Trump AWOL

[Stevicus]

There is such a thing as not taking something seriously enough. Some people think there's nothing wrong with democracy in this country. I argue that the way things are going, the country's very democracy is at stake. That's the issue with people who play around too much, they don't take things seriously enough.

Well, we don't really have true democracy anyway. It's a representative democracy within the framework of a republic. Ever since America gained independence, people have questioned the ways and means of the democratic system, which started with only white males who owned property having the right to vote. The question of who should be allowed to vote has been prominent throughout U.S. history.

Others might argue that democracy is the true "opiate of the masses," since it creates an illusion that the people actually have a voice in how they are governed. What we actually get are candidates created by political machines who can be propped up by media praise - or torn down by media condemnation (although we can get a bit of both in places where media actually compete with each other). In the end, people get to choose between the lesser of two evils.

 

[Polymath257]

Such as the partisan idee fixe that the election was without fault, and the other that there was fraud top to bottom?

ALL elections have some fault simply because humans are imperfect.

That doesn't amount to fraud.

It also doesn't amount to enough error to overturn the election. Not even close.

So, what is the point of NOT allowing the transition? What is the point of the delay? Even Trump's advisors understand it isn't going to affect the outcome.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, we don't really have true democracy anyway. It's a representative democracy within the framework of a republic. Ever since America gained independence, people have questioned the ways and means of the democratic system, which started with only white males who owned property having the right to vote. The question of who should be allowed to vote has been prominent throughout U.S. history.

Others might argue that democracy is the true "opiate of the masses," since it creates an illusion that the people actually have a voice in how they are governed. What we actually get are candidates created by political machines who can be propped up by media praise - or torn down by media condemnation (although we can get a bit of both in places where media actually compete with each other). In the end, people get to choose between the lesser of two evils.

A great many of people who complain about the limited choices,
& blaming "the oligarchy, a machine, or whatever actually do
exercise the power to provide these choices.
Consider Biden. He was chosen by all the members of his party
over all the other candidates running. Democrats got who they
wanted, even though no one seems to want him. That cannot
be reasonably be blamed on anyone else.

 

[exchemist]

Oh, I hope you are kidding about treason being in the eyes of the beholder unless this is just a semantic game inwhich buying a Chinese toaster is treasonous.

I object to such reckless and invidious use of vocabulary which has a particular legal meaning as outlined in your constitution.

All I see in this is debasement of the kangusge and the level of discoursel

I like that a lot: "debasement of the kangusge". Covfefe, anyone?

 

[Audie]

ALL elections have some fault simply because humans are imperfect.

That doesn't amount to fraud.

It also doesn't amount to enough error to overturn the election. Not even close.

So, what is the point of NOT allowing the transition? What is the point of the delay? Even Trump's advisors understand it isn't going to affect the outcome.

Didn't say it amounts to fraud.

But you don't and I don't know what really happened.

To me, the t should go along with transition.

Doubles the joke if by miracle recount gave him the win.

 

[Audie]

I like that a lot: "debasement of the kangusge". Covfefe, anyone?

Hey, tiny tablet. And I am worlds worst proof reader. I just look at the shape of words, and read one of those things where they scramble letter order without even noticing anything.

Wrong time of day for coffee. Its kinda late here on the shores of the south China sea.

 

[Stevicus]

A great many of people who complain about the limited choices,
& blaming "the oligarchy, a machine, or whatever actually do
exercise the power to provide these choices.
Consider Biden. He was chosen by all the members of his party
over all the other candidates running. Democrats got who they
wanted, even though no one seems to want him. That cannot
be reasonably be blamed on anyone else.

I've heard quite a few people say that they might have preferred someone else, such as Sanders, but they didn't think Sanders had any chance of beating Trump.

Even if they didn't like Biden, they detested Trump even more, and they supported Biden because they thought he would have the best chance of defeating Trump.

I've seen this thought process at work through multiple elections. They're not voting for what they actually want. They're voting against what they don't want.

If people actually voted for what they wanted based on their own values and principles, then that would be one thing. Instead, people are formulating political scenarios in their minds (goaded by the pundits, of course) and trying to make a "strategic voting choice," not based on principles, but on their own estimates of what other voters might do and their perception of the political system overall. This is the "opiate" of what I'm talking about.

