Really? I thought you were better than that.
Advertisement
by Infected Mushroom » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:40 pm
Heloin wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
I also supported Javert because I saw him as a personification of Law and Order
Then you didn't read the book very closely then. When he's not blinding trying to arrest a former bread thief he's throwing himself in the river Seine because he realised the law isn't infallible.
by Infected Mushroom » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:40 pm
by Heloin » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:41 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Heloin wrote:Then you didn't read the book very closely then. When he's not blinding trying to arrest a former bread thief he's throwing himself in the river Seine because he realised the law isn't infallible.
He threw himself in the Seine because he understood that he had to pay for his emotional decision to let the main character go
This means that he stayed true to the forces of justice and law and order
by The Batorys » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:44 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:LiberNovusAmericae wrote:If he starts to engage in discrimination in the government that is problematic, I'll vote against him next election. But just being discriminatory with his study group is not enough for me to vote against him.
And what if it was racial discrimination with his study group?
by Infected Mushroom » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:58 pm
by Infected Mushroom » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:59 pm
by The Batorys » Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:05 pm
by The Batorys » Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:06 pm
Cekoviu wrote:The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:The fact that a far-left, anarchist candidate is likely to win in this scenario (Tom), I'd vote for him tbh. The very act of him being elected would set forth a change in American politics for the entirety of the 21st century, maybe even longer. If you're an extremist like me, electing Tom is the best option in all scenarios that his political views align with yours. It would change American politics forever, and perhaps even the world. His very election would cause shockwaves throughout the world, as the wheel of ages began to turn against the neoliberal world order. The left would be emboldened and start gaining support across many nations, and might even dominate the world. For a centrist candidate, nothing much would happen if he got elected. But in my case, it would begin a revolution across the world.
Why would an anarchist be running for political office or even voting, lol
by The Batorys » Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:08 pm
by The Batorys » Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:09 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:The Batorys wrote:Then he wouldn't be close to me politically.
The premise attempts to differentiate between public legislative positions/history and declared positions ((public life/his ‘politics’) and his private self
It asks whether we can trust that it won’t in the future bleed together in some way
by Thermodolia » Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:55 pm
by Hammer Britannia » Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:43 pm
by LiberNovusAmericae » Sun Jun 23, 2019 8:02 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:LiberNovusAmericae wrote:If he starts to engage in discrimination in the government that is problematic, I'll vote against him next election. But just being discriminatory with his study group is not enough for me to vote against him.
And what if it was racial discrimination with his study group?
by Infected Mushroom » Sun Jun 23, 2019 10:04 pm
Hammer Britannia wrote:This is one of the least scandalous things I have ever heard a politician do, lmao
Come on IM, go deeper. Call him Richard Nixon 2.0 or some shit.
by Kowani » Sun Jun 23, 2019 10:09 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Hammer Britannia wrote:This is one of the least scandalous things I have ever heard a politician do, lmao
Come on IM, go deeper. Call him Richard Nixon 2.0 or some shit.
I feel like that would be too easy
I wanted to create a borderline case where it’s not clear if a line has been crossed or not for the politician
by Nouveau Yathrib » Sun Jun 23, 2019 10:50 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Sure why not. Every single politician out there has at least a little dirt under their nails. In fact, I wouldn't trust one that didn't.
by The New California Republic » Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:00 am
Nouveau Yathrib wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Sure why not. Every single politician out there has at least a little dirt under their nails. In fact, I wouldn't trust one that didn't.
What if this isn't WWII era China and officials/soldiers in the current regime aren't all horrendously corrupt?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement