Looks like America, like many countries before us, has to learn the hard way. What to expect from a Trump presidency, second term.

Publius said:
Sorry, you haven't provided on stitch of evidence that's worth more than sputum



You posited this question, prefacing it as a 'diagnostic', so clearly you are on a fishing expedition, the ulterior motive.

Are the events being called elections in the united states free and fair?

Your question about whether elections in the United States are "free and fair" has an assumed premise, and it’s clear you’re not asking this as an innocent diagnostic. You are utterly disingenuous and you are sure as hell not fooling me.

Your question has nothing to do with the topic we’re debating. It’s an attempt to sidetrack the conversation and test for weaknesses you can exploit (and no, that's not an admission, so don't twist my words, thank you). If you want to discuss Hunter and Joe Biden, stay on topic. Otherwise, maybe it’s your own assumptions about elections that need diagnosing. What exactly are you trying to prove here? Are you testing for my worldview, or are you trying to distract from the actual substance of the debate? Either way, it’s transparent, and I’m not taking the bait. Apparently you have me confused with a fish.


Ah, how delightfully predictable you are. You admit you’re fishing for contradictions but can’t seem to identify a single one without me answering your preposterously loaded questions. And instead of confronting your intellectual failure head-on, you retreat into vague accusations of absurdity and an amateurish misuse of philosophical terms, all to hide the fact that your argument is as hollow as a papier-mâché piñata.

Your response amounts to this: "I can’t prove you’re wrong until you give me answers to my rigged questions." Well, congratulations, Liberty, that’s not an argument; that’s a confession of inadequacy. The inability to substantiate your claim without demanding my acquiescence is the intellectual equivalent of walking into a chess match with checkers pieces and insisting the rules should change to suit your lack of preparation.

And then, for the pièce de résistance, ('scuse my French) you toss around the term epistemology like a toddler wielding a butcher knife, wildly out of context and wildly out of your depth. To claim that my alleged epistemological inconsistency somehow invalidates my views on Biden so-called corruption is not just wrong; it’s embarrassing. You’re not diagnosing contradictions; you’re exposing your own lack of understanding while pretending you’ve struck intellectual gold.

For your edification:​

The term epistemology refers to the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. In academic contexts, it’s used to discuss questions like "What is knowledge?" "How do we know what we know?" and "What constitutes justified belief?" It’s not, as you’re clumsily attempting to wield it, a fancy buzzword to slap on garden-variety disagreements about investigative theories.

You’ve dragged the term out of its natural philosophical habitat, much like a child pocketing a rare insect at the park, only to ruin it by insisting it belongs in your Tupperware collection. Your use of epistemology here is akin to using quantum mechanics to explain why your toaster isn’t working -- it’s not just wrong, it’s hilariously irrelevant.

So next time you want to play at intellectual combat, do yourself a favor: learn the rules of engagement before throwing out terms you don’t understand. In the meantime, try focusing on making an argument that doesn’t rely on rigged questions, vague accusations, or pretentious jargon. Because until you do, Liberty, the only absurdity here is your feeble attempt at debate.

My statement is factual. There is no evidence connecting Joe Biden in any financially beneficial arrangement with Hunter's biz deals. None.

Ah, Liberty, the sarcasm is noted, but much like your arguments, it’s hollow and uninspired -- a desperate attempt to salvage an untenable position by tossing out straw men and hoping no one notices. Let’s unpack your latest gem, shall we?

You’re trying to equate legitimate business dealings by legal U.S. citizens with bribery and corruption, but where’s your proof? Where’s your evidence? You don’t have any, so instead, you build a caricature of my argument -- claiming I’m dismissing money laundering or nepotism outright -- as if that’s what was said. It wasn’t. What I actually said, and what you clearly don’t want to address, is that your "Biden Family" narrative collapses the moment you fail to connect Joe Biden himself to any actual wrongdoing.

This is the problem with your argument, Liberty: it’s all insinuation and no substance. You’ve got Hunter Biden conducting legal business abroad, which you can’t prove was illegal, unethical, or tied to Joe Biden in any way. So, instead of facing the absence of evidence head-on, you retreat into sarcasm and start waving around nebulous terms like "money laundering" and "nepotism," hoping no one notices your house of cards teetering on the brink of collapse.

