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

[Cain]

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.

So you're unwilling to commit to your own "logic"? If S. African apartheid was not democratic, then what was it? Its White population was comparable to the proportion of citizens in Athens.

The plain fact is you don't know how to argue, and this has been consistently demonstrated for years. You ape language you do not understand, and talk out of both sides of your mouth. What you lack in reason, you attempt to make up for in tenacity.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

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?

Trump was well aware.

In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript)

Reporter: "Let me ask you, Mr. President, why did you wait so long to blast neo-Nazis?"

Trump: "I didn’t wait long. I didn’t wait long."

Reporter: "Forty-eight hours."

Trump: "I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct -- not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don’t know the facts. And it’s a very, very important process to me, and it’s a very important statement.

Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"

Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

You see, taking part in a white supremacist neo-Nazi rally doesn't make you a bad person. In fact - according to Trump - some very fine people were in that group. And Trump must have been aware that they were white supremacists and neo-Nazis, because "you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts".

 

[Solitaire]

He'll get ~45% of the popular vote within a metaphysical certainty,
that's for sure. But the political narrative is more built around the EC win.

I'd guess better than 48% of the popular vote.
He's definitely doing much better this time than he did in the polls in 2016.
Still, I cannot determine who will win this one.
Flip a coin.

 

[acbytesla]

I'd guess better than 48% of the popular vote.
He's definitely doing much better this time than he did in the polls in 2016.
Still, I cannot determine who will win this one.
Flip a coin.

The only way Trump gets 48 percent of the popular vote is by hacking the election or suppressing the vote. In the last 4 years, his approval rate has been over 50% and has 90 percent of the time has been in the thirties.

 

[varwoche]

Trump was well aware.

I thought I made it clear that I was trying to understand someone else's position, not state my position. Of course he knew.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Re the "very fine people" comment, Trump never speaks against anyone that is either possibly going to vote for him, or, more importantly, that praises him. It's the same with not speaking out against the QAnon nonsense.

 

[Belz...]

So you're unwilling to commit to your own "logic"?

How do you come to that conclusion, since you're yet to answer the question that would allow me to determine my answer?

If S. African apartheid was not democratic, then what was it? Its White population was comparable to the proportion of citizens in Athens.

Did they have free elections available to citizens or not? Why do you have such a hard time answering the question? Is it because you don't know, and simply assumed that a state with segregation could not fit the definition of democracy even though that is complete bollocks?

The plain fact is you don't know how to argue, and this has been consistently demonstrated for years.

Oh my, this is funny. I have explained in detail what I mean by the terms, why I disagree with you, what the historical context is, provided definitions and consistently addressed the points you've raised. You have done NONE of those things, refused to make arguments, ignored my points and definitions, refused to research and check your own claims, lied about my arguments and done little but hand-wave my posts and denigrate me for no reason, and _I_ don't know how to argue?

You ape language you do not understand

You don't even know what "democracy" means! The very thing we're discussing!

and talk out of both sides of your mouth

You lying about my posts does not qualify as me saying what you claimed I said. I have corrected you numerous times in this thread about what's clearly written, but you, as usual, have refused to read.

What you lack in reason, you attempt to make up for in tenacity.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[acbytesla]

How do you come to that conclusion, since you're yet to answer the question that would allow me to determine my answer?



Did they have free elections available to citizens or not? Why do you have such a hard time answering the question? Is it because you don't know, and simply assumed that a state with segregation could not fit the definition of democracy even though that is complete bollocks?


Oh my, this is funny. I have explained in detail what I mean by the terms, why I disagree with you, what the historical context is, provided definitions and consistently addressed the points you've raised. You have done NONE of those things, refused to make arguments, ignored my points and definitions, refused to research and check your own claims, lied about my arguments and done little but hand-wave my posts and denigrate me for no reason, and _I_ don't know how to argue?

You don't even know what "democracy" means! The very thing we're discussing!

You lying about my posts does not qualify as me saying what you claimed I said. I have corrected you numerous times in this thread about what's clearly written, but you, as usual, have refused to read.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

I have to stick up for Cain here. He's not being dishonest and he absolutely does know what democracy means. He may be acting like a prick, but that is a subjective question.

Democracy in Greek literally means "the people rules". In its pure form, all the citizens of a group vote on everything and the majority rules. It is less democratic when we limit participation. Like for example, not allowing women or people below a certain age or of a minority group a vote.

