|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on May 15, 2019 0:31:47 GMT
If Steve Rogers truly was a Power-Hungry Tyrant, why didn't he keep the Infinity Stones to himself?
Boom! Checkmate!
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 15, 2019 2:03:44 GMT
It's not "pro-government". It's pro-democracy and pro-freedom. In a free and democratic society, everyone (even POTUS) is accountable to the people. But Steve Rogers doesn't want the Avengers to be accountable to the people because he thinks that since the Avengers are more powerful than the people, the Avengers should rule over the people instead of being judged by the people. Rogers doesn't want Bucky to have a trial and be judged by the people because Rogers opposes democracy and freedom and wants to be a tyrant. But in democracy, you have choice. If the Avengers signed the Accords, they lose their right to choose. Not if you're in the majority. In a democracy, the majority wins. Crooked Hillary voters were all whining after the 2016 election, but Trump won the majority of electoral votes. The people wanted the Accords so the UN voted for the Accords. The Avengers were in the minority. But Steve Rogers thinks that since the Avengers are more powerful than the people, they don't have to respect the principles of democracy and they should rule over the people instead of letting the people decide. Rogers opposes democracy and freedom and wants to be a tyrant. if Steve wanted to rule over the people, why doesn't he just do it? Last I checked, the USA in the MCU still has a president. And the Avengers have never followed the orders of POTUS. Heck, when the Chitauri invaded Manhattan, the Avengers didn't even get POTUS on the phone. Instead, Nick Fury just took over and tried to veto the use of nuclear weapons, which only POTUS is authorized to do. And lucky for Fury, the military launched that nuclear missile. Because if not for that nuclear missile, the Avengers couldn't defeat the Chitauri so the Chitauri would've taken over Manhattan if the military hadn't launched that nuclear missile.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 15, 2019 2:39:25 GMT
Yeah at this point, I don't know why he just doesn't bump one of the older threads. Because my threads keep getting locked for no reason at all.
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on May 15, 2019 3:03:20 GMT
But in democracy, you have choice. If the Avengers signed the Accords, they lose their right to choose. Not if you're in the majority. In a democracy, the majority wins. Crooked Hillary voters were all whining after the 2016 election, but Trump won the majority of electoral votes. The people wanted the Accords so the UN voted for the Accords. The Avengers were in the minority. But Steve Rogers thinks that since the Avengers are more powerful than the people, they don't have to respect the principles of democracy and they should rule over the people instead of letting the people decide. Rogers opposes democracy and freedom and wants to be a tyrant. if Steve wanted to rule over the people, why doesn't he just do it? Last I checked, the USA in the MCU still has a president. And the Avengers have never followed the orders of POTUS. Heck, when the Chitauri invaded Manhattan, the Avengers didn't even get POTUS on the phone. Instead, Nick Fury just took over and tried to veto the use of nuclear weapons, which only POTUS is authorized to do. And lucky for Fury, the military launched that nuclear missile. Because if not for that nuclear missile, the Avengers couldn't defeat the Chitauri so the Chitauri would've taken over Manhattan if the military hadn't launched that nuclear missile. And half of the Avengers didn't sign, 50/50 split, where do you go from there? And when in your precious DCEU did the Justice League get the POTUS?
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on May 15, 2019 3:03:49 GMT
Yeah at this point, I don't know why he just doesn't bump one of the older threads. Because my threads keep getting locked for no reason at all. Yeah, for continuous spamming/trolling.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 15, 2019 3:18:17 GMT
when in your precious DCEU did the Justice League get the POTUS? It was POTUS who ordered the nuclear missile strike against Doomsday in BvS.
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on May 15, 2019 3:41:52 GMT
when in your precious DCEU did the Justice League get the POTUS? It was POTUS who ordered the nuclear missile strike against Doomsday in BvS. So the POTUS was going to nuke thousands of innocent individuals when Superman was already handling the problem that was Doomsday? Some great president.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 15, 2019 3:44:10 GMT
It was POTUS who ordered the nuclear missile strike against Doomsday in BvS. So the POTUS was going to nuke thousands of innocent individuals when Superman was already handling the problem that was Doomsday? Some great president. Doomsday was in space. There weren't any civilians around.
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on May 15, 2019 3:50:23 GMT
So the POTUS was going to nuke thousands of innocent individuals when Superman was already handling the problem that was Doomsday? Some great president. Doomsday was in space. There weren't any civilians around. But the nuke did no harm to Doomsday. Therefore nuking him entirely pointless. That's just lazy and stupid writing.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on May 15, 2019 8:22:35 GMT
But in democracy, you have choice. If the Avengers signed the Accords, they lose their right to choose. Not if you're in the majority. In a democracy, the majority wins. Crooked Hillary voters were all whining after the 2016 election, but Trump won the majority of electoral votes. The people wanted the Accords so the UN voted for the Accords. The Avengers were in the minority. But Steve Rogers thinks that since the Avengers are more powerful than the people, they don't have to respect the principles of democracy and they should rule over the people instead of letting the people decide. Rogers opposes democracy and freedom and wants to be a tyrant. if Steve wanted to rule over the people, why doesn't he just do it? Last I checked, the USA in the MCU still has a president. And the Avengers have never followed the orders of POTUS. Heck, when the Chitauri invaded Manhattan, the Avengers didn't even get POTUS on the phone. Instead, Nick Fury just took over and tried to veto the use of nuclear weapons, which only POTUS is authorized to do. And lucky for Fury, the military launched that nuclear missile. Because if not for that nuclear missile, the Avengers couldn't defeat the Chitauri so the Chitauri would've taken over Manhattan if the military hadn't launched that nuclear missile. Isnt your first statement kind of counter to what you are saying, Hillary won the majority of the votes, Trump simply won more points or whatever due to winning more places but not people, so the majority actually didn't get what they wanted.
