The roof is on fire, eh?

America: Now YOU'RE my new roof! *Places Canada on head*
Origin story of Americas' Hat

Canada being savage, it's not something you see every day.

@VoidTorcher Oh you have no idea. Why do you think the Germans called us Shock Troopers back in the first World War?

@LightTrainer @VoidTorcher I thought you were nice all the time, but released your built-up aggression at ice hockey games.

@NickOfForvania That's only partially true. Our military strength is also something to consider, and not just with power but also with our smarts.

For example in the Battle of Vimy Ridge in 1917, the German army had it so fortified, not even the French or English could beat them. Then in comes the Canadian 1st who first distracted the Germans with heavy fire as they cut and slipped through the barbed wire protecting the trenches and got the drop on them, capturing the Ridge for the Allies.

Because of how surprising they were, the Germans gave the Canadian Soldiers the appropriate nickname of "Shock Troopers".

Oh great...now I'm hoping Humon makes a comic about this! XD

@LightTrainer Wow, sounds cool!

(What did I say originally?)

@LightTrainer I recently learned there are Canadian soldiers attempting to defend us along with the more commonly-known Brits during the fall of Hong Kong in WWII. A veteran said they're always relived when they hear heavy footsteps because white soldiers are bigger compared to the Japanese. *salutes*

@VoidTorcher That's awesome! ^_^

Even though Canada doesn't like to wage war, he never lost a war before.

@SolisLuna1999 If a paraplegic fought a quadriplegic to a draw you could say the paraplegic's never lost a fight.

@SolisLuna1999 Neither does Iceland, but we are the last nation that "won" against the British in a "war".
And we did it pretty much with fishing boats and trawl cutters.

@Ertuaddjoka Oops I think my PC clicked the report button sorry. My Pc is going nuts. It presses on it's own.sd;;c. s'sc.zf[fdf dkf wvf cne d

@SolisLuna1999 So very true SolisLuna!

I guess Canada mellowed out when he grew up. Like, a lot.

If Trump gets elected, it's gonna BURN AGAIN!!

@Oslogutt794
If Trump gets elected, I have the feeling the number of inhabitants of Canada may increase significantly. Mind you, although Trump is scary, even here in Europe, Cruz is even scarier when you hear every right he wants to ban.

@Daru (*shudder*) It's a tricky comparison, I think.

Cruz would like to revoke a lot of civil rights and try to formalize our already problematically undemocratic theocratic leanings, but on the flip side, he'd probably pursue a relatively isolationist foreign policy, so at least the "Republic of Gilead"-style horrors he propounds would be confined to within our borders.

Trump, though... _His_ version of megalomania involves the whole world. And given his inflammatory approaches to things, his anger issues, and his barely-coherent understanding of foreign policy, it's hard not to see his idée-fixe version of "making America great again" as a lot more potentially dangerous to the stability of _other_ countries and conflicts.

@rosamund Trump would DEFINITELY be better. He would still be terrible.... but better than Cruz! Cruz is a vile, evil man.... Trump is just a big-headed dumbass.

@rosamund It's not "undemocratic" if the people want it.

'@TheChief'
But potentially un-constitutional, outright theocracy absolutely completely would be.

@sagas From you point of view, it might be.

'@TheChief'
There is no point of view as regards absolute theocracy. That is flatly un-constitutional. It's an objective fact that. In fact an absolute theocracy would be a completely different form of government, meaning we wouldn't even have the constitution anymore.
Religiously inspired laws are a different matter, but their basis of reasoning can't be plainly religious.

@sagas The entire point of our nation that everyone has the right to believe and advocate their point of view. The basis of reasoning is wholly irrelevant, because if enough people believe in it, than it is rightfully the law of the land.

'@TheChief'
First sentence? Yeah basically.
Second sentence? No.
Do you not understand what a constitution is? It's a document that a state is built on, and certain things that are allowed to be done, wiggle room, and certain things that are not allowed. For instance your first sentence is based out of that stuff. We have that right and it can't be taken away, so says the constitution. The same exact amendment that makes your first sentence true, also makes your second one false. Because congress cannot make any laws respecting an establishment of religion.
Which obviously means we cannot become a theocracy.
At this point I think you don't know what a theocracy is.
Enough people supporting something actually is irrelevant if it would break with the constitutions fundamentals, some things in there can't be abolished.

@sagas Gay marriage passed in the Supreme Court-as was common consensus that it ought to-despite the fact that this oversteps the boundaries placed on the federal government by the Bill of Rights.

'@TheChief'
For starters the Constitution is more than the bill of rights, you can't take them in a vacuum without the explanations of powers and purpose that come before it. You don't learn about the boundaries in the Bill of Rights, they just mention for the boundaries to not be overstepped.
So of course that means you're not really saying anything by stating the boundaries in the Bill of Rights were overstepped lol.
Have you even read or skimmed the Court Opinion on the issue?

@sagas I am quite aware. The Bill of Rights was originally the first ten amendments made to the Constitution, to the end of keeping power from being too concentrated. I really don't see how that question applies here.
The Bill of Rights specifically states that no federal authority may intervene in any activity which the Constitution does not specifically say is within it's jurisdiction. Therefore by ruling on the definition of marriage the Supreme Court overstepped it's boundaries as outlined by our Founding Fathers.

