Infidel Dog

The only question I saw you ask was this one: To which I replied: Somehow that warped in your brain and you were accusing me of pushing gang rapist law. Somehow it completely slipped by you that, that specifically was what I was speaking against. In other words you either lied or you choose to be ignorant of an inconvenient truth.

No, I didn't. I gave you a couple of hyperbolic examples showing you how pure democracy could produce inequities. You seem obsessed by the gang rapist one so let me put it this way suppose you go to prison and you find yourself in a shower with 6 convicted male on male rapists. For that moment, in that place are you still in favor of majority rule? You said you have a quote saying I'd prefer a dictator. Which would be the totalitarian system? Prison shower majority rule or the checks and balances of a federal republic like America? Oh wait...did I make a mistake? Hope prison shower is not a fantasy for you? Trust me, it's not one of mine. So when you say you have a quote of me saying I'd prefer living under a dictator that's a lie. I am definitely not in favor of Prison shower majority rule. Even our Canadian system just voted in a guy who didn't win the popular vote. I don't like the guy our system picked but he's what we got so I accept him as Prime Minister. If the electoral college certifies Biden, he'll be President. If it doesn't but somebody puts forward the idea that because he won the popular vote Beijing Biden is the new President I will join the 71 million American patriotic minority in opposing the decision.

Gee, I hope you're not talking to this proud Canadian.

Not unless you alter the quote. What I remember saying is America isn't a democracy. It's a republic. If you have something saying I preferred a Dictator to a President elected by the laws of the Republic produce it. If you can't produce it then what you're saying is a lie. No collection of mealy-mouthed, weasel word, back-tracking makes it anything else. Produce the quote or admit you lied.

Are they? You have a relevant quote saying this, do you? Produce it. If you can't it's another lie and you know who lies, right?

That's a lie. I never said that. People who lie are called liars. Doesn't matter if they filter the lie through their imagination to sound truthy to them.

And if "every single state which administers it, Republican and Democrat, says there's no evidence of widespread fraud" what was this about then: 10 state AGs file brief supporting challenge to Pennsylvania mail ballot deadline At least 10 states seem to think there might be evidence of fraud in at least Pennsylvania. As to this: "the federal government's own election monitoring agency says there's no evidence of any fraud..." That's not correct either. One guy, Chris Krebs said "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised." Another replied: And as to this idea there's "no evidence," when did sworn witness testimony stop being evidence? Will they emptying the prisons of all the criminals convicted on witness testimony?

Liar. Here's what happens. Liars say Trump will destroy Democracy. The rebuttal is America isn't a democracy. It's a Federal Republic. The President is decided by the electoral college not by purely democratic vote. Mob rule might be another hyperbolic example of something that could be purely democratic for the area and the time it governs a particular area. The more common example is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. I've heard gang rape offered as another example. If a few heavily urbanized states of 50 were able to decide who the president is by majority rule that would be a pure democracy but that's not the way it's done in the federal republic of America. I think you even know this but yes, you're determined to remain ignorant by choosing to ignore an inconvenient fact.

Can't get past appears to be your way of admitting you're determined to remain ignorant of the rationale behind the metaphor. It's been explained to you enough times that I don't think another go round is going to help you though, so I'll pass.

I try to be understanding. Once the infection takes hold they don't seem to be able to help themselves. Once they're fully formed pod people it's all point and scree. It's like: You blasphemed against the holy word! Screee! You spoke the unspeakable term, "gang rapist." This means you are a gang rapist. Screeee! Sometimes their inability to adopt common sense makes them a little pathetic and I can't help feeling sorry for them.

No. And repeating it doesn't make it true. I'm saying frantically waving your freak flag of "Democracy" like the label is a be-all, end-all in itself that can never go wrong and this can never be challenged is silly. "Democracy" as screamed for by the mob becomes gang rapist democracy. Voting under the predefined rule of law doesn't have to be the same thing. I approve of the latter and disavow the former. This is pretty basic. I don't understand why you can't see there needs to be a line. What you seem to be doing is just flapping terms around as symbols of your implied righteousness without giving any thought to what they actually mean or imply.

