The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
The America First Instinct
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Think of the treaty as a non-binding suggestion. If it’s better for Americans to toss it in the trashcan, though, in the trashcan it goes (“not sure” responses, constituting 25% of the total, are excluded):

The social contract doesn’t bind individuals and the international contract doesn’t bind nations. Consent is not the default. Each sovereign entity may choose to opt in to a contractual agreement, but if he or it does not, he or it are not morally bound by the contract’s terms.

 
Hide 33 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Given that the multiple choice answer is “yes” or “no” and the general score is about 50%, I’m not sure the majority of the respondents had a firm idea as to what was the meaning of the question they were responding to.

    Also, in 2020, the use of the word “bound” is racist. Slaves were “bound” and so the word needs to be banned.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Not Only Wrathful

    Per Wiki:


    Pinckney Resolutions (1836)
    ...

    All petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any way, or to any extent whatsoever, to the subject of slavery or the abolition of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid on the table and ... no further action whatever shall be had thereon.
     

    As you can see, the consideration of slavery and abolition was banned in the House of Representatives, therefore the word banned will have to be banned.
  2. The question is ambiguous between real ratified treaties and simple agreements presidents have made (“executive agreements”), which are often also labeled as treaties but not legally binding, so it is a poor question.

    • Replies: @res
    @Lot

    I really hope people are thinking of this as "executive agreements" or even simple policy declarations. Because otherwise it raises serious questions about what constitutes a binding commitment for the majority of people responding to this question.

    This also makes me wonder what commitments in their personal lives they consider binding. "Oh, that was last week when my interest was X. This week it is Y so too bad for you."

    It is interesting to see the "responsibility" flip for Democrats and Republicans on this topic vs. most others.

    Replies: @d dan

  3. This is one of those weird situations where you could really use a good copy editor. One gets the impression that this post is raising a genuinely interesting question, but to be perfectly honest, I can’t make heads or tails of it. I’m sorry to be a scold, but quite frankly, I cannot understand what you’re talking about here.

    Like the old joke goes, If I took you to task, you wouldn’t get back for a month.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    It's a paean to the idea of sovereignty, national and personal.

    And you're undoubtedly correct about the benefit of a copy editor.

  4. @Not Only Wrathful
    Given that the multiple choice answer is "yes" or "no" and the general score is about 50%, I'm not sure the majority of the respondents had a firm idea as to what was the meaning of the question they were responding to.

    Also, in 2020, the use of the word "bound" is racist. Slaves were "bound" and so the word needs to be banned.

    Replies: @iffen

    Per Wiki:

    Pinckney Resolutions (1836)

    All petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any way, or to any extent whatsoever, to the subject of slavery or the abolition of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid on the table and … no further action whatever shall be had thereon.

    As you can see, the consideration of slavery and abolition was banned in the House of Representatives, therefore the word banned will have to be banned.

  5. What surprises me more are the percentages on the age distributions. I would think the earlier generations would have more regard for adherence to contractual agreements in the age of international law that they were most instrumental in ushering in.

    Maybe all treaties should come with a 5, 10, 15 year review requirement for relevancy and to allow parties a way to opt out if the terms are not beneficial any longer.

    Peace.

  6. Treaties are like contracts; they are meant to be broken.

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    @iffen

    I believe it was Charles De Gaulle who summed up the typical attitude of states about treaties: "A treaty is like a woman: while she lasts, she lasts."

    , @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Treaties are like contracts; they are meant to be broken.
     
    It does show that any country that thinks it's a good idea to enter into a treaty or agreement with the United States should think again.

    I'm hoping that one day Australians will figure that out.

    Replies: @iffen

  7. Article VI, Clause 2, of the USA Ameriburger Constitution, the ‘Supremacy Clause’:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    A President who ditches a Treaty is violating the Constitution? So it seems.

    But the US Constitution has been dead for a long time.

    One of the quotes in the US Dept of Justice filing on the criminal bribery involvement of Robert Mueller – which President Trump tweeted about, the filing making Mueller’s impeachment foray impossible – is this boast from a Clinton-Bush campaign donor said to have bribed two federal judges, with Mueller’s full indulgence as a corrupt FBI director lining himself up to later receive huge cash from one of the law firms involved:

    There is no f-cking ‘US Constitution’. The Constitution belongs to people like me, who own the f-cking judges!

    https://www.docdroid.net/eVAAjIq/doj-ig-memo-mueller-bribery-extortion.pdf

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @brabantian

    A President who ditches a Treaty is violating the Constitution? So it seems.

    A treaty is the law of the land while it is in effect. The constitution may not stipulate, but withdrawing from a treaty is a long-accepted practice. I'd say you are only violating the constitution if you violate the terms of the treaty without bothering to withdraw from it.

    , @American Citizen 2.0
    @brabantian

    Ratified treaties are considered law. It would be a sad state of affairs if international fishing treaties, to give an example, could simply be disregarded if a President chose to do so. Like every law, whether or not it is enforced and with how much aggressive enthusiasm is a matter of choice of the Executive branch.

    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    @brabantian

    You beat me to it. It's frightening how few supposed citizens of the USA have knowledge and understanding of the Constitution. So-called constitutional experts are often the worst of the lot. They focus on the court decisions of our kritarchy, decisions which have so diverged from the Constitution's clear intent as to constitute what is essentially an anti-Constitution.

  8. The spread on this is pretty small. I’d be curious to know what the margin of error is.

  9. @brabantian
    Article VI, Clause 2, of the USA Ameriburger Constitution, the 'Supremacy Clause':

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
     
    A President who ditches a Treaty is violating the Constitution? So it seems.

    But the US Constitution has been dead for a long time.

    One of the quotes in the US Dept of Justice filing on the criminal bribery involvement of Robert Mueller - which President Trump tweeted about, the filing making Mueller's impeachment foray impossible - is this boast from a Clinton-Bush campaign donor said to have bribed two federal judges, with Mueller's full indulgence as a corrupt FBI director lining himself up to later receive huge cash from one of the law firms involved:

    There is no f-cking 'US Constitution'. The Constitution belongs to people like me, who own the f-cking judges!
     
    https://www.docdroid.net/eVAAjIq/doj-ig-memo-mueller-bribery-extortion.pdf

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @American Citizen 2.0, @Jus' Sayin'...

    A President who ditches a Treaty is violating the Constitution? So it seems.

    A treaty is the law of the land while it is in effect. The constitution may not stipulate, but withdrawing from a treaty is a long-accepted practice. I’d say you are only violating the constitution if you violate the terms of the treaty without bothering to withdraw from it.

  10. Though Mr. Brabantian’s reference to the Constitution is appreciated, I will bring up another point. If we are talking about mutual defense treaties, or one-side ones for that matter (Taiwan will not be helping us fight the mainland Chinese, I guarantee you), the US Congress must declare war before the President is to act as Commander-in-Chief.

    Seeing as Congress has not declared war since it did against Germany in 1941, the President is not obligated to act on ANY defense treaties, as he has no powers to act as Commander-in-Chief.

    OK, now clean up your spilled coffee, as we all had our chuckle about American’s respect for the Constitution, and let’s just agree that most American don’t have the background to understand the real basics of this question. It’s likely just pro-Trump or anti-Trump.

    • Replies: @botazefa
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Seeing as Congress has not declared war since it did against Germany in 1941, the President is not obligated to act on ANY defense treaties, as he has no powers to act as Commander-in-Chief.
     
    I did spill me coffee. But I kept reading. Not sure if you're kidding?

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  11. Few poll questions are ever perfect. However, this one is especially poor. The extremely high “not sure” response rate of 25% is indicative of a badly written question.

    Use of the term international treaty (small “t”) muddies the subject, as that includes a huge number of things that are not U.S. Senate Ratified Treaties under Article VI. Ignoring international treaties while supporting Ratified Treaties is a logical position that could garner a response of yes, no, or not sure.
    ____

    Executive authority based international deals, such as JCPOA and Paris Agreement, never received Senate Ratification, and are therefore *not* Treaties. As matter non-controversial & objective fact these non-Treaties are not binding on subsequent administrations.

    Even with Senate Ratification, there are still pitfalls. Treaties are subordinate to the U.S. Constitution as they are a construct of Article VI, Clause 2. A Constitutional Amendment, Article V, is required to strip powers guaranteed to bodies of the U.S. government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial).

    Treaties typically fall within three broad categories, although there are grey areas between them. If you are interested in additional detail, please open the MORE tag.

    PEACE 😇

    [MORE]

    Senate Ratified Treaties largely fit within three broad concepts:

    -I- Constitutional
    -II- Functional & Limited
    -III- Unconstitutional

    While the Treaty text itself does not change, deals can change categories if the application of that text changes over time. For example, the original reading of WTO was narrow and likely fell within -II-. However, its expansion and the level of current abuse has arguably moved the WTO into category -III-.
    ____

    -I- Constitutional — Treaties work best for simple transactions. For a specified amount of compensation, specified territory is acquired. For example, the Louisiana Purchase. These types of arrangements are clearly valid & unchallengable.

    -II- Functional & Limited — Treaties tend to work if the only penalty is loss of a benefit built into the construct. There are favourable benefits XYZ in return for following terms ABC. The need for a regulatory body (Executive) to monitor ABC compliance makes the treaty Constitutionally dubious. However, declaring the treaty null also loses the benefits XYZ built into the construct.

    To the extent there are Constitutional flaws, it is in no one’s interest to pursue them. Arms Control deals and Trade deals are most likely to fit in this category. Such Treaties often contain withdrawal provisions allowing parties to side step the need to tackle Constitutional issues in a head on manner.

    Another side issue is, “How does one obtain ‘standing’ to bring a court challenge?” Consider the Arms Control Treaty case. U.S. law & procedure make it difficult for an outside party to challenge a Treaty even if the Constitutional flaw is clear.

    -III- Unconstitutional — Treaties are Unconstitutional, and therefore null, when bodies created by them attempt to misappropriate and exercise powers reserved under the U.S. Constitution.

    For example, Legislative bodies that claim to be binding on the U.S. (e.g. UNGA under UN Charter). Transfer of Legislative authority would have required a Constitutional Amendment under Article V.

    • Thanks: Not Only Wrathful
  12. @brabantian
    Article VI, Clause 2, of the USA Ameriburger Constitution, the 'Supremacy Clause':

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
     
    A President who ditches a Treaty is violating the Constitution? So it seems.

    But the US Constitution has been dead for a long time.

    One of the quotes in the US Dept of Justice filing on the criminal bribery involvement of Robert Mueller - which President Trump tweeted about, the filing making Mueller's impeachment foray impossible - is this boast from a Clinton-Bush campaign donor said to have bribed two federal judges, with Mueller's full indulgence as a corrupt FBI director lining himself up to later receive huge cash from one of the law firms involved:

    There is no f-cking 'US Constitution'. The Constitution belongs to people like me, who own the f-cking judges!
     
    https://www.docdroid.net/eVAAjIq/doj-ig-memo-mueller-bribery-extortion.pdf

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @American Citizen 2.0, @Jus' Sayin'...

    Ratified treaties are considered law. It would be a sad state of affairs if international fishing treaties, to give an example, could simply be disregarded if a President chose to do so. Like every law, whether or not it is enforced and with how much aggressive enthusiasm is a matter of choice of the Executive branch.

  13. @brabantian
    Article VI, Clause 2, of the USA Ameriburger Constitution, the 'Supremacy Clause':

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
     
    A President who ditches a Treaty is violating the Constitution? So it seems.

    But the US Constitution has been dead for a long time.

    One of the quotes in the US Dept of Justice filing on the criminal bribery involvement of Robert Mueller - which President Trump tweeted about, the filing making Mueller's impeachment foray impossible - is this boast from a Clinton-Bush campaign donor said to have bribed two federal judges, with Mueller's full indulgence as a corrupt FBI director lining himself up to later receive huge cash from one of the law firms involved:

    There is no f-cking 'US Constitution'. The Constitution belongs to people like me, who own the f-cking judges!
     
    https://www.docdroid.net/eVAAjIq/doj-ig-memo-mueller-bribery-extortion.pdf

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @American Citizen 2.0, @Jus' Sayin'...

    You beat me to it. It’s frightening how few supposed citizens of the USA have knowledge and understanding of the Constitution. So-called constitutional experts are often the worst of the lot. They focus on the court decisions of our kritarchy, decisions which have so diverged from the Constitution’s clear intent as to constitute what is essentially an anti-Constitution.

  14. @Achmed E. Newman
    Though Mr. Brabantian's reference to the Constitution is appreciated, I will bring up another point. If we are talking about mutual defense treaties, or one-side ones for that matter (Taiwan will not be helping us fight the mainland Chinese, I guarantee you), the US Congress must declare war before the President is to act as Commander-in-Chief.

    Seeing as Congress has not declared war since it did against Germany in 1941, the President is not obligated to act on ANY defense treaties, as he has no powers to act as Commander-in-Chief.

    OK, now clean up your spilled coffee, as we all had our chuckle about American's respect for the Constitution, and let's just agree that most American don't have the background to understand the real basics of this question. It's likely just pro-Trump or anti-Trump.

    Replies: @botazefa

    Seeing as Congress has not declared war since it did against Germany in 1941, the President is not obligated to act on ANY defense treaties, as he has no powers to act as Commander-in-Chief.

    I did spill me coffee. But I kept reading. Not sure if you’re kidding?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @botazefa

    Not this part. Look it up. No US war since WWII was declared by Congress. The Commander-in-Chief role is stated in Section 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" Who calls them into actual service? Not the President, but the Congress.