Let me make this simple for you: You’re accusing the President of the United States of corruption. That’s a serious charge, and it requires serious evidence. But all you’ve brought to the table are innuendos, assumptions, and a profound misunderstanding of what constitutes a legal burden of proof. Sarcasm is not evidence. Vague gestures at "what could happen" do not make your case. And if the best you can do is insinuate that anyone with a family member in business must somehow be laundering money, then, Liberty, your argument is as bankrupt as your credibility.

Now, for your education:​

Bribery requires evidence of quid pro quo -- specific actions taken by Joe Biden in exchange for a benefit, which you haven’t provided. Nepotism, while a legitimate concern in politics, also requires actual proof of undue influence or improper appointments, not just hand-waving at Hunter Biden’s résumé. And money laundering? That’s a criminal accusation that, again, demands actual evidence of illegal activity -- evidence you conspicuously lack.

So here’s a thought: Until you can provide actual evidence connecting Joe Biden to your fever-dream corruption theories, maybe cool it with the sarcasm. Because all you’re proving is that your argument, much like your credibility, is built on a foundation of nothing but hot air and partisan wishcasting

Listen to you! Do you know what 'weasel words' are? google it. Tsk tsk, they are the province of unskilled debaters, weak arguments.


Once again you misunderstand the law and declare your disdain for it in one breath. McDonnell v. United States absolutely applies, and your dismissive attitude doesn’t change that. The ruling clarified that bribery requires a direct quid pro quo for an official act -- not vague accusations or appearances. Comer and company lack any evidence tying Joe Biden to such a deal.

Your dismissal of case law because it’s inconvenient isn’t bold; it’s childish. McDonnell reinforced that corruption cases require clear evidence to avoid criminalizing normal political behavior. Contempt for this precedent reveals contempt for the rule of law itself.

Here’s the deal: To prove bribery, you need real evidence -- explicit quid pro quo linked to an official act. Until then, you’re flailing in frustration that the legal system demands more than your assumptions. And if you’re going to dismiss rulings, at least understand them first—because your argument is an embarrassment to serious debate.


Your argument is all noise and no substance -- a declaration of faith disguised as debate. Crowning yourself the arbiter of "sanity" and "honesty" doesn’t make your assumptions about Hunter Biden evidence; it makes them speculation. Eyebrow-raising isn’t proof of corruption, and years of Republican investigations have found no criminal conduct.

Your "two questions" about corruption are rhetorical sleights of hand -- insinuations without evidence, propped up by circular reasoning: "It’s true because I believe it." And when you declare, "I don’t care if you refuse to admit the obvious," you’re confessing that facts and reason have no place in your worldview. That’s not an argument; it’s intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

​

[...12k character limit reached...]
Click to expand...
:clap::hand::clink:
 
Publius said:
Sorry, you haven't provided on stitch of evidence that's worth more than sputum



You posited this question, prefacing it as a 'diagnostic', so clearly you are on a fishing expedition, the ulterior motive.

Are the events being called elections in the united states free and fair?

Your question about whether elections in the United States are "free and fair" has an assumed premise, and it’s clear you’re not asking this as an innocent diagnostic. You are utterly disingenuous and you are sure as hell not fooling me.

Your question has nothing to do with the topic we’re debating. It’s an attempt to sidetrack the conversation and test for weaknesses you can exploit (and no, that's not an admission, so don't twist my words, thank you). If you want to discuss Hunter and Joe Biden, stay on topic. Otherwise, maybe it’s your own assumptions about elections that need diagnosing. What exactly are you trying to prove here? Are you testing for my worldview, or are you trying to distract from the actual substance of the debate? Either way, it’s transparent, and I’m not taking the bait. Apparently you have me confused with a fish.


Ah, how delightfully predictable you are. You admit you’re fishing for contradictions but can’t seem to identify a single one without me answering your preposterously loaded questions. And instead of confronting your intellectual failure head-on, you retreat into vague accusations of absurdity and an amateurish misuse of philosophical terms, all to hide the fact that your argument is as hollow as a papier-mâché piñata.

Your response amounts to this: "I can’t prove you’re wrong until you give me answers to my rigged questions." Well, congratulations, Liberty, that’s not an argument; that’s a confession of inadequacy. The inability to substantiate your claim without demanding my acquiescence is the intellectual equivalent of walking into a chess match with checkers pieces and insisting the rules should change to suit your lack of preparation.

And then, for the pièce de résistance, ('scuse my French) you toss around the term epistemology like a toddler wielding a butcher knife, wildly out of context and wildly out of your depth. To claim that my alleged epistemological inconsistency somehow invalidates my views on Biden so-called corruption is not just wrong; it’s embarrassing. You’re not diagnosing contradictions; you’re exposing your own lack of understanding while pretending you’ve struck intellectual gold.

For your edification:​

The term epistemology refers to the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. In academic contexts, it’s used to discuss questions like "What is knowledge?" "How do we know what we know?" and "What constitutes justified belief?" It’s not, as you’re clumsily attempting to wield it, a fancy buzzword to slap on garden-variety disagreements about investigative theories.

You’ve dragged the term out of its natural philosophical habitat, much like a child pocketing a rare insect at the park, only to ruin it by insisting it belongs in your Tupperware collection. Your use of epistemology here is akin to using quantum mechanics to explain why your toaster isn’t working -- it’s not just wrong, it’s hilariously irrelevant.

So next time you want to play at intellectual combat, do yourself a favor: learn the rules of engagement before throwing out terms you don’t understand. In the meantime, try focusing on making an argument that doesn’t rely on rigged questions, vague accusations, or pretentious jargon. Because until you do, Liberty, the only absurdity here is your feeble attempt at debate.

My statement is factual. There is no evidence connecting Joe Biden in any financially beneficial arrangement with Hunter's biz deals. None.

Ah, Liberty, the sarcasm is noted, but much like your arguments, it’s hollow and uninspired -- a desperate attempt to salvage an untenable position by tossing out straw men and hoping no one notices. Let’s unpack your latest gem, shall we?

You’re trying to equate legitimate business dealings by legal U.S. citizens with bribery and corruption, but where’s your proof? Where’s your evidence? You don’t have any, so instead, you build a caricature of my argument -- claiming I’m dismissing money laundering or nepotism outright -- as if that’s what was said. It wasn’t. What I actually said, and what you clearly don’t want to address, is that your "Biden Family" narrative collapses the moment you fail to connect Joe Biden himself to any actual wrongdoing.

This is the problem with your argument, Liberty: it’s all insinuation and no substance. You’ve got Hunter Biden conducting legal business abroad, which you can’t prove was illegal, unethical, or tied to Joe Biden in any way. So, instead of facing the absence of evidence head-on, you retreat into sarcasm and start waving around nebulous terms like "money laundering" and "nepotism," hoping no one notices your house of cards teetering on the brink of collapse.

Let me make this simple for you: You’re accusing the President of the United States of corruption. That’s a serious charge, and it requires serious evidence. But all you’ve brought to the table are innuendos, assumptions, and a profound misunderstanding of what constitutes a legal burden of proof. Sarcasm is not evidence. Vague gestures at "what could happen" do not make your case. And if the best you can do is insinuate that anyone with a family member in business must somehow be laundering money, then, Liberty, your argument is as bankrupt as your credibility.

Now, for your education:​

Bribery requires evidence of quid pro quo -- specific actions taken by Joe Biden in exchange for a benefit, which you haven’t provided. Nepotism, while a legitimate concern in politics, also requires actual proof of undue influence or improper appointments, not just hand-waving at Hunter Biden’s résumé. And money laundering? That’s a criminal accusation that, again, demands actual evidence of illegal activity -- evidence you conspicuously lack.

So here’s a thought: Until you can provide actual evidence connecting Joe Biden to your fever-dream corruption theories, maybe cool it with the sarcasm. Because all you’re proving is that your argument, much like your credibility, is built on a foundation of nothing but hot air and partisan wishcasting

Listen to you! Do you know what 'weasel words' are? google it. Tsk tsk, they are the province of unskilled debaters, weak arguments.


Once again you misunderstand the law and declare your disdain for it in one breath. McDonnell v. United States absolutely applies, and your dismissive attitude doesn’t change that. The ruling clarified that bribery requires a direct quid pro quo for an official act -- not vague accusations or appearances. Comer and company lack any evidence tying Joe Biden to such a deal.

Your dismissal of case law because it’s inconvenient isn’t bold; it’s childish. McDonnell reinforced that corruption cases require clear evidence to avoid criminalizing normal political behavior. Contempt for this precedent reveals contempt for the rule of law itself.

Here’s the deal: To prove bribery, you need real evidence -- explicit quid pro quo linked to an official act. Until then, you’re flailing in frustration that the legal system demands more than your assumptions. And if you’re going to dismiss rulings, at least understand them first—because your argument is an embarrassment to serious debate.


Your argument is all noise and no substance -- a declaration of faith disguised as debate. Crowning yourself the arbiter of "sanity" and "honesty" doesn’t make your assumptions about Hunter Biden evidence; it makes them speculation. Eyebrow-raising isn’t proof of corruption, and years of Republican investigations have found no criminal conduct.

Your "two questions" about corruption are rhetorical sleights of hand -- insinuations without evidence, propped up by circular reasoning: "It’s true because I believe it." And when you declare, "I don’t care if you refuse to admit the obvious," you’re confessing that facts and reason have no place in your worldview. That’s not an argument; it’s intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

​

[...12k character limit reached...]
Click to expand...
Pipe down, Sista Lootenant D.
 
Publius said:
Ahh, there it is. It's part of the president's role to help foster cooperation between both chambers of Congress. If Congress is persistently deadlocked, it can reflect on the president's skill in encouraging collaboration -- but it’s also shaped by broader political and ideological divides. For example, Democrats and Republicans disagreed on the approach to infrastructure, with some Republicans favoring toll roads and privatization while Democrats opposed these solutions. When compromise can't be reached, though it’s not solely the president’s failure, though it's just that the president's influence and experience can help navigate such impasses. Biden, with his years of Senate experience, has been more successful in building consensus on key issues, whereas Trump, who came in without legislative experience, faced greater challenges in this regard.

Are you kidding me? Republicans in Congress have wielded the filibuster like a bludgeon, deploying every procedural trick to derail the legislative priorities of Democratic presidents -- especially under Obama and Biden. Healthcare reform? Blocked. Voting rights protections? Stonewalled. Climate action? Thrown into gridlock. This isn’t governance; it’s the strategy of a party that views obstruction as a virtue, treating legislative debate like a sport where the only goal is to deny the other side a victory, no matter the stakes for the American people.

But let’s also be precise: sure, there are exceptions. When absolutely forced, they've crossed the aisle on issues like infrastructure (under Biden) and pandemic relief, though it’s hard to ignore the long shadow of their obstructionist record. The filibuster -- a once rare, last-resort maneuver -- has become their weapon of choice to grind the wheels of democracy to a halt. And while this tactic’s become infamous in recent Republican hands, of course, both parties have used it over time. Yet never with such cynical frequency, never with such flagrant disregard for progress, as what we've seen in recent decades by Republicans. This is not policy -- it’s performative stonewalling, plain and simple.

The Federal Reserve influences inflation by managing the money supply and adjusting interest rates, acting independently based on economic conditions rather than directly in response to Congressional spending. When Congress passes large spending bills, like Trump’s CARES Act and Biden’s American Rescue Plan (ARP) -- totaling about $4 trillion -- additional funds are often needed beyond tax revenue. To finance such appropriations, the government primarily issues Treasury bonds, increasing the national debt. The Federal Reserve may also use Quantitative Easing (QE) to buy bonds and inject liquidity into financial markets, indirectly supporting economic stability.

This combination of increased spending and money supply expansion can contribute to inflation, especially if the economy’s production doesn’t keep pace. As a result, if too much money circulates relative to the supply of goods and services, inflation can rise -- a scenario often described as 'too many dollars chasing too few goods.' In a typical inflationary environment, it’s the persistent growth of the money supply outpacing economic output that creates lasting inflation. Transitory price spikes in individual sectors -- caused by supply disruptions or demand surges --aren’t true inflation unless they contribute to a sustained, general rise in prices across the economy.



I'm not an either one side or the other, guy.

Controlling the economy solely by managing consumer spending isn't simply a "top-down, demand-side" approach -- it's a strategy focused on balancing supply with demand. When demand rises faster than the economy can produce, prices increase, creating inflation. In these cases, moderating demand through interest rates or other monetary policy tools can help keep prices stable and prevent the economy from overheating.

On the other hand, supply-side policies -- like tax cuts and deregulation -- aim to boost production by incentivizing businesses to invest, expand, and create jobs. While supply-side measures can help in certain contexts, they’re not a silver bullet for every economic challenge. For instance, when demand collapses (such as during a recession or a pandemic), simply boosting supply won’t stimulate economic activity if consumers lack the purchasing power or confidence to spend.

Also, it’s worth noting that effective economic management often combines both demand and supply measures rather than relying exclusively on one side. Demand-side policies ensure stability by moderating economic swings, while supply-side measures support long-term growth. Ignoring demand-side tools in favor of an exclusively supply-side approach can result in economic imbalances, as seen in cases where tax cuts disproportionately benefit wealthier individuals and corporations but don’t necessarily lead to increased production or lower prices.


Look, I'm only going by what Trump said, and he said he intends on an across the board approach. I've heard this 'he didn't really mean it' argument coming from Repubs, before, and no, it often turns out he did, in point of fact, mean it.

Click to expand...
but the bigger picture to all of this is that the fake money system is a way to facilitate a parasite class in perpetuity.

fiat money is only real if you work for it.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
its already happening.........
Click to expand...

Well, he's certainly set up a potential cabinet full of sex predators, white nationalists and people who are manifestly unqualified for the position. So it is all on track as we all expected.

I'm just not sure having a bunch of pedos, nazis and grifters is the best way to run a complex bureaucracy. But a lot of Americans voted for this very thing. So I guess you're right. He's delivering his promises and it won't matter if it doesn't work out for all of us...we'll be told that it did.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the election is over.....save your lies for 2028........
Click to expand...

It is NOT a lie that Trump was convicted in a US Court of Law of 34 felonies.

It is NOT a lie that the House opted to NOT release the report on Matt Gaetz even though there is precedent in doing so.

It is NOT a lie that a former wrestling company CEO has NO EXPERIENCE in education.

But I know that in America 2.0 "lies" are "truth" and "truth" is "lies".

You guys won! FINALLY Trump has a true "shithole country" to point to! And he's already called America the "garbage can of the world". So....

www.nbcnews.com

Trump says the U.S. is 'like a garbage can for the world' referring to immigration

Former President Donald Trump said the United States is “like a garbage can” for the rest of the world because of its border policies during an immigration-focused rally in Tempe, Ariz.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
 
ADreamOfLiberty said:
Just a lie that it was a legitimate court.
Click to expand...

Your definition of "illegitimate" is apparently any court that doesn't find in SUPPORT of Trump.

That's not solid reasoning, but then you lot are not known for your particular mental acuity.

ADreamOfLiberty said:
Any "court" that convicts people for non-crimes
Click to expand...

It was a crime. You just didn't like that Trump got convicted for it.

If you don't like that it was a crime CHANGE THE LAW don't just let felons go free.

THAT'S HOW A DEMOCRACY WORKS. But you lot wouldn't know that.

 
ADreamOfLiberty said:
Just a lie that it was a legitimate court. Any "court" that convicts people for non-crimes has surrendered the credibility that goes along with the title.
Click to expand...
He committed crimes. Sorry, and a jury convicted him based on evidence given 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
 
IBDaMann said:
So you apparently forgot that we don't live in a democracy. How disappointing. The Constitution doesn't include the words "democracy" or "democratic."

We live in a representative republic. Say it with me: " ... and to the republic for which it stands" The Constitution guarantees a republican form of government.
Click to expand...
Say with me, since IBDaman is not mentioned in the constitutiion, IBdamann never existed. If you are capable of such specious logic, clearly, your credibility is zero.

"Democracy' is a descriptive term. It is a broad term. It is often used poetically. The documents don't use the term because the term 'Republic', is the even broader term, INCLUSIVE of democracy. It is also the more formal term. We are, in fact, a representative democracy, AND a 'constitutional republic.'. The ONLY time I've noticed you guys on the right arguing that "America is not a democracy' is when you guys stopped winning the popular vote, and now you cling to this notion in order ro feel good about it, because, after all, since y'all have lost the popular vote, well, you only won it twice in over 30 something years, you make this claim so you can feel okay about it.

In my entire 73 years, in and out of political institutions and the halls of educational institutions, academia, etc, NO: ONE, on the right or left, ever claimed "America is not a Democracy'. For hundreds of years, America is a Republic of a certain type. What is that type? A federal constitutional representative democracy. All of these terms are not mutually exclusive.

The term 'Republic' is the broadest term, includes both a government of appointed or elected leaders, as opposed to a monarchy, and ours are elected, both directly and indirectly (depending on the level of government).

So, I'll put it in more of an essay form:

The belief that "republic" and "democracy" are mutually exclusive terms reflects a misunderstanding of both historical and contemporary uses of these terms.

1. "Republic" and "Democracy" Are Not Mutually Exclusive
The assertion that the U.S. Constitution establishes a "republic and not a democracy" relies heavily on a narrow and historically specific interpretation of these terms, particularly as framed by James Madison in Federalist No. 10. However, modern political science and historical scholarship clarify that a republic is a form of democracy, specifically a representative democracy.

Encyclopedia Britannica Definition:
“Republic, form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. Modern republics are founded on the idea that sovereignty rests with the people.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)

By this definition, the United States is both a republic and a democracy. It is not a direct democracy, where citizens vote on every issue, but a representative democracy, where they elect officials to make decisions on their behalf.

2. Madison's Parochial Use of the Term 'Democracy'
In Federalist No. 10, Madison used "democracy" to describe a direct democracy, which he contrasted with a "republic." He argued that direct democracies were prone to instability and factionalism. However, this distinction is parochial and was not universally accepted by his contemporaries (source, Encyclopedia Britannica
www.britannica.com

Democracy - Representation, Equality, Participation | Britannica

Democracy - Representation, Equality, Participation: Is democracy the most appropriate name for a large-scale representative system such as that of the early United States? At the end of the 18th century, the history of the terms whose literal meaning is “rule by the people”—democracy and...
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com
Even among his contemporaries, Madison’s refusal to apply the term democracy to representative governments, even those based on broad electorates, was aberrant. )

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 1:
“It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice.”

Hamilton explicitly associates the U.S. experiment with popular sovereignty, a hallmark of democracy.

Thomas Jefferson:
Jefferson, a contemporary of Madison, often used the terms "republic" and "democracy" interchangeably. In an 1816 letter, he wrote:

“The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government.”

Jefferson’s view reflects the broader understanding of "democracy" as compatible with republican principles.

3. The Electoral College Was Not Designed to Oppose Democracy
While the Electoral College is a feature of republicanism, it was not created to oppose democracy outright but rather to balance power between populous and less populous states. The framers were concerned about how to implement democratic principles across a large and diverse country—not about creating an anti-democratic system.

National Archives Description:
According to the National Archives:

"The Electoral College was established by the Founding Fathers as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens." (archives.gov)

This underscores that the Electoral College is not inherently anti-democratic but reflects a pragmatic approach to republicanism in a federated system.

4. Republican and Democratic Elements in the Constitution
The Constitution includes both republican and democratic features:

  • Democratic Elements:
    • The House of Representatives is directly elected by the people.
    • The principle of "one person, one vote" (later affirmed through amendments and Supreme Court rulings).
  • Republican Elements:
    • The Electoral College and Senate provide checks against potential tyranny of the majority.
5. Modern Consensus on "Democracy"
In contemporary political science, the term "democracy" encompasses representative democracies like the United States. Scholars reject the idea that republics and democracies are mutually exclusive:

  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
    "Representative democracy is often called a republican form of government because it is based on the idea of the public good (res publica)."
6. Conclusion: The U.S. Is a Republic and a Democracy
The belief that "republic" and "democracy" are mutually exclusive is an anachronistic interpretation. The framers debated terminology and concepts, but the government they designed combines republican and democratic elements, making the United States a representative democracy.

The Electoral College, while controversial, reflects a compromise to implement democratic principles within a republican framework. Assertions that it was designed to "create a republic and not a democracy" are oversimplifications that ignore historical nuance and modern understanding.

In summary, IBdaMann, you and your ilk are full of shit.
 
Daylight63 said:
Your definition of "illegitimate" is apparently any court that doesn't find in SUPPORT of Trump.
Click to expand...
No, it's "courts" who go along with fake crimes. I just said that.


Daylight63 said:
If you don't like that it was a crime CHANGE THE LAW don't just let felons go free.
Click to expand...
I don't need to change the law, I need to ignore the fake courts; and that is what I am doing. Hopefully some appeals courts might decide that law and order is a good thing and do the same.
 
Publius said:
Say with me, since IBDaman is not mentioned in the constitutiion, IBdamann never existed.
Click to expand...
You should leave me to my use of logic. I neither need nor want your disastrous assistance.



Publius said:
If you are capable of such specious logic, clearly, your credibility is zero.
Click to expand...
... and that illogic is all yours.

The Constitution specifies a republican form of government, not any form of "mob rules."

Publius said:
"Democracy' is a descriptive term.
Click to expand...
... for all Marxist political parties and for all socialist countries.

Publius said:
It is a broad term. It is often used poetically.
Click to expand...
Nope. It is used euphemistically to mean "Marxism."

Publius said:
In my entire 73 years, in and out of political institutions and the halls of educational institutions, academia, etc, NO: ONE, on the right or left, ever claimed "America is not a Democracy'.
Click to expand...
You should get out more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top