'@TheChief'
"any activity which the Constitution does not specifically say is within it's jurisdiction."
Which is why it's important to read the rest of the Constitution and not just the Bill of Rights loll. This also includes subsequent Amendments, but that's NOT even what I'm talking about.
Also being as this is a legal document being discussed by mega judges, you better damn well believe that wording is important. So paraphrasing is not going to fly.
Your little spiel about intervening in "activities" not "specifically" mentioned is not how the 10th goes.

Here, this is how it goes.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Notice how it also doesn't say "powers not delegated to the US by the Bill of Rights". It says "Constitution". There are other parts of the Constitution preceding the Bill of Rights directly involved in describing the powers of the branches of government.

Good god man.

@sagas How is what I said wrong? None of what you're saying makes a bit of goddamn sense.

'@TheChief'
If what I'm saying is confusing you're clearly deeply clueless about the contents of the Constitution and what is actually in it. So maybe next time don't make declarations about what it allows or doesn't.

@sagas The meaning of the 10th Amendment quite clearly that no government entity can do anything that the power to do is not granted to them in the Constitution. Is that wrong? No. But you felt it necessary to parse every word I said for the sake of being a prick.

And none of that matters because it is COMPLETELY secondary to the main point of people not really caring about what is and isn't Constitutional based on multiple recent Supreme Court decisions that violated that very Amendment.

'@TheChief'
If you want to see what the powers granted in the Constitution are, then you need to read the whole Constitution. Especially the Articles that precede the Amendments that describe the branches of government and their powers.
It sounds like you think the Constitution is literally the same thing as the Bill of Rights, which it isn't.

I have no idea why this is hard for you to understand lol.

And none of your "none of that matters" matters because you don't have the understanding of what you're talking about to even say whether the Constitution was ignored or not.

@sagas You have completely lost sight of what the point is because you're too busy being a prick and nitpicking everything I say.

'@TheChief'
If you don't like nitpicking you probably shouldn't try to wade into a legal argument based on legal documents. Next time you try and run your mouth about the constitution you supposably care about, try and remember that.

@sagas How is that running my mouth? I stated something about the Constitution, it wasn't wrong, but you felt like being a prick and bitching about completely unnecessary bits of the argument.

'@TheChief'
No, you're very definitely wrong. But I get it, it's ok. Like many people like yourself, the Constitution is vague symbol you like using to wack people over the head without actually understanding or reading it. I imagine you're much the same about religion.

@sagas I think I accidentally reported this comment. I apologize, I didn't know what the button did and I accidentally clicked when my mouse scrolled over it.

@TheChief Wait, what? That doesn't make logical sense.

People are (unfortunately, from my point of view) perfectly capable of voting a fascist into power. It's happened before.

The process by which the fascist came to power may not have been undemocratic; the views he propounds and the changes he makes, or tries to make, to the government are, however, certainly undemocratic.

I mean, your assertion doesn't even make sense -- unless you're suggesting that only candidates with democratic views are _allowed_ to run for office in a democracy? (Which would certainly make it difficult to explain the existence of a lot of the far-right parties in Europe, much less the way the American right-wing keep accusing all American Democratic politicians of being "socialists." XD )

@rosamund In the United States, regardless of what one's political views are, there are only certain things they can do due to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, specifically the stipulations therein.
And the government in America and the governments in Europe have exactly shit to do with one another.

@TheChief Uh... I don't think you're actually responding to the content of what I said?

A political leader who advocates, for example, stripping certain citizens of their right or practical ability to vote, takes, I would argue, a highly undemocratic position. Yet politicians who espouse these views are able to run, and to be elected, under our laws.

The fact that the Constitution exists doesn't mean that politicians don't put forth anti-democratic views. They do that all the time!

Beyond which, _of course_, the issue of what exactly the Constitution actually says and means is the opposite of settled; it is probably the most vexing issue in our political system.

You know that half of what Trump espouse, and Cruz espoused, contravene the Constitution according to many people's lights -- though not to their own. And yet they're making viable political runs. Evidently, the existence of the Constitution doesn't prevent a candidate from espousing, say, banning entry to the country on the basis of religion, or revoking the right to privacy in the same basis. Are those democratic ideas? Yet, somehow, the existence of the Constitution hasn't prevented them from being viably put forth in the public arena... because our democracy doesn't work that way.

I've also seen you say _yourself_ that things that have happened under Obama's watch are unConstitutional (specifically, the Supreme Court's striking down the DoM Act). I don't agree with you; the Supreme Court didn't agree with you; the Obama administration didn't agree with you. But lots of people do. Lots of people also think Obamacare is unConstitutional, and lots don't. "What one can do" around the stipulations in the Constitution has _so much wiggle room_ that defining it is the whole damn job of one of our branches of government, and a big part of the others. So "the Constitution exists" is hardly a simple answer to any kind of question.

Regarding European and U.S. governments: uh, I'm not sure what question, or statement, you think you're addressing here?

@rosamund The fact he can be elected doesn't mean that he can do any of those things.

My objection to the Supreme Court striking down the DoM act is that it means all states must now acknowledge gay marriage, and redefining words is not a power granted to the federal judiciary in the Constitution.

Similarly, the things that Cruz and Trump have suggested have been done in the past, and are certainly not unconstitutional.The Constitution doesn't say any immigrant with an open hand and an empty belly will be let in and that is really the only thing either of them advocate that I can see will be reasonably misconstrued as unconstitutional.

Your comparison of the neo-nazis in Europe to our parties. European governments nowadays are much newer (with a few exceptions) than ours and even the older ones aren't one-hundred percent based in a document meant to prevent anything going wrong, like ours is.

'@TheChief'
Hey look whose talking about the Constitution again in spite of not really understanding it! Why..it's TheChief!

@TheChief "My objection to the Supreme Court striking down the DoM act is that it means all states must now acknowledge gay marriage, "

Yeah equal rights, how horrible D:

"and redefining words is not a power granted to the federal judiciary in the Constitution. "

Neither is judicial review, but the court has to do some things that aren't explicitly stated in the constitution to function the way it does.

"Similarly, the things that Cruz and Trump have suggested have been done in the past, and are certainly not unconstitutional."

Well Cruz has said things that pretty heavily suggest (and I'm being generous here in saying that they're merely suggestive) he doesn't approve of separation of church and state, which is created by the establishment clause before you make that tired old "it never says the words 'separation of church and state'" argument, and while I can think of any unconstitutional stuff that Trump has said (not that I care a great deal about the constitution or thing the practical worship of it by the right is anywhere near reasonable) Trump has called for flagrant war crimes. Trump has called for the murder of the family members of suspected terrorists, for torture "even if it doesn't work", and has said the Geneva convention is "a problem".

@Jacob Your conception of what one's rights are does not trump the Constitution set down by the Founding Fathers.

The judicial review certainly is a right of the Supreme Court as set by the precedent of John Jay, and acceptable as it does not contradict the power allotted Constitutionally.

Unless Cruz has said, verbatim, he want to establish Christianity as the official religion of the united States, he is not in violation of the Establishment. What someone wants the law to be is up to their conscience, and whether or not that is affected by religion, if the Constitution does not contradict it and enough people support it, than it is the law.
The Constitution is a blueprint for our whole nation. One of the most important documents in human history. Any violation of it is a grave threat to the future and the spirit of our nation.
I can't say I've heard anything of Trump calling for the murder of terrorist's family members, so I'm dubious as the legitimacy of that claim. Let's not pretend like there's any nation in the world who doesn't condone war crimes and torture "for the greater good".
We're trade partners with China, allies to Israel and the UK, and the power behind such regimes as those in Turkey. No western politician in the past thirty-forty years can claim any degree of moral superiority to him. The only real difference between Trump and any other world leader in foreign affairs is that he's honest.
The man's a typical empty-headed nationalist without any idea who de Tocqueville or Rosseau were, with a lot of rage and no specific target. You want democracy? This is it.

@TheChief Of course it did, most of those cunts thought blacks didn't have a right not to be slaves. Times change, people gain more civil rights, and the constitution gets read differently. Marriage is a basic civil right and grants certain legal privileges to those who are in it, it is discriminatory to say gay couples don't deserve these privileges because you find them icky. The constitution has a 14th amendment that sates all citizens are supposed to have equal rights, marriage is a basic civil right, thus bans on gay marriage are a violation of the constitution.

"Caesar does not have jurisdiction offer the pulpit, the pulpit has jurisdiction over Caesar!" -Ted Cruz. Along with his constant calls for oppressing people cause gawwd.

The constitution is a piece of paper written by rich white men who feared the masses taking away their power. The constitution didn't stop the genocide of the native Americans, it didn't stop slavery till after the civil war, it didn't protect the Japanese from internment camps, it didn't protect socialists and anarchists from the Palmer raids, it didn't stop the espionage act, and so on. The constitution was made to protect the elites who wrote it and has failed to protect people's liberties. It is the blueprint for a corrupt government, nothing more.

Trump has, several times, and the clips of him doing so are easy to find. Oh, so war crimes are okay cause the other nations do it too? Is this a joke?

Picking from a right wing, quasi-fascist billionaire and a center right, corrupt millionaire who is loved by the billionaires isn't democracy, it's a poorly hidden puppet show.

@Jacob Not the point. The Founding Fathers didn't want the federal government intervening in state matters because too great a centralization of powers can only end badly.
That depends very heavily upon how you define marriage.

Where someone derives their opinion has no affect on the validity of that opinion.

You name one nation that can honestly claim it's done better than us.
Each of those events happened because someone decided to ignore the Constitution for the sake of protecting people. Incidentally, you believe we ought to ignore the Constitution in order to protect people. In the words of the late Huey Long, "Fascism in America will advance under the banner of anti-fascism."

No, it's calling out you on the bullshit that war crimes make Trump uniquely despicable out of all the world's politicians.

That's exactly what democracy is and it's all democracy has ever been or ever will be. You say our Founding Fathers feared giving people power. You're not wrong. Well, we've given people power. Bravo.

@TheChief The founding fathers also didn't want the poor or women voting. Oh, and they wanted to maim gays too, can't believe I forgot about that.
"Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least." - Thomas Jefferson

A legal union between contesting adults. Again, you can't say straight couples deserve certain privileges that gays don't just because you're bigoted toward the latter.

It kinda does, it's worth recognizing that nearly every gay marriage argument that isn't blatantly homophobic is just rationalization of why those icky gays don't deserve rights.

"Mom, all the other kids are murdring kittens!!!". I always find it cute, in a sad sort of way, when patriots try to deflect any criticism of their nation by flinging it at other nations. It isn't compelling and just shows how stupid and counterproductive patriotism and nationalism are. You're literally apologizing for war crimes right now, lol.

Nice baseless claim. These violations were more often than not made to protect the interests of the political or economic elites, which is the people the founders wanted to protect in the first place. I believe the powerful will ignore the constitution when it suites them, that the original intent of it was to protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful, and that it has often failed to protect people's freedoms when said freedoms are unpopular. I'm saying I don't worship it or the founding fathers. Regardless, the supreme court's decision was constitutional, the 14th amendment is a thing, so I'm not even advocating ignoring it to protect people, in regards to gay marriage. At most I'm saying the reason I have this basic civil right now is because gays rights aren't wildly unpopular.

