Or it might have just been to get it out of DoJ jurisdiction. They weren't expecting freaking Delta Force to show up.
Posted on 12/02/2020 9:55:08 PM PST by SteveH
all other alternatives to an emergency special election seem to end in some form of violence or permanent dislocation of one main party or the other.
a re-election would be fine but suffers from the flaw that it invites a repeat in the forseeable future simply by the precedent that it sets.
holding an emergency election between the two top second tier contestants is not ideal but there is no ideal alternative. this alternative might be the fairest among the hobbesian universe of unequally unfair choices that do not ultimately involve a government collapse.
if the two major parties agree, emergency legislation could be passed in time for a short campaign, a one day election, a foreshortened but otherwise normal electoral college process, and an inauguration by january 20.
trump and biden negotiate and agree for the benefit of the country to sit this one out and let their seconds battle peacefully for the presidency. it is not a re-co and so forms an generally unpalatable precedent for all future parties in all future elections. there will be less temptation to repeat this emergency election, and the temptation to set a vanilla repeat election which would lead to an unwise precedent is removed.
major parties don't have to agree on much except for the situation to be an emergency requiring extraordinary measures to recover from the emergency. if there is not enough time, then the inauguration and other deadlines could be moved forwards by a couple of months, by mutual agreement.
Worth repeating. Worth a pavlovian association of Biden & Harris with the word, since in all likelihood they stole the election on the order of, and with financing from, anti-American parties.
Biden & Harris
They cheated for Soros,
The'll kowtow to Xi,
Snuff the Land of the Free.
The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.Democracy is the equivalent of mob rule, i.e. tyranny of the majority. That is why the Democratic Party wants it; that is why communists preach it.
— Elbridge Gerry, Madison Debates
(T)he first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the level of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
— Communist Manifesto
What will be the course of this revolution? Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. […] Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat.
— The Principles of Communism
> When you asked me to let it go - rather than another of your belligerent responses - I did. The post you seem to be responding to now was posted before I saw your request.
Well how could i know the sequence in which you read or not read stuff. it is or should be irrelevant to your conduct and your tone.
> Now, after you threatened to knock out my teeth and made other disparaging comments that had nothing to do with the content you posted that I criticized, I responded in kind.
Your words. BTW if I read your page correctly you are 3000 miles away from me.
> You couldn’t even stop yourself from making threats in your complaint to the Admin Moderator: “i am very accustomed to handling myself well around bullies as well as people who deliver threats and insults when they feel safe from harm. hint— i am still standing and still thriving. you can use your imagination as to what happened to the others.” It takes certain kind of mentality to criticize others for making threats and insults while they are “safe from harm” while making threats and insults while you are “safe from harm”.
no insults to any particular person, just stating facts. You take offense? and then complain that i cry to the AM without cause? oh my.
i even tried to compliment you in a fashion, but you ignore it.
> When you posted your idea, aside from it being entirely unconstitutional,
Not if (for example) amended (duh).
> I called you a fool for thinking it was viable and a coward for surrendering. I’m pretty sure those are legitimate, on-topic criticisms relevant to the topic under discussion, even if you don’t like them. You are the one that started with the teeth thing.
well there it is, isn’t it— you drew first blood by calling someone (me) a fool and a coward. Before that you and i had never argued. You came out of the blue from out of your own fog and insulted someone (me) for no good reason at all. You just did not like my idea offered in good faith, and bang— the insults roll from your keyboard. Either you would or would not dare do that in person. Either way, you screwed yourself. This is typical of bullies. They tend to be big on talk. Just like you. They also like to beat up people who happen to be physically smaller or weaker than themselves. Just my own experience and observation growing up as the close to the smallest kid in my class. You can believe it or not (but i lived it) (and i’m still here).
> Perhaps I should have said that your IDEAS were foolish and cowardly in stead of calling you a fool and a coward, but to me that’s just parsing.
Well, then, you admit a mistake, but then you immediately retract the admission. We are getting another glimpse of the fog you regard as your lucid thoughts. Not very impressive imho. And violative of FR policy as written.
>It’s good to know that if anyone ever calls me a name I don’t like I can just go crying to the Admin Moderator.
“Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, ...”
https://freerepublic.com/home.htm
Did you read this? Are you not aware of this?? Why not just admit a mistake and refrain from addressing me again. That would be common courtesy. Too much to ask of you? (Apparently.) I reiterate my request which you continue to ignore. I think it is not an unreasonable request and a polite request and something that would be easy for you to do if you wanted given you drew first blood.
> Oh, wait, I guess that means I should report all the people that have criticized my ideas, called me a liar when I refuted their ideas, etc. And so should everybody else. That seems like a lot of work for the Admin Moderator to sift through.
I think I called your first blood foul, i did it correctly and reasonably, and advocated a reasonable solution. You carry on more or less as before, along the way, making an apology and then immediately retracting it— in essence, a non-apology. A non-apology is a mark of a person who is insincere (and psychologically insecure in his own self worth— is that you i wonder— well actually in your case, i do not wonder).
> Tempers are hot in all this mess, people are short with their words.
Why make it worse with your all heat and no light choice of words.
> If you are so fragile that you can’t handle having your ideas criticized, perhaps you should just go back to bed. In any case, to paraphrase *someone*, stay out of my foxhole.
OK i will retract my attempt at a compliment.
> By the way, you are the bully.
ha
> Since you have asked me to not post to you, I’ll just say this: if you post something I disagree with (or, for that matter, agree with) I may respond.
OK but i offered you an easy and graceful exit and you declined.
> You do not get to dictate who speaks on a public forum. That’s just another form of bullying, however politely phrased (after the threats). I won’t shut up because you claim to be hurt by my words. That’s how we got into this mess.
I ask you to abide by written FR rules. You started down the path by criticizing me and not just my ideas. Then you got hot under your collar when i called you on that. You’re getting upset now at my generalisms to which you regard as personal attacks and take offense.
> Now, it’s up to you to “go in peace”.
sure. bye bye, and my oh my, what a big hat some people have on here. i doubt they have any cattle though. (read carefully: i mentioned no one in particular, but if you take offense, then you just made an unsupported inference.
instead you might do well to pause and ask yourself why you would take offense to a generalism.)
> Keep talking, Tokyo Rose.
FR rules:
https://freerepublic.com/home.htm
“Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, ...”
by the way, i have contributed to FR. i may have missed your response to that if you had any. if not, i would invite you to contribute for the privilege.
https://freerepublic.com/home.htm
“Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, ...”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt:
"I find forum threads about election theft increasingly bizarre.
It’s hard to put into words, but it’s as if many are willing to become slaves so long as we are sufficiently careful in obeying the laws being used against us during the last few weeks the rule of law exists in America.
It’s as if thieves can steal our car, but we’ll just debate whether or not it’s properly insured instead of chasing after them and stopping the theft.
The MSM/Social Media and traitors in our government are distracting us with fake drama, “setbacks” and “comebacks” while they conduct their coup attempt. They'll never stop churning out new updates on legal fine points and competing theories about election law until they lose, or we lose, the battle for our freedom. We have to stop chasing the sticks and shiny objects they keep throwing to distract us."
i don’t think you have a personal understanding of the horror of war. i happened to live through the vietnam war and i had to give thought to the possibility of being in a war when it came time for me register for the draft. that was when i was about 16 years old. at the time i was out of the country, and the question arose if i wanted to return or change my citizenship. anyway i can trace my serious consideration of war to that time. i don’t think some, and particularly some women, who have the luxury of an existence sheltered from registering for the draft, give much serious consideration to the horrors of war when the prospect of war gets up close and personal. sometimes registering for the draft means the possibility of getting a rifle. sometimes, war is not a volitional choice you make. war comes for you, or forces you to choose between your country and your friends, family, and future educational prospects.
i’m not suggesting anyone accede to slavery at all, and i am sorry if i did not make my points with sufficient clarity to forestall that interpretation; just make very careful decisions to avoid premature commitment to violence and civil war in particular.
You ping me again and I’ll suspend you.
to cite clausewitz, war is a continuation of diplomacy by other means.
war is always a possibility.
how quickly we get to war is exactly how quickly we abandon diplomacy.
we should not all go out and get umbrellas. however, we should not be in haste to abandon diplomacy.
jmho.
> You ping me again and I’ll suspend you.
for calling attention to violations of FR rules?
fine; i’ll save you the trouble and suspend myself.
Nope. You are actively working to erode American’s will to resist coup. When so many are calling you on it, you are now in retreat trying to improve your image.
I think you know TRUMP would never concede to our enemies so you are trying to soften the ground up among the public so they would be receptive to the invasion forces of the UN, disguised as “peace keepers” to get involved. NOT.GOING.TO.HAPPEN.
Enough Americans realize that the U.N. is just the bureaucratic face of coup.
You just can’t help yourself, can you? You tried to bully me into not calling out your appallingly bad idea that is tantamount to surrender, giving the Ds *exactly* what they want.
“Well how could i know the sequence in which you read or not read stuff. it is or should be irrelevant to your conduct and your tone.”
My post actually was older than yours, not merely cross-posted, so I let you have the last word and you couldn’t help yourself. You had to take another bite of the apple. I’m not responsible for the order *you* read things in, either.
“Your words.”
No, your words were pretty clearly a physical threat. No amount of prevarication will disguise that.
“BTW if I read your page correctly you are 3000 miles away from me.”
So you wanted to know if it was feasible for you to follow up on your threats. Got it. Or were you just checking to make sure you were “safe from harm”?
