- Hitler – “The authority of the Führer is not limited by laws or statutes.”
- Mussolini – “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
- Napoleon Bonaparte – “I am the revolution.”
- Francisco Franco – “I am responsible only to God and to history.”
Trump Moments ago:
"He who saves his country does not violate any law"
@pinskal and you don't see the difference?
One respects law while the others shirk them.
The one that draws a distinction between breaking laws versus not breaking laws is showing that he cares about whether the laws were broken.
One who doesn't respect the laws doesn't care whether they break them or not.
@volkris @pinskal if you mean trump, that's not what he's saying. He's saying whoever "saves his country" is above the law.
Also, even if he claimed to respect the law, he lies A LOT and is not credible, especially considering that he's now breaking many laws and violating court orders. But he doesn't care, because no one will enforce the law against him.
It's beyond a matter of legality now, it's a matter of pure force.
Wait, so are we supposed to take him at his word or not, and also by take him at his word, you want us to take him at some other words that you are putting in there, that weren't in the quote, that we are or are not supposed to be taking him at....
You see how your stance is a bit out there?
@volkris @pinskal no. I didn't put any words in, that's literally what he said. I don't see how you interpret it differently. It's also a signal to MAGA that if they help him then they won't be prosecuted. And if you don't realize that he's a liar who cultivates a false public image of himself, then you have a lot of catching up to do.
I'm not interested in arguing if you're not arguing in good faith.
"He who saves his country does not violate any law" are literally not the same words as the ones you started arguing about above.
You talk about arguing in good faith when you are rewriting a quote that we can see right there on the page. Now that's an issue of bad faith argument.
I'm merely saying, let's not rewrite history when we discuss what Trump is saying. That's not a high bar for argument.
And you really don't see how your paraphrasing is not the same thing that he said?
I think does not violate any law means exactly what it says, does not violate any law. It means that in the universe of laws that could be violated, the set of violated laws is empty. He said exactly what he said, does not violate any law.
You're talking about being above the law when his statement specifically says no law violation is involved here. There's no law to be above when he says that he does not violate any law.
You're trying really hard to substitate what he actually said with what you need him to have said so you can make this argument. And that's why the argument isn't really compelling, you're clearly fighting a straw man.
@volkris @pinskal no, I'm trying really hard to break through to you, but it's clear you're not interested. You're more interested in "winning the argument" than finding any kind of truth (in this case, that trump really is a *literal* fascist like the others). Even if you actually believe everything you say here, you've ignored my other points, which is another sign of arguing in bad faith.
Again, You're running into the problem where you can't break through because step one is ignoring what he actually said and substituting something he didn't say, that you're making up.
Winning an argument? No I just have this crazy idea that we should respect fact and not rewrite what happened so that you can make whatever argument you want to make.
You're right though that you're not going to be able to break through when it would require me to ignore the facts in front of us.
Or how about we don't replace his words and just recognize facts instead?
The guy said what he said. We don't need to rewrite his words, we can recognize the facts, recognize the record.
Again, yeah I'm going to miss why in the world you are starting with rewriting the transcript so that it fits whatever you're trying to say. I'm sticking with what he actually said.
If you have to rewrite the record to make your point, If you have to replace his words to make your point, well I'm not interested in talking about your fantasies.
You can reimagine the world all you want, but I'm here in the real world and I'm not actually interested in talking about the fiction that you're obsessed with.
@volkris @pinskal you don't seem to understand the very grammar of what he said, the literal sentence. Paraphrasing is often useful to clarify ambiguous wording. I don't even think his original sentence is ambiguous, but I tried to break it down for you in multiple ways, in the simplest possible terms.
So now you're arguing that "is not violating" doesn't mean EXACTLY the same thing as "does not violate". I see no point in continuing. My time is much better spent elsewhere.
Indeed! Now you're rewriting my own words, saying that I am making an argument that I'm not making.
You're right that there is no point in this because like I said, I'm not interested in your alternative reality.
The record is before us. If you want to discuss the alternative reality where Trump said something different from what he actually said, and where I argued something different from what I actually argued, have fun with that?
But there's not much point trying to sell this alternative record to me.
@volkris @jamesmarshall @pinskal You are either a troll, a fascist or someone who can't accept he defends fascism and is doing n exercise of mental gymnastics that would get a gold in the Olympics.
As you said, is right there in the quote.
The fact that you don't see it only brings doubt to your mental acumen.
And no, I have no patience for fascists or for anyone defending fascism.
I'd say rewriting history so propagandistically--rewriting the words of political enemies--is a hallmark of fascism.
We counter fascism by calling it out and saying no, we're not going to accept the false narrative.
Trump said what he said. It's fascist to insist that we didn't see what we saw for the sake of political convenience.
I'd encourage you to recognize that you're not only defending but actually promoting fascism with your rhetoric here.
@volkris @jamesmarshall @pinskal HAHAHAHA! Did you just attempt to Uno reverse your fascism? Give me a break.
Fucking sea-lion, go and try that with someone else. Don't bother to reply, blocked!
@volkris @jamesmarshall @pinskal LOL. Volkris you are repeating yourself in a way I have only noticed when dealing with ai chatbots.
It really seems we have to report you.
@nuurnu such is the case when folks like @jamesmarshall just keep going around and around the same circle trying to "break through" a record that's inconvenient to his argument.
But heck, it's social media. I'm game.
@volkris @jamesmarshall @pinskal haha your language even sounds AI generated. Incredible.
@volkris @jamesmarshall @pinskal It's one thing what man says and another what man does. So if I say that I am standing while writing this (although I am sitting) is the person next to me lying if he says that he sees that I am sitting although I wrote that I am standin.
But we get into a weird situation when we are even rewriting what's being said.
We can't compare what a man says vs what he does when right out of the gate we replace what he says with something different.
@volkris @jamesmarshall @pinskal That we can agree upon. But we surely can judge a man by his actions and relate him to other dictators by his actions so far.
@markku Well it gets a bit tricky because if we can't even agree on what his words were, how likely is it that we'll be able to come to a consensus about what he actually did in complicated and breaking current events?
Agreeing on the content of a sentence should be easy. Much harder to agree about a directive issued in a complicated governmental procedure based on documents that haven't made it through the publication process yet.
Every day now we get four different versions of what Trump did even just through professional news organizations, not to mention political outfits and simple rumor. How can we relate him to other dictators by his actions if we don't know what his actions are?
@volkris @jamesmarshall @pinskal You are describing facshism right there.
His rulings has been overturned by judges as illegal. Is he doing illegl stuff if he has immunity... Thats a tricky question.
@volkris come on, son. You *know* what it means. In your heart of hearts, you really do. Don't cling to a mistake just because you've spent a long time making it.
@volkris @pinskal no, you're still missing it. OK, try this, one last thing: Replace "does not violate" with "is not violating". Do you agree that those mean the same thing? So the quote would be "He who saves his country is not violating any law." Does that make it more clear what he means?