CDZ The WILL of the people, or the BEST INTERESTS of the people?

[surada]

He was voted out, so the system worked. I can live with that.

I don't know what to tell those of you who think he won.

Hopefully now we'll get some intelligent, reasoned responses to my clear question.

But why does it have to be one extreme or the other?
You are to be judged by one of two rules:
1) Trump won the election, rampant cheating everywhere.
2) Trump lost, Biden wins fair and square. There was no cheating.

But, as usual, the truth is somewhere in between.
Indeed Trump lost. He did. But there was a LOT of cheating. Enough cheating that it overturned the results? No, I don't think so. Not even close.
But should we just ignore the testimonials, video evidence and other physical evidence of cheating that did occur?
Just pretend it didn't happen?

We should always work to maximize the integrity of the vote. Always.

We should always work to reasonably maximize access to the vote. Always.

But that would require cooperation and collaboration. We no longer have those skills, so I don't know what to tell you.

Political correctness is really just good manners.

 

[Boomer61]

He was voted out, so the system worked. I can live with that.

I don't know what to tell those of you who think he won.

Hopefully now we'll get some intelligent, reasoned responses to my clear question.

But why does it have to be one extreme or the other?
You are to be judged by one of two rules:
1) Trump won the election, rampant cheating everywhere.
2) Trump lost, Biden wins fair and square. There was no cheating.

But, as usual, the truth is somewhere in between.
Indeed Trump lost. He did. But there was a LOT of cheating. Enough cheating that it overturned the results? No, I don't think so. Not even close.
But should we just ignore the testimonials, video evidence and other physical evidence of cheating that did occur?
Just pretend it didn't happen?

Actually, it would have made a difference in EC votes and changed the outcome. Five major states flipped at about 3am and were won by a few thousand votes. There is heavy evidence of voting impropriety in all 5 states being ignored.

 

[Correll]

Evidently there are some who think that an elected representative needs to know exactly what their constituents want in absolutely every situation

Most of the corrupt swamp rats that libs like you support have to find out what a majority of the voters want because left to drift on their own they are clueless

trump always knew the general opinion of his voters - secure borders, smart trade with china, law and order in the streets.

everything that was best for America

because he wanted those things too

Trump just didn't know consumers pay his tariffs on China and in the case of our soybean farmers, he gave that whole market to Brazil.

No reason to bring up Trump in this thread. Are you trying to sidetrack it into a partisan flame war?

I was responding to Mac 7's rosy picture.

"Most of the corrupt swamp rats that libs like you support have to find out what a majority of the voters want because left to drift on their own they are clueless

trump always knew the general opinion of his voters - secure borders, smart trade with china, law and order in the streets.

everything that was best for America"

This is the clean debate zone. The question can be discussed without specifics or it can be bogged down into another partisan mud throwing contest.

Ignore partisans filler and respond to actual points, and it could be possible to discuss the actual issue.

He's citing Trump's trade deal with China as a good thing. Is that too specific? I think an intelligent leader of good character would not make off the cuff decisions based on hunches and a desire to be popular.

Trump ran as a populism. I recall reading history about some old time populist who said something along the lines of, to paraphrase.


I am for silver backed money because the people are for it".

That is a vote for the idea that the politician should just do what his supporters want.


Do you agree with that point, or not? That is the actual relevant question. This question is not limited to Trump, unless the op was being dishonest and this was really just subtle flamebait.

Representing the constituents in his or her state is certainly valid. Look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964.. Strom Thurmond represented his constituents and as soon as it passed he hired black staffers. Strom knew that Jim Crowe was a economic albatross for the South.

But was that his personal conviction or representing the wishes of his voters?

 

[Correll]

He was voted out, so the system worked. I can live with that.

I don't know what to tell those of you who think he won.

Hopefully now we'll get some intelligent, reasoned responses to my clear question.

But why does it have to be one extreme or the other?
You are to be judged by one of two rules:
1) Trump won the election, rampant cheating everywhere.
2) Trump lost, Biden wins fair and square. There was no cheating.

But, as usual, the truth is somewhere in between.
Indeed Trump lost. He did. But there was a LOT of cheating. Enough cheating that it overturned the results? No, I don't think so. Not even close.
But should we just ignore the testimonials, video evidence and other physical evidence of cheating that did occur?
Just pretend it didn't happen?

We should always work to maximize the integrity of the vote. Always.

We should always work to reasonably maximize access to the vote. Always.

But that would require cooperation and collaboration. We no longer have those skills, so I don't know what to tell you.

Political correctness is really just good manners.

