Which, if I understand it correctly, doesn’t require him to reverse himself. the question in that case doesn’t appear to be whether he wasn’t eligible to be POTUS, but whether they could keep him off the ballot because was ineligible. He ruled, yes if he is ineligible for POTUS, they can keep him off the ballot.
The easy out here is that he rules, like a previous judge ruled, that the amendment doesn’t actually restrict one from being POTUS.
At some point a democracy is so flawed it stops being a democracy in any meaningful sense. The stuff I mentioned exists on a spectrum that includes “democracy” in Russia.
I ultimately agree. It’s not some black or white thing. And Russia is clearly not a democracy, but an autocracy. Some countries have better and stronger democracy than others. The US actually has a pretty strong democracy index, at the high end of “flawed democracy.” We clearly have shit we need to improve, but still a democracy. And the fact that we have an electoral system to elect the POTUS is not one of the reasons ours is flawed.
If you define democracy as a state where people can change things if they all band together, then every country in history has been a democracy because people have always had the theoretical option to band together and overthrow their government by force.
If we are being unnecessarily pedantic, I didn’t say this. I said it’s a government.
The fact that there are flaws in our democracy does not make it not a democracy.
There are essentially only 4 forms of government, based on the ultimate source of power:
Even in the case where there are flaws, ultimately the power resides in the people. If we all banded together and voted for someone who would get rid of gerrymandering and the FPTP voting system, and all that BS, we could make it happen. Which means we are still a democracy.
Please expand.
Democracy just means that the power ultimately rests in the hands of the people. The fact that we vote for our representatives, meaning it’s ultimately up to us, makes us a democracy. The electoral system is not contradictory to a democracy.
“froth at the mouth”
If you hate the guy so much that any time his name is mentioned, even if it is something he did right, you have a problem. I don’t like him either, and I fear what he might mean for this country if elected again. . .but if his name makes you lose your shit you have a mental problem.
“Trump gets into I think a psychological illness they have about Trump,” he said. “Trump derangement syndrome is real — so obsessive.”
The only people who suffer from TDS worse than the far left liberals who froth at the mouth at the mere mention of his name …are his supporters.
How do you know they’re actually bots? 90% of the time, when I’m debating with someone who is passionately defending their position, they’ll at some point accuse me of being a bot or a shill. I also can’t recall any time I’ve debated someone and have been convinced they are a bot.
I’m just skeptical as it’s a convenient ad hominem.
What’s so special about iMessage?
Mike Johnson is claiming god spoke to him and told him when the right time to step up to be speaker was, and so he was chosen by god to do this.
This minister is saying that the devil works by fear and division and that is what Mike Johnson is doing.
I’m not sure how you got from the latter that he is claiming to know God’s will.
It’s a thousand times better than this empty garbage. How does this have any upvotes?
Neither a third party candidate nor an independent candidate has ever won the presidential election in this country.
The republican party didn’t even form until 1845. For a while it was the Whigs and the Democrats. We’ve had at least 5 different parties win the POTUS. I’m not saying this is astonishing, but the claim that a third party has never won is laughably wrong. I even explicitly noted it to you and you weren’t smart enough to go look it up on your own.
For the purposes of counting votes, voting third party or independent for a presidential election is the same as not voting.
Incorrect. The votes still count. When it comes to the electoral system, it’s effectively the same on the outcome.
However, when it comes to showing who you support, clearly who you actually support (especially if we are talking by giving them your vote) it’s not even remotely the same.
And this is the central part of what we are arguing here - something you keep insisting we stick to. … of course only when it suits your point, going off on ridiculous logical tangents is “persusive” when it helps you make your point. lol - so trying to argue that you don’t actually support the person you are voting for, but some other person, is just plain bat-shit crazy reality denialism.
I refuted their central point in that statement by establishing the logical contradiction there in.
No, you refuted nothing. You just called them liars with zero evidence. Your accusation is based solely on the fact that it contradicts the conclusion you’ve already come to. You don’t care about reality, you care about trying to convince people you are right.
But are you just going to drop the fact that you used the ad hominem to refute their claim?
Actually, you know what? You’re lying right now and you actually agree with me, because no one would be stupid enough to hold your position. That was easy. lol I like this style of debate.
It is well understood no third party candidates or independent candidates have any chance at winning the presidential election.
Incorrect. It’s unlikely, but “we can’t know that for sure.” Republicans were, at one point, “the third party.” You can’t keep going back to “what we likely know is true” because we’ve already established that “what is likely true” only matters when it helps your point, and ignored when it hurts it.
Choosing a candidate who has no chance of winning is the same as not voting for the purpose of counting votes.
I tend to agree here. Except when it comes to who you support for POTUS. If you’re voting for a candidate, literally the thing that most shows your support for a candidate, you can’t say they don’t support the candidate they are literally voting for. Well, you can say it, but we’ve already established that you will say bat-shit crazy things in a desperate attempt to not be wrong.
This is not an ad hominem
No, it’s absolutely an ad hominem. Like the most pure form of it. You are questioning their motives instead of what they are literally saying. It’s a textbook case of it. Do you mind if I point some students to this in the future as a perfect example of the ad hominem?
If you want to refute my central point in your argument, then direct your argument at this paragraph.
Your central point is that they are supporting Trump. That paragraph of desperate nonsense that kind of loosely resembles logic is your argument for that point. But make no mistake about it, your central point is that they are Trump supporters. Something they explicitly have said is untrue, and the only refutation you have against what they have expressly said is an unsupported accusation that they are lying, which is an ad hominem. You’re argument falls apart because it relies on an unsupported attack on their character for it to be true, and you pointed out early how bad arguments that rely on ad hominems are. Of course, you were wrong at the time that my argument hinged on an ad hominem, I was just insulting someone who kind of deserves it, but you were right that if your argument relies on it, like yours does, that it’s pretty clear how “unconvincing” your argument is.
In short, we know the statement “We’re not supporting Trump” is false, because all the available facts contradict it.
Except, of course, the fact that you can actually support pretty much anyone you want for POTUS and are not restricted to the nominees of two major parties, and the fact that they have openly said that they don’t support Trump. I mean, those are only the most damning facts for your argument. There are plenty of others that we have hashed over that also demolish your self-contradictory position.
I read the posted article and saw their claim that they don’t support Trump. I did not take their word at face value because I saw the contradiction in their statement.
Of course not because it would force you to admit that you are wrong, and you’re not arguing in good faith, but desperately trying to pretend that you are not not wrong. Just like a child.
But, of course, by accusing them of lying, this is also an ad hominem. Something you were hilariously and hypocritically up in arms about me doing just a little while ago. I’m shocked it took me this long to realize that that accusation was just a warning that you were going to do it at some point.
With half as much effort put at refuting my argument’s central point, your arguments would be much more compelling.
Your central point is absolutely demolished by the fact that they explicitly said they don’t support Trump. Your central point relies 100% on claiming they are lying when you have zero evidence to support this accusation. All I’ve done throughout this debate is show how the same absurd logic you’ve used to justify your point can be used to justify claiming tons of people who are actually going to vote for Biden are actually Trump supporters. I can only presume this is because it would catch you in the net too, and you don’t want to have to admit you are a Trump supporter. You are about as intelligent as one, so you would be among your kind.
This is the kind of meaningless statement I’ve been talking about in my argument.
You’re arguing that they are supporting Trump. They are literally and explicitly saying they don’t support Trump. Yet pointing this out is “meaningless.” Holy shit the lengths people will go to avoid admitting that they are wrong will never cease to amaze me.
Another way to put it is this person is lying.
So, maybe they are lying about not supporting Biden. We “can’t know for sure” which way they are lying. So, as usual, your point is self-defeating and your flailing contradicts something you said earlier.
Let me guess: “I can claim they are lying when it suits my point. . .but when you can claim they are lying in the same exact way, that doesn’t count!”
But “they’re lying!” is classic. I’m cracking up over here.
Rather than trying to articulate why the opposite is true, your argument simply relies on ad hominem statements.
I literally just linked you an article with them saying something explicitly that proves you wrong. Trying to pretend that my arguments “rely” on the ad hominem is just a desperate attempt to protect your own ego.
But this topic has nothing to do with me and thus your argument isn’t persuasive.
If them telling you, outright, that they don’t support Trump isn’t going to persuade you that they don’t support Trump, you’re all but outright admitting that nothing will persuade you away from your delusion. At this point, I’m no longer trying to persuade you, it’s just entertaining watching you lash out and flail around. I’ve never seen such a fragile, yet proud ego. . .so unwilling to admit they are wrong and at the same time stick it out. Most people would have either just admitted that they were wrong by this point, or slink off. You, however, wow. Impressive. To stick around while getting so repeatedly flogged. Amazing.
Also, a good faith discussion doesn’t mean one of the people arguing has to admit that they’re wrong.
Agreed.
I believe another person can see my arguments and not be convinced by them.
If this thread is any indication of how you typically argue, that probably happens a lot. lol
Yeah, but it’s on a picture and I agree with it, because it’s shitting on Americans, so I’m going to mindlessly parrot it!
I was on reddit for a very long time. And this is why I started to bemoan when communities would celebrate that they passed some number of subscribers.
/pardon me as I yell at the clouds. Stop now unless you want to read a completely unnecessary rant.
Two of my favorite niche subreddits were absolutely ruined by getting big: mindfulness and foodporn. The former was primarily a discussion about practicing mindfulness, there were even a couple of buddhists who actually deeply studied the tradition that provided very good non-western insight. It was a good place to go get help, albeit occasionally got a spattering of stupid memes, but you could easily get past them. As it grew it turned more and more into just memes, and then was just over-taken by new-age nonsense and pseudointellectual quotes over pictures. Food porn (while never exactly what I wanted) went from often having well-done pictures of good food, to shitty cell-phone shots of oversized hamburgers, half eaten food, and plates of food sitting on counters with all of this shit in the background.
Literally and explicitly straight from the horse’s mouth. If you’re committed to addressing the arguments in good faith, you’ll admit that you are wrong now. Well, of course, unless you’re a troll or a complete idiot. And, no, that’s actually not a false dichotomy.*
*actually it probably is, there are probably a number of other embarrassing reasons you might try to deny it. And based on how much you’ve simply ignored reality in this debate during while “arguing” in “good faith” I’m sure you’ll try. lol
No chance trump doesn’t win a primary election for Republicans, unless they block him from it.