That will be helpful, but for ducks sake. . .

Can we please get some sanity in the white house?

Chattel slavery is incompatible with liberal democracy. There’s no fuzzy area to debate the point.

I would agree with that. Can you point to where we were discussing liberal democracy?

For any policy authored by the enfranchised majority that impacts the disenfranchised minority, its passage and execution is categorically and indisputably undemocratic.

So no laws involving children or immigrants, then?

You’re doing exactly what I’m arguing against. You’re attributing a bunch of other qualities to “democracy,” and demanding that they be treated as part of the actual definition.

I think we are done here. You’re arguing against things I’m not writing.

One-Person, One-Vote is the generally recognized answer.

Yes, that is the general answer for who gets to vote. But as I describe, that doesn’t guarantee fair.

To get what we think democracy means, we need as fair system, (who gets to vote) and a fair election. (votes counted properly)

But you’re missing my point. I’m not arguing that a restricted voter population is a good thing. I’m arguing that it’s still a democracy, provided it meets certain qualifications. I’m arguing that words have meanings, and that we shouldn’t be letting 1960 anti-red patriotism trick is into thinking that “democracy” means anything more than leaders appointed by voting.

A bad democracy is still a democracy. An unfair democracy is still a democracy. A corrupt democracy may be a democracy, depending on the nature of the corruption.

And the Wright Flyer was an airplane.

This depend very much on how you define “fair,” and how it is used in context.

So, I would say a system that only let’s white male landowners vote is not “fair” because only an elite group gets to vote. But if their votes are counted properly, and their decision upheld, the election is “fair,” and it’s a democracy.

On the other hand, a system that lets everyone over 18 vote is arguably “fair.” But if the votes are not counted correctly, and the results are false, then the election is not “fair,” and you don’t have a democracy.

To further the thought, I suppose that if the voting populating is a small enough percentage of the general populating, then it is not a democracy, rather than just a bad democracy. Not sure where that line is, though.

Yea. If we counted popular vote, rather than EC, that would not qualify him for president.

I’m not actually sure what happens if no candidate gets a majority.

It’s not a good democracy, no. The fact that Trump is not following the rules suggests that it isn’t a democracy at all, since we are voting for stick figures, not leaders. But he was elected fair and square, at least until we find evidence otherwise.

And again, “democracy” doesn’t mean “good,” or “fair” or “virtuous.” We are none of those things right now, weather we are a democracy or not.

I’m prepared to argue that fake voting doesn’t count.

we count ancient Greece as a democracy, don’t we?

Last I checked, democracy didn’t mean “fair,” it ment that the leaders were voted into power.

It’s not a one-size fits all, that’s for sure. But I have no subscriptions to anything, and I wouldn’t describe anything I do with “work flow.”

Don’t even have to do crime. You can usually email the author, and they will send you a copy, quite legitimately.

I’ve done it myself a few times.

In the old scam, I believe you world indeed get a book with the names of everyone who paid to get a book with the names of everyone who paid to get the book.

That’s a good thing, is it?

They aren’t MAGA Republicans. They are just Republicans. Whatever remnants of sanity those people may have left is not calling the shots.

Empty words should never be considered as a start.

No policy in the world will stop minors from using the app. I can’t tell you how many “I am 18+” dialogues I clicked on when I was younger. You want access restrictions.

Do you want to scan your id every time you open the discord app?

I’m not saying I approve of what he’s doing. Quite the contrary.

But it’s what he’s asking, and how he’s asking, not that he’s asking.

Trying to control the way other countries are run is fucking wild, the notion of which should never even be remotely entertained.

In happier times, we call the process “diplomacy,” and mostly limit it to things that affect us, directly or indirectly.

But pressuring other countries to, for example, clean up their corruption so we can reliably do business with them is common. (Also hilariously hypocritical) Pressuring other countries to enact civil rights laws is fairly common, too.

I have to admit, seeing pressure to remove civil rights is unusual, at least from countries not named UAE.

Give us a few days.

I like huge anime titties more than this guy, but I have the decency not to advertise the fact to my neighbors.

I don’t know the meaning, either. Temba, his arms wide?