So much for Democracy.

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Burgermeister does not support Israel or the US interests in protecting it and us from jihadism.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Yeah... but... but...

1812 was back in those times where elections weren't always conducted by the general public.

In 1812 9 states appointed electors, eight states had electors elected by the general public and Massachusetts did two by vote and one by state.

Also by the time of the election the war had been taking place in Canada, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Illinois and at sea

None of the states that actually voted had territory that was much part of the war. Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Indiana didn't vote in the election. Indiana was the first of these and that was 1816.

So really there was no occupation of the lands that were states, there was a bit of warring at sea that impacted some of the people of these states.

So I'm going to say no, this war doesn't count as an occupied country having an election.

Now you're changing your narrative. The country had been invaded and those states with democratic elections held them. There were also elections during the Civil War, despite Southern soldiers on Northern territory.

 

[struth]

Merely echoing what the DNC did in this country when they canceled primaries that would cost xiden the nomination

 

[frigidweirdo]

Now you're changing your narrative. The country had been invaded and those states with democratic elections held them. There were also elections during the Civil War, despite Southern soldiers on Northern territory.

It's like you think a person should choose a "narrative" and stick to it no matter how it doesn't ACTUALLY WORK.

Yes, there's a HUGE difference between the war of 1812 and the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. The war of 1812 impacted only certain areas, and democracy was limited in the US anyway.

And yes, there was a Presidential election during the Civil War. However, I mean HOWEVER the south states did NOT get to vote in this election (Tennessee etc). Even Louisiana, which had EC votes, did not have a popular vote.

So it was far from a democratic vote. Would you like the Ukraine to have a vote, but not make it democratic? Would that be better?

 

[LeroyDumonde]

It's like you think a person should choose a "narrative" and stick to it no matter how it doesn't ACTUALLY WORK.

Yes, there's a HUGE difference between the war of 1812 and the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. The war of 1812 impacted only certain areas, and democracy was limited in the US anyway.

And Russia has only invaded those parts of Ukraine that wouldn't vote for Zelenskyy anyway.

And yes, there was a Presidential election during the Civil War. However, I mean HOWEVER the south states did NOT get to vote in this election (Tennessee etc). Even Louisiana, which had EC votes, did not have a popular vote.

So it was far from a democratic vote. Would you like the Ukraine to have a vote, but not make it democratic? Would that be better?

The Southern states had seceded and were no longer part of the US. Obviously they wouldn't get to vote in another country's elections. I don't believe in democracy so if Ukraine doesn't have a democratic election that's not my concern. However, I'm not the one holding Zelenskyy up as a model for democratic leadership as he cancels elections, bans opposition parties, and throws political opponents in jail.

 

[westwall]

It's like you think a person should choose a "narrative" and stick to it no matter how it doesn't ACTUALLY WORK.

Yes, there's a HUGE difference between the war of 1812 and the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. The war of 1812 impacted only certain areas, and democracy was limited in the US anyway.

And yes, there was a Presidential election during the Civil War. However, I mean HOWEVER the south states did NOT get to vote in this election (Tennessee etc). Even Louisiana, which had EC votes, did not have a popular vote.

So it was far from a democratic vote. Would you like the Ukraine to have a vote, but not make it democratic? Would that be better?

The British occupied Washington, you ignorant clod. They TOOK, our capital!

 

[frigidweirdo]

And Russia has only invaded those parts of Ukraine that wouldn't vote for Zelenskyy anyway.



The Southern states had seceded and were no longer part of the US. Obviously they wouldn't get to vote in another country's elections. I don't believe in democracy so if Ukraine doesn't have a democratic election that's not my concern. However, I'm not the one holding Zelenskyy up as a model for democratic leadership as he cancels elections, bans opposition parties, and throws political opponents in jail.

Russia has invaded the Ukraine, holds the parts it can hold, wanted to take over the whole country. The country has parts of it occupied and most of the rest gets some bombs or threats every so often.

Southern states had not seceded. They said they had, but they hadn't. Because clearly they ended up in the Union after this.

Clearly the Ukraine does not need a democratic election right now, because all it will do is divide the country. If the Ukraine were on the point of winning the war, he might have one.

 

[theHawk]

Then why did Russia invade?

Putin started the war and would gladly bomb polling places if any form of election is held.

He invaded to aid the ethnic Russians being bombed by Zelensky.

And because Biden said Ukraine may join NATO some day.