Seriously, that was nothing but flamebait in the cdz.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

He was voted out, so the system worked. I can live with that.

I don't know what to tell those of you who think he won.

Hopefully now we'll get some intelligent, reasoned responses to my clear question.

But why does it have to be one extreme or the other?
You are to be judged by one of two rules:
1) Trump won the election, rampant cheating everywhere.
2) Trump lost, Biden wins fair and square. There was no cheating.

But, as usual, the truth is somewhere in between.
Indeed Trump lost. He did. But there was a LOT of cheating. Enough cheating that it overturned the results? No, I don't think so. Not even close.
But should we just ignore the testimonials, video evidence and other physical evidence of cheating that did occur?
Just pretend it didn't happen?

We should always work to maximize the integrity of the vote. Always.

We should always work to reasonably maximize access to the vote. Always.

But that would require cooperation and collaboration. We no longer have those skills, so I don't know what to tell you.

So in other words... it isn't a topic you like and want to move on.
"Reasonable access to the vote" - we have had that for decades.
Democrats don't want reasonable access....they want to make it so easy to vote, that you literally have to put effort into not voting.
They don't want any kind of verification. Any.

So once again.... 2 rules:
1) Reasonable verification of identity = RACIST!!!! BLOCKING THE VOTE!!!
2) Reasonable access = no verification of any kind, and have buses running through the streets to take people to vote. Who could possibly believe there would be cheating??

 

[Mac1958]

Political correctness is really just good manners.

No, to me, PC is the weaponization of what one person chooses to believe are good manners.

It is the act of attacking, intimidating and punishing someone for just speaking their mind. The choice to be judge & jury and issue "consequences".

To me, that is terribly illiberal and authoritarian, and flies directly in the face of freedom of expression, our most liberal value.

 

[Mac1958]

He was voted out, so the system worked. I can live with that.

I don't know what to tell those of you who think he won.

Hopefully now we'll get some intelligent, reasoned responses to my clear question.

But why does it have to be one extreme or the other?
You are to be judged by one of two rules:
1) Trump won the election, rampant cheating everywhere.
2) Trump lost, Biden wins fair and square. There was no cheating.

But, as usual, the truth is somewhere in between.
Indeed Trump lost. He did. But there was a LOT of cheating. Enough cheating that it overturned the results? No, I don't think so. Not even close.
But should we just ignore the testimonials, video evidence and other physical evidence of cheating that did occur?
Just pretend it didn't happen?

We should always work to maximize the integrity of the vote. Always.

We should always work to reasonably maximize access to the vote. Always.

But that would require cooperation and collaboration. We no longer have those skills, so I don't know what to tell you.

So in other words... it isn't a topic you like and want to move on.
"Reasonable access to the vote" - we have had that for decades.
Democrats don't want reasonable access....they want to make it so easy to vote, that you literally have to put effort into not voting.
They don't want any kind of verification. Any.

So once again.... 2 rules:
1) Reasonable verification of identity = RACIST!!!! BLOCKING THE VOTE!!!
2) Reasonable access = no verification of any kind, and have buses running through the streets to take people to vote. Who could possibly believe there would be cheating??

Well, some people will never be a part of the cooperation and collaboration this country needs to move forward. I know that.

 

[Blues Man]

My first impulse is the former

If trump were president you’d swear it’s the latter.

but you’d still be in a pickle because trump voters would want policies that you dont like

the best thing for you is to make sure democrats always win the elections

why is it you have to simplify a broader discussion on politics down to the same old partisan bullshit?

 

[Boomer61]

Have a problem with both the will of the people and the best interest of the people.
First example of will of people gone wrong the 3 strikes law. 2nd the storming of our capital.
Emotional choices made while angry.
Best interest of the people not possible now.
Those chosen not on ability but political party and money.

A problem is now that we're getting reactionaries voted into office, and those who can be pragmatic are getting the hell out. All that does is make things worse.

I think it's funny that you point out the 'storming' of the capital but totally disregard the 100s of Millions $$$ in damages the leftist 'mostly non violent protests' (read that as RIOTS) and the more than 20 deaths they caused. The capital riot was bad but not a drop in the bucket compared to the damage done in any SINGLE city where the leftists protested. Hell they have had nightly riots in Portland for 10 months and THE DAY AFTER the fence was taken down in front of the federal courthouse they smashed windows and set it on fire again (Mar 2021). The only reactionaries voted into office are the progressives that want to disregard the constitution and remake the USA as a socialist nation.

I know you folks have to equate the two to protect Trump.

