8 Likes
That doesn’t mean he belongs in office, any more than the stock markets having flaws that allow for fraud meant Bernie Madoff should have been allowed to remain in business after being exposed as a Ponzi schemer.
6 Likes
So am I?
If that’s what everyone else in the thread is taking away from your words then perhaps you should consider that the communication problem doesn’t lie with the reader.
8 Likes
If so, it’s not clear since you just said “it’s a democratic outcome”. We disagree on that point, hence to Sen. Romney’s point.
7 Likes
You’re saying he belongs in Congress because of (or perhaps despite) this failure in a democratic election. Even Reek Romney disagrees with your contention.
You’re presenting this as some kind of instance of anti-democratic gatekeeping, where everyone else is pointing out that it’s consequences for winning an election through fraud and lies.
6 Likes
Maybe words like democracy mean things to people in different countries. That might account for it.
Another goalpost shift. We all understand the basic concept of a democratic election – voters cast ballots, majority rule, etc. You’re saying he belongs in Congress because he won under that system, even if it was via fraud. You’re also claiming that it’s gatekeeping to say otherwise. We disagree.
7 Likes
It’s going to be a long time before he faces ANY kind of consequences.
The gQp has stymied the committee.
8 Likes
9 Likes
You said you’re from Canada? Then no, that’s not the problem. Just as a rule, I find that when everyone on a thread disagrees with one person, it usually means they should consider if they were wrong or at least expressed things the wrong way.
5 Likes
Disagree strongly. The “person” who was elected does not exist. He successfully portrayed a character from his imagination, and that person was elected. This man is not that one and has no claim on the office. This was electoral fraud, and the right is silent on it, of course.
11 Likes
9 Likes
7 Likes
Maybe when you feel you need to respond 11 times on a topic that you are being misinterpreted, it’s worth considering whether you are communicating poorly.
The many varied and diverse voices of the BBS do not have a responsibility to interpret your words in the way you intended - that is your responsibility and involves listening to the others in the room as much as making sure you are heard.
13 Likes
Fwiw to me I found your initial statement suspect because it sounded like you were gearing up for an anti-democracy speech and I’m already over those.
Yes democracy depends on functional vetting and has a vulnerability there for sure when vetting fails or partisan politics obscures the flaws in candidates…
Fraud, deception, and party politics will always be a possibility in all systems of governance though. It is no more deserving to have a frauds and criminals empowered to govern in a democracy than an autocracy though. Exploitation by criminals is a universal risk.
10 Likes
5 Likes
I’m listening! Heck, I don’t even disagree! I’ve even been updooting some posts that are making very good points about how wrong and dumb I am. (Quite, and very)
I know folks have a lot of anger over this chud. It’s well placed… and I can see that I’ve touched a nerve.
The Republican Party has opened the door to a Trojan horse, some knowing his fraud, and some indifferent too. Can something be done to prevent that in the future? Are there checks and balances that can prevent it? What are the consequences of installing those checks? I think these are questions that need to be answered. It’s one thing to be elected to office. It’s another to belong there.
2 Likes
No one said that. We disagree with you, that’s all.
5 Likes
Very much in the pro-democracy camp. That’s where the ill-considered “feature not a bug” statement was coming from. I’d rather a leaky democracy that occasionally has hiccups than one where we don’t actually get any say in who gets elected, and sometimes I feel that ship may have sailed. I don’t know how to fix that.
