Ominous new details about Trump’s coup attempt require Democrats to act

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

It's not voting fraud that gives us presidents with a minority of the popular vote.

Well, no, because voter fraud would (illegitimately) increase the number of popular votes on the side of the fraud so that they would be a majority.

Who told you you were entitled to a POTUS elected by popular vote?

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

53 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Well, no, because voter fraud would (illegitimately) increase the number of popular votes on the side of the fraud so that they would be a majority.

Confirmed and verifiable voter fraud is so rare that it has no real impact on elections either way. And when voter fraud cases are found it's from both Democrats and Republicans.  

53 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Who told you you were entitled to a POTUS elected by popular vote?

 

American voters in general would prefer it:

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

55 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Confirmed and verifiable voter fraud is so rare that it has no real impact on elections either way. And when voter fraud cases are found it's from both Democrats and Republicans.  

 

American voters in general would prefer it:

Sure.  I was just pointing out that no matter how much or little of it there is, it would never be able to do what he was making a big deal about it not doing.  You can't produce a majority and then win by a minority.  It's self-contradictory.  

And to the 2nd point, I don't want to be rude, but so what?  We were never designed to be a democracy specifically because the FFs knew what a bad idea that would have been.  Saying, "The majority of Americans want to be able to do what the majority of Americans want to do," is proof of why we still need mechanisms to protect us from mob rule, not making a case for it.

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

3 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

And to the 2nd point, I don't want to be rude, but so what?  We were never designed to be a democracy specifically because the FFs knew what a bad idea that would have been.  Saying, "The majority of Americans want to be able to do what the majority of Americans want to do," is proof of why we still need mechanisms to protect us from mob rule, not making a case for it.

 

I admire the Founding Fathers for their great accomplishments, but I also realize that their ideas were products of their time and not all of them turned out to be true or are still applicable to America in 2021. 

so basing arguments on "America was designed by the Founding Fathers...." has never meant much to me because the founding Fathers were human and while they did a lot of good, they were also wrong in a lot of areas too, and a lot of the assumptions they made about voters and governments are no longer true today. 

They designed our government and elections to function without national political parties, and the electoral college of today functions nothing even close to what the Founding Fathers designed it or intended it to function. 

 

Forget what the founding fathers wanted or did in 1789. Lets focus on today...and today the electoral college is a stupid, archaic system that doesn't function as designed and needs serious reform or abolishment. It doesn't protect us from mob rule...it actually exasperates it.  

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

8 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

I admire the Founding Fathers for their great accomplishments, but I also realize that their ideas were products of their time and not all of them turned out to be true or are still applicable to America in 2021. 

so basing arguments on "America was designed by the Founding Fathers...." has never meant much to me because the founding Fathers were human and while they did a lot of good, they were also wrong in a lot of areas too, and a lot of the assumptions they made about voters and governments are no longer true today. 

They designed our government and elections to function without national political parties, and the electoral college of today functions nothing even close to what the Founding Fathers designed it or intended it to function. 

 

Forget what the founding fathers wanted or did in 1789. Lets focus on today...and today the electoral college is a stupid, archaic system that doesn't function as designed and needs serious reform or abolishment. It doesn't protect us from mob rule...it actually exasperates it.  

Respectfully, I never made the argument by authority you are attributing to me.

A mob rule democracy isn't a disaster because the FF's said so.  It's a disaster for self-evident reasons.  The only point made about the FF is that they didn't design the country as one specifically for those self evident reasons.

If we had a mob rule democracy, black people might still be living under Jim Crow.  The majority of the people in the country at the time of the Civil Rights act certainly weren't for it.  That's what can happen with a mob rule democracy.  No offense, but it's pretty obvious.  Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

And you will probably make the point that a constitutional republic structure didn't prevent us from having slavery and Jim Crow for hundreds of years before the system took big steps towards living out our ideals, and we're still not all the way there.

And it's a fair point.

But with a democracy things can turn bad on a dime.  A constitutional republic may be like driving drunk slow in a truck in town, but a democracy is like driving drunk on the interstate going 100mph on a motorcycle.

Like they say, the constitutional republic may be the worst system in existence, except for all the rest.  

[homersapien 11,393]

23 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Well, no, because voter fraud would (illegitimately) increase the number of popular votes on the side of the fraud so that they would be a majority.