What happened at the capitol was historic. What happened on the streets of a few cities was not.

I'm not trying to convince someone like you of anything.

Historic is 10 continuous months of violent riots being allowed in a single place, historic is the liberal states not prosecuting THOUSANDS of rioters but releasing them to riot again. Capital riot was bad but doesnt come close to the historic violence and death that has been ignored in the actual riots around the country.

 

[Mac1958]

My first impulse is the former

If trump were president you’d swear it’s the latter.

but you’d still be in a pickle because trump voters would want policies that you dont like

the best thing for you is to make sure democrats always win the elections

why is it you have to simplify a broader discussion on politics down to the same old partisan bullshit?

Conditioning.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

He was voted out, so the system worked. I can live with that.

I don't know what to tell those of you who think he won.

Hopefully now we'll get some intelligent, reasoned responses to my clear question.

But why does it have to be one extreme or the other?
You are to be judged by one of two rules:
1) Trump won the election, rampant cheating everywhere.
2) Trump lost, Biden wins fair and square. There was no cheating.

But, as usual, the truth is somewhere in between.
Indeed Trump lost. He did. But there was a LOT of cheating. Enough cheating that it overturned the results? No, I don't think so. Not even close.
But should we just ignore the testimonials, video evidence and other physical evidence of cheating that did occur?
Just pretend it didn't happen?

We should always work to maximize the integrity of the vote. Always.

We should always work to reasonably maximize access to the vote. Always.

But that would require cooperation and collaboration. We no longer have those skills, so I don't know what to tell you.

So in other words... it isn't a topic you like and want to move on.
"Reasonable access to the vote" - we have had that for decades.
Democrats don't want reasonable access....they want to make it so easy to vote, that you literally have to put effort into not voting.
They don't want any kind of verification. Any.

So once again.... 2 rules:
1) Reasonable verification of identity = RACIST!!!! BLOCKING THE VOTE!!!
2) Reasonable access = no verification of any kind, and have buses running through the streets to take people to vote. Who could possibly believe there would be cheating??

Well, some people will never be a part of the cooperation and collaboration this country needs to move forward. I know that.

Indeed.... there is you.
A consistent reminder of what is wrong. You are with me, or against me. You see it how I do - or you are an extremist nutter.
That is what is wrong.
The comical part - is you don't see it. You actually think you are in the middle and fair minded.

 

[surada]

He was voted out, so the system worked. I can live with that.

I don't know what to tell those of you who think he won.

Hopefully now we'll get some intelligent, reasoned responses to my clear question.

But why does it have to be one extreme or the other?
You are to be judged by one of two rules:
1) Trump won the election, rampant cheating everywhere.
2) Trump lost, Biden wins fair and square. There was no cheating.

But, as usual, the truth is somewhere in between.
Indeed Trump lost. He did. But there was a LOT of cheating. Enough cheating that it overturned the results? No, I don't think so. Not even close.
But should we just ignore the testimonials, video evidence and other physical evidence of cheating that did occur?
Just pretend it didn't happen?

We should always work to maximize the integrity of the vote. Always.

We should always work to reasonably maximize access to the vote. Always.

But that would require cooperation and collaboration. We no longer have those skills, so I don't know what to tell you.

So in other words... it isn't a topic you like and want to move on.
"Reasonable access to the vote" - we have had that for decades.
Democrats don't want reasonable access....they want to make it so easy to vote, that you literally have to put effort into not voting.
They don't want any kind of verification. Any.

So once again.... 2 rules:
1) Reasonable verification of identity = RACIST!!!! BLOCKING THE VOTE!!!
2) Reasonable access = no verification of any kind, and have buses running through the streets to take people to vote. Who could possibly believe there would be cheating??

Reasonable.. In Georgia you have to prove you are a US citizen the first time you register... which means your birth certificate or US Passport or naturalization papers.

Voting should be easy.

 

[BlackSand]

The is supposed to be the latter with the incorporation of the former, you vote the person in that you believe best represents the will of their constituents and trust he will act in their best interest in accordance with their will. That's the pipedream that is rarely reality.

Except when the Representative understands that their job is not simply to pass legislation that grants themselves power over the People, for the sake of protecting the People from themselves. The Tenth Amendment clearly states that in the absence of powers granted to the Federal or State governments ... The People are allowed to govern themselves.

I don't need my Representative in Congress to decide what is in my best interest to eat.
I can govern that myself, and I am not granting the government that power just because some Fascist thinks it is in my best interest.