    I like one particular site on the US Constitution, and the appropriate passage is here.

    I'm writing specifically about defense treaties, not trade treaties and the like.

    The spilt coffee is about the hilarity in anyone bothering to explain this stuff, as nobody seems to care much. Ask Rosie though, about what it'll take to take the stain out of your desk-chair rug.

  15. @botazefa
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Seeing as Congress has not declared war since it did against Germany in 1941, the President is not obligated to act on ANY defense treaties, as he has no powers to act as Commander-in-Chief.
     
    I did spill me coffee. But I kept reading. Not sure if you're kidding?

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Not this part. Look it up. No US war since WWII was declared by Congress. The Commander-in-Chief role is stated in Section 2: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;” Who calls them into actual service? Not the President, but the Congress.

    I like one particular site on the US Constitution, and the appropriate passage is here.

    I’m writing specifically about defense treaties, not trade treaties and the like.

    The spilt coffee is about the hilarity in anyone bothering to explain this stuff, as nobody seems to care much. Ask Rosie though, about what it’ll take to take the stain out of your desk-chair rug.

  16. res says:
    @Lot
    The question is ambiguous between real ratified treaties and simple agreements presidents have made (“executive agreements”), which are often also labeled as treaties but not legally binding, so it is a poor question.

    Replies: @res

    I really hope people are thinking of this as “executive agreements” or even simple policy declarations. Because otherwise it raises serious questions about what constitutes a binding commitment for the majority of people responding to this question.

    This also makes me wonder what commitments in their personal lives they consider binding. “Oh, that was last week when my interest was X. This week it is Y so too bad for you.”

    It is interesting to see the “responsibility” flip for Democrats and Republicans on this topic vs. most others.

    • Replies: @d dan
    @res


    "I really hope people are thinking of this as “executive agreements” or even simple policy declarations. "
     
    Even that, I find it disgusting that so many Americans think that they are NOT morally bound to previous declarations or even verbal agreements. Yes, non-ratified agreements are not Treaties, but there is still something called honor and consistency. When negotiating with foreigners, American Presidents are supposed to represent the *whole* country, not just a party. Subsequent Presidents should therefore at least have the minimum decency to try to honor them as much as possible, lest the reputation of the country goes into the toilet like Trump does.

    Replies: @A123

  17. @res
    @Lot

    I really hope people are thinking of this as "executive agreements" or even simple policy declarations. Because otherwise it raises serious questions about what constitutes a binding commitment for the majority of people responding to this question.

    This also makes me wonder what commitments in their personal lives they consider binding. "Oh, that was last week when my interest was X. This week it is Y so too bad for you."

    It is interesting to see the "responsibility" flip for Democrats and Republicans on this topic vs. most others.

    Replies: @d dan

    “I really hope people are thinking of this as “executive agreements” or even simple policy declarations. “

    Even that, I find it disgusting that so many Americans think that they are NOT morally bound to previous declarations or even verbal agreements. Yes, non-ratified agreements are not Treaties, but there is still something called honor and consistency. When negotiating with foreigners, American Presidents are supposed to represent the *whole* country, not just a party. Subsequent Presidents should therefore at least have the minimum decency to try to honor them as much as possible, lest the reputation of the country goes into the toilet like Trump does.

    • Replies: @A123
    @d dan


    When negotiating with foreigners, American Presidents are supposed to represent the *whole* country, not just a party.
     
    Do you really believe that:
    -- Barack Hussein represented the whole country?
    -- G. W. Bush represented the whole country?

    I wouldn't, but perhaps you could try to make a case that Bush [41] and Clinton [42] attempted to represent the nation and were simply terrible at it. How can one tell creative incompetence from actual incompetence?

    Subsequent Presidents should therefore at least have the minimum decency to try to honor them as much as possible, lest the reputation of the country goes into the toilet like Trump does.
     
    Trump received a porcelain swirly country from his predecessors. He is revitalizing the nation's honor & reputation by discarding the obvious international failures created by prior anti-American, SJW Globalist regimes dedicated to the 1% Elites.

    Admittedly, Trump is far less than 100% effective. However, Killary Klinton would have taken the US reputation through the bottom of the toilet and well down into the sewers.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    https://i2.wp.com/dbdailyupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ghislaine-maxwell-suicide-meme.jpg

    Replies: @d dan

  18. @d dan
    @res


    "I really hope people are thinking of this as “executive agreements” or even simple policy declarations. "
     
    Even that, I find it disgusting that so many Americans think that they are NOT morally bound to previous declarations or even verbal agreements. Yes, non-ratified agreements are not Treaties, but there is still something called honor and consistency. When negotiating with foreigners, American Presidents are supposed to represent the *whole* country, not just a party. Subsequent Presidents should therefore at least have the minimum decency to try to honor them as much as possible, lest the reputation of the country goes into the toilet like Trump does.

