For Trump, size clearly matters; reality, not so much

[Kenny]

We're both: Types of democracy - Wikipedia

Correct!! But it is all in the wording. We are not just a simple Democracy though we have democratic principles in the Republic.

 

[Kenny]

It clearly is not-- it's reality.

During the last VP debate, Vance even admitted he would not have certified the last elation even though the vast majority of Trump's high-level appointees said that there was no significant evidence of voter fraud enough to question the doubt about the election. Matter of fact, if you remember Fox was the 1st major station to announce Biden won, and their viewership plummeted.

.

I have no problem with the results. Every candidate uses the political system to try to win.

Remember the “hanging chad” of Florida where people had to determine, “what was the voters intent”? As if they could figure it out. In that case it was the Democrats who tried to manipulate the system. I’m happy that the VP did not yield. (checks and balances)

 

[Tomef]

I would agree to that and more… just about anything we have will contain different views even for the Constitution on whether we should view it as an originalist or as a living document.

There is always a divide to such an extent that we have multiple parties as well as independents. Each one has a different view.



So, what we can agree here is :

1) Filibuster worked
2) Depending on the outcome, one will say “We need it” or “We should throw it in the garbage”. (which isn’t the point)
3) Everyone will have a different viewpoint.

Yes, in other words some democrats thinking the filibuster has long outlived any usefulness it might have had doesn’t mean they are plotting to install a communist regime.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, in other words some democrats thinking the filibuster has long outlived any usefulness it might have had doesn’t mean they are plotting to install a communist regime.

I remember the law for Obamacare… “Let’s pass it and then find out what’s in it” - with no debate.

I don’t want to wait to find out what all of these points put together mean. At this point, with my Venezuelan experience, it all lines up. When people who come from communist country say “What in the world are you thinking”… for me it all lines up.

My viewpoint, not yours.

 

[metis]

Remember the “hanging chad” of Florida where people had to determine, “what was the voters intent”? As if they could figure it out. In that case it was the Democrats who tried to manipulate the system. I’m happy that the VP did not yield. (checks and balances)

I watched that whole process intently, and when the SCOTUS made their decision, Gore and the Dems accepted it but with some grumbling [rightfully so imo as there was time still for counting the ballots]. But with the majority of Pub appointed justices...

Either way, this is 100% the opposite of Trump and what Vance said. So, why go with supporting a well-known conman who tried to overturn the election? What about Trump's own character of sexual assault, hedonism, and materialism? Don't these things matter? Since when are these characteristics of those who believe in Jesus? Seems that so many "Christians" have forgotten his message or have just chosen to ignore it.

 

[metis]

I remember the law for Obamacare… “Let’s pass it and then find out what’s in it” - with no debate.

BS, Ken. This had been debated for a long time even before Obama became president! Why did you invent such nonsense???

Here Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia

At this point, with my Venezuelan experience, it all lines up. When people who come from communist country say “What in the world are you thinking”… for me it all lines up.

Only if you stereotype "socialism, which you repeatedly do: Socialism - Wikipedia [scroll down for the various forms of socialism, and please do realize that most forms are not anti-democracy nor anti-capitalism]

I don’t want to wait to find out what all of these points put together mean. At this point, with my Venezuelan experience, it all lines up. When people who come from communist country say “What in the world are you thinking”… for me it all lines up.

"Communism" [better to say "Marxism"] is an extreme form of socialism, and I don't think any party here wants anything close to that.

 

[Kenny]

BS, Ken. This had been debated for a long time even before Obama became president! Why did you invent such nonsense???

Here Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

is her direct quote

Only if you stereotype "socialism, which you repeatedly do: Socialism - Wikipedia [scroll down for the various forms of socialism, and please do realize that most forms are not anti-democracy nor anti-capitalism]

Yes, there are variations.

"Communism" [better to say "Marxism"] is an extreme form of socialism, and I don't think any party here wants anything close to that.

OK… call it socialism - don’t want it.

 

[Copernicus]

We are not a “Democracy” - we are a Republic.

Argumentum ad nauseam. Every democratic country in the world is a republic.

 

[Kenny]

Argumentum ad nauseam. Every democratic country in the world is a republic.

Countries Considered to be Full Democracies

According to a report conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, there are several countries that are considered to be full democracies.

www.worldatlas.com

 

[Copernicus]

Argumentum ad nauseam. Every democratic country in the world is a republic.

Countries Considered to be Full Democracies

According to a report conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, there are several countries that are considered to be full democracies.

www.worldatlas.com

All your article does is attempt to rank countries according to a concept that the article calls a "full democracy". That in no way responds to my actual point that every country in the world that could be called a "democracy" is also a "republic". Your mantra about republics not being democracies is a classic case of making a distinction without a difference.

 

[Kenny]

All your article does is attempt to rank countries according to a concept that the article calls a "full democracy". That in no way responds to my actual point that every country in the world that could be called a "democracy" is also a "republic". Your mantra about republics not being democracies is a classic case of making a distinction without a difference.

No… if it has a “10” rating… it is a fell democracy and not a republic. Let’s not argue about a mole hill

 

[Revoltingest]

When people who come from communist country say “What in the world are you thinking”… for me it all lines up.

When people from Trump's own party say
"What in the world are you thinking"
about voting for Trump, this is telling.

 

[Copernicus]

No… if it has a “10” rating… it is a fell democracy and not a republic. Let’s not argue about a mole hill

Let's not argue at all. The word "republic" is not even mentioned in your article. It is totally irrelevant to your claim that democracies are not republics. Every single one on the planet is a republic.

 

[Tomef]

I remember the law for Obamacare… “Let’s pass it and then find out what’s in it” - with no debate.

I don’t want to wait to find out what all of these points put together mean. At this point, with my Venezuelan experience, it all lines up. When people who come from communist country say “What in the world are you thinking”… for me it all lines up.

My viewpoint, not yours.

But that’s the crux of political division in the US, people holding distorted or exaggerated views of the other side’s position. That kind of thinking is what autocratic leaders use to exacerbate divisions and justify harsh measures. Historically, such things progress. Autocrats push the limits, to see what they can get away with. Trump started preparing the ground for his ‘stolen election’ claims with unfounded BS back in 2016. His steady drip-feed of lies, abetted by Fox and the like, keep people on edge, creating a scenario where people feel they are under threat and hence will feel any actions the autocrat takes are justified.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

is her direct quote

See Snopes ... and try more thoughtfulness and honesty.

 

[Kenny]

But that’s the crux of political division in the US, people holding distorted or exaggerated views of the other side’s position. That kind of thinking is what autocratic leaders use to exacerbate divisions and justify harsh measures. Historically, such things progress. Autocrats push the limits, to see what they can get away with.

I agree completely

 

[Kenny]

See Snopes ... and try more thoughtfulness and honesty.

That is what snopes said the actual quote was… so I was honest… does that mean you should try more thoughtfulness and honesty?

It is snopes personal interpretation I don’t agree with.

 

[Tomef]

I agree completely

Then why do you subscribe to distorted and exaggerated views on democrat positions?

 

[metis]

OK… call it socialism - don’t want it.

I think if alive Jesus would want it in some form. For example, the Nordic Model used in the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands creates significant cradle to grave security, so the poor are nowhere near as desperate as they are here for example: Nordic model - Wikipedia Charity alone has never been enough, and Jewish Law [halacha] recognized that.

 

[metis]

I remember the law for Obamacare… “Let’s pass it and then find out what’s in it” - with no debate.

First of all, who said that and in what context as I posted that what become the ACA was debated even before Obama's tenure as president. Thus, your quote above simply doesn't coincide with the history of it.