Donald Trump and the US elite – it’s all about Russia

You nailed it, Jazz. Spot on!

 

Reality, that Trump won, is hard for you people to understand. . So much so that y'all have an alternative history website dedicated to what the news would look like if Hillary had won. Some of it is actually funny.

http://www.hillarybeattrump.org/

 

No where in that alternate reality are they going to examine deficit spending, urban crime, or radical islam. Simply pretending the problems don't exists eliminates having to deal with them, and in that regard liberals are actually living in an alternate reality. One with colorful, confusing restroom placards.

 

I am glad you went down this direction as I was going to add it to my post but was getting long.

The Founders set up a system where-by Gov't power was to be limited. This was the main reason that individual rights and freedoms were put "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness).

This then represents one the main ways in which SCOTUS is supposed to be interpreting the Constitution and Law. The Gov't is not supposed to mess with individual liberty ... Period. In fact the Gov't is not supposed to make any law outside it's legitimate purview - never mind one that messes with individual rights and freedoms.

The question is then .... what is that legitimate purview/authority ?

"only acts as are injurious to others" Rape, Murder, Theft and so on. An action of one person against another. This comes out of "Classical Liberalism" not to be confused with the modern term "Liberal". One's rights end where the nose of another begins - the same is true about the authority of Gov't.

Question ? WFT happened ? We have obviously fallen so far down the slippery slope we can no longer see the mountain tip. The Founders sought to limit the power of Gov't but, for 200 years Gov't has been trying to get that power back .... and they have succeeded.

Enter "Utilitarianism". This is a Philosophy of Law that looks "only" at what will increase happiness for the collective. In this philosophy the ends are justified by the means and thus it does not consider individual rights and freedoms.

Relax now - Theory is over the following examples will make things very clear.

Example: "If it saves one life" or "harm reduction" as justification for law.

We hear such utilitarian and "fallacious" utilitarian (meaning not even good utilitarian arguments) as justification for law all the time.

Question: Is "if it saves one life" good justification for law ?

Such justification is very insidious because it sounds good on the surface. Who does not want to save one life ?

The problem is that this is horrible justification for law. If this was good justification we should ban skiing tomorrow - would we not save one life ?

What about boating - that is really dangerous, one could drown. Driving a car ? banned. In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning because one might fall and break neck.

As it turns out this is a friggen horrible justification for law but, that does not stop politicians now does it !.

I can give you a gazillion other examples - Pot or Alcohol. Is there a risk of harm ? Yup ... Would we save a few lives from banning these ? Possibly

But this is no justification for banning such things if one has any respect for individual rights and freedoms. Freedom means the freedom to do risky things such as skiing or surfing.

If we want to live in a totalitarian nanny state - move to the land of Saud. The Strict Sharia Theocracy where life is beautiful all the time.

I throw out utilitarianism as justification for law right off the hop because it has not respect for individual rights and freedoms - aka the basic principles on which this nation was founded.

The other problem is "who gets to decide" - what will increase happiness for the "collective". One woman's poison is another woman's pleasure.

The only mechanism by which Gov't is supposed to be able to make law outside it's legitimate purview is if an "overwhelming majority" of "We the People" agree.

This is at least 2/3rds. You need 75% of states to ratify a change to the Constitution. 2/3rds would be fine IMO.

What is not fine is on the basis of simple majority 50+1. This is what is referred to as "Tyranny of the Majority". Every Gov't has a simple majority mandate. To allow law to be made on that basis would be to defeat the purpose of putting individual rights and freedoms "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

The assumption (and a good one) in Classical Liberalism is that no man ones another ruling over him. Why then would anyone some authority power over you ? The answer is for protection but, this is what that power was supposed to be limited to.

Take murder, rape, and theft. The reason "we the people" gave some authority power over us was because the overwhelming majority agrees that these are wrong and want protection. It does not do much good to have codes forbidding such conduct if there is no punishment for code breakers.

The bar however, is no different for any other law. (overwhelming majority).

This is long and I have left out how the social contract comes into play but to summarize.

Yes ... the left pioneered the use of Utilitarianism in order to violate individual rights and freedoms.

Unfortunately the right then also started doing the same. Now we are in a situation where both Red and Blue hate individual rights and freedoms and are working towards turning this country into a quazi totalitarian police state.

And every member of SCOTUS should be fired for dereliction of duty - not interpreting the constitution and law by the guidelines set forth.

 

Well, without them you would have gotten a beating from the Germans, that's for sure!

 

Usa and England landed in Normandy in 1944! The heaviest fighting was in 1941 near Moscow and in 1943 in Stalingrad. When Usa and England saw that the USSR wins then they landed in Normandy in 1944. And now you want to say that USSR would have lost without Usa.

 

When it was the hardest we fought alone.

 

It was hard on both sides.

 

The Soviet Union alone destroyed 80% of Nazi army. And for 14 days destroyed the Japanese army in China. After that, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on two civilian cities. So Japan surrendered quickly. Otherwise, the USSR would have landed in Japan.

 

I not only say it but so did General Zhukov, or did you not see his quote?

It's rather hard to fight the Nazis without tanks, planes and other arms. How do you propose one army fight another without them?
http://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/

 

Of course, I know that Western propaganda about Russia is false for fools, but so blatantly lie...

I found many quotes of different people of that era. I will not translate everything. I give the translation of the quotes from the book of Zhukov "Memories and reflections". Here is the real quote from the book of Zhukov.

 

Crappy tanks for gold. F...k this assistance.

 

Did you really pay gold for tanks that burst into flames?
How stupid was the Soviet leadership? But you're welcome anyway. We were glad to keep you alive with not only tanks, planes and arms but free food
so you could keep killing Nazis, your former allies.

 

This thread is all about fake news.

 

1934. The Pact Of Pilsudski-Hitler (Germany, Poland).
1935. Anglo-German naval agreement.
1936. Anticholinerterase Pact (Germany, Japan).
1938. The Munich agreement (Britain, France, Germany, Italy).
The agreement relating to the transfer of Czechoslovakia the German Sudetenland.
1938. Декларация о ненападении между Германией и Англией. (Германия, Англи&#1103.
1938. Декларация о ненападении между Германией и Францией. (Германия, Францие&#1081.
1939. German-Romanian economic treaties and agreements.
1939. The non-aggression Pact of Germany on the Baltic States.
1939. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Germany, USSR).
The non-aggression Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union.

 

Yes, the Russians were the greatest! I didn't know they also fought against the Japanese.
Those atom bombs were not at all necessary. Japan was about to surrender anyway.

 

This is not surprising. All countries tend to embellish their story but Western propaganda is lying blatantly. Japan invaded China and Japanese have killed 30 million Chinese.

 

My source estimates almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. That is a lot less than 30 million. Do you have a source for your figure?
My source is here:
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM