Oh great - you can read minds now too?
That always comes in handy when you want to "win" an argument right - just make stuff up the other person thinks and attack him for it when you can't find actual arguments.
It's terrible that you're such a Nazi by the way. Yep - I just read your mind.
Your Nazi, Anti Semitic mind...
Actually, that whole discussion made perfect sense as what I was clearly answering was what I thought was your argument - that Clinton didn't win the majority of all ELIGIBLE votes as compared to votes actually cast which is was matters in the election.
That's why the bulk of my argument on that, right after the first sentence where I mistakenly wrote "majority" instead of "plurality" reads:
"There is no need to pass the threshold of 50% of everyone actually eligible to vote - that's a complete misstatement on what constitutes a majority in a democratic election.
Considering the US's very low voter turn out rate practically no president has ever been elected with an actual majority of all eligible voters."
Notice how those two sentences both talk about eligible voters as compared to actual voters? That's clearly because I thought you were trying to make a point about Clinton not winning a majority of all ELIGIBLE votes as compared to votes actually cast.
If Clinton got 50% of the votes cast or not didn't enter into my thinking at all as that as I've said is completely besides the point. She still got a plurality of the vote - which in a democracy should win her the election. She doesn't need to win a majority of either the actual votes cast or all the eligible votes but I thought you where trying to lessen the importance of her popular vote win even more by arguing that she didn't win a majority of all ELIGIBLE votes.
Which is why I said basically no president has ever been elected with that kind of support.
Now that makes NO sense if I would - like you claim - have believed we were talking about simply winning 50% of the votes actually cast, because clearly a lot of president's have won with that kind of margin.
But with US voter turn out rates being low for most democracies, actually winning 50% of all ELIGIBLE votes within the actual votes cast would mean that the winner would have to win a complete blow-out victory with something like 90-95% of all votes cast.
Now that have - as far as I know - never happened in US history, so clearly that's actually what I was talking about above.
"It's that combination of ignorance and arrogance that is bothering me here. You clearly get all your information from whatever the Swedish equivalent of CNN is, meaning you actually *know* nothing."
Once again with the mind-reading...
Actually I don't watch TV at all - I don't even own one.
I read newspapers instead.
On US and international news mainly the New York Time, Washington Post, BBC and The Guardian. Haaretz on Israel and Swedish major newspapers of course.
Since I don't watch Swedish TV I actually don't know now, but at least some years ago Sweden didn't even have anything as bad as CNN - and I actually don't think we do now either.
Most European countries have a state owned but independent broadcasting service that is very professional and can concentrate 100% on informing the public.
Funded either directly by state funds or through a fee for TV-ownership they're free from all commercials and don't have to spend one second of their day thinking about what sells or rates well.
Like our politicians they're serious professionals and don't get their jobs on looks or likeability but competence.
We have private competition as well - other channels run for profit - but if they want to be taken seriously as a news network they have to measure up to the standard of the state-owned non-commercial networks.
Gimmicky US "news" with shallow discussions about flag-pins don't really compete well in most European countries I don't think.
Think of it this way - Europe is older and more mature, the US is only in it's adolescence compared to most European nations.
We as a continent has also been through a lot more then the US has, which has basically coasted along since it's founding.
Your "dark moments" are nothing compared to the utter despair European nations have been through and like an older person that's lived through more, Europeans culture is also more serious as a consequence, compared to the US.
I'm certainly not ignorant and what you take as arrogance is - I believe - more your resentment of having your US-centric world view challenged.
Remember we in Europe know a lot more about you then you do about us. We get all your movies, TV-shows and music and we understand you and your system and culture far better then you understand us as a consequence.
And the US is certainly not more free or more democratic then any western nation - that's just nonsense.
And the fact that your election systems allows the candidate that got the LEAST number of votes to actually win is clearly not a sign of a great democracy.
It obviously suits you and Trump as the system is currently rigged in your favor - but it's still rigged and as such less democratic.
For such a young nation the US is strangely locked in the past. I guess it's because you have so little history you feel the need to mythologize the one you do have.