I never said he was unique, I said he wants to commit war crimes.

No, that's what a corrupt puppet show is. Democracy is when people actually have a choice and say in their government, not when elites have Infinitely more influence on policy than the average citizen and when nearly every politician is bought and paid for. The latter is far closer to what the founding fathers wanted than it is to democracy and it's also what we have now. If you think we've really given people power, then you must not be paying attention.

@Jacob The spirit of the Constitution is more than the thoughts of those who wrote it.

Your definition. Doesn't in anyway bind anyone else to believe it.

What war crimes? And more importantly, what war crimes that are even slightly pertinent to modern times.
Oh, and a very good job of ignoring a very pertinent question.

For one thing, what did the wealthy elites gain from entering the Japanese?
And second, you fail to see the irony. You're okay with trampling on the Constitution when it does something you favor, but not when it doesn't serve you.

if you didn't think it made him unique then why did you see fit to point it out over all the other presidential candidates.

If you really think there's such a thing as democracy, you're the one who hasn;t been paying attention. Democracy has only ever been a word thrown around by oligarchs to make their tyranny seem less profound. America is the most effective government in the world because we have the Constitution defending against it. By allowing any breach of it we endanger ourselves and our rights.

@TheChief And that spirt is to limit the will of the people and protect the wants of wealthy elites. That is why the founders hated democracy so much, they feared losing their power and status.

And no one has to buy your, probably based on religious nonsense, definition either. The thing is, marriage is in fact a legal institution and with it come certain privileges, and to deny these to gay couples is flagrant discrimination and a violation of the 14th amendment, hence why the S.C. ruled the way it did, that plus it is a social acceptable ruling now.

Well lots of torture has been going on, as well as just invading nations with no real provocation, and a history of overthrowing democracy after democracy and replacing them with right wing dictatorships, bombing campaigns that kill civilians more often than they do terrorists, economic sanctions that result in the deaths of 400,000 children, etc. while some may not be strictly criminal, they are still obvious affronts to humanity.

How was the genocide of Native Americans helping protect anyone? I said most times the gov tramples people rights it is to protect those interests, not necessarily every time.

There is no irony, I'm saying the constitution is a worthless document that fails to do what you want it to. I care about the abuses I mentioned for actual humanitarian reasons, not legal ones. And as stated obviously, the courts decision didn't violate the constitution. Nice try at misrepresentation.

Because you were talking about Trump and Cruz, and Trump is the more aggressive one when it comes to the military.

So the constitution protects us from the oligarchical tyranny (this is what the founders clearly wanted when you see why the objected to democracy) less obvious? The founders hated democracy and wanted power in the hands of a few elites, and your defense of this is "oh well democracy is just used to defend tyrannical oligarchy."? I mean your defends of this is false, but even if we ignore that it is still absurd. Democracy is an idea, an idea that the powerful fear. An idea that threatens current power structures.

You've also never addressed that fact that the system we have now, minus the poor and women and racial minorities being able to vote, is what the founders would want. The only difference is that the founder's vision was slightly worse.

@Jacob If you think that you truly know nothing about our country. They feared democracy because of the overwhelming possibility of a demagogue taking over-which has happened in LITERALLY (I don't say literally in the way people nowadays use it, I mean it has actually happened in every circumstance) every country where unregulated democracy has been the government.

Explain to me why it is that your definition is more valid than mine. And do it without in any way, shape or form basing it off of your opinions.

Who were the 40k killing economic sanctions on? One can hardly blame all of those upon the nation. They were done to perceived (and often enough real) threats.

I did not say it was protecting anyone. I said such events are done and presented in a way that it appears to be protecting the interests of the people.

Humanitarian my ass. Your quote from Ted Cruz was him speaking out against a rule in Houston that blatantly violated the rights to free speech and practice of religion. It was every inch the violation of human rights as what Cruz himself has proposed.

They objected to democracy because focusing too much power in any given place will only end badly. LITERALLY every state wherein the Constitution does no limit what the elected can and cannot do with the law that's lasted fifty years or more has ended badly.
They most certainly did not want an oligarchy. Have you ever read anything by Jefferson? Washington? Adams? Franklin? The men who forged this country meant for it to last and for it to be in the best interest of all people. If you honestly believe this anti-American trash you're spewing, you're just as stupid as a hardcore Trump supporter.
You want democracy, popular rule, than Trump's you're man.

The Founder's vision? You mean:
Jefferson: "I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master." In a nation where people are willing to do anything to meet the mold of an individual, to be accepted as a freethinker in the whole mob of them.
Franklin: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Need I elaborate further? Without the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the Separation of Powers we'd have fallen to shit like every other nation did at some point between the 19th and 20th centuries.
Adams: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." And there hasn't been one since.
Washington: "No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass." But you, in your American self-hatred can't see past the good our nation has done for others. Can't understand that our Founding Fathers intended for us to be kept afloat along the seas of history by the dream of liberty that united them.
Madison: "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." Another example of how our Founding Fathers saw Mr. Trump's rise to success. No tyrant will ever win by forcing himself upon the people. The government conspiracy you imagine determined to create a state where we're all property doesn't exist. It's the people looking for someone to take away all their responsibility, to take away the necessity of free thought.
I defy you to find one nation that has done better, screwed up less, screwed others fewer times, than our while also surviving more than our two and a quarter centuries.

