-
Posts
541 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Matthew
-
Exhibit A: Georgia republicans try to invalidate mail-in votes from Democrat-leaning precincts. Trump apointed federal judge declares that their argument has "no supporting facts." https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/11/05/2024-elections-live-coverage-updates-analysis/georgia-rnc-votes-case-00187486
-
If a mild complaint from an intern and saying the word f*ck is the best you've got then yeah very normal compared to what you've admitted is the sociopath behavior of trump.
-
Uh let's see, a trustworthy rational person with a normal temperment and respect for basic social norms and human decency.
-
The fact that you know trump doesn't care about you, doesn't believe in anything he does or says, and you still support him is the saddest commentary on brainwashing I've ever seen.
-
Obviously not what I said. How about get mad about real things instead of being so easily trolled by the fascists.
-
The universal defense of everything horrible about trump.
-
Your link confirms what she posted from the des moines register. Trump has gone from 18 pts ahead in iowa to 4 points ahead to now a few points behind. I live in Iowa and it's a shitty all republican government here but the actual population is pretty 50/50 between rural conservatives and liberal suburbs.
-
I peacefully smack my wifes ass every day. 🙂
-
What will America choose on Tuesday?
Matthew replied to DUI_Offender's topic in Federal Politics in the United States
Could go either way. I think Harris will win. If she doesn't i won't be shocked. I'm glad it's at least close compared to if Biden had stayed in. We probably won't know who won for weeks because Pennsylvania and others will certainly have recounts. December 17th is the actual election for presidents with the states chosen electors. So the states will have until then and i won't be shocked if the Trump team once again tries more shenanigans to pressure republican-led states into ignoring their elections and sending pro-trump electors instead. -
Why Do Leftists Really Want Kamala to Win?
Matthew replied to WestCanMan's topic in Federal Politics in the United States
No president "runs the economy." Trump's foreign policy weakened the US. The biggest foreign policy strength the US has is its leadership over the biggest military alliance in human history. Trump weakened our connection to our european allies and instead debased himself before dictators. His policy in these wars will obviously be to side with the authoritarian fascists and further weaken the pro-democracy alliance. Trump was literally willing to make the border worse rather than allow immigrantion reform legislation to pass through congress. He only uses the issue for marketing himself rather than actually fixing anything. His only policy is to be harsh and inumane rather than working towards realistic nuanced policy. Mexico is our biggest trade partner and migrant workers travel seasonally and harvest most of the food in the country. Half of illegal immigration is people who enter legally (mostly through airports) and overstay their visas. The US expels millions of people every year regardless of who the president is. So Trump's cartoonish immigration policies are purely meant for political consumption rather than effective governing. -
It's customary to refer to the thing you're talking about on an internet post. Is it the speech where he casually mentioned guns aiming at liz cheneys head? If so in context I don't think it was a big deal. I hate this mf and I'm not defending his stupidity, but what he was saying was about the ease with which politicians start wars when they aren't the ones having their lives risked.
-
That has been my only argument and it stands unrefuted. And for that matter it's not even a controversial assertion. It's like I'm arguing that the earth is round and you're responding by saying it's not round because your yard is flat. You on the other hand have no argument in this thread other than to reflexively disagree with me for no apparent reason and with no relevant facts. Principles of how an election should properly occur, including any operational rules of fairness are most definitely ethics. "noun A set of principles of right conduct." (American Heritage) "the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group" (Mirriam Webster)
-
Nope my argument has been solid and consistent for weeks and you've done nothing to even remotely touch any premise of it. A. Yep these are ethical standards for voting. I see you simply don't know what the word "ethics" means (I'm shocked). You should go look it up and expand your vocabulary. B. There are naturally a lot more ethical standards beyond these to a fair election. For example, counting the votes correctly, not changing the voting laws right before an election, having a secret ballot, outlawing the buying of votes, having impartial election bodies, having an open nomination process, etc etc etc. More of your typical method-- to straight up lie about sone specific claim and then predictably refuse to support it with even one fact.
-
Unlike you, my emotions are not the feature of any argument I'm making. I will just continue to stick to facts. Democracy doesn't? Lol. That might be the single dumbest thing anyone has said in this thread. LOL. Free and fair are ethical principles. You find the dumbest stuff to try to disagree about for no reason. And then immediately contradict yourself. Like how does claiming that democracy has no need for ethical principles help advance any argument of yours in this thread?
-
It was a direct reply to you saying that I've said it wasn't fair. To which you were not able to cite me ever saying that. You can follow a simple dialogue. Very good. NOW you're suddenly agreeing with me that the definition of democracy includes basic ethical principles not stated in the dictionary. See, that wasn't so hard. In actual democratic elections land doesn't vote. In the not-quite- democracy electoral college the land is the primary thing voting, as 81% informed by citizen representation.
-
Yep it was. Lots of dictatorships have held votes for leaders. Saddam Hussain, Vladimir Putin. Doesn't mean they have democracy. ...which was different from the thing you claimed I said. Yep. The people. Not the land. Dictionary definitions aren't going to use political theory. But it is implied when it says the people that those people have equal civic rights. Lol nor does it say that the people's choice happens according to whoever gets LESS votes. Obviously people voting implies majority rule. That's what a vote is.
-
You said: "You claim it's unfair" You said: "You've said several times that you don't feel it's fair" Then you admit that I never did either and that you just based it off of something else I said. Sloppy. These things are all premises of the same argument. You like to say that i don't have an argument but it turns out you're just unable to comprehend one. That's a fact. Nope you made this part up. Another factual premise. Another lie. Another factual premise. So yes these three facts do constitute reasons in my argument for why the electoral college by design is not democratic. Nope another dishonest oversimplification. Absolutely perfect democracy is not needed. But something by definition cannot be democracy if it's missing 1) one person one vote. 2) majority rule. And it wouldn't hurt if they directly voted for the thing in question, but this is not required.
-
Ah so when you write phrases like "you claim" and "you said" you're taking other words and interpreting them into something else. Ok, that's one way to operate. I've been arguing about the nature of the electoral college. My argument has been that it does not by design utilize democratic principles. My question about your so-called "tyrrany of the majority" claim is relevant to this because in most ways you're agreeing with my position, that the electoral college is fundamentally non-democratic. Yet, out pure adersarial stubborness, you keep trying to argue against my/our position and yet you're unable to ever land a blow because doing so would actually strike at your anti-democracy beliefs. So you keep misdirecting to all these irrelevant nonsense issues.
-
That's what I thought. You never back up any claim. Where again? I for one don't care about anyone's subjective opinion about the electoral college. So imagine how much I would care to read your opinion about my opinion of it?Debunking all of your misconceptions and disinformation with easily verifiable facts is more than enough for this thread so far. Ok so to you, any democracy (majority rule) is automatically tyranny?
-
Show me. Yes, I described it as garbage just then. Mentioning an opinion or implying some preference for a certain government principle is not the same as outlining an argument. I've so far never made an argument against the electoral college. In this context doing so would be a "casting pearls before swine" type situation. No no no. I'm suggesting that there is no complexity or deep thought to this phrase you use. That's it's a superficial throw away line you use anytime you want to bash democracy. If I'm wrong, let's hear the nuances of this.