Trump is not going to accept election results Rough and ugly transition ahead.

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah after 3 and 1/2 years you would think people would have gotten tired of saying the President can't do that, only for Trump to go right ahead and do it anyway. He has exposed how much of the 'checks and balances' were little more than wishful thinking.

"But he can't do that! The rules say he can't!" is gonna wind up on this country's tombstone.

Trump established "I can do anything I want until someone stops me" fairly early in his Presidency.

 

[Venom]

There's something about that level of shameless confidence that just makes people freeze up and uncertain about how to react to it.

Trump has no barriers.

 

[Cain]

I'm going to have to cut out a lot of your nonsense. No time.

You just defeated your own argument there. Notice that you didn't say "majority".

This is amusing.

One of the problems with "democracy" in America is that around 45% of the population does not vote. So Clinton received ~28% of the vote while Trump received even less. So is that rule by the majority? No. She would certainly have more legitimacy if more people participated and she won a majority. Still, she received more votes than Trump, and the system would be more democratic if the person who got the most votes won.

You did not, however, address my point about direct democracies, which is that they are still democraties. You said democracies are representative. I'm pointing out that non-representative (direct) democracies are also democracies, and that therefore this "common understanding" you mentioned is wrong.

Here's what I wrote: "Democracy, as commonly understood, is representative." That's because contemporary discussions of democracy are understood in the context of nation-states.

As you wish, but I note again that you couldn't be bothered to educate yourself. Let's see various definitions:

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. (Google)
-----
Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule') is a form of government in which the people have the authority to choose their governing legislation. Who people are and how authority is shared among them are core issues for democratic theory, development and constitution. (Wikipedia)
-----
1a : government by the people
especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (Merriam-Webster)
-----
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (Dictionary.com)

Notice that though some of these definitions mention that majority is often a feature of democracy, none of them make it essential, and that direct democracies are also mentioned.

It's remarkable that you think this somehow helps your case. You're forced to paper over "the whole population" and highlight "eligible members of the state." Of course, strictly speaking, no country extends the right to vote to the whole population. Children are not allowed to vote. Non-citizens are usually not allowed to vote. However, countries that do not extend suffrage to all adult citizens are less likely to be considered democratic.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that my correcting someone's incorrect use of a word is somehow the same thing as you flipping your **** because of said disagreement?

You're not exactly a keen observer.

Did you seriously just argue that I'm wrong because several of you disagree with me?

No; multiple people disagree with you because you're wrong.

The question was "what in the blue hell are you babbling about?"

Oh, that's your question. Yeah, I'm not going to explain it. That would involve a waste of even more time.

I have a question that can be given a quick yes or no answer. Do you regard the Apartheid regime in South Africa as democratic?

 

[Elagabalus]

Eh, whatevs ... they'll still throw his ass out if he loses.

 

[Belz...]

I'm going to have to cut out a lot of your nonsense. No time.

If you think trying to educate you and correct your mistakes is nonsense, you really should stick to your usual faux right-wing satire and let the rest of us have the serious discussions.

This is amusing.

This dismissive attitude is just indicative of how impervious you are to facts. It's exactly the sort of response you must despise from right-wingers.

One of the problems with "democracy" in America is that around 45% of the population does not vote. So Clinton received ~28% of the vote while Trump received even less. So is that rule by the majority? No. She would certainly have more legitimacy if more people participated and she won a majority. Still, she received more votes than Trump, and the system would be more democratic if the person who got the most votes won.

Again you did not read for comprehension. The point is not that there are no issues with low turnouts, or that disenfranchising part of the population is desirable. The point is that the definition of democracy is much broader than you earlier realised. If you can't be bothered to understand this it isn't my problem.

Here's what I wrote: "Democracy, as commonly understood, is representative." That's because contemporary discussions of democracy are understood in the context of nation-states.

And how is that relevant in any way to the discussion? Most modern democracies are representative. So what?

It's remarkable that you think this somehow helps your case. You're forced to paper over "the whole population" and highlight "eligible members of the state."