People should just vote their conscience, regardless of whether think their candidate has any chance or not. People who don't do that are ruining democracy for the rest of us.

 

[Revoltingest]

People should just vote their conscience, regardless of whether think their candidate has any chance or not. People who don't do that are ruining democracy for the rest of us.

This is not so clear.
In any game, the move you choose is based upon what the competition
has done & will do. To move without considering that increases the
chance of losing. Would this be better? I dunno.
But what is clearly wrong...
Abdicating responsibility for one's choices to blame some boogeyman.

 

[tytlyf]

Didn't Clinton supply N Korea with nuclear reactors?

No, that doesn't even make sense. You're assuming weaponry when there are other uses for Nuclear reactors. Social media isn't news.

In October 1994, Clinton arranged a deal with incoming leader Kim Jong Il, whose father Kim Il Sung had died in July.

North Korea would have to take its current reactor offline and stop construction of two other reactors they said were for electricity.

In exchange, the United States would help the country build two so-called light-water nuclear reactors to produce power for the country. The light-water reactors would make it harder for North Korea to produce weapons-grade material

PolitiFact - Viral image wrongly blames Bill Clinton for giving North Korea the means to make nuclear weapons

 

[fiveohg]

Trump should follow alan watts

https://bit.ly/35Fycda

 

[exchemist]

No, that doesn't even make sense. You're assuming weaponry when there are other uses for Nuclear reactors. Social media isn't news.

PolitiFact - Viral image wrongly blames Bill Clinton for giving North Korea the means to make nuclear weapons

Good. Fight the good fight for real information.

 

[exchemist]

As if.

It is always good to prevent a misleading statement from spreading misinformation.

 

[exchemist]

If that was all to try to salvage the misapplied claim of treason, I am back to being disappointed in you.

By such reckoning everyone who buys a Chinese toaster at wally would is aiding the enemy.

In the event, I'd have to look it up but I believe it only applies when there are actual hostilities.

Didn't Clinton supply N Korea with nuclear reactors? The US sold grain to Russia at the height of the cold War.

Treason, treason all about!!

I never made a claim of treason, actually. But I can understand why someone might, given that, as we both now agree, after a long and tedious exchange, Trump's current actions give comfort to the enemies of the USA.

The missing piece is Trump's motive, about which we can all speculate.

 

[exchemist]

So true. How does that go with some making up nonsense about me?

There was no midinfo from me there.

Ah..it was sarcasm. Good.

It's not about you, I'm sorry to say.

It's about the false significance readers might attach to a story - introduced by you - that Clinton supplied N Korea with nuclear reactors - which he didn't.

 

[Revoltingest]

=== Noderator Notice ===

Things are getting too personal & hostile.
Let's do a thread re-start about whether
Trump should or shouldn't be golfing.

Note:
Noderator = Not a moderator

 

[Stevicus]

This is not so clear.
In any game, the move you choose is based upon what the competition
has done & will do. To move without considering that increases the
chance of losing. Would this be better? I dunno.
But what is clearly wrong...
Abdicating responsibility for one's choices to blame some boogeyman.

I'm not abdicating responsibility for my own choices. It's the other people's choices that I'm questioning. I think it's perfectly acceptable to examine why people make the choices they're making and who or what could be influencing those choices.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not abdicating responsibility for my own choices. It's the other people's choices that I'm questioning. I think it's perfectly acceptable to examine why people make the choices they're making and who or what could be influencing those choices.

It's a problem for many that the vast
crowd will out-vote the minority.
But that's different from blaming
some (other) boogeyman.

 

[Audie]

=== Noderator Notice ===

Things are getting too personal & hostile.
Let's do a thread re-start about whether
Trump should or shouldn't be golfing.

Note:
Noderator = Not a moderator

Thanks, Swabby. Seems like I never learn.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks, Swabby. Seems like I never learn.

You're young.
I didn't even become an adult until 3 years ago.
And even that is in dispute.

 

[Stevicus]

It's a problem for many that the vast
crowd will out-vote the minority.
But that's different from blaming
some (other) boogeyman.

I blame the process, actually.