John Oliver is neither funny nor intelligent.
Advertisement
by Nea Byzantia » Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:45 am
by Grenartia » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:09 am
Joohan wrote:Grenartia wrote:
Also, FDR's America is most decidedly more on the democratic side than the authoritarian one. And I can't say I know enough about De Gaulle's France to be certain, but I'm reasonably sure it also skewed more democratic than authoritarian.
Authoritarian just means consolidation of power. Muh boi FDR consolidated power like it was his j... it was his job! In his second term, he consolidated over 102 federal agencies, into 12 departments, under direct executive control - vastly increasing state influence in the economy, and all at the president's whim. When the supreme court attempted to shoot down his endeavours, he threatened to add 8 friendly judges in order to get his way. At the start of WW2, he ordered the japanese internment Visa executive order. The man was an authoritarian operating in a democratic system.
Same for Dugualle, though he was much more secretive and... French, About everything....
by Nakena » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:18 am
Grenartia wrote:Here's a thing. They were both entrusted by the people that put them in power to fix and repair systems that had broken down. That isn't "consolidating power", that's doing the job they were elected to do.
FDR was elected to fix what Hoover refused to, and alleviate the worst of the Great Depression.
De Gaulle was elected to rebuild France in the aftermath of the most devastating war in human history.
FDR was trusted enough to be elected because he had very concrete plans, and represented a paradigm shift from the do-nothingism of Hoover.
De Gaulle was trusted enough to be elected because he led France in its fight against the Nazis.
by Grenartia » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:48 am
Nakena wrote:Grenartia wrote:Here's a thing. They were both entrusted by the people that put them in power to fix and repair systems that had broken down. That isn't "consolidating power", that's doing the job they were elected to do.
FDR was elected to fix what Hoover refused to, and alleviate the worst of the Great Depression.
De Gaulle was elected to rebuild France in the aftermath of the most devastating war in human history.
FDR was trusted enough to be elected because he had very concrete plans, and represented a paradigm shift from the do-nothingism of Hoover.
De Gaulle was trusted enough to be elected because he led France in its fight against the Nazis.
So the difference would be that their legitimacy is based on some form of popular mandate?
by LiberNovusAmericae » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:10 am
by Joohan » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:33 am
Grenartia wrote:Joohan wrote:
Authoritarian just means consolidation of power. Muh boi FDR consolidated power like it was his j... it was his job! In his second term, he consolidated over 102 federal agencies, into 12 departments, under direct executive control - vastly increasing state influence in the economy, and all at the president's whim. When the supreme court attempted to shoot down his endeavours, he threatened to add 8 friendly judges in order to get his way. At the start of WW2, he ordered the japanese internment Visa executive order. The man was an authoritarian operating in a democratic system.
Amazing. Your knowledge of facts is technically correct, yet your interpretation of them is incredibly incorrect.Same for Dugualle, though he was much more secretive and... French, About everything....
Here's a thing. They were both entrusted by the people that put them in power to fix and repair systems that had broken down. That isn't "consolidating power", that's doing the job they were elected to do.
FDR was elected to fix what Hoover refused to, and alleviate the worst of the Great Depression.
De Gaulle was elected to rebuild France in the aftermath of the most devastating war in human history.
FDR was trusted enough to be elected because he had very concrete plans, and represented a paradigm shift from the do-nothingism of Hoover.
De Gaulle was trusted enough to be elected because he led France in its fight against the Nazis.
by Washington Resistance Army » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:53 am
Grenartia wrote:
Here's a thing. They were both entrusted by the people that put them in power to fix and repair systems that had broken down. That isn't "consolidating power", that's doing the job they were elected to do.
by Grenartia » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:07 pm
Joohan wrote:Grenartia wrote:
Amazing. Your knowledge of facts is technically correct, yet your interpretation of them is incredibly incorrect.
Here's a thing. They were both entrusted by the people that put them in power to fix and repair systems that had broken down. That isn't "consolidating power", that's doing the job they were elected to do.
FDR was elected to fix what Hoover refused to, and alleviate the worst of the Great Depression.
De Gaulle was elected to rebuild France in the aftermath of the most devastating war in human history.
FDR was trusted enough to be elected because he had very concrete plans, and represented a paradigm shift from the do-nothingism of Hoover.
De Gaulle was trusted enough to be elected because he led France in its fight against the Nazis.
So they were authoritarians with popular support. That's all you've described thus far. Men entrusted with sweeping power to made radical changes in each of their own respective societies. Populist authoritarians are rather normal throughout history - Caesar, Napoleon, Sun Yat-Sen all come to mind.
Edit: and De Gualle didn't lose an election - he resigned.
De Gaulle resigned the presidency at noon, 28 April 1969,[253] following the rejection of his proposed reform of the Senate and local governments in a nationwide referendum. In an eight-minute televised speech two days before the referendum, De Gaulle warned that if he was "disavowed" by a majority of the voters, he would resign his office immediately. This ultimatum, coupled with increased de Gaulle fatigue among the French, convinced many that this was an opportunity to be rid of the 78-year-old general and the reform package was rejected. Two months later Georges Pompidou was elected as his successor.[254]
by Nea Byzantia » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:10 pm
Grenartia wrote:Joohan wrote:
So they were authoritarians with popular support. That's all you've described thus far. Men entrusted with sweeping power to made radical changes in each of their own respective societies. Populist authoritarians are rather normal throughout history - Caesar, Napoleon, Sun Yat-Sen all come to mind.