Electing a Representative isn't giving them a blank check to the Power Bank.
You could suggest that the People have the ability to remove the Representative, but what difference does that make after they have already exercised the Power they simply assumed would be in the Peoples' best interest.

It's like that stupid saying ... "Doing the work of the People".
It's not the government's job to do the work of the People, it's the governments job to do the work of the Government.

Military, Interstate Commerce, International Relations, Emergency Preparedness and Infrastructure ...
But what our government has turned into is a bunch of Nanny State Fascists, and you nit-wits keep begging to grant them more powers.

It appeals to people too lazy or stupid to think for themselves, or that want to make someone else do something they don't want to do ...
Which is the exact opposite of Freedom and Liberty, and there isn't anything "Liberal" about it.

For starters, being Trillions of dollars in debt and adding to it by the bucket load, isn't necessarily what I would call a Rainy Day Fund.
Their 'best interests' is a fucking joke ...

.

 

[surada]

Americans sure turned out to dump him. The guy is a menace. Trump has always been a pariah.. not accepted among polite society. He's much too crude and has no clue about manners or noblesse oblige. Its not enough to be a millionaire.. One has to have these other qualities to succeed .. He glorified bad manners and stupidity with his rants against political correctness...

One thing you have to give Trump credit for. Is his performance as a con-man. Able to sell his version of snake oil to some of the people, all of the time.

He has turned me off since the 1980s so I really don't get his appeal.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

He was voted out, so the system worked. I can live with that.

I don't know what to tell those of you who think he won.

Hopefully now we'll get some intelligent, reasoned responses to my clear question.

But why does it have to be one extreme or the other?
You are to be judged by one of two rules:
1) Trump won the election, rampant cheating everywhere.
2) Trump lost, Biden wins fair and square. There was no cheating.

But, as usual, the truth is somewhere in between.
Indeed Trump lost. He did. But there was a LOT of cheating. Enough cheating that it overturned the results? No, I don't think so. Not even close.
But should we just ignore the testimonials, video evidence and other physical evidence of cheating that did occur?
Just pretend it didn't happen?

We should always work to maximize the integrity of the vote. Always.

We should always work to reasonably maximize access to the vote. Always.

But that would require cooperation and collaboration. We no longer have those skills, so I don't know what to tell you.

So in other words... it isn't a topic you like and want to move on.
"Reasonable access to the vote" - we have had that for decades.
Democrats don't want reasonable access....they want to make it so easy to vote, that you literally have to put effort into not voting.
They don't want any kind of verification. Any.

So once again.... 2 rules:
1) Reasonable verification of identity = RACIST!!!! BLOCKING THE VOTE!!!
2) Reasonable access = no verification of any kind, and have buses running through the streets to take people to vote. Who could possibly believe there would be cheating??

Reasonable.. In Georgia you have to prove you are a US citizen the first time you register... which means your birth certificate or US Passport or naturalization papers.

Voting should be easy.

Voting has been VERY easy for decades.
Democrats want to remove all obstacles of any kind. That is not reasonable. Question that, and you are a RACIST!!!
A bum, lying around the streets, living a life under the influence of anything they can get 24 hours a day... takes no part in society, doesn't want to. It isn't a tragedy this person doesn't vote. Reasonable people understand not everyone WANTS to vote. They don't care.
Democrats wants to literally, be able to have volunteers go out and pencil in people and take votes right off the street. Having no problem wit hthe fact there would be no way of validating the votes.
In the mind of a Democrat - validating votes = racism and white privilege.

 

[Boomer61]

The is supposed to be the latter with the incorporation of the former, you vote the person in that you believe best represents the will of their constituents and trust he will act in their best interest in accordance with their will. That's the pipedream that is rarely reality.

Except when the Representative understands that their job is not simply to pass legislation that grants themselves power over the People, for the sake of protecting the People from themselves. The Tenth Amendment clearly states that in the absence of powers granted to the Federal or State governments ... The People are allowed to govern themselves.

I don't need my Representative in Congress to decide what is in my best interest to eat.
I can govern that myself, and I am not granting the government that power just because some Fascist thinks it is in my best interest.

Electing a Representative isn't giving them a blank check to the Power Bank.
You could suggest that the People have the ability to remove the Representative, but what difference does that make after they have already exercised the Power they simply assumed would be in the Peoples' best interest.

It's like that stupid saying ... "Doing the work of the People".
It's not the government's job to do the work of the People, it's the governments job to do the work of the Government.

Military, Interstate Commerce, International Relations, Emergency Preparedness and Infrastructure ...
But what our government has turned into is a bunch of Nanny State Fascists, and you nit-wits keep begging to grant them more powers.

