The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

Major Gabbard- burn the place down

Kakamala's the one who got burnt

[Gatefan1976]

I agree, maybe I don't understand the true meaning of legit. It's legal and all, but he doesn't have the trust of the people yet to go full steam ahead. Wouldn't you agree?

I would agree with that.
What is legal, what is moral and what is even just "right" are separate things.
Boris is legal, he was put in power by the political laws of Britain.
Is that moral?
Well, is the parliamentary system "moral" by voting party over person? I would say yes, simply because political goals tend to fall around party lines, and the PM or President merely shapes the execution of said goals, the goal however remains. Take illegal immigration. The "party" has a hard line stance, but it is up to the leader to determine how that idea moves forwards. Is it catch and deport, or is it separate and detain?
Obama sent millions of people "home", to the point where he was called the "deporter in chief", but he did not revel in that role.
trump does.

[Gatefan1976]

yes I do²
again, densethis is beyond dense it's just dumb. here's a hint: I asked a question. a very simple question in response to something you said. that question calls for a very simple answer. just wanted to confirm something about what you said. you dont have the guts to answer just admit it k m8?

(man this reminds me of the time I was there lol)

Admit what?
What question buried in your neurotic posts am I supposed to answer?
Was Boris voted in by the people?
No.
Is that the system?
Yes.
If someone shot trump, pence takes over, but no one voted for him either.
That's the system, my agreement or not does not matter.

[SoulReaver]

Admit what?
What question buried in your neurotic posts am I supposed to answer?

the 1 question I asked which you dodged before getting triggered maga style for w/e reason

Was Boris voted in by the people?
No.

GOOD was about #$%$ time

maybe can have a serious convo then

so, you said this:

Boris is entirely legit and legal.

Was Boris voted in by the people?
No.

and in light of what you just admitted do explain: how thef this is "legit"?

[Gatefan1976]

the 1 question I asked which you dodged before getting triggered maga style for w/e reason
GOOD was about #$%$ time

maybe we can have a serious convo with you then

so, you said this:
and in light of what you just answered, do explain how thef this is "legit"?

Because, as I have explained over, and over again, parlimentarian systems vote for PARTY, not person. They don't vote for May or Johnstone, they vote for TORY or LIBERAL or LABOUR.
He is legit under the system used, same way trump is legit.
Does that mean I agree with either of them?
Nope, not at all.
You might find that system "unfair", but under the ruling guidelines of each countries voting practices, it is LEGAL AND LEGIT.
Your refusal to recognize that simply does not matter.

[SoulReaver]

Because, as I have explained over, and over again, parlimentarian systems vote for PARTY, not person. They don't vote for May or Johnstone, they vote for TORY or LIBERAL or LABOUR.
He is legit under the system used, same way trump is legit.
Does that mean I agree with either of them?
Nope, not at all.
You might find that system "unfair", but under the ruling guidelines of each countries voting practices, it is LEGAL AND LEGIT.
Your refusal to recognize that simply does not matter.

that' the whole fpoint you're mixing up 'legit' & 'legal' in other words you're foolishly repeating yourself : it's "legal and legal" '_'
you just explained (correctly) why it's legal

'legit' has a moral connotation that's what I meant hence why I asked (unfortunately Chaka also pointed that out in the mean time but I still wanted to emphasize it) - you think Boris & Trump's elections were morally right? if you don't then they weren't legit either. capice?

[Chaka-Z0]

Fkn drop the semantics guys. Let me recap and please get your collective international heads out of your a$$es.

Legit or not who gives a shnizel he's not some guy that did a coup, he played by the rules and yea it sucks and sometimes you end up with a medieval turnip cart driver as PM of the UK.

It's still irrelevant! It's theory, politics don't work like that. You can only go as far as the people let you go, especially in a parliamentary system alliances between parties or some sort of bargain is needed, unless you got elected with a strong majority.

The point is. He can't do any of his maniacal plan for turnip domination until he gets his pat on the back during the next election. Hence the reason why this whole fkn conversation started by me saying it doesn't fkn matter bc he's weak right now.

[Gatefan1976]

that' the whole fpoint you're mixing up 'legit' & 'legal' in other words you're foolishly repeating yourself : it's "legal and legal" '_'
you just explained (correctly) why it's legal

'legit' has a moral connotation that's what I meant hence why I asked (unfortunately Chaka also pointed that out in the mean time but I still wanted to emphasize it) - you think Boris & Trump's elections were morally right? if you don't then they weren't legit either. capice?

No, and this is where you are consistently wrong.
Legal in no way requires morals, nor should it have a moral implication.
Beliefs have morals, laws do not require them.
Laws do not require morals for them to be legit, they require the backing of the law, no more, no less. Arguing something being "morally wrong" has nothing to do with the law. I can argue pot smoking being legal on moral grounds, (or more directly, not morally wrong), but that does not make it legal. I can argue Alcohol should be illegal as it is one of the most addictive substances we know of, and that would be moral, but it does not make the case for it being ILLEGAL.
You are making the wrong argument, over and over again, and I am mixing NOTHING up, you are.

[SoulReaver]

Fkn drop the semantics guys. Let me recap and please get your collective international heads out of your a$$es.

Legit or not who gives a shnizel he's not some guy that did a coup, he played by the rules and yea it sucks and sometimes you end up with a medieval turnip cart driver as PM of the UK.

It's still irrelevant! It's theory, politics don't work like that. You can only go as far as the people let you go, especially in a parliamentary system alliances between parties or some sort of bargain is needed, unless you got elected with a strong majority.

The point is. He can't do any of his maniacal plan for turnip domination until he gets his pat on the back during the next election. Hence the reason why this whole fkn conversation started by me saying it doesn't fkn matter bc he's weak right now.

but that's the thing as I said what theh makes you say he's weak atm? you think the parliament will reign him & his cabinet in?

when Hitler was nominated chancellor people also thought he'd just be a figurehead with little power yet look what happened even before Hindenburg croaked

[SoulReaver]

No, and this is where you are consistently wrong.
Legal in no way requires morals,

I said legit not legal

nor should it have a moral implication.
Beliefs have morals, laws do not require them.
Laws do not require morals for them to be legit, they require the backing of the law, no more, no less. Arguing something being "morally wrong" has nothing to do with the law. I can argue pot smoking being legal on moral grounds, (or more directly, not morally wrong), but that does not make it legal. I can argue Alcohol should be illegal as it is one of the most addictive substances we know of, and that would be moral, but it does not make the case for it being ILLEGAL.
You are making the wrong argument, over and over again, and I am mixing NOTHING up, you are.

then if you're equating legit & legal you were basically repeating yourself you might as well have said it's legal & legal (the fact you specified both legit & legal suggested you meant something else in addition to it being legal in other words a moral facet)

in which case Don's election would also have been legit/legal IF the ruskies hadn't intervened in the election & he'd won via the antidemocratic/electoral college alone

[Gatefan1976]

Fkn drop the semantics guys. Let me recap and please get your collective international heads out of your a$$es.

Legit or not who gives a shnizel he's not some guy that did a coup, he played by the rules and yea it sucks and sometimes you end up with a medieval turnip cart driver as PM of the UK.

It's still irrelevant! It's theory, politics don't work like that. You can only go as far as the people let you go, especially in a parliamentary system alliances between parties or some sort of bargain is needed, unless you got elected with a strong majority.

The point is. He can't do any of his maniacal plan for turnip domination until he gets his pat on the back during the next election. Hence the reason why this whole fkn conversation started by me saying it doesn't fkn matter bc he's weak right now.

And I did not disagree.
Boris has no "mandate" right now, you are right.
But he is not an illegal or illegitimate PM, no matter what I think of him.

[Gatefan1976]

I said legit not legal

If you are power via the legal system, you are legit.

then if you're equating legit & legal you were basically repeating yourself you might as well have said it's legal & legal (the fact you specified both legit & legal suggested you meant something else in addition to it being legal in other words a moral facet)

Nope, you just seem to need to hear it more.
I hate trump, but he is the legal and legit president of the USA. Legal via the system in place, legit because the system is recognized as legal.
Mueller could not level charges of conspiracy, so that is a dead end insofar as Russian interference to help trump with trumps knowing and directco-operation, and weather I suspect he did or not DOES NOT MATTER.
Trump getting a orange jumpsuit after he is out on obstruction however?
Sign me up.

in which case Don's election would also have been legit/legal IF the ruskies hadn't intervened in the election & he'd won via the antidemocratic/electoral college alone

That's a separate issue.
Russia meddled, no doubt. but if no Americans aided and abetted (collusion/conspiracy) there is no crime of conspiracy.
Prove Jr and Ivanka and Kushner did it, and I'll happily give them a orange suit, but the law requires proof of guilt, not proof of being a douche.

[SoulReaver]

That's a separate issue.
Russia meddled, no doubt. but if no Americans aided and abetted (collusion/conspiracy) there is no crime of conspiracy.
Prove Jr and Ivanka and Kushner did it, and I'll happily give them a orange suit, but the law requires proof of guilt, not proof of being a douche.

but even if there's no collusion from Trump & co (I still dont believe that part but w/e) the report still admits the ruskies interfered sp if the election was tampered with by outside forces then the election itself is invalid & illegit/illegal isn't it. basically it's as if the ruskies voted in US elections & falsified the results therefore the will of the electorate was not reflected in the final results - what's legit about that? OBama could've called for a reelection (and redesign of the voting machines)

[SoulReaver]

Boris has no "mandate" right now, you are right.

k so again could someone bloody explain why not?

if this has to do with next general elections to win those logic says BJ would first have to undo years of austerity policies to regain the trust of the commonfolk
instead (cf. link I posted) he's gone full reactionary & appointed a thatcherist cabinet + devoted govt. money to hiring 20000 more police
he's acting damn confident for one who's not supposed nor guaranteed to be really in power

[Gatefan1976]

but even if there's no collusion from Trump & co (I still dont believe that part but w/e) the report still admits the ruskies interfered sp if the election was tampered with by outside forces then the election itself is invalid & illegit/illegal isn't it.

I'm going to assume a question mark.
The ruskies interfered with the election, no question, but that does not invalidate the results of the election. They played with minds, and given how many minds are open to "re-education" or unleashing pent up...….. feelings some US citizens have, that's no surprise.
Should the USA take that seriously?
YES.
Will Moscow Mitch?
No.

basically it's as if the ruskies voted in US elections & falsified the results therefore the will of the electorate was not reflected in the final results - what's legit about that? OBama could've called for a reelection (and redesign of the voting machines)

The Russians did no more than what FOX or TYT were doing.
It's not right, or moral, hell, it's not even legal, but now it is protected, so it might as well be legal.
The difference between FOX and TYT and Russia is, Russia is a foreign power.