• ggppjj@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    That’s possibly reframing “no taxation without representation” a bit but I don’t entirely disagree with the sentiment.

        • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          So, he could have paid other guys to fight the war and stayed home? Instead of being in the middle of the battles, and going cold and hungry in Valley Forge?

          There’s a lot of bad things you can say about Washington but enough good to at least make him complicated. He chose to limit his own Presidency, the opposite of our wannabe Führer. for one.

          • barneypiccolo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 month ago

            Well, his wealth wasn’t exactly liquid, it was mostly tied up in wilderness land.

            Fortunes in those days weren’t in bank accounts, or stocks, or index funds, etc. They tended to be tied up in assets like land, slaves, crops, etc., and cold hard cash/gold, stored in a box somewhere, like under the floor.

          • StaticFalconar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            The modern technology of satelites, phones and such werent around back then, so any general wouldn’t be an effective one if they werent on the front lines with their soldiers.

            • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Yes, he chose to join the battle and become a General rather than sit out the war at Monticello. It’s not like he was ambitious to become the leader of the new country. He felt a sense of responsibility.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 month ago

      They thought funding Trump would get them representation. They were wrong. Trump cares about no one but himself.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      In the most literal sense we have representation, but it sure as hell doesn’t seem like it in practice… :(

    • barneypiccolo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      When elections are fraudulent, its the same as no representation. Besides, pretty soon they’ll be suspending elections altogether. It doesn’t get more “no representation” than that.

          • ggppjj@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            I really don’t understand the aggression, I was talking about the old rich dead people propaganda concerning no taxation without representation 200 years ago, I never said anything about the fuckwads we have today.

            If you think I’m saying something different, explain what you read and allow me the opportunity to clarify my intent.

            Saying I’m full of shit at this point is just asinine.