It is also less democratic or undemocratic if one person has more authority than the others.
Do you really think it is democratic if a township of 64 people voted 63 to 1 against a rule and yet the rule became law because that 1 person's vote was determined to be equal to 64 people?

I don't.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Even if you do away with the Senate, Wyoming still has 1 person in congress at 50,000 votes per congress person while California has 55 congress people at 727,273 votes per congress person (a ratio that is still 14.5:1).

How do you resolve that anomaly? Do you say that states as small as Wyoming are not entitled to representation in congress (or to vote for the president) or do you insist that they be swallowed up by a larger state?

How about the person with the most votes gets to win the election?

 

[Cain]

How do you come to that conclusion, since you're yet to answer the question that would allow me to determine my answer?

You just keep worming. Why would I answer the question of whether or not it was a "monarchy, autocracy, oligarchy or aristocracy?" This whole argument stems from a dispute of you stretching "democracy" to cover non-democratic regimes. Why should my view inform your response when you disagree with my view in this regard?

In reality, it's just another one of your tantrums and distractions.

You don't even know what "democracy" means! The very thing we're discussing!

This is precisely what's in dispute. You're assuming the truth of your position. And let's be clear, you're contending the vast majority of democratic theorists do not know what democracy means. This should give you pause...

Oh my, this is funny. I have explained in detail what I mean by the terms, why I disagree with you, what the historical context is, provided definitions and consistently addressed the points you've raised. You have done NONE of those things, refused to make arguments, ignored my points and definitions, refused to research and check your own claims, lied about my arguments and done little but hand-wave my posts and denigrate me for no reason, and _I_ don't know how to argue?

Unfortunately, you do not. You cannot sustain an argument, which is why you're compelled to reply in snippets.

It's a simple matter of applying your wild terminology. You contend Presidential elections thrown into the House are democratic despite the fact that votes are explicitly based on statehood and not population. A 68 to 1 ratio is considered democratic "even if we don't like it." OK, let's apply that same reasoning, such as it is, to other situations (e.g., the Democrat Party's nominating process, other countries). We can even use a hypothetical scenario.

Suppose we have two countries, Racist-Land and Belzville. (Neither country is especially well-functioning.)

In Racist-Land, 15% of the population is White and 85% is Black. Only Whites are allowed to vote. Is this democratic?

In Belzville, 15% of the population is White and 85% is Black. Both Whites and Blacks are allowed to vote, but each White ballot counts as one million votes, and each Black person's ballot counts as merely one vote. Is this democratic?

Now, I don't expect a straight-forward answers because your house of cards will come crashing down. I'd expect questions like, "Are they free-elections?" No, because they're inequitable. You won't like that answer, so you'll worm and worm and worm.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

You're lying to yourself.

 

[johnny karate]

Even if you do away with the Senate, Wyoming still has 1 person in congress at 50,000 votes per congress person while California has 55 congress people at 727,273 votes per congress person (a ratio that is still 14.5:1).

How do you resolve that anomaly? Do you say that states as small as Wyoming are not entitled to representation in congress (or to vote for the president) or do you insist that they be swallowed up by a larger state?

I think the argument is that the people of Wyoming shouldn’t be entitled to more representation than the people who live in more populous states.

 

[crescent]

I think the argument is that the people of Wyoming shouldn’t be entitled to more representation than the people who live in more populous states.

Is a state equal to a state, always every time? Or is a human equal to a human, always every time?

We can't really have it both ways. That seems to sum up the discussion for me.

 

[sackett]

Nobody in Wyoming is bemused or exalted or decieved by having 2 senators. We have a total congressional population of just 3, and none of them have ever been impressive or influential inhabitants of the public payroll. They don't dare represent anybody but a handful of oil and mining bosses; they like it that way.

Wyoming voters, being so few, count for almost nothing in the national reckoning, and they know it. And given their stubborn ignorance, their backwardness, their indifference to the modern world, that's quite right and good.

You can quit harping on any supposed imbalance of Wyoming's power. It ain't there n never wuz, fellers, n here's a natural-born native to tell you so.

 

[crescent]

Wyoming voters, being so few, count for almost nothing in the national reckoning

The same could be said of any individual congressional district. Wyoming is no more nor less powerful than any other congressional district, it only feels that way because the congressional district covers the entire state. On a human to human basis, the citizens of Wyoming have (roughly) nor more nor less power than the citizens of any other congressional district.