    Replies: @A123

    When negotiating with foreigners, American Presidents are supposed to represent the *whole* country, not just a party.

    Do you really believe that:
    — Barack Hussein represented the whole country?
    — G. W. Bush represented the whole country?

    I wouldn’t, but perhaps you could try to make a case that Bush [41] and Clinton [42] attempted to represent the nation and were simply terrible at it. How can one tell creative incompetence from actual incompetence?

    Subsequent Presidents should therefore at least have the minimum decency to try to honor them as much as possible, lest the reputation of the country goes into the toilet like Trump does.

    Trump received a porcelain swirly country from his predecessors. He is revitalizing the nation’s honor & reputation by discarding the obvious international failures created by prior anti-American, SJW Globalist regimes dedicated to the 1% Elites.

    Admittedly, Trump is far less than 100% effective. However, Killary Klinton would have taken the US reputation through the bottom of the toilet and well down into the sewers.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    • Replies: @d dan
    @A123


    Do you really believe that:
    — Barack Hussein represented the whole country?
    — G. W. Bush represented the whole country?
    I wouldn’t,...
     
    Don't flatter yourself. What you (or me, or anyone else here) believe doesn't matter. "The Executive Office of the President of the United States" represents the United States, period. Their (Bush's, Obama's, Trump's, ...) signatures represent the whole country.

    If my wife verbally commits something that I later have to retract, I would at least feel apologetic to the other party, and may even offer something else to compensate them. Apparently, most Americans today do NOT feel that way. They even feel indignant that they are the ones that are wronged by their democratically elected (former) Presidents, or that they are being taken advantage of by the foreigners (China, Russia, Iran, ...)

    Call me old fashioned if you want. Without honor or honesty, the reputation of the country would only go down.

    Replies: @A123

  19. @iffen
    Treaties are like contracts; they are meant to be broken.

    Replies: @Dutch Boy, @dfordoom

    I believe it was Charles De Gaulle who summed up the typical attitude of states about treaties: “A treaty is like a woman: while she lasts, she lasts.”

    • Agree: iffen
  20. I can’t help but wonder how a poll on this subject taken exclusively of the American Indians (Feather) would reflect. No scholar am I, but popular reporting is that the US government broke damn near every treaty they ever signed with the red man. What would the wokesters of today have to say about that, I wonder.

  21. @iffen
    Treaties are like contracts; they are meant to be broken.

    Replies: @Dutch Boy, @dfordoom

    Treaties are like contracts; they are meant to be broken.

    It does show that any country that thinks it’s a good idea to enter into a treaty or agreement with the United States should think again.

    I’m hoping that one day Australians will figure that out.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    You America haters are going to get it good and hard one day, and deservedly so.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

  22. @A123
    @d dan


    When negotiating with foreigners, American Presidents are supposed to represent the *whole* country, not just a party.
     
    Do you really believe that:
    -- Barack Hussein represented the whole country?
    -- G. W. Bush represented the whole country?

    I wouldn't, but perhaps you could try to make a case that Bush [41] and Clinton [42] attempted to represent the nation and were simply terrible at it. How can one tell creative incompetence from actual incompetence?

    Subsequent Presidents should therefore at least have the minimum decency to try to honor them as much as possible, lest the reputation of the country goes into the toilet like Trump does.
     
    Trump received a porcelain swirly country from his predecessors. He is revitalizing the nation's honor & reputation by discarding the obvious international failures created by prior anti-American, SJW Globalist regimes dedicated to the 1% Elites.

    Admittedly, Trump is far less than 100% effective. However, Killary Klinton would have taken the US reputation through the bottom of the toilet and well down into the sewers.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    https://i2.wp.com/dbdailyupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ghislaine-maxwell-suicide-meme.jpg

    Replies: @d dan

    Do you really believe that:
    — Barack Hussein represented the whole country?
    — G. W. Bush represented the whole country?
    I wouldn’t,…

    Don’t flatter yourself. What you (or me, or anyone else here) believe doesn’t matter. “The Executive Office of the President of the United States” represents the United States, period. Their (Bush’s, Obama’s, Trump’s, …) signatures represent the whole country.

    If my wife verbally commits something that I later have to retract, I would at least feel apologetic to the other party, and may even offer something else to compensate them. Apparently, most Americans today do NOT feel that way. They even feel indignant that they are the ones that are wronged by their democratically elected (former) Presidents, or that they are being taken advantage of by the foreigners (China, Russia, Iran, …)

    Call me old fashioned if you want. Without honor or honesty, the reputation of the country would only go down.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @A123
    @d dan


    If my wife verbally commits something that I later have to retract, I would at least feel apologetic to the other party, and may even offer something else to compensate them.
     
    Is your wife honest? And, honorable? If so, your reaction makes sense.

    However, it is an invalid analogy.
    ____

    Let us take a different marriage where the wife is a dishonorable criminal. And, a serial liar. The type of woman who spends her days on her back taking money for keeping her legs open.

    Should that husband feel apologetic for a creature who intentionally sold him out?

    This is the valid analogy to Barack Hussein.


    Without honor or honesty, the reputation of the country would only go down.
     
    Barack Hussein's dishonor and dishonesty led the reputation of the country down the drain. This is the deceiver who earnestly said, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." I am sorry that Obama was such a despicable human being. He never should have been President. However, I have no way to go back and undo that mistake.

    If we had real journalists, rather than the dishonest and dishonorable Fake Stream Media, a national apology for Barack Hussein's personal depravity and corruption would make sense. However, in the era of MSNBC, any such statement would be twisted out of context and repackaged for nefarious ends.

    Also, it is a bit hard to apologize for someone who is still around. Barack Hussein should step up and apologize for his many, many, many misdeeds.
    _____

    Given the tragic disaster that he received from his predecessor. Trump's efforts to restore national honor and honesty are a huge step forward for the nation's reputation.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @d dan

  23. @d dan
    @A123


    Do you really believe that:
    — Barack Hussein represented the whole country?
    — G. W. Bush represented the whole country?
    I wouldn’t,...
     
    Don't flatter yourself. What you (or me, or anyone else here) believe doesn't matter. "The Executive Office of the President of the United States" represents the United States, period. Their (Bush's, Obama's, Trump's, ...) signatures represent the whole country.

    If my wife verbally commits something that I later have to retract, I would at least feel apologetic to the other party, and may even offer something else to compensate them. Apparently, most Americans today do NOT feel that way. They even feel indignant that they are the ones that are wronged by their democratically elected (former) Presidents, or that they are being taken advantage of by the foreigners (China, Russia, Iran, ...)

    Call me old fashioned if you want. Without honor or honesty, the reputation of the country would only go down.

    Replies: @A123

    If my wife verbally commits something that I later have to retract, I would at least feel apologetic to the other party, and may even offer something else to compensate them.

    Is your wife honest? And, honorable? If so, your reaction makes sense.

    However, it is an invalid analogy.
    ____

    Let us take a different marriage where the wife is a dishonorable criminal. And, a serial liar. The type of woman who spends her days on her back taking money for keeping her legs open.

    Should that husband feel apologetic for a creature who intentionally sold him out?

    This is the valid analogy to Barack Hussein.

    Without honor or honesty, the reputation of the country would only go down.

    Barack Hussein’s dishonor and dishonesty led the reputation of the country down the drain. This is the deceiver who earnestly said, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” I am sorry that Obama was such a despicable human being. He never should have been President. However, I have no way to go back and undo that mistake.

    If we had real journalists, rather than the dishonest and dishonorable Fake Stream Media, a national apology for Barack Hussein’s personal depravity and corruption would make sense. However, in the era of MSNBC, any such statement would be twisted out of context and repackaged for nefarious ends.

    Also, it is a bit hard to apologize for someone who is still around. Barack Hussein should step up and apologize for his many, many, many misdeeds.
    _____

    Given the tragic disaster that he received from his predecessor. Trump’s efforts to restore national honor and honesty are a huge step forward for the nation’s reputation.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @d dan
    @A123


    "Barack Hussein’s dishonor and dishonesty led the reputation of the country down the drain...."
     
    Right, Obama is dishonorable, dishonest, blah, blah (and to repeat my previous point again, our opinion of Obama, or Trump is *not* the issue here). Fortunately, your rants have been anticipated and properly answered in my previous post:

    "Apparently, most Americans today do NOT feel that way. They even feel indignant that they are the ones that are wronged by their democratically elected (former) Presidents,... "
     
    i.e. *if* the country can dismiss and disown the democratically elected Presidents so easily (with cheap labels like "dishonor ", "dishonesty"...) , why should the rest of the world takes US Presidents' (or Congress, or US government) words seriously anymore?

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @A123

  24. The massive underlying problem behind the social contract-and the international contract-is that people bitterly disagree about what either one is, and should be. To speak to the point at hand, I’m not particularly interested in tying my country in perpetuity to whatever treaties and international agreements the President Abrams administration might make.

  25. The old saying is that you keep treaties until the situation changes.

  26. @A123
    @d dan


    If my wife verbally commits something that I later have to retract, I would at least feel apologetic to the other party, and may even offer something else to compensate them.
     
    Is your wife honest? And, honorable? If so, your reaction makes sense.

    However, it is an invalid analogy.
    ____

    Let us take a different marriage where the wife is a dishonorable criminal. And, a serial liar. The type of woman who spends her days on her back taking money for keeping her legs open.

    Should that husband feel apologetic for a creature who intentionally sold him out?

    This is the valid analogy to Barack Hussein.


    Without honor or honesty, the reputation of the country would only go down.
     
    Barack Hussein's dishonor and dishonesty led the reputation of the country down the drain. This is the deceiver who earnestly said, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." I am sorry that Obama was such a despicable human being. He never should have been President. However, I have no way to go back and undo that mistake.

    If we had real journalists, rather than the dishonest and dishonorable Fake Stream Media, a national apology for Barack Hussein's personal depravity and corruption would make sense. However, in the era of MSNBC, any such statement would be twisted out of context and repackaged for nefarious ends.

    Also, it is a bit hard to apologize for someone who is still around. Barack Hussein should step up and apologize for his many, many, many misdeeds.
    _____

    Given the tragic disaster that he received from his predecessor. Trump's efforts to restore national honor and honesty are a huge step forward for the nation's reputation.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @d dan

    “Barack Hussein’s dishonor and dishonesty led the reputation of the country down the drain….”

    Right, Obama is dishonorable, dishonest, blah, blah (and to repeat my previous point again, our opinion of Obama, or Trump is *not* the issue here). Fortunately, your rants have been anticipated and properly answered in my previous post:

    “Apparently, most Americans today do NOT feel that way. They even feel indignant that they are the ones that are wronged by their democratically elected (former) Presidents,… “

    i.e. *if* the country can dismiss and disown the democratically elected Presidents so easily (with cheap labels like “dishonor “, “dishonesty”…) , why should the rest of the world takes US Presidents’ (or Congress, or US government) words seriously anymore?

    • Troll: A123
    • Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @d dan

    They shouldn't, because the US ruli g class consistently wants what's the worst for everyone, treaties don't enter into the equation.

    , @A123
    @d dan

    The objective facts show that Obama lied. This is a statement. Your feeble TROLL attempt to throw shade by calling it a "rant" is an admission that you have little integrity and negligible personal ethics.

    This is probably too simple for you to grasp... For, most people it is obvious that the way for a nation to be perceived as "Honest & Honorable" is for The President to "Tell the Truth & Fix Dishonor" that he inherited.

    Your Orwellian ethics are rooted in the concept of "Lying is Honesty". You believe that a President who finds out that his predecessor lied has to keep telling that lie in order to be "honest". Your position is irrational and unworkable. Two wrongs do not makes right. Lying for a prior liar can never generate "Honesty", respect, or national credibility.

    PEACE 😇

  27. @d dan
    @A123


    "Barack Hussein’s dishonor and dishonesty led the reputation of the country down the drain...."
     
    Right, Obama is dishonorable, dishonest, blah, blah (and to repeat my previous point again, our opinion of Obama, or Trump is *not* the issue here). Fortunately, your rants have been anticipated and properly answered in my previous post:

    "Apparently, most Americans today do NOT feel that way. They even feel indignant that they are the ones that are wronged by their democratically elected (former) Presidents,... "
     
    i.e. *if* the country can dismiss and disown the democratically elected Presidents so easily (with cheap labels like "dishonor ", "dishonesty"...) , why should the rest of the world takes US Presidents' (or Congress, or US government) words seriously anymore?

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @A123

    They shouldn’t, because the US ruli g class consistently wants what’s the worst for everyone, treaties don’t enter into the equation.

  28. I seem to be missing where the moralism and hysteria is coming from on this? Treaties between nations are obviously not comparable to reasonable contracts between discrete individuals. Nations are obviously not individuals. Contracts are made between individuals under the law, which obviously doesn’t exist in a real way between nations. Between nations there is only the exercise of power. To pretend that law governs the actions of nations is totally foolish. Does anyone think that it is or has ever been otherwise?

    And it seems like you’re discounting the concept of an unconscionable agreement that exists even within your (false) analogy. So if some foolish or corrupt politicians sign us into an absurdly destructive treaty, we should be bound forever by that? To put it into the context of your analogy, if your evil and greedy grandpappy signed you into indentured servitude for a pot of gold before you were born, you’re just being flippant and not respecting the validity of the concept of a contract by not honoring that?

