Nick Fuentes Criticizes Trump

[honorentheos]

hono, you’re swinging that textbook like it’s a sledgehammer, but you’re hitting nothing but air. I’m talking straight-up authority: both sides itching for the feds to lock in their vision, say on immigration—build a wall or open the borders. Same tool, different mechanical prints. You keep ducking into authoritarianism, like I’m painting anyone a tyrant. That’s you dragging the goalposts from hell to breakfast.

We both nod that government’s gotta wield power to get crap done. So why the dodge? Your sociology.plus lecture is slick for a seminar, but it’s off-topic. I’m not whining about authority, I’m saying both sides lean hard on it. You don’t fight that, so why the tap-dance? Lets agree, both sides want the feds to call the shots on immigration, infrastructure, or military spending. Pick one. Yes or no? Say no, show me where either side wants the feds to sit it out. Stop hiding behind “authoritarianism” to duck the point.

Is there a difference between a king making a decree or decision at court versus a federal judge making a ruling based on US law?

The issue isn't if the government asserts authority. It's how and under what authority it is acting. That's fundamental to the entire argument.

When the authority becomes, "Because I'm in charge and no one can question that authority" we have a problem. When there is no recourse to challenge that we have become something other than a democratic nation of laws. That matters to the points argued at their very core.

[Whiskey]

hono, you’re swinging that textbook like it’s a sledgehammer, but you’re hitting nothing but air. I’m talking straight-up authority: both sides itching for the feds to lock in their vision, say on immigration—build a wall or open the borders. Same tool, different mechanical prints. You keep ducking into authoritarianism, like I’m painting anyone a tyrant. That’s you dragging the goalposts from hell to breakfast.

We both nod that government’s gotta wield power to get crap done. So why the dodge? Your sociology.plus lecture is slick for a seminar, but it’s off-topic. I’m not whining about authority, I’m saying both sides lean hard on it. You don’t fight that, so why the tap-dance? Lets agree, both sides want the feds to call the shots on immigration, infrastructure, or military spending. Pick one. Yes or no? Say no, show me where either side wants the feds to sit it out. Stop hiding behind “authoritarianism” to duck the point.

Is there a difference between a king making a decree or decision at court versus a federal judge making a ruling based on US law?

The issue isn't if the government asserts authority. It's how and under what authority it is acting. That's fundamental to the entire argument.

When the authority becomes, "Because I'm in charge and no one can question that authority" we have a problem. When there is no recourse to challenge that we have become something other than a democratic nation of laws. That matters to the points argued at their very core.

Honorentheos, you're waving that king versus judge flag like it's checkmate, but you're still dancing around my point. Sure, a king's decree is unchecked, a federal judge follows US law. Nobody's pushing for a crown here. My argument stands: both sides, immigration or whatever, want the feds to swing the hammer. Wall up or borders open, it's the same democratic toolbox. Some may cry "tyranny" when the ruling stings, not because it's lawless. That's just whining over the outcome, not the process.

In a democracy or republic with courts, Congress, and elections, it's all judges and representatives, no kings. Both sides lean hard on federal power, just for different wins. Your "how" sermon dodges the truth: it's the result that's got you riled, not actual tyranny or actual authoritarianism.

Lets get back to common ground. We seem to agree that both sides of an issue can respect authority and yield to authority and wield authority. Can you point to any topic or issue where one side wants the feds to bow out and the other wants the feds to lean in?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

[canpakes]

Trying to move the goalposts - or trying to shift the subject - is certainly a habit of yours. : D And it’s not like folks don’t see it.

You said this:



Point to where Schmo said that abortion should be free.

Can you not do this? You just made it up?


If your argument is authoritarianism, and this is your best reference to build a comparison, then you’ve never left the starting gate.



And you think that folks agreeing that people should follow the law is showing that they share the same authoritarian tendencies?

I mean, this is such a poor argument that I’m kind of enjoying watching you skewer yourself on it. Maybe you should repeat it a few more times.

Catch up.

You’re still stuck at, ‘because everyone prefers that the law is adhered to, every person has the same authoritarian tendencies/ideology’.

[honorentheos]

Honorentheos, you're waving that king versus judge flag like it's checkmate, but you're still dancing around my point. Sure, a king's decree is unchecked, a federal judge follows US law. Nobody's pushing for a crown here. My argument stands: both sides, immigration or whatever, want the feds to swing the hammer. Wall up or borders open, it's the same democratic toolbox. Some may cry "tyranny" when the ruling stings, not because it's lawless. That's just whining over the outcome, not the process.

In a democracy or republic with courts, Congress, and elections, it's all judges and representatives, no kings. Both sides lean hard on federal power, just for different wins. Your "how" sermon dodges the truth: it's the result that's got you riled, not actual tyranny or actual authoritarianism.