Who told you you were entitled to a POTUS elected by popular vote?

That's a rather stupid statement as it has nothing to do with my argument.

My argument has always been that our current system is archaic and inherently undemocratic.  Everyone's vote - regardless of where they live - should count the same.

We need to modify the current constitutionally mandated system to allow for truly democratic outcomes.

[homersapien 11,393]

20 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

....... If we had a mob rule democracy, black people might still be living under Jim Crow.  The majority of the people in the country at the time of the Civil Rights act certainly weren't for it.  That's what can happen with a mob rule democracy.  No offense, but it's pretty obvious.  Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

 

That's not true any more than a majority of people supported slavery.

Your entire premise is false.  

Edited September 30, 2021 by homersapien

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

On 9/30/2021 at 12:52 PM, homersapien said:

That's not true any more than a majority of people supported slavery.

Your entire premise is false.  

That doesn't mean the premise is false at all, even if I was wrong about that as an example of the premise.

The premise is actually self-evidently true.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

Also, nice cherry you picked there.  Here's the full article you pulled that graph from.

You don't discuss things in good faith, do you?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/16/50-years-ago-mixed-views-about-civil-rights-but-support-for-selma-demonstrators/

[jj3jordan 2,056]

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Also, nice cherry you picked there.  Here's the full article you pulled that graph from.

You don't discuss things in good faith, do you?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/16/50-years-ago-mixed-views-about-civil-rights-but-support-for-selma-demonstrators/

No he doesn't.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

9 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

No he doesn't.

 

[homersapien 11,393]

On 9/29/2021 at 2:19 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Well, no, because voter fraud would (illegitimately) increase the number of popular votes on the side of the fraud so that they would be a majority.

Who told you you were entitled to a POTUS elected by popular vote?

No one. 

I just believe that as the world's largest and most influential democracy we need to set a proper democratic example.

Our complicated, archaic election system that allows for a president that lacks majority support of the people fails to do that.

[homersapien 11,393]

21 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Also, nice cherry you picked there.  Here's the full article you pulled that graph from.

You don't discuss things in good faith, do you?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/16/50-years-ago-mixed-views-about-civil-rights-but-support-for-selma-demonstrators/

I posted one chart for simplicity. 

So what is your counter point it that you want to make from the same article?

And yes, I do discuss things in "good faith". 

Stop with the insults and generalized posts that don't specifically address something I posted and you will see that's true.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I posted one chart for simplicity. 

So what is your counter point it that you want to make from the same article?

And yes, I do discuss things in "good faith". 

Stop with the insults and generalized posts that don't specifically address something I posted and you will see that's true.

The basis of the entire article is that—while the majority of Americans were in theory in favor of Civil Rights legislation—the majority of them also felt like the enactment of said change was being proposed way too fast.  That was the basis of my entire statement.  That the majority of people in the country weren't in favor of the civil rights changes and that if we waited for a majority of Americans to get on board it would have taken a lot longer.  Even if people were technically in favor of the legislation, the substance of what I said was accurate according to the article you lifted one chart from that in substance agreed with me, not you.

And I think it's pretty clear that you've been far more insulting of me than I have of you since I have been here.  Your first two posts directed at me called me an idiot.  I hardly think me pointing out that you don't seem to discuss things in good faith equals your tone towards me, and to act as though it does is, IMO, another example of discussing in bad faith.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

No one. 

I just believe that as the world's largest and most influential democracy we need to set a proper democratic example.

Our complicated, archaic election system that allows for a president that lacks majority support of the people fails to do that.

Only we're not a democracy.  We're a democratic republic.

The word "democratic" accurately describes the US.  But you know how you tale tests in school in which some answers are more correct than others?  "Democracy" is not the most correct description of the US as a noun.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

5 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Only we're not a democracy.  We're a democratic republic.

The word "democratic" accurately describes the US.  But you know how you tale tests in school in which some answers are more correct than others?  "Democracy" is not the most correct description of the US as a noun.

