The 2020 General Election Thread II

[BugI02]

Yeah. Really. Filing with SCOTUS

A long-shot legal effort relying on conspiracy theories and inaccurate analyses to argue President Donald Trump actually won Michigan included additional blatantly false information in a new filing with the U.S. Supreme Court this week.


The legal team, including attorney Sidney Powell, told the court the Republican-controlled Michigan Legislature backs its effort to allow a so-called GOP slate of Electoral College delegates cast the state's 16 electoral votes for Trump.


This is wrong. On Monday, Republican leaders of the Michigan House and Senate publicly acknowledged President-elect Joe Biden won the election. The same day, the state's actual 16 Electoral College delegates voted for Biden, who received 154,000 more votes than Trump in Michigan.

I notice you don't like to cite from sketchy sources, only quote them

Did you get that directly from Boucher's column at the Detroit Free Press?

https://www.freep.com/story/news/po...tantly-wrong-information-michigan/3920800001/

 

[jamil]

I was taught this is a republic not a Democracy. Lets set the bar in the proper notch please.

Edit....Oops wrong post but my statement stands. This is not a ****ing democracy for Gods sake.

Yes. It is. It's not a direct democracy. It's a representative democracy, which is also a republic, because it does not have a monarch. I don't know why this is so controversial among many conservatives. It's like Indiana gun owners "it's a LICENSE, not a PERMIT!" Well, that don't make a whole lot of difference. The law calls ours a license, but it could have called it a permit and it would do the same thing. Not worth arguing over.

It's okay to call the US a democracy. One looses not one ounce of Patriotism for it. There are many forms of democracy, including a representative democracy, which our Republic government is.

A republic doesn't have to be a democracy though. China calls itself a Republic. They have a representative form of government with a chairman of the ruling party (which is always communist). GB, for example, is not a Republic because they're a Monarchy. France is a representative democracy and a Republic too.

 

[jamil]

Civics FTW!

False. In civics back in the 70s I learned that the US is a representative democracy, which is a Republic by definition because it does not have a monarch. In no definition I've found does it say a republic and democracy are mutually exclusive. Someone told you incorrectly.

 

[jamil]

No. A democracy does not have A relatively immovable constitution or any limits on government beyond the whim of 51% of the voters or their elected representatives. A republic, in spite of some general similarities in operation, brings us limited government and rights that are not legally subject to the whim of the voters at any given moment. In the end it is limited government contrasted with organized mob rule.

A republic does not need to have a constitution. A democracy does not have to have direct popular vote. These things are not mutually exclusive. Again, I don't know why this is controversial. Take a browse through online dictionaries and encyclopedias. It's okay to call the US a democracy. Again, not one ounce of patriotism is lost by doing that. It's not a naughty word. You can say it on INGO without it turning to *'s.

 

[jamil]

If you're someone very well educated in political philosophy, yes that distinction is fair to make. But when discussing our system with normal people, using the word "democracy" anywhere is a bad approach.

Our form of democracy is electing a representative, who elects higher offices, votes on lawmaking, etc. This would not be considered democracy in most senses.
But as policy makers keep changing our foundational principles, we are descending into democracy, and that is also why polarization is getting so much more severe.
Average idiots who have no idea of how our system works are starting to get excessive representation, making for a power struggle, like a swarm of sharks smelling blood in the water.

Is France a democracy? Yes. Is France a Republic? Yes. The fact that people born after 1990 think everything should be decided by popular vote doesn't mean that "democracy" has become a bad word, or that it doesn't describe our system. It's not as specific as saying republic. It's like drilling into more specific designations. We're a republic. What kind? A democratic one. We can get even more specific than that. What kind of democratic republic are we? A constitutional federal democratic republic.

 

[Knight Rider]

Call US whatever you like. I’m more concerned about how we behave and what we’ve become. Do we follow the Constitution? Is it one person one vote? Once elected, do we allow our Reps to represent and address the results at the next election or constantly try to influence after the fact to just vote the way of the mob?

Even if we can all agree as to what to call US, we’re still screwed if we continue down this path.

 

[OneBadV8]

Yes. It is. It's not a direct democracy. It's a representative democracy, which is also a republic, because it does not have a monarch. I don't know why this is so controversial among many conservatives. It's like Indiana gun owners "it's a LICENSE, not a PERMIT!" Well, that don't make a whole lot of difference. The law calls ours a license, but it could have called it a permit and it would do the same thing. Not worth arguing over.

It's okay to call the US a democracy. One looses not one ounce of Patriotism for it. There are many forms of democracy, including a representative democracy, which our Republic government is.

A republic doesn't have to be a democracy though. China calls itself a Republic. They have a representative form of government with a chairman of the ruling party (which is always communist). GB, for example, is not a Republic because they're a Monarchy. France is a representative democracy and a Republic too.

I do think words matter. I think the majority of people hear democracy and automatically think popular vote wins everything. As long as the majority believe something it’s fine. Which is mostly true, but also not quite. I don’t want California loonies making decisions affecting us.

 

[Libertarian01]

Yes. It is. It's not a direct democracy. It's a representative democracy, which is also a republic, because it does not have a monarch. I don't know why this is so controversial among many conservatives. It's like Indiana gun owners "it's a LICENSE, not a PERMIT!" Well, that don't make a whole lot of difference. The law calls ours a license, but it could have called it a permit and it would do the same thing. Not worth arguing over.

It's okay to call the US a democracy. One looses not one ounce of Patriotism for it. There are many forms of democracy, including a representative democracy, which our Republic government is.

A republic doesn't have to be a democracy though. China calls itself a Republic. They have a representative form of government with a chairman of the ruling party (which is always communist). GB, for example, is not a Republic because they're a Monarchy. France is a representative democracy and a Republic too.

With respect Jamil, I believe you are massively undervaluing the difference between a representative republic and a pure democracy. IF we were a pure democracy we would have never had a President Trump, or President Bush for that matter. It would have been President Gore and President Hillary Clinton.

The power given to the states through a representative republic counters the pure democracy rule of the mob. Don't get me wrong, sometimes I too am on the mobs side, but the slight difference makes a big deal over the long haul.

It's like the odds in Vegas. They aren't significantly slanted toward the casino, but they are just ever so slightly. It is that slight slant that allows the casino to remain in business over many years. And with our nation it is that slight tilt that tilts us away from mob rule every single year.

Sometimes words have the same meaning but often times different words are used to describe subtle variances that can have a big meaning. Let's say someone dies of a sickness. Okay, they're dead. But if one cousin says they died of a virus and another cousin says they died of a bacteria does it matter? In one way, no, it does not. They died of a sickness. But in another context it makes a huge difference as treatment that will affect a bacteria won't touch a virus. Sure, they died of an infection, but the difference can be huge in how it is treated, how infectious it is, etc.

Just a thought...

Regards,

Doug

 

[foszoe]

I thought France was socialist.

Is France a democracy? Yes. Is France a Republic? Yes. The fact that people born after 1990 think everything should be decided by popular vote doesn't mean that "democracy" has become a bad word, or that it doesn't describe our system. It's not as specific as saying republic. It's like drilling into more specific designations. We're a republic. What kind? A democratic one. We can get even more specific than that. What kind of democratic republic are we? A constitutional federal democratic republic.

 

[T.Lex]

I thought France was socialist.

Yeah, they voted it in because it was the will of the people.

 

[jamil]

I do think words matter. I think the majority of people hear democracy and automatically think popular vote wins everything. As long as the majority believe something it’s fine. Which is mostly true, but also not quite. I don’t want California loonies making decisions affecting us.

Mincing words won't stop that. Words mean stuff. It's okay for words to mean what they actually mean and for us to use them as they actually mean. Using words for their legitimate meaning doesn't make Californians bat **** crazy. They got that way on their own.

 

[jamil]

With respect Jamil, I believe you are massively undervaluing the difference between a representative republic and a pure democracy. IF we were a pure democracy we would have never had a President Trump, or President Bush for that matter. It would have been President Gore and President Hillary Clinton.