It appeals to people too lazy or stupid to think for themselves, or that want to make someone else do something they don't want to do ...
Which is the exact opposite of Freedom and Liberty, and there isn't anything "Liberal" about it ...

.

The is supposed to be the latter with the incorporation of the former, you vote the person in that you believe best represents the will of their constituents and trust he will act in their best interest in accordance with their will. That's the pipedream that is rarely reality.

Except when the Representative understands that their job is not simply to pass legislation that grants themselves power over the People, for the sake of protecting the People from themselves. The Tenth Amendment clearly states that in the absence of powers granted to the Federal or State governments ... The People are allowed to govern themselves.

I don't need my Representative in Congress to decide what is in my best interest to eat.
I can govern that myself, and I am not granting the government that power just because some Fascist thinks it is in my best interest.

Electing a Representative isn't giving them a blank check to the Power Bank.
You could suggest that the People have the ability to remove the Representative, but what difference does that make after they have already exercised the Power they simply assumed would be in the Peoples' best interest.

It's like that stupid saying ... "Doing the work of the People".
It's not the government's job to do the work of the People, it's the governments job to do the work of the Government.

Military, Interstate Commerce, International Relations, Emergency Preparedness and Infrastructure ...
But what our government has turned into is a bunch of Nanny State Fascists, and you nit-wits keep begging to grant them more powers.

It appeals to people too lazy or stupid to think for themselves, or that want to make someone else do something they don't want to do ...
Which is the exact opposite of Freedom and Liberty, and there isn't anything "Liberal" about it ...

.

You should probably re-read my statement without the venom and preconceived notions in the forefront of your brain.

 

[surada]

He was voted out, so the system worked. I can live with that.

I don't know what to tell those of you who think he won.

Hopefully now we'll get some intelligent, reasoned responses to my clear question.

But why does it have to be one extreme or the other?
You are to be judged by one of two rules:
1) Trump won the election, rampant cheating everywhere.
2) Trump lost, Biden wins fair and square. There was no cheating.

But, as usual, the truth is somewhere in between.
Indeed Trump lost. He did. But there was a LOT of cheating. Enough cheating that it overturned the results? No, I don't think so. Not even close.
But should we just ignore the testimonials, video evidence and other physical evidence of cheating that did occur?
Just pretend it didn't happen?

We should always work to maximize the integrity of the vote. Always.

We should always work to reasonably maximize access to the vote. Always.

But that would require cooperation and collaboration. We no longer have those skills, so I don't know what to tell you.

So in other words... it isn't a topic you like and want to move on.
"Reasonable access to the vote" - we have had that for decades.
Democrats don't want reasonable access....they want to make it so easy to vote, that you literally have to put effort into not voting.
They don't want any kind of verification. Any.

So once again.... 2 rules:
1) Reasonable verification of identity = RACIST!!!! BLOCKING THE VOTE!!!
2) Reasonable access = no verification of any kind, and have buses running through the streets to take people to vote. Who could possibly believe there would be cheating??

Reasonable.. In Georgia you have to prove you are a US citizen the first time you register... which means your birth certificate or US Passport or naturalization papers.

Voting should be easy.

Voting has been VERY easy for decades.
Democrats want to remove all obstacles of any kind. That is not reasonable. Question that, and you are a RACIST!!!
A bum, lying around the streets, living a life under the influence of anything they can get 24 hours a day... takes no part in society, doesn't want to. It isn't a tragedy this person doesn't vote. Reasonable people understand not everyone WANTS to vote. They don't care.
Democrats wants to literally, be able to have volunteers go out and pencil in people and take votes right off the street. Having no problem wit hthe fact there would be no way of validating the votes.
In the mind of a Democrat - validating votes = racism and white privilege.

Lots of seniors don't have transportation and many, like Trump can't stand in line for hours.. so no, voting is not easy for decades. That's why Trump requested mail in ballots for himself and Melania.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You should probably re-read my statement without the venom and preconceived notions in the forefront of your brain.

Nice.
I vote this sentence is placed at the foot of every post automatically, highlighted and flashing for a week.

 

[BlackSand]

You should probably re-read my statement without the venom and preconceived notions in the forefront of your brain.

I read your comment and you should try to make a point that is something more than an empty open ended assessment in both cases ...

.

 

[Boomer61]

You should probably re-read my statement without the venom and preconceived notions in the forefront of your brain.

I read your comment and you should try to make a point that is something more than an empty open ended assessment in both cases ...

.

You totally failed but that's ok.