Homer wants the democrat party to permanently win all the elections by counting massive legal and illegal majorities in CA NY and IL.  The EC was designed to prevent this from occurring.  It works fine and prevents the citizens of three states from dominating national elections.  He won't utter the words constitutional republic.   Maybe he doesn't "hate" the country, but he does want to change it.  So it is obvious but he can deny it all he wants. Just like his denial of the racists in the democrat party.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 minute ago, jj3jordan said:

Homer wants the democrat party to permanently win all the elections by counting massive legal and illegal majorities in CA NY and IL.  The EC was designed to prevent this from occurring.  It works fine and prevents the citizens of three states from dominating national elections.  He won't utter the words constitutional republic.   Maybe he doesn't "hate" the country, but he does want to change it.  So it is obvious but he can deny it all he wants. Just like his denial of the racists in the democrat party.

I also think the current system is pretty remarkable in its ability to provide checks and balances for states vs individuals and areas of high population density vs low population density.  

Federal laws affect citizens differently in New York, say, than they do in Montana.  I also feel that the citizens in Montana need some consideration so that they don't get treated the same as citizens in NYC and I think our current system does a good job of providing that consideration.

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

40 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Homer wants the democrat party to permanently win all the elections by counting massive legal and illegal majorities in CA NY and IL.  

I like how you threw the word "illegal" in there because even you know it sounds bad to say: "You just want the Democrats to always win the national presidential elections by getting the most votes of anyone else!" Yeah...how Terrible THAT would be. 

Also, there isn't mass "illegal" voting in any of these states. That's a lie. The reality is that the policies of the Democratic party are simply much more popular with a majority of the US population; and instead of trying to improve their standing among voters or endorsing better policies the Republicans just want to gerrymander the hell out of all the states and try to wiggle wins out of the Electoral College. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by CoffeeTiger

[jj3jordan 2,056]

51 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I like how you threw the word "illegal" in there because even you know it sounds bad to say: "You just want the Democrats to always win the national presidential elections by getting the most votes of anyone else!" Yeah...how Terrible THAT would be. 

Also, there isn't mass "illegal" voting in any of these states. That's a lie. The reality is that the policies of the Democratic party are simply much more popular with a majority of the US population; and instead of trying to improve their standing among voters or endorsing better policies the Republicans just want to gerrymander the hell out of all the states and try to wiggle wins out of the Electoral College. 

 

 

 

 

 

You’re right a few million is not “mass” at least according to democrats. The point is not the margin, it’s about it being in three states versus nation wide. How about we compromise and use counties won for president. Who could be against that?

[homersapien 11,393]

On 9/29/2021 at 2:19 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Well, no, because voter fraud would (illegitimately) increase the number of popular votes on the side of the fraud so that they would be a majority.

Is this really what you understood by my statement? 

You are obviously not arguing in good faith. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Only we're not a democracy.  We're a democratic republic.

The word "democratic" accurately describes the US.  But you know how you tale tests in school in which some answers are more correct than others?  "Democracy" is not the most correct description of the US as a noun.

I know what we are.

I am arguing for changing our election system in that "democratic republic" to better reflect the will of the majority of voters and eliminate procedures that allow for the minority to thwart progress that is supported by the majority of our people.

Please don't confuse that with arguing for a (pure) democracy which is unworkable.

[homersapien 11,393]

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

The basis of the entire article is that—while the majority of Americans were in theory in favor of Civil Rights legislation—the majority of them also felt like the enactment of said change was being proposed way too fast.  That was the basis of my entire statement.

 

So what?

Your statement was:

....... If we had a mob rule democracy, black people might still be living under Jim Crow.  The majority of the people in the country at the time of the Civil Rights act certainly weren't for it. 

I proved you wrong with this chart:

 

Presumably, you are now quibbling over this chart relating to the speed of change:

 

Don't see how that's relevant to the exchange.

[homersapien 11,393]

5 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

And I think it's pretty clear that you've been far more insulting of me than I have of you since I have been here.  Your first two posts directed at me called me an idiot.  I hardly think me pointing out that you don't seem to discuss things in good faith equals your tone towards me, and to act as though it does is, IMO, another example of discussing in bad faith.

Awwwwww. 

 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

5 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Only we're not a democracy.  We're a democratic republic.

The word "democratic" accurately describes the US.  But you know how you tale tests in school in which some answers are more correct than others?  "Democracy" is not the most correct description of the US as a noun.

IMO, anyone who brings this up when someone else simply refers to our country as a "democracy" isn't arguing in good faith.