Red Mosquito

Chud's been really testy lately.

You're right, because of the possibility of one kind of corruption there should be absolutely no safeguards against a different kind of corruption.

Imagine thinking that if a prisoner received the majority of votes (in a total democracy) that he shouldn't be allowed to be president.

Wouldn't that situation kinda maybe signify something? you think? Like maybe suppression is happening? No! How that could never happen!

What strawman are you building now?

Mickey wrote:You're right, because of the possibility of one kind of corruption there should be absolutely no safeguards against a different kind of corruption.

There are plenty of punishments for corruption you could have without instituting a massive tool for suppressing political enemies, you absolute rigid thinker.

Gee if only there were some other ways to deal with criminals than installing an easily corruptible apparatus to deal with a scenario that has virtually no chance of being a problem in the first place.

Lucky for me I don't think you're ultimately going to vote in a better world so I don't really give a shit about any kind of double standard coming back to bite the left. But I also think certain political enemies should be suppressed, which is something theorists of democracy have considered since the *invention* of democracy, so I know this feels like a big gotcha moment for you that you read about on reddit or whatever other little marshy youtube bog you confuse for an intellectual space, but it's really not.

Mickey wrote:Lucky for me I don't think you're ultimately going to vote in a better world so I don't really give a shit about any kind of double standard coming back to bite the left. But I also think certain political enemies should be suppressed, which is something theorists of democracy have considered since the *invention* of democracy, so I know this feels like a big gotcha moment for you that you read about on reddit or whatever other little marshy youtube bog you confuse for an intellectual space, but it's really not.

lol you are obsessed with me.

Sure thing Fredo

What did your vaunted democratic theorists have to say on the matter of preventing people running for office? bonus points if they weren't aristocrats.

It is a double standard, and Chud's opinion on the matter would undoubtedly change the millisecond his favored candidate wasn't allowed to run for office, but pointing that out is just shooting fish in a barrel. I just want to know what people's excuses are.

This just made me wonder:

Do all these insurrectionists lose their right to vote?

"But Burt, you retarded MAGA worshipping idiot, what if we elected a criminal to government?"

Man you really are a moron.

Oh no we certainly can't punish President Trump while also demanding the restoration of felon voting rights, lest we commit a logical fallacy

Mickey wrote:Oh no we certainly can't punish President Trump while also demanding the restoration of felon voting rights, lest we commit a logical fallacy

lol you are a terrible sophist. You're a regular Tucker Carlson. Utterly transparent.

"we can't prevent someone for running for president! So i gUeSs wE Can'T PunISh hIm aT aLl thEN!?"

If somebody ever comes at you with some bullshit about "the sanctity of our democracy", look at Tweedledee and Tweedledum up there.

But it's different when...

Watching the BurtReynolds account melt down about his beloved orange man in real time, you love to see it.

Question, Burt:

Spoiler: show

perhaps I need better search terms?