@TheChief There's a difference between regulating democracy by protecting certain civil liberties and then just limiting it because you fear what the people might do to powerful elite's power and money. They were doing the latter.

Because marriage is a legal institution and legal institutions legally can't discriminate for arbitrary reasons.

The sanctions on Iraq resulted in the deaths of 400,000 children.

No, you didn't. You're just flip flopping at this point. Regardless, the constitution still is largely useless when it gets in the way of some elite's interests.

If I recall the quote I used, then it was part of a speech about gay marriage.

They set up a system where only wealthy white men had power. You had to have a certain amount of property to vote, you had to be male to vote, you had to be white to vote, and you often had to be well off to even try to get into office. You mean the man that 60% of the country hates? Both him and Hillary have record high disapproval rates. Democracy is when you actually have choices, not two people everyone hates who will ultimately govern the same.

TJ also said "all men are created equal" when he not only owned slaves but viewed blacks as racially inferior. The founding fathers often said hypocritical and contradictory things, but their actions speak loud enough. Again, look at the system they set up. You had to already be in an elite to even vote, let alone hold actual power. You also can make lots of things sound reasonable if you remove context and word it properly. I can find you Libertarians and Ancaps who defend Pinochet (who we helped take power btw) using similar rhetoric.

Madison:
". The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority "

Hamilton
"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first arc the rich and well-horn, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government. .. . Can a democratic assembly who annually revolve in the mass of the people be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy.. ."

You hurl "anti-American" around as if it were an insult, which is kinda cute.

You keep acting like Trump's rise to the GOP nomination is a crisis of democracy. It isn't, most people hate him, the U.S. is hardly a prober democracy given that the rich hold far more influence than actual voters. Trump is what you get when power juggles from the right wing to the center right, from republican to democrat. Trump is what you get when an alienated working class feels, and in this case justly, fucked over. Also plenty of tyrants have won by forcing themselves on the population, and many of them were aided by the US in doing so.

I challenge you to come up with a reason why this makes the criticisms I made of the US invalid and how it isn't just a poorly done attempt to say "but other nation's mess up too!". It's absurd.

@Jacob How do you know that? From what source do you get that idea?

And what if I don't think it's a legal institution? When did it become a legal instiution as opposed to a religious one.

Sources.

Any examples you want to provide of that?

The quote was used when the mayor of Houston (or maybe Dallas. One city or other in Texas) had a law banning hate speech that was broad enough to ban pastors from using quotes which could be interpreted as homophobic.

You had to own property because originally officeholders wouldn't get a salary to prevent corruption or political careers around making money. Democracy is when the people make decisions. If half the goddamn population was not completely apathetic to their own rights as citizens, our choice wouldn't be between these two assholes.

Jefferson included a section in the Declaration that would have refuted slavery and most of those men we hold to be our Founding Fathers wanted to include that in the Constitution which succeeded the Articles of Confederation, but were blocked. I ought to add those who blocked it were the very same ones generally advocating more power and involvement from the general populace.
"We"? I had nothing to do with Pinochet's rise. Given the age it says below your icon, I doubt you had anything to do with. No one I know or am related to had anything to with it. No one still active in the government had anything to do with it. So explain exactly how the guilt of a faction of the government now long out of power bears down on me?

Madison: It should be pointed out that handing the vote to a bunch of people who, for the most part, could not read or write was an unbelievably irresponsible thing to do.
Hamilton: Nothing he said is wrong. Whenever the whims of the populace are treated as abject moral fact shits goes wrong.

Tell me, why do you hate your own country?

You said it yourself. The working class feels fucked over. The only time anything resembling what you define as democracy has occurred is when a bunch of poor, pissed off (generally white) folks decides it's time for heads to roll. They then inevitably put a demagogue in power who makes a state worse than the one they overthrew a la EVERY SUCCESSFUL REVOLUTION IN HISTORY EXCEPT OURS.
All of those regimes were backed by a significant portion of the population. If they weren't they wouldn't have lasted. Franco...Pinochet...the Contras...all capitalized on the fact that far-left regimes don't have a goddamn idea how the people they claim to represent feel.
Demagoguery isn't the death of democracy, it's the logical conclusion.

You claim that the US is an awful nation. I say there is no nation that holds to the standard of a good nation for you to compare it too. Nothing is bad unless you can produce an example of something better.

@TheChief From the fact that there is a stark difference between saying "we should make sure certain liberties are not violated" and "we should only let white, property owning men vote".

It was on the campaign trail in South Carolina. Feel free to skip to around 3:30 if you don't want to hear him babble about those misleading planed parenthood videos.

*cough*'several of the founding fathers said that the propertied classes should have more sway *cough*. They set it up because they feared the people actually having control of the government and being a threat to their property. Remember, this was shortly after Shay's rebellion, keep in mind what would be in many of these well off elite's heads after such an uprising.

Except the choice has been between to ass holes for decades. People would actually care if the government wasn't so corrupt and it wasn't a choice between bought and paid for politicians 1 and 2.

Jefferson also kept his 400+ slaves and despite wanting to end the practice, also wanted to deport all blacks afterwards.

I meant the U.S. government, you being so literal is just silly.

That's a cute way of wording it, but really they are clearly saying that one economic class aught to rule over the other while the one that is ruled over not even be able to vote, and I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they class they want to hold power is the one they belong to. They feared a threat to their own wealth and influence, and thus decided to politically repress the poor. You are literally defending that act of denying suffering based on economic status.

Why do I dislike the U.S. government? Because it's corrupt and imperialist. Why am I not some wacky patriot? Because patriotism is dangerous and makes you do things like defend political repression of the poor ;)

I guess that's why Pinochet needed the help of the U.S. and the military to overthrow a democratically elected government rather than win an election. And Why Franco had to crush the republic with military force rather than win an election... But let's just assume might makes right and military victory means popular support. And of course them staying in power had everything to do with having popular support and nothing to do with political repression and often help from the U.S. in such repression. You're no better than a rape apologist who claims "oh, if she really didn't want it she would have fought harder".

Or better yet, a U.S. backed military coup is the death of democracy, or a fascistic reaction to progress is the death of democracy.

The existence of flowers doesn't affect the smell of rot.

@Jacob Thing is, our Founding Fathers didn't say that. The only people at that time capable of liberating our country from British rule were the rich landholding white men. If you've done any real research into our Founding Fathers, you'll know they were incredibly progressive for their day.

All I know is the first context I heard that statement is in regards to the Houston "hate speech" legislation.

Bullshit. They feared demagoguery killing our country like it is now.

That is WHOLLY the fault of the people. We allowed the government to fall into the shithole it is and now you Jihobbyists want to see the whole thing burn rather than fix it.

He wanted to send the Blacks to Africa because he believed (not without merit) that they would never be able to prosper in an nation ruled by whites.

It's not silly. Your argument has been treating all America like anathema to democracy while simultaneously refusing to place the blame on the people who let it all go to shit.

That is YOUR interpretation. It is by no means the truest or most accurate.

You don't "dislike the US government". You show nothing but complete disgust for your own country. You show nothing but antipathy for the the Constitution, a document of unprecedented historical importance. You completely ignore the fact the US has done more good than any other force on this Earth.

Fuck you those aren't the same at all. The regimes that Pinochet and Franco overthrew were just as tyrannical and polarizing to the people they ruled. It's simply a matter of which ones survived longer.

And you say you don't hate your country. Whenever you need an example of something evil, you choose the US.
Fascism is not antithetical to progress. In the 20s and thirties fascism was seen as a more evolved for of government than democracy.
That does not dispute my point. Demagogues will inevitably take power when you give people complete control of their own destiny. As Ben Franklin said: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch".

Nonsense. If one has never experienced a good smell one has no standpoint from which to judge what is a good smell and a bad smell.

@TheChief Actually, it is what some of them, like Madison who wrote the constitution said. He explicitly said the poor should be political repressed. I don't find racists who try to set up oligarchy to be terribly progressive. Founding fathers like Paine were progressive, sure, but Paine also called for suffering to women and blacks and the poor. Many of the other founding fathers, like the ones you are head over hill for, weren't. They were for mainting power among their group of elites.

No, he is clearly just talking about gay marriage in the video. Again, watch from like 3:00 to 5:00

Except it isn't. All the politicians being in the pockets of the rich is what kills the country.

No, it's the fault of the two corrupt political parties and sorry, but political repression based on economic status (which you are very fond of defending) isn't how you fix the problem, it's how you make it at best the same or slightly worse.

Oh my god, you are literally defending deportation based off race. And people would deny that the founding fathers have a cult of personality built around them.

Because the people who let it go to shit are corrupt politicians and the people who pay them.

I'm assuming you're talking about gay marriage again. Marriage is a legal institution, it is also a religious institution, the thing is the prior is all that matters when it comes to the law. To deny that marriage is a legal institution is just absurd cause it's a plain fact.

Are you seriously trying to insult me when in the same post you defend fascism, deportation based on race, political repression based on economic status, etc?

I dislike the U.S. government and don't worship the founding fathers. I recognize the constitution is just a legal document written by people with sketchy interests. You act as if not being blindly patriotic is a fault, when you yourself are just a false patriot. You like the parts of the nation you agree with, with the image of the founding fathers you've created in your head, with your interpretation of the constitution. Much of the things about America you like are imagined and those that aren't are only a small part compared to the ones you seemingly dislike.

I don't remember Allende killing political dissidents by the tens of thousands, or raping people with rats and dogs, or causing the disappearances of huge amounts of people, or torturing people, or... How exactly was Allende just as tyrannical as Pinochet please to tell, I have a sneaking suspicion you'll honestly try to compare his economic policies to literal rape via rat.

Because we are talking about the U.S., would you like me to condem other nation's who participated in imperialism? Or ...

I don't necessarily hate my country, I hate it's government, I'm indifferent to the country itself.

"Fascism is not antithetical to progress"
I don't think this even requires a serious response.

Ah yes, so now you are actually arguing for violating people's rights and liberties for their own good, something you condemned earlier on in this exchange.

They still can spot a bad smell when they find it. Knowing the comfort of a bed doesn't make torture worse. It's also funny how you'll call this nonsense rather than your silly attempt of invalidating criticism of the US. lol

@Jacob You are so filled with contempt for your own nation of birth you're completely blind to what good was done by our Founding Fathers and our nation.

Did I say you were wrong? No. I said that I had first heard of it in the aforementioned context.

We allow this to go on. We don't challenge them, we don't try to change things. We don't stay by our ideals. We allow them to rule over us. In a nation where everyone has the vote, everyone is guilty when the system fails.

When did I defend economic repression?

