Topic: The real test of Trump is that he has more unified power than almost any president in history.
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 weeks ago#137,771
He has both chambers of Congress cowed, the Supreme Court in his pocket, the oligarchs at his beck and call. And he does nothing but fuck up and blame others. Tariffs, invasion, another forever war, loss of manufacturing jobs.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 17 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,458,569
@previous (B)
This, the only reason everyone kneeled is because trump had the republican base in a stranglehold back then. You either supported trump or you lost your power no questions asked. Now that his support is wavering you've been seeing people willing to defy him more often. Trump is ultimately just the fall guy he's the face or more like a puppet while people you rarely if ever see are pulling the strings. Did trump write project 2025? No and half the shit trump has implemented was somebody else's idea. The people controlling things just tolerate trump because they know:
1. Trump is willing to do controversial things like just blatantly start a war without a proper casus belli
2. Trump was very popular with a lot of working class Americans
3. Trump is corrupt as hell so these people can basically get away with anything if they drop donny his dough
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,458,573
@1,458,568 (B)
I don’t agree with the second point. Obama made a nuclear deal with Iran then Trump pulled out of it because Obama did it, and started a war with Iran because he said Iran started enriching uranium, which duh he got rid of the agreement that they wouldn’t do that.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,458,576
By the way, I’d like to take a moment to appreciate how glad I am that black people didn’t make that song. Thank God for that.
If black people ever get deported, I highly doubt we’ll ever get sent to Africa. They’ll probably send us all to China or something dumb. It’s just the way the universe works, the "send the blacks back to Africa" people somehow never get what they want. I don’t know if it’s God’s will or what exactly, it’s just the way it is.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,458,591
In real life, what matters is you win. It doesn’t matter how. We’re the most powerful country, that just means we won. It has nothing to do with whether it was justified or not and any reasonable person should recognize it. Was it built upon the deaths of many people? Maybe. Do I advantage from it? Probably. C’est la vie.
> It’s funny, but the MAGA smooth brains actually believe stuff like that though
I didn’t want to believe there were so many people that dumb. Some are just hateful. He was Barry Sotero, the Muslim sent to destroy America. In the end it was trashy whites upset about black family that was classier and better educated than them eating off the White House china.
“But mawh, we haf a birthright! Send the televangelist half of the disability check and let’s hope Mr. Trump sets this country right!”
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,458,606
Like I can acknowledge that the legitimate government is just whatever group of people has a monopoly on violence within a certain territory. If I had any army, and that army was more powerful than the American army, I would be the government and nobody could challenge that. That’s just a fact whether people like it or not. I’m not saying it’s good or that’s how it should work. I prefer democracy to autocracy, I’m just saying, that’s how it works.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,458,607
The rule of law is just an idea, it’s a good idea, but it’s not "real." Because whose laws are the law? The people with the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 10 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,458,608
And I mean democracies know that. Why do we need the biggest military? It’s obvious. If the most powerful country is a country that doesn’t believe in rule of law, then there’s no rule of law, because fundamentally, physical reality is might makes right and morality is a human invention.
> And I mean democracies know that. Why do we need the biggest military? It’s obvious. If the most powerful country is a country that doesn’t believe in rule of law, then there’s no rule of law, because fundamentally, physical reality is might makes right and morality is a human invention.
The perspective you are describing is a core pillar of political realism (realpolitik), a school of thought in international relations that has shaped foreign policy for centuries. It argues that because the international system has no central governing authority (anarchy), physical power and military might are ultimately what guarantee a nation's security and sovereignty.
From this viewpoint, the reason a powerful democracy maintains the world's largest military is to act as a hegemon—a stabilizing force that deters authoritarian powers from rewriting global rules through brute force. In essence, it takes raw power to protect a system where smaller, less powerful nations can rely on laws rather than fear.However, political scientists and philosophers often debate this "might makes right" framework by contrasting it with other theories:
Liberal Internationalism: This theory argues that while power matters, global institutions, treaties, and economic interdependence (like the UN, WTO, and international law) are what truly prevent chaos. Proponents point out that raw military power alone cannot solve global challenges like pandemics, economic crises, or climate change.
Constructivism: This perspective suggests that international relations are not just driven by physical threats, but by shared ideas, cultures, and identities. From this view, rules and morality are "human inventions," but they are powerful enough to change how nations behave, making raw military dominance less absolute than it seems.
The tension between maintaining hard power to deter aggression and relying on shared laws to maintain peace remains one of the defining debates in global politics.If you are interested, we can explore this further. Would you like to look at:
Historical examples where international law successfully checked raw military power?
How different modern democracies balance defense spending with domestic priorities?
The philosophical origins of realism versus idealism?