Now you're downright lying. I posted the definition that includes "the whole population", but highlighted the other part to show that "the whole population" is only one implementation of democracy. Somehow you completely missed that. If I wanted to "paper" it over I would've not posted it, but I did. Apparently you think that highlighting part of a text makes the rest of it invisible, which is idiotic.

You have completely failed to address ANY of my points or ANY of these definitions. You have literally no argument.

You're not exactly a keen observer.

So explain it to me. I bet you won't.

No; multiple people disagree with you because you're wrong.

And yet I've made arguments and posted definitions from sources that support my position and you have done none of that. If you were right I bet you could support your position. You can't.

Oh, that's your question. Yeah, I'm not going to explain it. That would involve a waste of even more time.

Translation: "It had nothing to do with anything. I just didn't think you'd call my bluff."

I have a question that can be given a quick yes or no answer. Do you regard the Apartheid regime in South Africa as democratic?

Was it a monarchy, autocracy, oligarchy or aristocracy? If not, it was a democracy. You are again confusing "democracy" with "my prefered democratic implementation". You are simply impervious to reason.

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump claims he will order law enforcement to be poll watches.

In a phone interview with Fox New's Sean Hannity Trump when asked by Hannity if the President intended to have Poll Monitors with the "ability to monitor, to avoid fraud and cross check whether or not these are registered voters, whether or not there's been identification to know if it's a real vote from a real American?" Trump responded "We're going to have everything. We're going to have sheriffs and law enforcement and we're going to have, hopefully, U.S. attorneys, and we're going to have everybody, and attorney generals, but it's very hard."

Federal law prohibits intimidation at the polls and makes it illegal for any "civil" or "military" federal officer to order "troops or armed men" to polling places, unless needed to "repel armed enemies of the United States." but Trump commits 3 or 4 felonies before breakfast and nothing ever happens to him so...

So this moron thinks US attorneys and attorneys general are going to be sitting at polling places checking ID's? He really is ******* nuts.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove rule 10 breach. In the public sections please spell all curse words in full and correctly so that the autocensor can catch them.

 

[Venom]

Eh, whatevs ... they'll still throw his ass out if he loses.

It's less about Trump himself and more about the propaganda he infects his followers and right-wing media with. It'll be a long time before they're gone and they'll say Trump lost because the media played up COVID19 and the economy and BLM and the riots, insert whatever else barely coherent argument.

 

[Venom]

We're going to have everything. We're going to have sheriffs and law enforcement and we're going to have, hopefully, U.S. attorneys, and we're going to have everybody, and attorney generals, but it's very hard.

So this moron thinks US attorneys and attorneys general are going to be sitting at polling places checking ID's? He really is ******* nuts.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited quote for rule 10 breach

 

[blutoski]

It's less about Trump himself and more about the propaganda he infects his followers and right-wing media with. It'll be a long time before they're gone and they'll say Trump lost because the media played up COVID19 and the economy and BLM and the riots, insert whatever else barely coherent argument.

Maybe longer than we think.

This time next year, I'd bet real money that the number one right-wing media nut will be Trump.

A media empire, actually.

Perhaps called something like "Your True President Network" - just spitballing here.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Maybe longer than we think.

This time next year, I'd bet real money that the number one right-wing media nut will be Trump.

A media empire, actually.

Perhaps called something like "Your True President Network" - just spitballing here.

Trump will want his name in it.

 

[Belz...]

So this moron thinks US attorneys and attorneys general are going to be sitting at polling places checking ID's? He really is ******* nuts.

Anyone who claims this guy is a secret genius is also ******* nuts.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited quote for rule 10 breach

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh but remember "he's living in our heads rent free" which means he wins. *Jerk off motion*

 

[Cain]

Belz...

You just deduced the Apartheid regime must be democratic and accused me of being "impervious to reason."

This is Bob-territory (except Bob possesses more self-awareness). It's like you've said, "See that mountain way over there? According to my calculations, we're standing right on top of it."

It's like you're gaslighting yourself into thinking you're some kind of champion in logic when you're a poor debater not on speaking terms with reality. I did find the following lines amusing.

If you think trying to educate you and correct your mistakes is nonsense, you really should stick to your usual faux right-wing satire and let the rest of us have the serious discussions.