I'm saying it was a reasonable point of view. Hell, they are plenty of Black people today who'd like to see a nation set aside for the Blacks.

Given the existence of taxes, that still lands the blame at our feet.

I really don't think I've said anything about gay marriage in that sentence.

You completely take what I say out of context.

"My country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right. When wrong to be kept right." I don't like all the qualities of my nation. And that's what makes me a REAL patriot. I don't put all the problems on some bullshit intelligentsia conspiracy, or put my hope in the latest progressive messiah. I know my country for what it is and hope to do my damndest to make it the paragon it was meant to be.

He tried to force the whole populace to support his idiotic marxist economic schemes that would have failed just as they always have. He set up his own downfall by expecting everyone to just go along with it.

Why do you treat our homeland like it's the paragon of all evils in this world?

And you honestly believe the shit that our government is is the fault of the government itself, not the people who mindlessly buy into the false promises of politicians instead of doing something?

Why not? What in fascism makes inherently reactionary? Fascistic nations in the Middle East are/were some of the most secular. Nazi Germany was the most scientifically advanced nation in it's day. It was one of the few EUropean countries (communist ones notwithstanding) to completely spurn nobility. And not to mention (though I already did and you specifically ignored it) that Fascism was considered the most progressive ideology in the 20s and 30s.

And how exactly did I say that?

You still never answered my question. Where do you get the standard for what a good nation is? How can you hate your own country when you have nothing to prefer over it?

@TheChief Or, I don't have a silly sentimental attachment to it and am willing to be critical of its foundations and government, rather than buy into rabid nationalism and that cult of personality around the founding fathers.

Well people don't just allow it to happen, many people rallied behind a anti-corruption candidate this election cycle, who the media and democratic establishment did what they could to keep from getting the nom. If a candidate actually has intention of doing something about corruption, few actually do, they tend not to get far in party politics because the establishment of both parties is corrupt. Again, you are blaming the influence of money in politics on voters who can't do a great deal about it.

When you defended the desires of people like Madison and Hamilton to keep political power from the poor.

Thinking blacks were inferior and would start a race war if left in the U.S. was a reasonable view? K then. Also seriously? You're really going to defend the desire to deport a whole race of people because a fringe of the black community would be in a separate nation.

Then what were you talking about?

And? It doesn't matter, they're all things that you did.

"my country right or wrong" is an extremely dangerous way of thinking, which leads to defense of political repression, genocide, imperialism, etc, two of which you've already done in this exchange.

"He tried to force the whole populace to support his idiotic marxist economic schemes that would have failed just as they always have. He set up his own downfall by expecting everyone to just go along with it."

Okay first of he was democratically elected and was going to allow the next election to happen after his term ended, so this idea that he was forcing "idiotic Marxist economic schemes" on his country is fallacious. You know who actually did force idiotic economic policies on Chile? Pinochet.
2. His economic policies saw a decrease in poverty, initially inflation went down, real wages increased, literacy rates improved etc. Seems to be going fine till Nixon decided he wanted to make the Chilean "economy scream". Meanwhile Pinochet saw poverty rates go back up, by a lot, under his reign.
3. And this is the most important one,me conomic policies you don't like aren't necessarily tyrannical, they weren't in the case of Chile, and they aren't comparable to rape (sometimes with things like rats or dogs), torture, mass murder, sever political repression, etc. The fact that you would even make such a comparison, remember you said Allende was just as tyrannical as Pinochet, is actually rather disturbing and makes me seriously question your morality. The fact that you are indigent at my lack of silly patrotism but compare economic policies you don't like to rape, murder, and torture is seriously fucked up and makes me suggest that you reevaluate your values. Seriously.

Because its foreign policies have had a role in the causes, both directly and indirectly, in much of the world's suffered. I'm critical of my government, why are you so offended by this? If I told you I was rich would you be less offended about me talking about the government ;)

Because I don't take defense of fascism seriously. Fascism's rabid nationalism and suppression of basic human liberties and political freedoms makes it reactionary.

"Demagogues will inevitably take power when you give people complete control of their own destiny" Essentially, you argue that the people cannot make choices for themselves. "Democracy and political freedom are too dangerous for the plebs" is essentially your argument it seems, which would make sense given its also the same rationalization the founding fathers gave for trying to create a government ran by and for rich white men.

Because I have moral standards that the U.S. violates a lot of the time, I have my own idea of what a good nation is. I don't need a good third party candidate to say Hillary and Trump both suck, and I don't need great nation to say America does a lot of fucked up stuff and has some serious flaws.

@Jacob Do you honestly think I'm not critical of my government? Has anything I've said about our Founding Fathers' dream been true about our modern America? FUCK NO. That doesn't mean I condemn the whole venture out of hand as being as a failure.

I'm putting the blame where it belongs. In a state where everyone has the vote everyone shares the guilt. People sided with Bernie until it seemed like someone who meant to do something would actually make it into the White House, at which point they fled back to Hillary who'll shield them from any manner of responsibility in their own fates.

Their reasons were valid. I'm not saying we ought to deny the poor their vote, but I'm not saying we ought to allow people the vote regardless of their intellect or similar status.

EVERYONE thought Blacks were inferior. MOST BLACKS back then thought themselves inferior. His opinion about allowing Blacks to prosper away from European civilization was an unusually compassionate view.

Did you really ignore everything I said after that one phrase? The fact that it specifically CONDEMNS the sentiment that phrase seems to advocate.

