly become exclusionary and that's lead to people not teach it, not live by it, and not see value in it. During World War II, tens of millions of American men volunteered for the US Army because they felt they had a societal and moral duty to do so. And while Patriotism and moral character in the contemporary United States takes many different forms than just that, there is something very fundamental about volunteering to fight for the beliefs and safety of your society, and with that could we say today there is any situation that if China attacked Guam, that millions of American men and women would volunteer today within the span of a few years? Unlikely. Because the exclusionary nature of our national moral system has created something that many people are cynical about and sneer at.

The way forward is for a moral national leader to spend their time, probably as President, not focusing on the political fight of the day, but tending our national civil religion whose flock need to be educated in that a shared secular moral system is something (A) worthwhile to live by and hold others accountable to (B) something they can easily enter to and (C) something they can shape and not be a slave to.

- - - Updated - - -



True, but as is typical of Trumphadis, he unintentionally hit upon an interesting conversation. But as we see here:



He's just another internet-educated cryptofascist looking to rationalize his outlandish positions.

LMAO, you heard it here guys connal is now a fascists in hiding! man skroe watching you descend into authoritarian left wing ideology has been eye opening. You fit right into to their ways of harming those they hate.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Creating laws that punish people for not using pronouns or baking cakes for people they will not accept, is forced acceptance.

You are free to disagree...

God, you're so historically illiterate. Since others have already tackled the mind-numbing silliness of this comment and your willingness to sacrifice others I'll merely point out that the last time there was serious capitulation was in 1876, and the system it produced was brutally enforced for almost another century. People died, were lynched, and bombed. Children were terrorized and segregated. It took blood to fix what was given away, and so much talent and time and intelligence was spent on righting a cold hearted mistake that could have been spent elsewhere.

And here we are again with the same scum fighting for the same things, and you arguing that we should give them what they want so they don't freak out. How utterly disgusting. It's outright unAmerican.

- - - Updated - - -

One of the central pillars of my conservatism is the elimination of moral relativism and reaffirming a shared sense of morality within our society. I do believe that moral decays is real and we're witnessesing its corrosive effects.

Hell, I'd argue a big problem is that elements of the right -- particularly the religious right -- have completely abandoned the moral values of this country. I'll use my self as an example. I'm married, I'm gainfully employed, I just bought a house, and I also just had a child. That should be great in the eyes of a moral conservative. But, even to the moderately social conservative it's wrong because I'm trans, and if you go further to the right it's also bad because my wife and child are mixed race while I'm white.

So, there you go.

[Jakexe]

LMAO, you heard it here guys connal is now a fascists in hiding! man skroe watching you descend into authoritarian left wing ideology has been eye opening. You fit right into to their ways of harming those they hate.

Is it kinda like watching a good chunk of the right throw away all their morals, the law abiding ideology, their integrity, their economic strengths, their religious doctrine and their small government ideology to support a known liar, cheat and morally bankrupt idiot just to stick it to the left?

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

LMAO, you heard it here guys connal is now a fascists in hiding! man skroe watching you descend into authoritarian left wing ideology has been eye opening. You fit right into to their ways of harming those they hate.

Where did he threaten Connal?

- - - Updated - - -

I do not think they are all valid. I am trying to get across the point that neither Endus or Elegiac are arbiters of morality, or that the "left" itself does not have a singular right to steer history; Because when enough people dislike the direction the left is taking us, they will stand up and change that direction.

People aren't standing up a shrinking minority is currently in charge of the country lol. The right is stacking the courts and making all these powers plays because they know in the United States. They aren't popular enough to get there agenda through fairly. The problem is complacent and nihilist people who don't do anything but muddy the water on issues. Your one of them.

You don't want to debate. You don't want to learn things. All you want to do is hear yourself talk at this point.

[Belize]

Blaming "the left" for instability you yourself admit is a reaction by violent right-wingers is pretty impressively dishonest.

This is the core tenet of the online right winger. You see it in other posters too.

It's the "Left's" fault (whoever the Left currently is) for not let Right Wingers do everything they want, and thus causing the Right to cause societal unrest.

Knadra and Kokolums have both also said as much if you want to gauge how much if a basis in reality these sentiments have.

[Machismo]

What am I supposed to learn here? That xenophilia and endless division in society is a good thing? I know those things to be more damaging in the long run than xenophobia and monoculture.

So as mentioned, let’s see.. as the current left ideology has already corrupted enough of the culture in the west... at this point it’s just watching the end results.

I could be wrong though; we could all snap out of it and find a common narrative or enemy again; let’s hope that happens.

So, supporting liberty and capitalism is bad, but racism and fascism isn't?

[Saucexorzski]

Is it kinda like watching a good chunk of the right throw away all their morals, the law abiding ideology, their integrity, their economic strengths, their religious doctrine and their small government ideology to support a known liar, cheat and morally bankrupt idiot just to stick it to the left?

The GoP lost all since of meaning to me back in 2007. What they are now are rats drowning in the ocean, clinging desperately to the only piece of shit that floats. They will drown soon.

[Belize]

Where did he threaten Connal?

Saucexorzski and Connal both have severe allergic reactions to the truth and reality

Discussing facts with them is like handing out PB&Js in a center for those with nut allergies.

[Machismo]

Xenophilia and endless division is not either.

So, we should be nice to racists and fascists, in the hopes that they'll stop trying to oppress others?

I guess we just didn't love Hitler enough.

/s

[Saucexorzski]

Where did he threaten Connal?

Oh yeah your right no harm at all in labeling folks fascists in a country where folks actually support and encourage harming anyone labeled as such!

[Saucexorzski]

Saucexorzski and Connal both have severe allergic reactions to the truth and reality

Discussing facts with them is like handing out PB&Js in a center for those with nut allergies.

Well,strictly speaking for myself, these pb&js you folks keep heading out to me are filled with razor blades and needles.

[Machismo]

No we should be neither xenophobic or xenophilic and fix problems in society that come with change too quickly. When the current left “Liberates” things it calls it a day and never actually addresses the consequences.

Moderation, temperance, is not fascist.

So, you're saying that supporting liberty is bad, supporting capitalism is bad, and we should be more like the fascists and racists... got it.

[Machismo]

Unrestrained liberty, without responsibility, is bad, yes. Another word for that is anarchy.

So, we should be nice to fascists and racists, because liberty and capitalism are bad?

I think I know which one I'm going to support.

[Machismo]

I love the strawmen you build. It’s fascinating.

Well, I'm not the one saying liberty is bad, and we should be more like the fascists.