Lets get back to common ground. We seem to agree that both sides of an issue can respect authority and yield to authority and wield authority. Can you point to any topic or issue where one side wants the feds to bow out and the other wants the feds to lean in?

We don't agree that folks can or do respect authority. January 6, 2021, is an example of why we don't agree on that point.

I've pointed out why the question of just having authority is irrelevant to any kind of productive dialog given government will by definition exert it and should exert it in behalf of the people in accordance with the laws.

On whose behalf and by what authority the government receives and engages in using that authority is the issue. If you were making an honest mistake before that is OK. It happens. But at this point you should have realized that any discussion around liking or disliking actions is built on a flawed premise.

If, for example, Donald Trumps administration ignores due process and rule of law in pursuing and deporting immigrants it doesn't matter if you like that and I don't. It only matters if the administration is acting according to the democratically established laws. This is what defines a democracy and why the peaceful transfere of power is possible.

Not liking or agreeing with a certain political action happens and should be expected. But when the folks in power stop following the rules, begin to act arbitrarily or make the rules about what the king says and to the benefit of the king? That is a meaningfully different matter and one we all should be concerned over.

[Kishkumen]

We don't agree that folks can or do respect authority. January 6, 2021, is an example of why we don't agree on that point.

I've pointed out why the question of just having authority is irrelevant to any kind of productive dialog given government will by definition exert it and should exert it in behalf of the people in accordance with the laws.

On whose behalf and by what authority the government receives and engages in using that authority is the issue. If you were making an honest mistake before that is OK. It happens. But at this point you should have realized that any discussion around liking or disliking actions is built on a flawed premise.

If, for example, Donald Trump's administration ignores due process and rule of law in pursuing and deporting immigrants it doesn't matter if you like that and I don't. It only matters if the administration is acting according to the democratically established laws. This is what defines a democracy and why the peaceful transfere of power is possible.

Not liking or agreeing with a certain political action happens and should be expected. But when the folks in power stop following the rules, begin to act arbitrarily or make the rules about what the king says and to the benefit of the king? That is a meaningfully different matter and one we all should be concerned over.

The GOP chose power over the rule of law back during the impeachment over January 6. They could have upheld the law and stopped Trump permanently. Instead they chose to jettison the rule of law to hold onto their power. People like Ted Cruz can grumble about the First Amendment now, but they enabled it all. How they could not see the threat to the Republic that Trump was and is makes me think that it was too late already. The rot was too far advanced to save the patient (party).

[honorentheos]

The House could and should initiate impeachment proceedings against the President today for the post directing Pam Bondi to go after his political enemies. The lack of a legitimate check on him is absolutely enabling the collapse into authoritarianism yet they have the authority given by the Constitution to prevent it if they would do their jobs rather than succumb. It could not be more clear that we are no longer functioning as a democracy as the picture painted for us by the actions of Congress right now.

[Some Schmo]

The House could and should initiate impeachment proceedings against the President today for the post directing Pam Bondi to go after his political enemies. The lack of a legitimate check on him is absolutely enabling the collapse into authoritarianism yet they have the authority given by the Constitution to prevent it if they would do their jobs rather than succumb. It could not be more clear that we are no longer functioning as a democracy as the picture painted for us by the actions of Congress right now.

Yep, and his followers thinks he's great.

Stupid, stupid people.

[Whiskey]

The House could and should initiate impeachment proceedings against the President today for the post directing Pam Bondi to go after his political enemies. The lack of a legitimate check on him is absolutely enabling the collapse into authoritarianism yet they have the authority given by the Constitution to prevent it if they would do their jobs rather than succumb. It could not be more clear that we are no longer functioning as a democracy as the picture painted for us by the actions of Congress right now.

name one clean issue where one side's yelling "feds stay out" and the other's begging "feds dive in."

[Kishkumen]

The House could and should initiate impeachment proceedings against the President today for the post directing Pam Bondi to go after his political enemies. The lack of a legitimate check on him is absolutely enabling the collapse into authoritarianism yet they have the authority given by the Constitution to prevent it if they would do their jobs rather than succumb. It could not be more clear that we are no longer functioning as a democracy as the picture painted for us by the actions of Congress right now.

Trump should have been kicked out of office the first time. He should have never been permitted to run the second time. If it weren't for some greedy billionaire fascists, we would not be saddled with this total loser of a "president." They bought their Supreme Court Justices and Republican pols mostly so they could be richer than God and make the rest of us into their NPCs. Trump was the man who would carry out their will, so long as he got his billions by using the White House for personal and familial enrichment. All they had to do then was find a bunch of fools willing to vote for a con artist. I wish it had been harder for them to do so.