So the founding fathers becomes these demi-gods that crafted a perfect document that can never be altered, like some sacred scripture.
The US system was the most democratic in the world - in it's day. Then a few years later the French revolution surpassed you and on that way it's been going ever since.
Europe - and the rest of the world - have steadily become more and more democratic over the centuries while the US system is an antiquated relic based on a document intended to serve only 13 colonies 300 years ago.
Despite the fact that every nation in Europe has a lot older legislative history then that no one actually bases their current legislation on something that archaic - and there's a reason for that - it doesn't work very well.
Legislation needs to be upgraded to the times and change with the societies it's intended to reflect.
Amending get's you only so far - eventually you need to re-draft the entire thing.
That doesn't mean you abandon the principles of course - it just means that you put them in a modern context that actually relevant to the times and speaks to the actual situation, and not pretend that something written 300 years ago will forever be perfect - because it won't.
"And then to top it off, you have to make up accusations ("And you've advocated here for suspending democracy all together [...]") which are nonsensical."
I did no such thing - I just reminded you of what you yourself wrote earlier.
Your comment:
"California, a deranged state that nobody (aside from Californians) thinks should have any influence on anything."
Is, as my full quote reads:
"And you've advocated here for suspending democracy all together and striping citizens of California of all influence in the democratic process."
Saying that US citizens of Carlifornia shouldn't have any influence on anything is advocating for the suspension of democracy - it's just a fact.
You may regret now that you wrote that like Trump probably regrets writing that the electoral collage is a disaster for a democracy, but you and he still did.
I'm not making anything up - I'm just pointing out what you both wrote.
"The best part? After having made a complete fool of yourself, you will still sit there and lecture me (and anyone else dumb enough to engage) on subjects about which you know nothing."
You know, telling other what a failure they are instead of actually making your case and letting other readers make their judgment isn't actually a sign of great confidence in your argument.
It's just like Trump in his tweets that needs to add "FAIL!" and "SAD!" all the time.
It doesn't actually strengthen your argument but I guess it makes you both feel better?
0
@Dorsai
Oh great - you can read minds now too?
That always comes in handy when you want to "win" an argument right - just make stuff up the other person thinks and attack him for it when you can't find actual arguments.
It's terrible that you're such a Nazi by the way. Yep - I just read your mind.
Your Nazi, Anti Semitic mind...
Actually, that whole discussion made perfect sense as what I was clearly answering was what I thought was your argument - that Clinton didn't win the majority of all ELIGIBLE votes as compared to votes actually cast which is was matters in the election.
That's why the bulk of my argument on that, right after the first sentence where I mistakenly wrote "majority" instead of "plurality" reads:
"There is no need to pass the threshold of 50% of everyone actually eligible to vote - that's a complete misstatement on what constitutes a majority in a democratic election.
Considering the US's very low voter turn out rate practically no president has ever been elected with an actual majority of all eligible voters."
Notice how those two sentences both talk about eligible voters as compared to actual voters? That's clearly because I thought you were trying to make a point about Clinton not winning a majority of all ELIGIBLE votes as compared to votes actually cast.
If Clinton got 50% of the votes cast or not didn't enter into my thinking at all as that as I've said is completely besides the point. She still got a plurality of the vote - which in a democracy should win her the election. She doesn't need to win a majority of either the actual votes cast or all the eligible votes but I thought you where trying to lessen the importance of her popular vote win even more by arguing that she didn't win a majority of all ELIGIBLE votes.
Which is why I said basically no president has ever been elected with that kind of support.
Now that makes NO sense if I would - like you claim - have believed we were talking about simply winning 50% of the votes actually cast, because clearly a lot of president's have won with that kind of margin.
But with US voter turn out rates being low for most democracies, actually winning 50% of all ELIGIBLE votes within the actual votes cast would mean that the winner would have to win a complete blow-out victory with something like 90-95% of all votes cast.
Now that have - as far as I know - never happened in US history, so clearly that's actually what I was talking about above.
"It's that combination of ignorance and arrogance that is bothering me here. You clearly get all your information from whatever the Swedish equivalent of CNN is, meaning you actually *know* nothing."
Once again with the mind-reading...
Actually I don't watch TV at all - I don't even own one.
I read newspapers instead.
On US and international news mainly the New York Time, Washington Post, BBC and The Guardian. Haaretz on Israel and Swedish major newspapers of course.
Since I don't watch Swedish TV I actually don't know now, but at least some years ago Sweden didn't even have anything as bad as CNN - and I actually don't think we do now either.
Most European countries have a state owned but independent broadcasting service that is very professional and can concentrate 100% on informing the public.
Funded either directly by state funds or through a fee for TV-ownership they're free from all commercials and don't have to spend one second of their day thinking about what sells or rates well.
Like our politicians they're serious professionals and don't get their jobs on looks or likeability but competence.
We have private competition as well - other channels run for profit - but if they want to be taken seriously as a news network they have to measure up to the standard of the state-owned non-commercial networks.
Gimmicky US "news" with shallow discussions about flag-pins don't really compete well in most European countries I don't think.
Think of it this way - Europe is older and more mature, the US is only in it's adolescence compared to most European nations.
We as a continent has also been through a lot more then the US has, which has basically coasted along since it's founding.
Your "dark moments" are nothing compared to the utter despair European nations have been through and like an older person that's lived through more, Europeans culture is also more serious as a consequence, compared to the US.
I'm certainly not ignorant and what you take as arrogance is - I believe - more your resentment of having your US-centric world view challenged.
Remember we in Europe know a lot more about you then you do about us. We get all your movies, TV-shows and music and we understand you and your system and culture far better then you understand us as a consequence.
And the US is certainly not more free or more democratic then any western nation - that's just nonsense.
And the fact that your election systems allows the candidate that got the LEAST number of votes to actually win is clearly not a sign of a great democracy.
It obviously suits you and Trump as the system is currently rigged in your favor - but it's still rigged and as such less democratic.
For such a young nation the US is strangely locked in the past. I guess it's because you have so little history you feel the need to mythologize the one you do have.
So the founding fathers becomes these demi-gods that crafted a perfect document that can never be altered, like some sacred scripture.
The US system was the most democratic in the world - in it's day. Then a few years later the French revolution surpassed you and on that way it's been going ever since.
Europe - and the rest of the world - have steadily become more and more democratic over the centuries while the US system is an antiquated relic based on a document intended to serve only 13 colonies 300 years ago.
Despite the fact that every nation in Europe has a lot older legislative history then that no one actually bases their current legislation on something that archaic - and there's a reason for that - it doesn't work very well.
Legislation needs to be upgraded to the times and change with the societies it's intended to reflect.
Amending get's you only so far - eventually you need to re-draft the entire thing.
That doesn't mean you abandon the principles of course - it just means that you put them in a modern context that actually relevant to the times and speaks to the actual situation, and not pretend that something written 300 years ago will forever be perfect - because it won't.
"And then to top it off, you have to make up accusations ("And you've advocated here for suspending democracy all together [...]") which are nonsensical."
I did no such thing - I just reminded you of what you yourself wrote earlier.
Your comment:
"California, a deranged state that nobody (aside from Californians) thinks should have any influence on anything."
Is, as my full quote reads:
"And you've advocated here for suspending democracy all together and striping citizens of California of all influence in the democratic process."
Saying that US citizens of Carlifornia shouldn't have any influence on anything is advocating for the suspension of democracy - it's just a fact.
You may regret now that you wrote that like Trump probably regrets writing that the electoral collage is a disaster for a democracy, but you and he still did.
I'm not making anything up - I'm just pointing out what you both wrote.
"The best part? After having made a complete fool of yourself, you will still sit there and lecture me (and anyone else dumb enough to engage) on subjects about which you know nothing."
You know, telling other what a failure they are instead of actually making your case and letting other readers make their judgment isn't actually a sign of great confidence in your argument.
It's just like Trump in his tweets that needs to add "FAIL!" and "SAD!" all the time.
It doesn't actually strengthen your argument but I guess it makes you both feel better?