No. That isn't what I said. I'm not sure what you're having a problem understanding. It's like the words go into you head and are shredded. What comes out the other side is what you want to believe. I said there are laws governing a democratic vote. The majority would not necessarily win. It can though. What you seem to be pushing for is something like what we saw during the Occupy movement where members of their society would meet and decide what they'd do with their little society day by day by the snapping of fingers in compliance or rejection of what was proposed. How'd that work out for them? America voting under constitutional law has been around for centuries.

I don't why you guys have such a problem understanding the difference between absolute majority rule and voting under the rule of law. Absolute democratic rule is gang rapist rules but voting under a predefined set of rules with checks and balances is just the law. In America's case it's the law of a Republic. America is a Republic not a pure democracy.

??? I don't think you understand the issue. They did a recount but they didn't check for irregularities in the ballots that would have disqualified them. The governor says they could still do that under the law. Has nothing to do with different definitions of democracy.

Georgia Gov. Kemp Teases Audit of Election Results

No. I notice you like to ignore context when it's inconvenient to you. That is ignoring reality. Try to stop doing that.

What I said was the million maga march as peaceful protest was a display of populism. What we see in Portland and other areas of anarcho-Marxist sparked riot are examples of mob rule. If you're asking us not to notice that then one more time you're wanting us to ignore the obvious. As to minority rights, again I'm going to ask you to define your terms. Do you mean like do I think guys who want to believe they're woman should have the right to say compete in female weight lifting tournaments? That sort of thing. If so the answer is "not really." I'm not sure what that has to do with democracy, which is what we were discussing. For America, I do believe in Constitutional rights and I think they should cover minorities pretty well when applied correctly.

Again, what you want to believe has little resemblance to contextual reality. And you're doing that thing again you like to do when you get desperate. You're asking people to ignore the obvious. In context that isn't what I said.

No, it's not. Peaceful protest such as we saw at the million MAGA march in Washington last week can be the public display of Populism. A display of "Mob Rule" would be what we're seeing in places like Portland. And it's spreading via the usual suspects.

So Bud, but what you want to believe is rarely what's true in reality, I notice. If you're trying to convince us Republicans claim the general idea of a vote is dangerous to society it requires at least a link to somewhere Republicans are saying this. If that isn't what you're saying, define your terms. What exactly are you saying. Don't insinuate spell it out.

No, I'm saying a raw majority can't be trusted. Not in a gang-rape and not in politics. If you want to play with language though, are you pushing for mob rule? Wouldn't surprise me, because that is the way it begins. If you still want to make what happened in pre-war Germany the comparable, I mean.

Nonsense. If you're using that paradigm the Republicans would be the Weimar. The Nazis would be the Biden corporates, globalists and techno-fascists gaining power first through a questionable vote. I get it though in your reality Proud Boys would be Brownshirts even though all they've ever done was fight actual Brown Black shirts. If you insist on matching histories though, antifa are the Brownshirts. Nazis used Jew-hate. Progs use White-guilt-hate. I can go on if you really want to play this Godwin game.

Pure democracy or majority rule isn't so much bad as stupid. Again - 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. The vote should be seen as a regulated tool not the all-governing, primary precept. Even so there can be the danger of totalitarians such as the Communists or the Nazis using the vote to acquire enough power to to gain more then getting rid of the vote as a meaningful factor. This is a reason I'd be very wary of the Techno-fascist globalists behind Biden and wouldn't want to give up my 2nd amendment. Nobody wants what the Nazis were able to do to the Weimar Republic to happen in America. For now though, and for America they have what the famous quote says they have - "a Republic, if you can keep it."

A little too much blather in this one from Crowder, below but if you can get through it and understand what the figures are saying you'll get why people are calling this election another Democrat attempt at a coup:

Mitt Romney? No, He's not. He's the creator of the model for Obamacare during his time as Governor of Massachusetts. He's no more a real conservative than John McCain (who I'm guessing would be another one of your idols) was. As to your expertise on what makes a conservative, you're joking right? Do you understand at least that the term "Progressive Conservative" is an oxymoron? Do you not understand why they call Mitt Romney a "RINO," as in Republican In Name Only? Have you seriously never heard the term "Trumpism" during your time as self-appointed expert of experts? Maybe before you get too full of yourself on that one you need to spend a little more time considering what made Trump's policies so successful and less time on how the quirks of his character bothered you.