From: ‘Charlie Kirk Miracle’ - the Authoritarianism discussion

[Kishkumen]

Hey honorentheos, Kish and Res Ipsa,

Any progress on those countless examples of issues where one party, group or fringe POS wants the feds to be the leading and active authority and the other side wants the feds to not lead or participate?

So far I have provided two:

Abortion
Education

Anything else?

Hey, Whiskey, you can make up all of the dumb, irrelevant homework assignments for others you like. We don't have to do them.

[Whiskey]

Hey honorentheos, Kish and Res Ipsa,

Any progress on those countless examples of issues where one party, group or fringe POS wants the feds to be the leading and active authority and the other side wants the feds to not lead or participate?

So far I have provided two:

Abortion
Education

Anything else?

Hey, Whiskey, you can make up all of the dumb, irrelevant homework assignments for others you like. We don't have to do them.

That is right. And honor and you can claim there are countless examples that fit this description and I can say put up or shut the “F” up. Or, I can just politely ask for the examples. Please, may I have the examples?

Hey, if honor doesn't actually have examples maybe we should just go with that. Maybe they don't exist?

[Kishkumen]

Hey, if honor doesn't actually have examples maybe we should just go with that. Maybe they don't exist?

honor can speak for himself. This jag you are on where you tell us what we are supposed to be talking about or proving to you in the middle of a different conversation is just something I am not interested in. If you are speaking about irrelevancies that have nothing to do with course of the discussion, I will just ignore your attempts to change the discussion. If honor was having that conversation with you, then look to him for a response.

[Whiskey]

Hey, if honor doesn't actually have examples maybe we should just go with that. Maybe they don't exist?

honor can speak for himself. This jag you are on where you tell us what we are supposed to be talking about or proving to you in the middle of a different conversation is just something I am not interested in. If you are speaking about irrelevancies that have nothing to do with course of the discussion, I will just ignore your attempts to change the discussion. If honor was having that conversation with you, then look to him for a response.

Eat crap, Kish. See the title of this thread? The whole damn thing was moved to accommodate this discussion that Res started. How about you board janny something else? K?

Get on with it. Where are these countless examples? How hard is it. There are damned countless examples, I am asking only for a dozen and gave you two. Lets see it.

[Kishkumen]

Eat crap, Kish.

Sorry, you didn't leave any for the rest of us.

See the title of this thread? The whole damn thing was moved to accommodate this discussion that Res started.

I'm sorry, is he interacting with you on your point?

Where are these countless examples?

I don't think you and I are even having the same conversation. Maybe this is your alleged conversation with honor? He made a claim about something? If he wants to talk with you about that, then he can do so. I told you how I was approaching it. If you are not interested in that, then wait for Res or honor to respond to you.

[Whiskey]

Eat crap, Kish.

Sorry, you didn't leave any for the rest of us.

See the title of this thread? The whole damn thing was moved to accommodate this discussion that Res started.

I'm sorry, is he interacting with you on your point?

Where are these countless examples?

I don't think you and I are even having the same conversation. Maybe this is your alleged conversation with honor? He made a claim about something? If he wants to talk with you about that, then he can do so. I told you how I was approaching it. If you are not interested in that, then wait for Res or honor to respond to you.

Perfect.

[canpakes]

I don't think you and I are even having the same conversation.

He’s not, and that distraction is intentional, because Binger is doing his best to take eyes off of the authoritarian tendencies of the folks he prefers, by conflating authority with authoritarian.

It’s weak dodge, for several problematic reasons.

The obvious issue is that Binger doesn’t escape authoritarianism by shifting the source of the authority. In other words, what happens when the authority to regulate abortion or education is passed one step down to the States? All this does is shift the authoritarian tendencies or actions of one party over another to an arguably more favorable ‘home advantaged’ playing field.

If the DoE is dismantled at the Federal level by Trump, allowing the State of Oklahoma - via a legislature controlled by Republicans - to mandate the purchase of Trump Bibles (this was actually proposed) along with requiring that all students are forced to take Bible Study classes and be taught creationism, is that authoritarian, or does the State Republican Party somehow get a pass on that because they worked to strike down the Federal department that guaranteed a wider choice for all students?

The same example applies to abortion. If the Republican Party works to kill Roe v. Wade so that there is nothing stopping the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature from demanding that no abortion access is allowed for any circumstance, does that make the Republican Party more authoritarian than the alternative, or less?

Authoritarianism will always be more about what a party or a person does with the power that they have (or think that they have) as opposed to the power granted equally to both (or multiple) parties.

In short, Binger’s argument fails. Recognize it for what it is … an intentional conflation of terms in service to distraction.

[Whiskey]

I don't think you and I are even having the same conversation.