Also people didn't want the accords, atleast not that we saw, the UN decided that without a vote, sure some people did, but some people want slavery to be reinstituted, women and people of colour to be stripped of the right to vote, just because some people make noise about something doesn't mean everyone agree's, the proposition of the accords should have been voted upon in itself, with the Avengers being given a chance to speak for or against the accords themselves, there should have been major stages in creating those accords and not just rushed through as they were, if we are talking about how they should work in accordance to our own general way of doing things.
But even then the accords should not be allowed to force anyone into action they do not wish to take, it's one thing to pass a law preventing someone doing something they want, it's another passing a law forcing someone to do something they do not want, that is taking away their right to choose in itself, which considering they don't offer the option of standing down, it's either agree to these terms or else, Superman in MOS basically tells the US army you cannot control me I will do what I want but don't worry I am on your side, he doesn't acquiesce to them he tells them I will work with you how and when I want, which he proves by wrecking their shit when it was trying to find his fortress.
The Accords were an extreme response to an incident, instead of demanding control over the Avengers the goal should have been joint operations with them, to where the Avengers should have the ability to act on their own accords so long as they are granted that freedom by independent nations, or when granted such by the UN, so if the US chooses to allow the Avengers the right to operate within their borders they can do so without UN approval so long as them meet the request of the US in doing so, ie working in conjuncture with the FBI, DEA, SHIELD whoever's jurisdiction their current operations overlap with, or if the nation refuses but the UN grants them approval they then need to work alongside the UN's forces, providing oversight to their actions but not controlling them.
As for the Nuke thing no stupid even without the nuke Widow was closing the portal, hell because of the nuke she had to keep it open far longer, the nuke provided a good visual and emotional climax to the battle, but just closing the portal and there by cutting off the signal between the Chitauri forces on earth and on the other side of the galaxy could have done the same thing, and the Chitauri only faired so well because of the constant respawning of enemies via the portal without that even if they didn't go inert due to the signal being cut they would then become a finite force facing off with a much smaller but much more powerful team in the Avengers, the nuke wasn't needed in terms of winning the battle.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on May 15, 2019 9:00:37 GMT
But in democracy, you have choice. If the Avengers signed the Accords, they lose their right to choose. The people wanted the Accords so the UN voted for the Accords. The Avengers were in the minority. They weren't in the minority...they had no vote at all when the UN voted. Except POTUS didn't order the strike. The World Security Council..remember that group of International representatives that gave the order...of course you don't, you can miss a lot with the sound and vision on those dodgy online cam versions you watch. Yeah well done...nuking millions of civilians in an act that would have probably only stopped the Chitauri that were already through the portal.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on May 15, 2019 11:11:42 GMT
If Steve Rogers truly was a Power-Hungry Tyrant, why didn't he keep the Infinity Stones to himself? Boom! Checkmate! One simple question destroys all DC-Fan's work. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 15, 2019 12:23:06 GMT
If Steve Rogers truly was a Power-Hungry Tyrant, why didn't he keep the Infinity Stones to himself? Boom! Checkmate! DC-Fan just got owned!
