Related to, but slightly different from the
other topic. Was it possible/plausible for a freedom-loving American to vote for President Trump in 2020?
“freedom-loving American” in your judgement, not theirs.
I take the same position, it was possible and even plausible for a freedom-loving American to vote for President Trump in 2020. Said freedom-loving American would necessarily believe that voting for Trump was compatible with freedom and other American values, and I think it is possible and plausible that someone would believe that.
In hindsight, I seem to have misinterpreted the original conversation
@JohnT and I had.
A credible case could be made that voting for Trump was a vote for a COVID ‘mitigation’ strategy which would kill up to 3 million
more countrymen than already passed.
Max, if I vote that you be forced to participate in a contest where you have a 60% chance of being infected, a 20% chance of being severely symptomatic, and a 1% chance of dying… how would you consider me? Friend or foe?
Most (R) turncoats I know did so because of COVID-19.
Strike that. All turncoats I know did so because COVID-19.
Your point is lost on me.
Max, since the real world analogy was, by your admittance, beyond your understanding, allow me to simplify it:
I cast a vote to kill you, a fellow countryman. Am I a friend or foe?
Ceteris paribus, Foe.
In our best mold, America is an idea, not a nation founded upon an ethnic identity of peoples who have been here since anyone can remember. And if you refuse to share those ideals… in Democracy, the Rule of Law, of fairness and honesty (both of which are
crucial to the smooth functioning of a capitalist system, according to Friedman and Rand)… than you are denouncing your own Americaness.
In fact, it is an oath to these ideals, and to the document(s) which express them, which allows one to
become an American.
America is a state of mind, shaped by the ideals of 1776 and the Enlightenment, and if you refuse to share these ideals, you refuse to be an American.
Conservative historian Paul Johnson said the great societal advantage of America in the 18th century was we lacked the burden of a massive peasant class, that to just
be in America showed intelligence, an ability to work the system, and a self-confidence above and beyond the norm.
We no longer have this advantage.
Right here is where I make the mistake, I erroniously assume JohnT is arguing about the definition of America/an American [person].
This gives me quite a bit of insight to how you’re thinking. I disagree, of course; to me, America is the country and people and things within, not some ideal or philosophy.
It was literally founded as such. And our history, and oaths, show this - you don’t swear to the
country , you swear to the Constitution and pledge to support America’s laws :
*“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution(1) and laws(2) of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law(3); that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law(4); that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law(5); and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
You don’t swear to the Country or to the King. You swear to the ideal, the belief, of following the Law.
No, in no place does the oath say you pledge fidelity to the country, it’s clearly written that you pledge fidelity to our Laws and Constitution.
And since the laws are determined by democratic majority as defined by the Constitutions of the various States as well as
the Constitution, you are pledging fidelity to the democratic processes which generates these laws.
Whether there is still a debate to have, I do not know.
My response is the same as in the other thread and for the same reasons.
How about intentionally voting for Trump?
Yeah same answer.
ISTM that a lot of Reps and Trump’s explicit platform is against freedom; trying to shut down, lock up or even “2nd amendment” their enemies.
But, OTOH you could see the real danger to freedom being environmental regulation and (largely false) caps on free speech.
So yeah, possible.
Mistaken beliefs sincerely held are indeed sincere. But they’re also still mistaken.
Once Trump announced that he would not accept the results, then no. And he essentially said that throughout the campaign.
That’s a really good point. One of the fundamentals of democracy is that the loser accepts defeat.
You’ve convinced me; I have to concede.
8 posts were split to a new topic:
What does libertarianism mean?
Moderating: The entire thread veered into the mean of libartarianism and I started a new thread for that. It is an interesting subject, just not the subject of this one.