He’s not, and that distraction is intentional, because Binger is doing his best to take eyes off of the authoritarian tendencies of the folks he prefers, by conflating authority with authoritarian.

It’s weak dodge, for several problematic reasons.

The obvious issue is that Binger doesn’t escape authoritarianism by shifting the source of the authority. In other words, what happens when the authority to regulate abortion or education is passed one step down to the States? All this does is shift the authoritarian tendencies or actions of one party over another to an arguably more favorable ‘home advantaged’ playing field.

If the DoE is dismantled at the Federal level by Trump, allowing the State of Oklahoma - via a legislature controlled by Republicans - to mandate the purchase of Trump Bibles (this was actually proposed) along with requiring that all students are forced to take Bible Study classes and be taught creationism, is that authoritarian, or does the State Republican Party somehow get a pass on that because they worked to strike down the Federal department that guaranteed a wider choice for all students?

The same example applies to abortion. If the Republican Party works to kill Roe v. Wade so that there is nothing stopping the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature from demanding that no abortion access is allowed for any circumstance, does that make the Republican Party more authoritarian than the alternative, or less?

Authoritarianism will always be more about what a party or a person does with the power that they have (or think that they have) as opposed to the power granted equally to both (or multiple) parties.

In short, Binger’s argument fails. Recognize it for what it is … an intentional conflation of terms in service to distraction.

It does not fail. In fact, you have made my point. From here, shall we conclude that there are no other examples where one party or side or whatever is calling for more federal authority and the other is asking the feds to opt out?

Shall we assume, given honor's handed-to ass on the matter, that there really are not countless other examples like these that you have detailed? No others, correct?

[Chap]

If the DoE is dismantled at the Federal level by Trump, allowing the State of Oklahoma - via a legislature controlled by Republicans - to mandate the purchase of Trump Bibles (this was actually proposed) along with requiring that all students are forced to take Bible Study classes and be taught creationism, is that authoritarian, or does the State Republican Party somehow get a pass on that because they worked to strike down the Federal department that guaranteed a wider choice for all students?

Please help a poor confused foreigner. If the State of Oklahoma decides to make laws or regulations to compel all school students "to take Bible Study classes and be taught creationism", that is surely a law establishing a religions, viz. a particular version of Christianity, the one with literal belief in Genesis.

Now the First Amendment to the US constitution begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...". So presumably Congress could not make a law that would compel all school students "to take Bible Study classes and be taught creationism"", because that would be unconstitutional.

But is the constitution binding on state governments? On the face of it, it might seem not, since the constitution only refers to the US Congress. Can a state insist that a particular religion is taught, and also "prohibit the free exercise" of their religion to Muslims or any other religion they don\t happen to like?

[canpakes]

He’s not, and that distraction is intentional, because Binger is doing his best to take eyes off of the authoritarian tendencies of the folks he prefers, by conflating authority with authoritarian.

It’s weak dodge, for several problematic reasons.

The obvious issue is that Binger doesn’t escape authoritarianism by shifting the source of the authority. In other words, what happens when the authority to regulate abortion or education is passed one step down to the States? All this does is shift the authoritarian tendencies or actions of one party over another to an arguably more favorable ‘home advantaged’ playing field.

If the DoE is dismantled at the Federal level by Trump, allowing the State of Oklahoma - via a legislature controlled by Republicans - to mandate the purchase of Trump Bibles (this was actually proposed) along with requiring that all students are forced to take Bible Study classes and be taught creationism, is that authoritarian, or does the State Republican Party somehow get a pass on that because they worked to strike down the Federal department that guaranteed a wider choice for all students?

The same example applies to abortion. If the Republican Party works to kill Roe v. Wade so that there is nothing stopping the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature from demanding that no abortion access is allowed for any circumstance, does that make the Republican Party more authoritarian than the alternative, or less?

Authoritarianism will always be more about what a party or a person does with the power that they have (or think that they have) as opposed to the power granted equally to both (or multiple) parties.

In short, Binger’s argument fails. Recognize it for what it is … an intentional conflation of terms in service to distraction.

It does not fail. In fact, you have made my point. From here, shall we conclude that there are no other examples where one party or side or whatever is calling for more federal authority and the other is asking the feds to opt out?

Shall we assume, given honor's handed-to ass on the matter, that there really are not countless other examples like these that you have detailed? No others, correct?

You can conclude whatever you would like to conclude. The essence of your approach is quite Trumpian: repeat the same distraction, falsehood or straw man in an attempt to inject a false reality over the legitimate concerns of other observers.

You’re still pretending that federal authority = authoritarianism. You can’t even support your own statement past that conflation. No one here seems to be buying it.