You’re never going to get a straight answer out of the renowned Eugene Debs fanboy BSB
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (14 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. The point you make about Eugene Debs is the exact point the conservatives made when defending Trump.
The pertinent point here is that a convicted felon stood for president from their jail cell. Was that a disgrace? Yes or no. Forget the ideology of the subject or the severity of the crimes, the important fact is whether or not it is wrong for a convicted criminal to stand for president.
There is really very little comparison to be drawn between the Lagarde trial and the Le Pen trial. Both were found guilty, but one of them was convicted of a much more serious offence and was sentenced accordingly.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Debs was charged in wartime for calling on people to resist the draft. Trump incited riots, in which police officers were killed, to prevent the transfer of power. Further, he threatened state officials to try to alter election results and had prepared fake elector slates with which he planned to hijack Biden’s election.
He is the only President in the history of the office to do any of this. As for Debs, if he were guilty of the same offences of course he should not have been allowed to run-but he wasn’t.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
'It's ok when we do it'.
Anyone genuinely criminal should be questioned whether they should hold these roles (there's so many of them), but it has to be applied across the board, and it isn't.
Brazil, Argentina, Romania, France, Italy, Germany, USA (I could name more) have all had people on the right that they've tried or have successfully tried to stop running 'in the name of democracy'.
When it goes the other way there is silence, or as we are seeing, and attempt to play down the offences of people on one side and not the other. The double standard is really frustrating and only fuels the campaigns more.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
You have subtly moved the goalposts. Trump committed treason and tried to overthrow the legitimate election of his opponent. Debs campaigned against US participation in WW1.
Is it Rogan or Tim Pool you’re getting the arguments from these days?
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
They’re a bunch of opportunists though that don’t actually make any difference, apart from attack marginalised people.At least we can get rid of our revolving door of idiots and NPCs in government every so often!
Looking at all of the major economies in Europe, they’re all suffering from more or less the same issues; low growth, high tax burden, high immigration, increased crime, housing shortages and increasingly overwhelming public services.
The mainstream parties have been given the chances to fix this and have repeatedly failed, hence the rise of Meloni, AfD, National Rally and so on.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Who in Italy have they tried to stop running?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
We have also seen that far from just criminal ‘illegals’, the Trump regime is now focusing on immigrants of all types. So people should be careful what they wish for.
LarryGrayson
New Member
they hung that muesolini
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
In the case of Italy it was more election interference than anything else. It all goes on the chalk board of trying to dismantle or belittle candidates on one side of the political spectrum, and plays into the bigger picture here.
Our favourite corrupt EU woman of the hour, currently investigated but not cooperating, on billions of euros of EU money disappeared in dodgy deals to Pfizer:
"We will see the result of the vote in Italy. If things go in a difficult direction, we have the tools, as in the case of Poland and Hungary".
A desperate attempt to influence the vote in Italy which was going in favor of Giorgia Meloni. When you've seen this over and over, and when you've got EU representatives still holding top jobs despite corruption, when they do this in Romania, France etc - it's hard to not think it is very politically motivated and deliberate. Like with Trump, I would expect to see Le Pen rally more support because of it.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
He had no moral (high) fibre.
Sent to an Alpenitentiary
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
No, it’s a knowledge of US history and the US constitution because historical precedents and the law actually matter.
You’ve moved the goalposts because Trump hasn’t been convicted of treason, yet you keep referencing Jan 6th. Which, ironically, damaged Trump (and the election denialism) in the Republican primaries before the ‘legal fare’, hence the points about him being martyred. Besides, it’s irrelevant in the context of this conversation. Trump has also appealed the convictions he faced.
On the other hand, Eugene Debs was convicted under the Sedition Act (/Espionage Act). As principled as his position was and draconian the legislation was… it does not change the fact that he was a convicted felon and was able to stand in an election. Thats the operative question here, should a convicted felon be able to run for president? In all cases or none at all.
Your argument is that ‘x’ convicted felon should not be allowed to run for president, going as far to call it ‘disgrace’. This argument is fair enough in isolation. However, when presented with the only historical precedent of a convicted felon standing in a presidential election, the your argument loses its consistency. Why should it only apply to Trump but not Debs? My argument is that both should have been allowed to stand.
I chose the Eugene Debs example for a reason BSB. With genuine respect, it was obvious you weren’t going to denounce him and the hypocrisy was going to be on display for all to see. For what it’s worth, Eugene Debs was treated harshly and it’s a stain on US freedom of speech… however, facts are facts and he was a convicted felon by the laws of the land and he was not barred from standing election because the constitution does not prohibit it.
Those facts, whether you like it or not, applied to Trump because that’s what equality under the law means in practice.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I haven’t argued that a convict shouldn’t be able to stand for office, it’s what the convict did that matters.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Another blunder. The details of this are insane.
www.bbc.co.uk
UK finalising Chagos Islands deal with Mauritius, says No 10
Government sources have indicated that the agreement will not need further approval from the US.
www.bbc.co.uk
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
To go back to the original question, was it a ‘disgrace’ for Eugene Debs to stand for president in 1920?
Despite the fact he was a convicted felon under the Sedition and Espionage Acts i.e. incitement to rebellion / treason.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I don’t consider what he did to be treasonous.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
The US law isn’t based on your considerations. At the time, it was considered treasonous under the law. Therefore, applying your logic consistently, if treason disqualifies a candidate, that should apply to a politician you hold in high esteem.
In any case, Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything relating to treason. So your original point doesn’t even stand from a legal perspective.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
He hasn’t been convicted because he became the president.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Either way, even had he been convicted, there was a historical precedent to follow for him to run. The constitution doesn’t prohibit convicted felons from running for president.
Whichever way you look at it, you can’t consistently hold the view that it’s right for candidate ‘x’ to stand but not candidate ‘y’ for essentially the same crime i.e. treason and incitement to rebellion.
To put your argument on its head, it would’ve been a disgrace to ban a leading presidential candidate from standing for election. The electorate are the ultimate judges and jurors come election day.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
An astonishing statement. Presumably you just don’t think Trump did anything seriously wrong which is why you’ve had to dust off the history textbook and go to an election that took place 105 years ago to deflect from the fascist pig sitting in the White House today.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Why are you resorting to faux outrage and cheap insults?
Firstly, you questioned how Trump being charged with felonies made him a ‘martyr’. The answer was that it helped him in obtaining the Republican nominee and winning the presidential election.
Second, you said it was a disgrace he even stood because he committed treason (in your view). Trump hasn’t been convicted of treason and even if he had been, there was a historical precedent for a convicted felon to stand.
Final point, legally there was nothing barring Trump from standing and given that he faced the electorate and won… The US electorate made their choice. They say you get the government you deserve and if America chooses to elect a ‘fascist pig’, they’ll get what they deserve. It’s their choice not yours or mine.
Historical precedents and the constitution matter whether or not it’s convenient for you. In this case, it’s not.
If you’re going to take a moral high ground, you really ought to apply that evenly or get taken to task for arbitrary application of said morals.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
The post was about children and ownership of smart phones and / or x-boxes. Are they essential? What services for children are being digitised by the government?