Edit: and De Gualle didn't lose an election - he resigned.De Gaulle resigned the presidency at noon, 28 April 1969,[253] following the rejection of his proposed reform of the Senate and local governments in a nationwide referendum. In an eight-minute televised speech two days before the referendum, De Gaulle warned that if he was "disavowed" by a majority of the voters, he would resign his office immediately. This ultimatum, coupled with increased de Gaulle fatigue among the French, convinced many that this was an opportunity to be rid of the 78-year-old general and the reform package was rejected. Two months later Georges Pompidou was elected as his successor.[254]
You were saying?
Authoritarianism requires ruling with an iron fist, and disregard for the will of the people when they disagree with the state's leadership.
by Nea Byzantia » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:15 pm
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Grenartia wrote:
Here's a thing. They were both entrusted by the people that put them in power to fix and repair systems that had broken down. That isn't "consolidating power", that's doing the job they were elected to do.
FDR absolutely did consolidate power. He strengthened the executive, as well as the federal government in general, more than arguably any other President in our history while doing his best to suppress his ideological opponents. If Trump did half the shit FDR did you'd be out in the streets shooting people.
by Nea Byzantia » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:18 pm
Joohan wrote:Grenartia wrote:
Amazing. Your knowledge of facts is technically correct, yet your interpretation of them is incredibly incorrect.
Here's a thing. They were both entrusted by the people that put them in power to fix and repair systems that had broken down. That isn't "consolidating power", that's doing the job they were elected to do.
FDR was elected to fix what Hoover refused to, and alleviate the worst of the Great Depression.
De Gaulle was elected to rebuild France in the aftermath of the most devastating war in human history.
FDR was trusted enough to be elected because he had very concrete plans, and represented a paradigm shift from the do-nothingism of Hoover.
De Gaulle was trusted enough to be elected because he led France in its fight against the Nazis.
So they were authoritarians with popular support. That's all you've described thus far. Men entrusted with sweeping power to made radical changes in each of their own respective societies. Populist authoritarians are rather normal throughout history.
by Hadzanye » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:22 pm
by Washington Resistance Army » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:25 pm
Hadzanye wrote:Would you consider one an authoritarian for believing that radical political groups need forceful suppression?
by Nea Byzantia » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:32 pm
Hadzanye wrote:Would you consider one an authoritarian for believing that radical political groups need forceful suppression?
by Hanafuridake » Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:23 pm
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Grenartia wrote:
Here's a thing. They were both entrusted by the people that put them in power to fix and repair systems that had broken down. That isn't "consolidating power", that's doing the job they were elected to do.
FDR absolutely did consolidate power. He strengthened the executive, as well as the federal government in general, more than arguably any other President in our history while doing his best to suppress his ideological opponents. If Trump did half the shit FDR did you'd be out in the streets shooting people.
Suriyanakhon's alt, finally found my old account's password李贽 wrote:There is nothing difficult about becoming a sage, and nothing false about transcending the world of appearances.
by The Liberated Territories » Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:15 pm
Nea Byzantia wrote:Totenborg wrote:All I'm saying is that your rights end where mine begin.
No they don't.
Here's a conundrum for you Libertarian people: Suppose a disgusting pervert pays a child for sexual favours, and the child "consents", if you're right5, I don't have the right to put a stop to it. Neither do the authorities. Because apparently, just because its consensual, makes it ok.
This example is over-the-top, but it proves my point.
by The Xenopolis Confederation » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:05 pm
Nea Byzantia wrote:Totenborg wrote:All I'm saying is that your rights end where mine begin.
No they don't.
Here's a conundrum for you Libertarian people: Suppose a disgusting pervert pays a child for sexual favours, and the child "consents", if you're right5, I don't have the right to put a stop to it. Neither do the authorities. Because apparently, just because its consensual, makes it ok.
This example is over-the-top, but it proves my point.
by Kowani » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:12 pm
The Liberated Territories wrote:Nea Byzantia wrote:No they don't.
Here's a conundrum for you Libertarian people: Suppose a disgusting pervert pays a child for sexual favours, and the child "consents", if you're right5, I don't have the right to put a stop to it. Neither do the authorities. Because apparently, just because its consensual, makes it ok.
This example is over-the-top, but it proves my point.
This question is sticky, mostly due to its nature, but also because I don't think it has been adequately addressed. Within a libertarian context, the child has all the rights of any other individual in the sense that they have a right against abuse, aggression, etc... what they do not have until the age of majority is the right to create or enter contracts and give consent...this includes sexual consent.
Of course, in the industry of employing the child for prostitution, the child never really consents, they are usually kidnapped or coerced by other means.
by Bear Stearns » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:13 pm
by Joohan » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:58 pm
Bear Stearns wrote:I find myself increasingly supporting the idea of a government that executes an agenda I agree with.
by Raider Clans » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:11 pm
Bear Stearns wrote:I find myself increasingly supporting the idea of a government that executes an agenda I agree with.
by The Xenopolis Confederation » Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:00 am
Bear Stearns wrote:I find myself increasingly supporting the idea of a government that executes an agenda I agree with.
by Nea Byzantia » Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:01 am
by Grahnol » Thu Sep 26, 2019 8:06 am
Hadzanye wrote:Would you consider one an authoritarian for believing that radical political groups need forceful suppression?
Bear Stearns wrote:I find myself increasingly supporting the idea of a government that executes an agenda I agree with.
by Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana » Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:23 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Emotional Support Crocodile, Ifreann, ML Library, Tranquilizer-o7, Tungstan
Advertisement