This dismissive attitude is just indicative of how impervious you are to facts.


Again you did not read for comprehension.


The point is that the definition of democracy is much broader than you earlier realised. If you can't be bothered to understand this it isn't my problem.


Translation: "It had nothing to do with anything. I just didn't think you'd call my bluff."

 

[JoeMorgue]

There's something about that level of shameless confidence that just makes people freeze up and uncertain about how to react to it.

Trump has no barriers.

I've often argued that Trump has revealed how much of politics is based on either respect or at least a wizard's duel pretend show of it.

I wonder if it's more shame and Trump just has none.

 

[Venom]

Fox News, Infowars, TheBlaze, One America News Network, you name it.

Trump is gonna be a hot commodity.

 

[Belz...]

You just deduced the Apartheid regime must be democratic and accused me of being "impervious to reason."

I did no such thing. I asked you a question and told you that if the answer was in the negative, then it would be a democracy. You can't even follow that up with a point or argument. You really are incapable of comprehending simple English.

This is Bob-territory (except Bob possesses more self-awareness).

And again you have ZERO arguments, and are unable to address mine except with derision and hand-waving. You are in no position to speak of my self-awareness, on top of said awareness having nothing to do with whether my arguments are sound.

You simply have no intention of putting any effort into discussing this issue. You view your perspective and preferences as the only valid ones, and that is the beginning and the end of the discussion for you.

Again, stick to satire. You suck at the rest.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Fox News, Infowars, TheBlaze, One America News Network, you name it.

Trump is gonna be a hot commodity.

This could (hell probably is) just wishful thinking on my part, but the one silver lining is Trump doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who's gonna be happy going from President to "Media Talking Head Guy."

So maybe if we, somehow, get him both out of the Presidency and to accept it he'll just go away because everything else will feel like taking a step back... or decide to waste time trying to become Pope or head of the UN or something.

 

[alfaniner]

Fox News, Infowars, TheBlaze, One America News Network, you name it.

Trump is gonna be a hot commodity.

He gets plenty of screen time on CNN and the others, too. I can bet they (and every other news organization) will sort of regret it when The PDJT is gone. Biden will be sort of boring and constant Covid-19 coverage is not going to carry them through as strongly.

 

[Venom]

This could (hell probably is) just wishful thinking on my part, but the one silver lining is Trump doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who's gonna be happy going from President to "Media Talking Head Guy."

So maybe if we, somehow, get him both out of the Presidency and to accept it he'll just go away because everything else will feel like taking a step back... or decide to waste time trying to become Pope or head of the UN or something.

He gets plenty of screen time on CNN and the others, too. I can bet they (and every other news organization) will sort of regret it when The PDJT is gone. Biden will be sort of boring and constant Covid-19 coverage is not going to carry them through as strongly.

I agree but I think these outlets would still want him to come on and drop knowledge from time to time. He probably would be a bit burned out and stressed from the presidency, plus he's old. But in a matter of months he may be open to 10 minute interviews or phone calls to Fox and Friends again to talk about how the Radical Left is trying to undo his legacy.

 

[varwoche]

I reposted this in a more suitable thread.
************

... Anybody who watches politicians and thinks they have any sort of profound concern for the conveying a fair and balanced understanding of the world is a fool. Trump's quote about "very fine people" is useful to Democrats. They aren't going to help people find the wider context that he made it clear a few seconds later that he wasn't talking about neo-nazis. They tell politicians lies. Just like when Kamala painted Joe as some kind of racist/racist enabler in the debate, and now brushes that off as something she said because it was a debate. Some stupid lie Trump has told about the size of a crowd isn't going to offend me much in comparison.

The difference between us is that you think your guy is honest. I say you can't trust any of them.

I want to come back to this and take it baby step at a time. First, I want to make sure we haven't had a failure to communicate from the get-go.

Perhaps you acknowledge the fact that it was indeed a rally that was organized, promoted, and attended by unabashed neo-nazis / white supremacists. But Trump was unaware. And since he was unaware, "good people on both sides" isn't as bad as it seems.

Is that your position?