    I don’t know about the others here, but I will never honor a contract that immiserates my family. And if by some strange twist of fate I ever become Grand Emperor of my nation, every odious treaty that helps assimilate us into the Globo-homo Empire goes into the trash on day 1.

  29. @d dan
    @A123


    "Barack Hussein’s dishonor and dishonesty led the reputation of the country down the drain...."
     
    Right, Obama is dishonorable, dishonest, blah, blah (and to repeat my previous point again, our opinion of Obama, or Trump is *not* the issue here). Fortunately, your rants have been anticipated and properly answered in my previous post:

    "Apparently, most Americans today do NOT feel that way. They even feel indignant that they are the ones that are wronged by their democratically elected (former) Presidents,... "
     
    i.e. *if* the country can dismiss and disown the democratically elected Presidents so easily (with cheap labels like "dishonor ", "dishonesty"...) , why should the rest of the world takes US Presidents' (or Congress, or US government) words seriously anymore?

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @A123

    The objective facts show that Obama lied. This is a statement. Your feeble TROLL attempt to throw shade by calling it a “rant” is an admission that you have little integrity and negligible personal ethics.

    This is probably too simple for you to grasp… For, most people it is obvious that the way for a nation to be perceived as “Honest & Honorable” is for The President to “Tell the Truth & Fix Dishonor” that he inherited.

    Your Orwellian ethics are rooted in the concept of “Lying is Honesty“. You believe that a President who finds out that his predecessor lied has to keep telling that lie in order to be “honest”. Your position is irrational and unworkable. Two wrongs do not makes right. Lying for a prior liar can never generate “Honesty”, respect, or national credibility.

    PEACE 😇

    • Troll: d dan
  30. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Treaties are like contracts; they are meant to be broken.
     
    It does show that any country that thinks it's a good idea to enter into a treaty or agreement with the United States should think again.

    I'm hoping that one day Australians will figure that out.

    Replies: @iffen

    You America haters are going to get it good and hard one day, and deservedly so.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen


    You America haters are going to get it good and hard one day, and deservedly so.
     
    LOL.

    Being unable to handle criticism is a sign of weakness, not strength.
    , @dfordoom
    @iffen


    You America haters are going to get it good and hard one day, and deservedly so.
     
    I wake up every morning saying Thank God for the USA. Without the USA we would not have homosexual marriage. We would not have had gay bathhouse culture. AIDS would not have spread throughout the West. We would not have ubiquitous online porn. We would not have Cancel Culture. We would not have hip hop music. We would not have social media, turning us into sad atomised lonely individuals. We would never have discovered the joys of twerking.

    We would have Gender Studies courses in our universities. Our university students would still be studying useless stuff like engineering. We would not have Black Lives Matter protests.

    Without the USA Australians would have been deprived of the opportunity to die in America's wars for Freedom and Democracy. We would not now be facing a new Cold War, one that is much more dangerous than the old Cold War. Without the USA Australia wold have been put to the inconvenience of having to decide its own foreign policy.

    The USA is the gift that keeps on giving.
  31. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    This is one of those weird situations where you could really use a good copy editor. One gets the impression that this post is raising a genuinely interesting question, but to be perfectly honest, I can't make heads or tails of it. I'm sorry to be a scold, but quite frankly, I cannot understand what you're talking about here.

    Like the old joke goes, If I took you to task, you wouldn't get back for a month.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    It’s a paean to the idea of sovereignty, national and personal.

    And you’re undoubtedly correct about the benefit of a copy editor.

  32. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    You America haters are going to get it good and hard one day, and deservedly so.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    You America haters are going to get it good and hard one day, and deservedly so.

    LOL.

    Being unable to handle criticism is a sign of weakness, not strength.

  33. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    You America haters are going to get it good and hard one day, and deservedly so.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    You America haters are going to get it good and hard one day, and deservedly so.

    I wake up every morning saying Thank God for the USA. Without the USA we would not have homosexual marriage. We would not have had gay bathhouse culture. AIDS would not have spread throughout the West. We would not have ubiquitous online porn. We would not have Cancel Culture. We would not have hip hop music. We would not have social media, turning us into sad atomised lonely individuals. We would never have discovered the joys of twerking.

    We would have Gender Studies courses in our universities. Our university students would still be studying useless stuff like engineering. We would not have Black Lives Matter protests.

    Without the USA Australians would have been deprived of the opportunity to die in America’s wars for Freedom and Democracy. We would not now be facing a new Cold War, one that is much more dangerous than the old Cold War. Without the USA Australia wold have been put to the inconvenience of having to decide its own foreign policy.

    The USA is the gift that keeps on giving.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS