Republicans, What Will Satisfy You?

[Ronson]

Oh it is sweet of you to read my remarks and comment upon them.

Being a "die hard" US patriot myself, I was explaining why you didn't need to worry about "die hards" nitpicking your post that was nitpicking the US.

Your remark that "But as far as democracies go, the US has done a relatively good job for the longest amount of time". The "the longest amount of time" in relation to what?

Certainly Germany and New Zealand, but any modern democracy.

And what sort of democracy? One like that of ancient Athens?

Too many variables to delve into.

[Stoic]

Yes. The fact that these tactics are not new, does not mean that it's a good idea.

This particular tactic is new, and a particularly bad idea.

[CivilDiscourse]

This particular tactic is new, and a particularly bad idea.

As I said, the tactic isn't really all that new. I gave examples of steps liberals have/are taking that fall right along those same lines.

[Gondwanaland]

And no one noticed the deliberate mistake!

So here is the correction before I receive the ire of die-hard US patriots.

The phrase "a country of fifty colonies" should of course read "a country of fifty states"

Or no one was interested in the gaffes of a person who doesnt accept correction and will play around with words whenever caught making a gaffe. Or just weren't interested in the post of an admitted troll.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Or no one was interested in the gaffes of a person who doesnt accept correction and will play around with words whenever caught making a gaffe. Or just weren't interested in the post of an admitted troll.

Well thank you anyway for reading my correction.

As for trolling I would contend that referring to New Zealanders as you did [your comment has since been edited by a Moderator] is a clear example of a troll i.e. a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people by posting inflammatory language.

[Electric Skeptic]

Thank you for so clearly demonstrating the attitude of the elites toward real, normal people.

"Elite"? Nothing elite about me. I'm a working man, so I go for the party whose philosophy is for the worker, rather than the billionaire. That 'elites' have anything to do with it is a strawman.

By way of review, I am not claiming that "this election was fraudulent." I await the results of all court cases in that regard. I *do* claim the election was not "free and fair," given the activities of the information gate-keepers in Big Media and Big Tech (Big Social Media and Big Search).

Then perhaps you should expand on what "free and fair" mean in this context.

I hope our beliefs and concomitant actions *do* doom the "democracy," and preserve and revive the Constitutional Federal Republic.

The constitutional federal republic is a democracy; our United States is a democracy that the actions of Trump and co are very much endangering.

[Electric Skeptic]

His comment was in response to globalist foreigners picking apart the Constitution of the world's most successful democracy. And that is objectively true.

To give such a claim any creedence at all, you would need to define 'successful' in this context. Does it mean longest-lasting? Then the US is definitely not it. Largest (in terms of populace)? Then the US would win, but that's not much of a criteria. Militarily strongest? Again, the US would win, but that doesn't really say much about the value of its democracy.

Not to mention his claim was that the US is "greatest country on the planet" (which claim would, like yours, need a definition of 'greatest' in context to be remotely credible), not "the world's most successful democracy" (oh, and don't forget, some of our less literate countrymen don't even understand that the US is a democracy).

(and the sheep thing was about NZ)

I now know that.

Deconstructing is exactly what they were doing. I thought it was amusing, though. Like Cubans telling us how to run our show.

Nobody was deconstructing anything.

[Electric Skeptic]

Probably because die-hard US patriots didn't bother to read it.

You make it sound like "die-hard US patriots" put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and repeat "isnotisnotisnot" to themselves as soon as anybody starts mentioning the possibility of improving our government. That's just idiotic. There is no harm in reading such suggestions; who knows, they might come up with something helpful. It's not "die-hard US patriots" who believe that nobody else can teach us anything; it's idiots.

Every democracy (every government for that matter) is flawed. But as far as democracies go, the US has done a relatively good job for the longest amount of time. So why should Americans care what Germans and New Zealanders think about restructuring it?

The US has done a relatively good job - the "longest amount of time" bit is rather more controversial. Claims for the oldest democracy in the world are pretty hotly contested, and the US is usually mentioned in such a discussion, but so are nations like Iceland, Great Britain, the Faroe Islands, the Isle of Man, Switzerland, etc. some claim that "Native American Six Nations confederacy (Iroquois), which traces its consensus-based government tradition across eight centuries, is the oldest living participatory democracy. Others point out that meaningful democracy only arrived at a national level in 1906, when Finland became the first country to abolish race and gender requirements for both voting and for serving in government" (the quoted bit comes from here).

[Electric Skeptic]

Actually I insulted New Zealand, the land of the sheep-lovers. And I don't mean that in a platonic way.

Literally his entire post was about how to deconstruct everything that makes America, America. Learn to read.

It was about how to change America. If the governmental system was changed completely (which it could certainly stand) America would still be America.

[Electric Skeptic]

An election where you have to show ID with signature to vote, where you sign the paper ballot and can be compared if a recount is needed. Where only ballots cast in person count. The only exception is absentee, where a photocopy of the ID is included and must be received by the election date, remain unopened until election day where any observer can witness the counting. In fact anyone should be able to witness any counting in their district.

That is the "fairest" it can get for me, but now you have rampant corruption.

So you logically cannot ask for concession and brush off the unfairness.

I think the best you can hope for is concession, have people continually point of the unfairness, and you will likely oppose fairness for the next election.

I appreciate your thoughts as to how to make future elections more secure, but I'm specifically addressing the election we just went through. What would have to happen in order for you to accept the results as fair and honest and Biden as the legitimate President?

[Electric Skeptic]

Colloquially.

Sadly, not factually. The US has been a democracy since its inception.

[Electric Skeptic]

As I said, the tactic isn't really all that new. I gave examples of steps liberals have/are taking that fall right along those same lines.

About that - could you expand a bit on those examples? By "pressuring electors directly to ignore the people's vote", do you mean 2016, pressuring them to vote not for Trump? If so, I don't believe that was an action of the 'leadership' of liberals (by which I mean anyone high up in the democratic party); certainly the President (Obama at the time) wasn't doing it.

And I assume you are calling the "National Popular Vote" effort a liberal one? I don't see it as that; certainly there's nothing inherently liberal about the idea. And some republican-led governments have passed it.

FWIW, I am of very mixed mind about tthe NPV. I appreciate its goal; I think the EC is antiquated and outmoded and needs to go. But it is doing an end run around the Constitution, which makes me very nervous both in principal and pragmatically. It's trying to correct something in the Constitution that is terrible, unfair, unrepresentative and un-democratic, but still...it is the Constitution, and it has provisions for how it is to be modified.

[CivilDiscourse]

And I assume you are calling the "National Popular Vote" effort a liberal one? I don't see it as that; certainly there's nothing inherently liberal about the idea. And some republican-led governments have passed it.

Well, I'll put it this way. So far, all the states that have ratified the interstate compact of questionable legality have been blue states/states under democrat control. This suggests that it's being done for political power means. In addition, the fact that they don't want to implement it until they reach 270 means that they aren't willing to sacrifice their power until they have it completely in the bag. You'd have to be blind to see states of one particular party all leaning into one specific feature without understanding that they are doing so for political power.

[Stoic]

As I said, the tactic isn't really all that new. I gave examples of steps liberals have/are taking that fall right along those same lines.

And I explained why this one is different.

[Electric Skeptic]

Well, I'll put it this way. So far, all the states that have ratified the interstate compact of questionable legality have been blue states/states under democrat control. This suggests that it's being done for political power means.

While that's true, it's had bipartisan support in a number of Republican states as well.

In addition, the fact that they don't want to implement it until they reach 270 means that they aren't willing to sacrifice their power until they have it completely in the bag.

I don't understand that. Sacrifice what power? And why bother to implement it when it will have no effect?

You'd have to be blind to see states of one particular party all leaning into one specific feature without understanding that they are doing so for political power.

Or doing so because it is better for America and they, not the other party, are actually working for America.