The Senate is another story. On a human per human basis, each human in Wyoming has vastly more Senate influence than any human in California. That just math.

 

[sackett]

The same could be said of any individual congressional district. Wyoming is no more nor less powerful than any other congressional district, it only feels that way because the congressional district covers the entire state. On a human to human basis, the citizens of Wyoming have (roughly) nor more nor less power than the citizens of any other congressional district.

The Senate is another story. On a human per human basis, each human in Wyoming has vastly more Senate influence than any human in California. That just math.

And I'm arguing that Wyo's congresscritters, including senators, are elected by such a thin scattering of voters that they can never exert any influence on national affairs. They represent some monied interests in the fossil energy game, they know that, and the republicanoid machine knows it. Their 3 little votes are counted and disregarded. Good, say I; to the extent that they have any ideas, they're primitive rightists, just like their constituents, and the less heard from them the better.

I hope you won't challenge me to name a Wyoming politician who doesn't, or didn't at any time in the past, fit the above description. Honestly, I would if I could.

 

[acbytesla]

Is a state equal to a state, always every time? Or is a human equal to a human, always every time?

We can't really have it both ways. That seems to sum up the discussion for me.

I agree, we can't really have it both ways. But how does that sum up the discussion?

 

[acbytesla]

Nobody in Wyoming is bemused or exalted or decieved by having 2 senators. We have a total congressional population of just 3, and none of them have ever been impressive or influential inhabitants of the public payroll. They don't dare represent anybody but a handful of oil and mining bosses; they like it that way.

Wyoming voters, being so few, count for almost nothing in the national reckoning, and they know it. And given their stubborn ignorance, their backwardness, their indifference to the modern world, that's quite right and good.

You can quit harping on any supposed imbalance of Wyoming's power. It ain't there n never wuz, fellers, n here's a natural-born native to tell you so.

You're wrong. Wyoming Senators vote in the Senate. They also tend to vote with the Republican party every time. They both voted to end the Affordable Care Act. They both voted to put Kavanaugh on the bench as well approve pretty much every single judge Trump nominates. They are part of a block of Senators from small states that allow McConnell not to consider almost every piece of legislation that passes the House.

10 of the most rural states equals about half the population of California. That's 20 US Senators to 2 and it is still only half the population. Our system is way out of whack.

 

[acbytesla]

The same could be said of any individual congressional district. Wyoming is no more nor less powerful than any other congressional district, it only feels that way because the congressional district covers the entire state. On a human to human basis, the citizens of Wyoming have (roughly) nor more nor less power than the citizens of any other congressional district.

The Senate is another story. On a human per human basis, each human in Wyoming has vastly more Senate influence than any human in California. That just math.

And I'm arguing that Wyo's congresscritters, including senators, are elected by such a thin scattering of voters that they can never exert any influence on national affairs. They represent some monied interests in the fossil energy game, they know that, and the republicanoid machine knows it. Their 3 little votes are counted and disregarded. Good, say I; to the extent that they have any ideas, they're primitive rightists, just like their constituents, and the less heard from them the better.

I hope you won't challenge me to name a Wyoming politician who doesn't, or didn't at any time in the past, fit the above description. Honestly, I would if I could.

I agree with you Sackett that they represent monied interests. But their 2 votes in the Senate wield a lot of power. 2 votes can be the deciding factor on the passing of any legislation.

 

[crescent]

And I'm arguing that Wyo's congresscritters, including senators, are elected by such a thin scattering of voters that they can never exert any influence on national affairs. They represent some monied interests in the fossil energy game, they know that, and the republicanoid machine knows it. Their 3 little votes are counted and disregarded. Good, say I; to the extent that they have any ideas, they're primitive rightists, just like their constituents, and the less heard from them the better.

I hope you won't challenge me to name a Wyoming politician who doesn't, or didn't at any time in the past, fit the above description. Honestly, I would if I could.

Wyoming's single House Representative is the third highest ranking Republican in the house: Liz Cheney is the House Republican Conference chair. That seems to suggest she has some real influence. Admittedly, she is less influential than her father was at his peak.

Among Senators, one chairs the Senate Republican Conference, the other chairs the Senate Budget Committee. The Senate isn't all that big, I imagine most members of the majority party are running one committee or another, but those positions do still wield power.

 

[Trebuchet]

Back on topic, it seems safe to say that this will be the most litigated presidential election in US history. Multiple suits have already been filed and it's only going to ramp up.