The power given to the states through a representative republic counters the pure democracy rule of the mob. Don't get me wrong, sometimes I too am on the mobs side, but the slight difference makes a big deal over the long haul.

It's like the odds in Vegas. They aren't significantly slanted toward the casino, but they are just ever so slightly. It is that slight slant that allows the casino to remain in business over many years. And with our nation it is that slight tilt that tilts us away from mob rule every single year.

Sometimes words have the same meaning but often times different words are used to describe subtle variances that can have a big meaning. Let's say someone dies of a sickness. Okay, they're dead. But if one cousin says they died of a virus and another cousin says they died of a bacteria does it matter? In one way, no, it does not. They died of a sickness. But in another context it makes a huge difference as treatment that will affect a bacteria won't touch a virus. Sure, they died of an infection, but the difference can be huge in how it is treated, how infectious it is, etc.

Just a thought...

Regards,

Doug

Doug, with all due respect to you and the others, you guys act like using the word to describe the US system of government robs it of its dignity. It's like some of you attach a strong sense of patriotism to "Republic" such that you can no longer tolerate the word "democracy". Democracy is a good thing, but like everything, it can be taken to it's logical extreme. Like a pure (direct) democracy. That's essentially mob rule. Using the word democracy doesn't imply any particular type of democracy. That's implied by the context. And in the context of the US, our type of democracy is representative. Even layers of representation, such that we elect people who appoint electors who then elect the president.

Say you're holding a stone that has a light blueish tint to it. While calling it a "blue" stone it might not communicate the most specificity, it's still blue. You could be more specific by calling it light blue. I'm using words for how they're defined, not how they make me feel. It's okay to call the US a democracy. That's not what makes Democrats, WHO DO SEEM TO WORSHIP PURE DEMOCRACIES, act so ****ing crazy. I think you guys are massively overvaluing the difference. Not in how different kinds of democracies operate, but in how we use language to convey meaning.

Like when Crazy ass Democrats say Trump is a threat to democracy itself. I'm sure they don't mean that unless they're bigger morons than they let on. Democracy itself is the idea of self-rule. Trump can't destroy an idea. That's nonsense. So what they really mean, is that Trump will end the extent to which the US engages in self-rule, in that he would stage a coup to stay in power, and thereby not be a chief executive chosen by the people. Of course that's

 

[jamil]

I thought France was socialist.

Your form of government can be democratic, and socialist, and still be a republic.

And anyway, I'd classify France as socialish more than socialist.

 

[Alpo]

I hope T Lex is keeping count of the puppies.

 

[T.Lex]

Hey jamil,

It occurs to me that this is a vestige of the Cold War. Soviet satellite states used variations of "democratic republic" so it created a negative connotation.

Democratic Republic of Vietnam
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Democratic Republic of the Congo
German Democratic Republic
*.* People's Republic

Again, terms can evolve over time, but there's a value to using classic/traditional definitions and explaining how the "new" variations are outliers or misnomers.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Democracy, Republic, whatever... Just DON'T call a magazine a "clip"!

 

[jamil]

Hey jamil,

It occurs to me that this is a vestige of the Cold War. Soviet satellite states used variations of "democratic republic" so it created a negative connotation.

Democratic Republic of Vietnam
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Democratic Republic of the Congo
German Democratic Republic
*.* People's Republic

Again, terms can evolve over time, but there's a value to using classic/traditional definitions and explaining how the "new" variations are outliers or misnomers.

Someone says "Trump's a threat to Democracy itself." Kinda stupid to reply to that, "But we're not a democracy!" Well. Yes, we are. But why is the reply not "Don't be a hyperbolic dumbass. No one can threaten an idea."

And they might respond, "But he's trying to subvert the democratic process." And the right reply to that is, "maybe, but the process is handling that, so untwist your panties and calm the **** down."

 

[jamil]

Democracy, Republic, whatever... Just DON'T call a magazine a "clip"!

Except when the thing that holds the boolets is a clip.

 

[OneBadV8]

Democracy, Republic, whatever... Just DON'T call a magazine a "clip"!

I fully support this idea

 

[T.Lex]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.