Walz Accidentally Let's the Cat Out of the Bag

[CdnFox]

15 hours ago, Matthew said:

Why would I even care about trying to do that? Again, my stance in this thread is simply to describe the system.

Well that's a lie. You've said several times that you don't feel it's fair unless it's one person one vote for president.

So if you're only job here is to describe the system well, you described it, so obviously there's nothing left to talk about  

Kid if you're going to try and sell a lie that big, you got to do a better job of it. Anybody can go back through this thread and see that you are complaining about the way things are currently and don't feel that they're fair.

 

Quote

If you're waiting for a dispute about some better system, that would of course be very easy to explain because the electoral college is obviously garbage.

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT you're not HERE to comment on the system  YOUR STANCE IS TO SIMPLY DESCRIBE IT!!!!

LOL -  man you couldn't even finish the post without showing your dishonesty  

Again if you're going to make that argument you would have to make an argument.  

Quote

So then, what does "tyranny of the majority" specifically mean? Or is it just a BS phrase you use against anything that would be more democratic?

 

Kid, to explain it more simply than i already have would involve driving to the store and buying some crayons.   If you're too stupid to figure out what tyrrany means or what majority means then i can't help you.  I mean it's three words that are commonly used and you're effing it up.

[Matthew]

8 hours ago, User said:

4 wolves and 1 sheep voting on who to have for dinner is "more democratic," so do you support that?

So how would giving the sheep an extra vote or two fix it?

The dangers of the numerical majority treading on the rights of the minority can only be dealt with through a strong defense of people's rights and liberties (via laws, courts, and institutions). Not by undermining the actual democracy.

[Matthew]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You've said several times that you don't feel it's fair unless it's one person one vote for president.

Show me.

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

YOUR STANCE IS TO SIMPLY DESCRIBE IT!!!!

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.

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

to explain it more simply than i already have

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.

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Show me.

Sure, select this thread and just keep scrolling up you'll find a million examples of you indicating that you feel the current system is not fair or properly representative.

Which you should already be aware of. If you can't be bothered to pay attention to what you say I don't know why you'd think the rest of us would be.

Quote

Yes, I described it as garbage just then.

I know, I just pointed that out

Quote

Mentioning an opinion or implying some preference for a certain government principle is not the same as outlining an argument.

I know, that was my point. You claim it's unfair, you claim that it's garbage, you claim all kinds of things but you will not explain why or how. That is literally what I said.

And if you want to make those claims and insist that there is a problem with the current system then you need to be able to make an argument as to why that is the case.

Wow, it only took you about five posts to work your way back to where we started from. I think a snail passed your train of thought on the outside

 

Quote

no. I'm suggesting that there is no complexity or deep thought to this phrase you use.

There really isn't. It's not meant to be found in a fortune cookie. It is not some sort of witty saying that has deeper meaning as you think about it.

It is a simple factual statement like 2 + 2 = 4. It is a fundamental basic simple principle of democracy that it is a tyranny of the majority. The majority hold absolute power over the minority.

This is so simple that a grade 3 student could understand it and see the problem. And yet you seem to be struggling with this simple concept begging and whining for people to explain it to you for the 50th or 60th time.

Democracy as a model suffers from being the tyranny of the majority unless it is tempered and offset to help prevent or alleviate that.

The current Electoral College set up and representation helps address that as well as having a constitutional representational democracy rather than an actual democracy.

If you want to claim otherwise as you have been doing then you need to actually make an argument. "it's poopy-pants just because" is not an argument, as we have both agreed. 

otherwise you're just some tard with a baseless opinion

Edited October 29, 2024 by CdnFox

[User]

51 minutes ago, Matthew said:

So how would giving the sheep an extra vote or two fix it?

Fix what?

You keep going on about "more democratic" 

So, is this too democratic for you?

 

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, User said:

Fix what?

He's implying that majority voting harms the minority. Hence he claims the voting system must be rigged to give unequal greater voice to the minority. So i want to know how that logic would work in his 4 wolves and 1 sheep scenario.

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Matthew said:

He's implying that majority voting harms the minority. Hence he claims the voting system must be rigged to give unequal greater voice to the minority. So i want to know how that logic would work in his 4 wolves and 1 sheep scenario.

this from the guy who claims that he doesn't see anything wrong with the current system all he's here to do is discuss how it works  

I've actually answered that question as well. So now we're back to the point where you lie about what has already been told to you, you lie about your own statements here, and you still refuse to make an argument as to why the current system is unacceptable.

You're a bad actor, you're a bad thinker, and I have serious questions about what kind of a person you are on top of it.

Either make your own argument or admit that you're a lying sack of shit who's just pissed his girl is losing. 

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

select this thread and just keep scrolling up

That's what I thought. You never back up any claim.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You claim it's unfair

Where again?

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

you need to be able to make an argument as to why

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.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

There really isn't.

Ok so to you, any democracy (majority rule) is automatically tyranny?

[Matthew]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

claims that he doesn't see anything wrong with the current system

Where did i say this? Is this your new method of lying--to just flat out make up pretend things that you claim I said?

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

ve actually answered that question as well

Nope, you still haven't.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Matthew said:

That's what I thought. You never back up any claim.

I literally did. I literally referred you to your own comments in this very thread.

Quote

Where again?

well for starters in the very reply that I noted above. Right where you were explaining how you aren't here to criticize or comment but just explain the system and I pointed out that in your next breath you criticize the system and called it garbage.

Maybe if you're trying to hide the truth don't plant the evidence in your own statement at the same time  

Quote

I for one don't care about anyone's subjective opinion about the electoral college.

You very obviously do. You have been arguing it for ages and you just demanded that I explain mine again

Quote

So imagine how much I would care to read your opinion about my opinion of it?

Oh I have no doubt you live in fear of that. There is no doubt in my mind that you're petrified to offer your opinion other than to claim that the system is broken because you know that people such as myself will rip it to shreds for the absolute garbage it is.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind but you are aware that you're being irrational and tribal and that there's absolutely no validity to your point. This is why you demand others explain their point in the vain hope that you can somehow discredit their point without putting your point out there for observation.

So there's no doubt in my mind you have no interest at all in exposing your own intellectual fraud and incompetency ot the world at large. 

But hey, prove me wrong. Make your point

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Where did i say this? Is this your new method of lying--to just flat out make up pretend things that you claim I said?

Nope, you still haven't.

So you're obviously so emotionally perturbed but now you're posting half a quote here and there and I'm supposed to know where it's from. It's not from any of the stuff directly above, there's no context

So it sounds like the person flat out lying is you.

Here's what I've claimed about you. I've said that you consistently say the system is a problem. You call it garbage or unfair or question its democratic credentials, yet you fail to defend that or explain your point.

You claim your only purpose here is to explain how the system works and yet that is obviously not true and in fact wasn't even true in that post. You went on to criticize the system.

See my points above. You know you have no rational argument here and you are scared spitless that everyone will realize it if you try and explain anything.

So you just asked people like me who can rip you to shreds logically to repeat our arguments over and over and over again and then deny anything you've said in the vein hope that you'll be able to somehow make yourself look better by trying to find a flaw in our arguments.

Unfortunately you're cheesy little efforts just make you look like a complete loser.

User and I have both chewed you up and spat you out in this discussion and you're not looking any better the further it goes

[Matthew]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

you criticize the system and called it garbage.

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.

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You very obviously do. You have been arguing it for ages and you just demanded that I explain mine again

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.

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, Matthew said:

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.

No you literally said the system is garbage. There was no "you claim" or "you said"

Quote

I've been arguing about the nature of the electoral college. My argument has been that it does not by design utilize democratic principles.

Oh look, you're changing your story yet again

Funny how often you do that when you get pushed into a corner. 

In fact your first argument was that Americans don't actually have any vote for their president and there is no such thing as an election other than the Electoral College. That was pointed out to be wrong and you looked kind of stupid.

You then pointed out that only a one person one vote system would be democratic and THAT was shown to be not true. 

You then claimed that it wasn't the college that was the problem, the system was unfair because different states had different people-per-college votes and THAT wasn't fair, which again you were made to look a fool over.  You tried to suggest it was a constitutional issue and THAT went badly for you as well. 

Now you seem to be arguing that any system that isn't 100 percent democracy based is "non-democratic".  Which has already been pointed out several times to be absolutely assinine.  Democracy is in fact definitely incorporated into the system.  The system is a democratic system  but the democracy is limited in several ways to prevent the obvious problems with full democracy. 

The people vote. That vote directly results in who will be president and in a manner that the people have agreed upon. It's democratic. It's just not a pure democracy nor should it be because that would be substantially unfair and you have not shown how it would not be. 

 

IF you think this is going well for you or that you look like anything but a delusional half wit at this point you're wrong. 

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

There was no "you claim" or "you said"

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.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

you're changing your story yet again

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.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Americans don't actually have any vote for their president

That's a fact.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

and there is no such thing as an election other than the Electoral College.

Nope you made this part up.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

You then pointed out that only a one person one vote system would be democratic

Another factual premise.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

You then claimed that it wasn't the college that was the problem

Another lie.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

different states had different people-per-college votes

Another factual premise.

So yes these three facts do constitute reasons in my argument for why the electoral college by design is not democratic.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Now you seem to be arguing that any system that isn't 100 percent democracy based is "non-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.

[CdnFox]

43 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Quote

 

You said: "You claim it's unfair"

You said: "You've said several times that you don't feel it's fair"

 

 

But that's not what you were quoting.  

Sorry kiddo.  I get why you want to try to distract from your absolute failure to make a coherent argument with either me OR user. 

Quote

Then you admit that I never did either

I did no such thing. I quoted the line that I was referring to and you didn't say those things now you're changing your story and trying to pretend we were talking about something entirely different which we weren't. And as I stated at the time it was one example, one that I went to because you said it in exactly the same quote where you tried to say you weren't here to do anything but describe how the system works.

 

Quote

These things are all premises of the same argument. . You like to say that i don't have an argument

They are not the premise of an argument and in fact it is you who claim that not only do you not have an argument, you didn't come here to make one. You just came here to discuss how the system is structured. Now you're saying magically that there is an argument but that people just don't understand.

Kid it is hard to describe how badly you have failed at this

Lets speed through the rest of your nonsense. 

Nobody made anything up, there's no lies, and no, it is not factual to state that something that isn't 100% democracy must therefore be 0% democracy. Democracy can exist with constraints. That's why we live in what is referred to as a constitutional representative democracy

 

 

Quote

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.

That is blatantly untrue.

Democracy is just where the people elect the leaders.  NO definition says 'one person one vote' exclusively. 

Democracy Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

a form of government in which the people elect representatives to make decisions, policies, laws, etc. according to law

Democracy - Wikipedia

In a representative democracy, the people choose governing officials through elections to do so. Who is considered part of "the people" and how authority is shared among or delegated by the people has changed over time and at different rates in different countries. 

Democracy - Oxford Reference

 political system that allows the citizens to participate in political decision‐making, or to elect representatives to government bodies.

 

Not a single definition says one person one vote.  Just that the people elect represenatntives and most reference the fact that this is NOT necessarily a 1 person one vote concept.

Do the people elect representatives in the US? Yes.  Is it one person one vote? No.  Is it a democracy? Yes. 

Nor does it even say that 'majority rules'. In fact in many exerpts it says as i do that changes are made to minimize that. Like the constitution, etc. 

So literally by the definition of democracy YOU ARE WRONG. 

 

So your new imaginary line of thinking that it's NOT democratic or a democracy just went out the window entirely.  virtually every single definition other than the one you just made up to try to fit your last ditch attempt not to look dumb says you're wrong. 

Representative democracy is just the people electing the leaders who will represent them in one way or another and it has NEVER been about 1 person one vote across the board. 

 

 

If you 're going to pretend something doesn't match a definition then at LEAST look the definition up first. 

 

Ya done looking stupid now or did you want to invent another "argument" that you never had in the first place and see if that turns out better for you?

 

 

[Matthew]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But that's not what you were quoting.  

Yep it was.

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Democracy is just where the people elect the leaders. 

Lots of dictatorships have held votes for leaders. Saddam Hussain, Vladimir Putin. Doesn't mean they have democracy.

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I did no such thing. I quoted the line that I was referring to

...which was different from the thing you claimed I said.

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Democracy is just where the people elect the leaders.

Yep. The people. Not the land.

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Not a single definition says one person one vote

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.

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nor does it even say that 'majority rules'.

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.

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Yep it was.a vote is.

Nope, it wasn't. But frankly I can certainly understand why you feel the need to lie about it and some of the other things you've said. I'd be embarrassed and wished I could take it back too if I had said it

Quote

Lots of dictatorships have held votes for leaders. Saddam Hussain, Vladimir Putin. Doesn't mean they have democracy.

Okay, which dictator has held a free and fair election Thus granting the people an actual voice and who runs the government?

Sorry kiddo but that's just the weakest kind of excuse there is. If the people genuinely elect the leadership then it's a democracy. In fact in Rome they elected dictators specifically and it was still a democracy it just meant that the dictator had complete control for the term of his office. But it was still the people that put him in power

Quote

..which was different from the thing you claimed I said.

It is literally what you said. That's what a quote is. You can't say that I quoted you but your quote is different than what you said.

Have another cup of coffee and try that again

Quote

Yep. The people. Not the land.

And how does the land vote in an election?

Once again you're back to being a tard.  Nobody anywhere has ever claimed that the land has a vote. And suggesting that just shows that you're dishonest or stupid or both. I lean towards both. However the people that live on the land may have regional interests.

This is why we don't have one giant world government. People in different areas have different beliefs and different needs and different thoughts and they have the right to have those respected and represented and protected. If we had one great big world government then china would tell everybody how to live. 

So you seem to be going back to your weird little pretend argument that somehow the land has votes and therefore the system is unfair. For you to make that argument you would have to explain why it is substantially unfair that people living in various regions should not be allowed to have their interests at least somewhat protected. 

I mean gays are a minority, do you think that the majority should be allowed to dictate whether or not gays have rights? 

 

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? In a free and democratic society the majority vote is tempered to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Quote

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

It doesn't say that at all. It says the people choose and it also says that the people choose different models over time as they see fit. But it's still a democracy

 

So let's recap

You did say the things I said and now you look like a loser for trying to pretend you didn't

Nobody anywhere thinks the land votes except you

Democracy always is tempered with checks and balances to prevent the tyranny of the majority. That's why we have rights and why we live in a representational democracy rather than a direct one

Your definition of democracy as one person one vote isn't recognized anywhere. Literally every source out there recognizes that a democratic process is simply where the people have a say in their representation. So your entire premise is based on an utter lie

No wonder you want to go back and edit what you said. If I look that stupid I would too.

[Matthew]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nope, it wasn't

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.

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

which dictator has held a free and fair election

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.

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And how does the land vote in an election?

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.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Matthew said:

It was a direct reply to you saying that I've said it wasn't fair.

It was not. But I love that you're pretending it is now I was clear what I was citing originally

Let's keep it simple. You have in the past and after that comment stated that you feel that the current system is not democratic or fair. If you feel it is democratic or fair and I have misunderstood something you can clear it up right now by saying it's democratic and fair. But you won't because I'm right

Quote

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.

No I didn't but again you have to lie about it because the truth and what is in the dictionary doesn't match your imaginary definition that underpins your whole argument. As I have correctly pointed out your entire argument is based on a lie.

Quote

In actual democratic elections land doesn't vote

It's nice to see your meds are starting to kick in.

This weird delusion you have the land votes is deeply concerning. Your mental health needs to be checked by a professional

[Matthew]

26 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You have in the past and after that comment stated that you feel that the current system is not...fair.

Where did I state this?

27 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No I didn't

So, you don't think democracy includes ethical principles not mentioned in the dictionary definition? You just listed some, what is there to disagree about?

[CdnFox]

57 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Where did I state this?

 

Several places. And as I said if I misunderstood you And you didn't feel that way you could clear it up right now by saying I was wrong and that you do believe it's fair. But of course you chose not to do that because I'm right

Quote

So, you don't think democracy includes ethical principles not mentioned in the dictionary definition? You just listed some, what is there to disagree about?

It doesn't include any ethical principles at all. It includes the people determining who their representatives will be. That's the definition. If you choose to utilize ethical or moral standards of your choice when designing the system that meets that criteria then that's fine. But that has nothing to do with the democracy itself, that's just how you choose to exercise democracy.

A firearm should be operated or used ethically and morally as well, but that does not make the definition of a firearm include morals and ethics.

Further, I made no claims about morals or ethics. I said it dictator is allowed to be a dictator if they are elected as such and in fact that has historical precedent. But the election has to be free and fair if we're going to say that the people had a voice in it. If the election is a sham and the people don't really actually get a voice then it's not democracy. Democracy is where the people have a say in their representatives. 

So it's not really about morals and ethics in that case it's about mechanics. You can't say that the people had a choice if they weren't actually given a choice

So no, you're wrong again.

America is a constitutional representative democracy. The people pick their representatives in a free and fair process.

 

So do you have anything to add or are you done repeating yourself despite the fact you've been disproven a million times over at this point? America uses a democratic process and is a democracy. The process is free and fair and while it could certainly use a little tweaking here and there it's remains a democracy as it is. You've provided no information or argument as to why this system isn't free or fair. So really you've got nothing left

[Matthew]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

you could clear it up right now by saying I was wrong and that you do believe it's fair

Unlike you, my emotions are not the feature of any argument I'm making. I will just continue to stick to facts.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It doesn't include any ethical principles at all.

Democracy doesn't? Lol. That might be the single dumbest thing anyone has said in this thread.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I made no claims about morals or ethics...But the election has to be free and fair

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?

Edited October 31, 2024 by Matthew

[CdnFox]

44 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Unlike you, my emotions are not the feature of any argument I'm making.

Neither is your brain what's your point?

Quote

I will just continue to stick to facts.

But you don't. And that's how we know you're lying about your emotions not playing a role in this.

And no, free and fair are not ethical issues.  Ethical issues or subjective, these are objective

Your argument has been shot to hell. It was beyond week to begin with and now there's nothing left of it

Every fact you raised has turned out to be untrue. Your claim about the constitution turned out to be false your claim that the definition of democracy meant that this isn't a democratic process turned out to be false everything else has turned out to be false.

United states is a democracy that enjoys a fair and free system for electing representatives.

You are just butthurt because Kamala will probably lose the college vote even if she wins the popular vote. So you pretend that in some way it's unfair.

Just to make clear how stupid that is, you are complaining that a person who was nominated without winning a single nomination vote ever in 2020 or 2024 maybe defeated by a process which isn't democratic enough for your liking.

yeash.  You couldn't throw a temper tantrum much harder

[Matthew]

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

what's your point?

That my opinion has never been the basis of any argument I've made, despite your desire to make it about opinions.

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

free and fair are not ethical issues.  Ethical issues or subjective, these are objective

When someone says "fair election" what is the non-subjective meaning of this?

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Every fact you raised has turned out to be untrue.

A fact is a fact and by definition cannot be untrue.

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Your claim about the constitution turned out to be false

Ha what specific claim are you referring to?

Edited October 31, 2024 by Matthew

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Matthew said:

That my opinion has never been the basis of any argument I've made, despite your desire to make it about opinions.

Well you sure flip flop back and forth on that quite a bit. Although for that matter you're not particularly good about clarifying your position either or your arguments.

Quote

When someone says "fair election" what is the non-subjective meaning of this?

It's usually accepted to be that all people have equal opportunity to vote. The free part usually refers to people not being compelled to vote for one person or another. It's got nothing to do with morals

 

Quote

A fact is a fact and by definition cannot be untrue.

All that tells us is that none of your facts were actually facts. You built your entire argument on falsehoods

 

Quote

Ha what specific claim are you referring to?

Oh look, you're losing the argument again so you're making people go back and repeat what you've already said rather than face the truth.

Kid every single angle you have tried here has failed utterly. United states uses a democratic system. It is free and fair. Sorry that Kamala might lose and it upsets you