You're not just critical of our government. You're critical of the IDEA of America. You have an unbelievably ignorant conception of our Founding Fathers. You condemn America evil deeds while ignoring all our good deeds. Not only that, you compeltely ignore the fact America is the best country in the world, if only by virtue of the fact that the rest suck more. As far as morals go, we're closest to being in the clear.
No, I'd be more offended by your economic status. It wasn't your ancestors hung for union organizing, nor shot in the police strikes, nor choking to death on fumes in coal mines. There's no wall in your home with the names of those who died for this country in every conflict since the 1820s. You can easily disparage the American Dream and it's progenitors because you have not use for it. You have nothing to aspire to, no struggles to overcome. We, the blue collar, the proletariat, the backbone of America, are those who truly understand this country because unlike you, we need this country.

So everything evil is by definition reactionary? -_-

I'm saying giving unstructured authority to the people will end badly. Unstructured power given to ANYONE will end badly.

Your vision is unrealistic and therefore useless. Without any idea of what is possible it can be assumed anything you say is impossible. "Every shadow needs the Sun"-GK Chesterton.

@Jacob @Sagas @Rosamund ok, why are you arguing with this guy? He's clearly got an olympic gold medal in mental gymnastics.

@Dorkymike I'm a sad apathetic person with nothing better to do at 1-3am

I find this rather hilarious because it just goes to show that countries also plot revenge and stuff, just like humans. But in the end, America and Canada are friends now. It's kinda cool. ^^

@Lumoseo Countries definitely plot revenge. Just ask Nazi Germany. O.O

(...or, rather, maybe better not...)

Canada has never lost a war. NEVER. DO. NOT. FUCK. WITH. CANADA

@Geldermalsen Thank you!

@IdentityCrisis Lukcily most Canadians are nice, so they only start wars when their close allies tell them to. Otherwise we would be screwed

@Geldermalsen
I believe we have the distinction of being the only country to participate in EVERY peacekeeping mission since the formation of the United Nations.
But yes, we're not driven by any desire to conquer or oppress other nations. We hope to be of help, and will leave when we're finished.

@Hinoron Otherwise we would be screwed

@Geldermalsen

Frankly, unlike the USA, we do not have the military resources to play world politics like a game of Risk(tm) leaving an army in every country so we can keep playing. :P

@Hinoron Thank god for that

Meanwhile, in the south:
Louisiana: *chasing after England using her gun as a club (ran out of ammo)* "AAANNNNNND STAY OUT!!!!!"

@Polosha77 Yeah we get it you're from Louisiana

Canada's face is like ' you deserve it asshole.'

And then after the white house was burned, a tornado swept through and wiped out the British army.

Also if you think Americans are sensitive about the war of 1812, just suggest to a Canadian that "It was the British that burned the white house and repulsed America, not Canada" its almost as effective a way of ruffling a Canadian's feathers as simply saying "America" is able to enrage Latin Americans.

@Humility I'm a Canadian. Such a suggestion would do nothing to me, because it was true. Nevertheless, there were a number of key battles in the war where British North American militias were involved. We weren't so aloof of the conflict that we sat out of it.

@Humility "its almost as effective a way of ruffling a Canadian's feathers as simply saying "America" is able to enrage Latin Americans." That makes no sense at all, why would anyone be bothered by it?

A better example is saying there are Welsh, Scots and Irish when in reality there are only English, or saying that there is no difference between America and Canada.

@Vexillo If you mean the "America" thing, I certainly have met Latin Americans who were displeased by the way the U.S. has appropriated the word "American." ("Only we are Americans! _You_ guys obviously aren't Americans! I mean, you guys don't even speak English!")

I think it has a lot to do with different senses and uses of "America" in English and Spanish, and also obviously with a lot of the fault lines around race, economics, immigration, perceptions of U.S. cultural arrogance and ignorance, etc.

There are a lot of discussions online that go into it in more depth (though to get both sides of the picture, of course, you'd want to read the ones in Spanish as well.) Here's one. https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3487ht/eli5_why_do_some_people_get_annoyed_when_you_say/

@rosamund ... I think that the biggest mistake here is that Americans believe Latin Americans only speak Spanish.

@Vexillo Lol. Fair enough. (Of course I know that Brazil speaks Portuguese; the "America" thing works the same way in Portuguese, which is why I didn't specify it; but yes, fair enough, sure. And, yes, it's true there are Americans who _don't_ know what language is spoken is Brazil.)

(Beyond that, I'm not sure exactly what you're criticizing? The vast majority of Latin Americans do speak either Spanish or Portuguese as a first language. Are you upset that I didn't mention all the minority languages of Latin America?)

@rosamund
You said Latin Americans are bothered by it, when it is not true. Or at least not all.

"the "America" thing works the same way in Portuguese, which is why I didn't specify it"

Not true. We don't really care what other people call themselves in their languages. Spanish-speaking Argentines, Chileans and Uruguayans don't see to care, too.

@Vexillo OK. Cool.

I can't tell what your background or nationality is from your avatar or anything, but I gather you're Latin American, so I'll defer to you on this.

That said, I _have_ encountered some individuals who did seem to take issue with it. And I was certainly taught this by my Cuban-American Spanish teacher... but, that said, that was in school, and years ago, so who knows how true it (still) is on the ground?

@rosamund http://maps.maphill.com/brazil/parana/curitiba/location-maps/physical-map/physical-location-map-of-curitiba.jpg

If anything, we stopped caring about what other countries call themselves south to Capricorn.

@Humility Yeah... no it wouldn't, because we were actually taught that in history class :P