|
|
|
Post by dazz on May 15, 2019 12:43:58 GMT
If Steve Rogers truly was a Power-Hungry Tyrant, why didn't he keep the Infinity Stones to himself? Boom! Checkmate! DC-Fan just got owned! Logic: 2,971 DC-Fan: 0
This is a losing streak that even Barry Horowitz would feel ashamed of.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 16, 2019 0:28:14 GMT
Isnt your first statement kind of counter to what you are saying, Hillary won the majority of the votes, Trump simply won more points or whatever due to winning more places but not people, so the majority actually didn't get what they wanted. Trump did win the majority of votes for POTUS. IN the US, the people don't actually vote for POTUS. The Electoral College votes for POTUS. There are 538 electors in the Electoral College who vote for POTUS. Traump won the majority of those 538 votes. people didn't want the accords, atleast not that we saw, the UN decided that without a vote The UN doesn't decide anything without a vote. Neither the US nor China nor Russia nor any other country can just decide to pass a UN resolution without the UN voting for it. The UN is made up of hundreds of member countries and those member countries vote on UN resolutions. The UN voted in favor of the Accords. But even then the accords should not be allowed to force anyone into action they do not wish to take, it's one thing to pass a law preventing someone doing something they want, it's another passing a law forcing someone to do something they do not want, that is taking away their right to choose in itself So you're saying that passing a law forcing someone to do something they don't want, such as something like paying taxes, shouldn't be allowed just because most people don't want to pay taxes or would choose to not pay taxes? What about laws for speed limits? Some drivers don't want to be restricted by a speed limit so should speed limit laws also not be allowed just because some people don't want it? The Accords were an extreme response to an incident, instead of demanding control over the Avengers the goal should have been joint operations with them, to where the Avengers should have the ability to act on their own accords so long as they are granted that freedom by independent nations, or when granted such by the UN, so if the US chooses to allow the Avengers the right to operate within their borders they can do so without UN approval so long as them meet the request of the US in doing so, ie working in conjuncture with the FBI, DEA, SHIELD whoever's jurisdiction their current operations overlap with, or if the nation refuses but the UN grants them approval they then need to work alongside the UN's forces, providing oversight to their actions but not controlling them. If the cops were recklessly chasing Crossbones through a crowded market and the cops tried to apprehend Crossbones but ended up causing the deaths of many civilians, there would be a demand for the government to get involved and take action to ensure that in the future the cops don't act so recklessly and unnecessarily put civilian lives in danger. But you're saying the Avengers should get a free pass for their reckless actions that caused the deaths of many civilians simply because the Avengers have super-powers and thus shouldn't have to answer to or be held accountable by the people, who are less powerful? You MCU fans who defend Steve Rogers' tyranny and refusal to sign the Accords keep forgetting that the people aren't there to serve the Avengers like the Avengers ae gods. Like cops and law enforcement officers, the Avengers are supposed to serve and protect the people. And when the Avengers act recklessly and unnecessarily cause the deaths of many civilians, they definitely aren't serving or protecting the people so the government has a duty to the people to get involved and take action to ensure in the future that the Avengers don't act so recklessly again and unnecessarily put civilian lives in danger. But Steve Rogers doesn't want the government to have oversight of the Avengers because Rogers is a tyrant who wants to rule over the people rather than be judged by or held accountable by the people.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 16, 2019 0:37:14 GMT
Except POTUS didn't order the strike. The World Security Council..remember that group of International representatives that gave the order And that's another example of awful writing in MCU movies. Because the World Security Council didn't have the authority to order a nuclear strike and no USAF pilot would launch on nuclear missile without orders from POTUS. And since Nick Fury also didn't have the authority to veto a nuclear strike, that entire scene of the Council and Fury arguing about the use of nuclear missiles was unnecessary and pointless since only the POTUS can make that decision. The writing was just awful and contrived and lazy. And worst of all, it could've easily been fixed. They didn't even need to actually show the POTUS on screen. Executive Decision didn't actually show the POTUS on-screen but they did indicate that the Secretary and all the cabinet members involved in the crisis were in contact with POTUS and POTUS was updated on the crisis. In The Avengers, aliens invade Manhattan and there's no mention at all of POTUS or any indication at all that POTUS was updated on what was happening. That was just awful and contrived and lazy writing.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 16, 2019 0:38:21 GMT
If Steve Rogers truly was a Power-Hungry Tyrant, why didn't he keep the Infinity Stones to himself? Because he knew he could snap his fingers using the Infinity Stones without doing damage to himself. With the fake grenade incident, he knew that was a fake grenade so he knew he wouldn't be damaged by the fake grenade. But with the Infinity Stones, he knew that snapping his fingers with the Infinity Stones would do serious damage to himself so there was no point in keeping the Infinity Stones when he knew he couldn't snap his fingers with the Infinity Stones anyway. BOOM!
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 16, 2019 0:40:18 GMT
If Steve Rogers truly was a Power-Hungry Tyrant, why didn't he keep the Infinity Stones to himself? Because he knew he could snap his fingers using the Infinity Stones without doing damage to himself. Hauntedknight's question -----------> <-------------------- your answer.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on May 16, 2019 0:45:16 GMT
If Steve Rogers truly was a Power-Hungry Tyrant, why didn't he keep the Infinity Stones to himself? Because he knew he could snap his fingers using the Infinity Stones without doing damage to himself. With the fake grenade incident, he knew that was a fake grenade so he knew he wouldn't be damaged by the fake grenade. But with the Infinity Stones, he knew that snapping his fingers with the Infinity Stones would do serious damage to himself so there was no point in keeping the Infinity Stones when he knew he couldn't snap his fingers with the Infinity Stones anyway. BOOM! You said he's a Tyrant. You know what a Tyrant would have done? Kept the Infinity Stones to himself. Don't @ me, troll.
|
|
|
Post by poutinep on May 16, 2019 1:34:52 GMT
Because he knew he could snap his fingers using the Infinity Stones without doing damage to himself. He could have used the stones individually, without snapping, and still kicked ass. He probably could use that beam Stormbreaker went through and kick some ass and not hurt himself. If someone used them covertly, like a mob boss instead of all-out war, they could take over a city. With the fake grenade incident, he knew that was a fake grenade so he knew he wouldn't be damaged by the fake grenade It's not established that he knew it was fake. That's just your cockamamie assertion that no one else backs up.
Even if he did know, why did only he know? Why was only he willing to bet his life that it was fake just to look brave?
Did you poop yourself?
|
|