“you can use your imagination as to what happened to the others.”
Yeah, no implied threat there. I repeat: It takes certain kind of mentality to criticize others for making threats and insults while they are “safe from harm” while making threats and insults while you are “safe from harm”.
“i even tried to compliment you in a fashion, but you ignore it.”
Was that the part where you said you’d share a foxhole with me so you could punch my teeth out?
“Not if (for example) amended (duh).”
There simply wouldn’t be time for a constitutional amendment (duh) since the process requires various sub-processes that take months or years. But even if it were feasible, it would be a bad idea due to the Pandora’s Box it would open. That’s what makes it foolish. And the proposal you made would, again, be tantamount to surrender without even trying to fight. That’s what makes it cowardly. You are perfectly free on this forum to criticize right back if you think you have a sustainable argument. Instead you responded with threats and bullying. Which you tried to hide behind weasel-words and indirection, projecting your bullying tactics onto others. Instead of saying “you are a hypocrite” I’ll just say “that’s hypocritical” to spare your feelings. Did that help?
“no insults to any particular person, just stating facts. You take offense? and then complain that i cry to the AM without cause? oh my.”
Upon what fact was the claim that after we shared a foxhole I might need a dentist? That is a threat of physical harm. And you went running to the AM first, dude. Calling me a bully over and over when you are the one doing the bullying won’t work.
“Well, then, you admit a mistake, but then you immediately retract the admission. We are getting another glimpse of the fog you regard as your lucid thoughts. Not very impressive imho. And violative of FR policy as written.”
I admitted no mistake, merely that my direct criticism is more honest than your mealy-mouthed and disingenuous preferred form of blather.
““Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, ...””
Your link is incorrect, but on the page you meant to link, what does it say about threats?
“OK i will retract my attempt at a compliment.”
You mean your feeble attempt to disguise your threat to knock out my teeth?
“ha”
Ooh! A stinging rebuttal! Typical of bullies when called out.
“OK but i offered you an easy and graceful exit and you declined.”
Nope, as described above, I let you have the last word but you had to come back for another round.
“I ask you to abide by written FR rules. You started down the path by criticizing me and not just my ideas. Then you got hot under your collar when i called you on that. You’re getting upset now at my generalisms to which you regard as personal attacks and take offense.”
I ask you to do the same, particularly the ones involving physical threats. Your attempts to obfuscate your intentions are not as clever as you seem to think. However, your pseudo-intellectual euphemisms don’t bother me. Your threats and attempts to hide them behind weasel words are the problem.
“sure. bye bye, and my oh my, what a big hat some people have on here. i doubt they have any cattle though. (read carefully: i mentioned no one in particular, but if you take offense, then you just made an unsupported inference. instead you might do well to pause and ask yourself why you would take offense to a generalism.)”
Exactly what I said. You foolishly can’t help yourself. You have to attack but lack the courage to say directly what you mean. Bless your big-hatted, cattle-free heart.
Now, barring something completely retarded from you, I’ll let you have the last word, since you have some insecurity there that requires you to compensate that way - presuming you are unable to take your own advice and go in peace. Or prove me wrong by pursuing the course you attempt to impose on others.
It expressly requires elections. Obviously, there is no such animal as pure, or "Direct Democracy" on earth. Republicanism does not require elections at all. But no one can argue that we are not a republic just because we have elections. Like democracy, republicanism only begins to describe our form of government. The constitution never once mentions federalism, yet it too is at the core of our nation. You can describe our republic as federal and/or constitutional. Having been oppressed by a Monarchy, our founding fathers tried to find a balance between democracy and republicanism. Democrats want to destroy that balance. Seeing as they control the education/indoctrination of the children, culture/media and the press, they seem to be well on their way to succeeding.
1. There has been a re-vote in this thread looking at who liked your idea and who did not. From the posts I would say you lost. So do the gentlemanly thing and let it go.
2. If this election stands as called by the media, then we have witnessed the death of democratic government and freedom in our country here in 2020. We don't get it back by compromise.
3. There are things more important than peace. Concepts and ideas that are worth fighting for. The Treaty of Munich and the Iranian Treaty have taught us that talking with some people just does not get the job done. Slavery to a master is not peace. The absence of conflict is not peace.
4. This needs to get fixed hopefully through the constitutional process that is still available. But regardless, it needs to get fixed.
Knock it off!
Or it might have just been to get it out of DoJ jurisdiction. They weren't expecting freaking Delta Force to show up.
Elections do not make a particular government a democracy. Not to mention, the Senate as originally constituted was all appointees by state governments on behalf of the states. Never mind the judiciary.
I did not mention “federal”, but that was a word used by the Founding Fathers with less contempt than for “democracy” at least.
I think we need the graphic with the bunny and the pancake on its head.
This makes no sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.