The scalpers are getting scalped on Trump inauguration tickets

[whichphilosophy]

Of course protesting is not a problem but it seems a farce when protesting against against a result of application democratic principals.

That's assuming that we have a fault-free application of democratic principles at work. Would you consider black people protesting against Jim Crow laws a farce, because the laws were established following proper procedure by duly-elected representatives?

If, say, the Republican party had been working hard to establish laws and other procedures that caused Democratic voters to be unjustly removed from the polls, turned away from the polling sites, or otherwise disenfranchised, then perhaps there might be a leg to stand on for protests against the winner.

Black people were denied the right to vote so they correctly protested against non democratic laws and correct if the second scenario.

 

[bilby]

Dude you really need to follow US politics a lot better than this if you are going to finger-wag about it so much. First you insist (repeatedly) that HRC never talked policy, now you claim no one has ever protested a US President because he was elected? What were you doing when President Obama was elected? Or President Bush for that matter?

Protests of any sort against a democratically elected leader is against the principles of freedom no matter how does it.

WT actual F???

Do you have any grasp at ALL of the meaning of the word 'freedom'? The right to protest against leaders (whether democratically elected or not) is a fundamental principle of freedom. One of the easiest ways to determine that freedom is absent from a country is to observe that protests against that country's leadership are discouraged, restricted or prohibited.

The right to complain about one's leaders is the basis of freedom.

 

[bilby]

WP obviously doesn't understand our form of government whatsoever. Bet he never even heard of the Boston Tea Party.
This country was FOUNDED on protests, and protests remain fundamental to the process.

On a lighter note, I read a FB post by Mrs Betty Bowers (America's Best Christian) announcing that the inauguration has been moved to the Jr Conference room at the Ramada Inn in Alexandria VA.

Of course I heard of the Boston Tea Party. It spoilt a lot of tea but in an excellent cause of course.

I wouldn't describe the protection of wealthy smugglers as 'an excellent cause'; But then, I wouldn't describe protests as antithetical to freedom, either.

Protesting is one thing in a democracy and that is a right. However but it become farcical irony when the losing party protests the results in a democratic election.

No. It is antithetical to freedom to allow a tyranny of the majority. Even in a situation where the majority of the population supports a leader or a policy, it is vital to freedom that the minority who oppose that leader or policy be allowed to protest.

 

[ZiprHead]

However but it become farcical irony when the losing party protests the results in a democratic election.

It wasn't a democratic election.

 

[bilby]

However but it become farcical irony when the losing party protests the results in a democratic election.

It wasn't a democratic election.

But even if it had been, the losing party and its supporters have a right - indeed, in a free nation, a duty - to protest, if they are being hurt, or robbed of their freedom, by the policies of the new leadership.

In March 1933, the NSDAP won the German Federal Election. This was a democratic vote, and by whichphilosophy's reasoning, nobody had any right to "oppose freedom" by protesting the result, nor by complaining about the (perfectly legal) passage on March 23 of the 'Enabling Act', which was passed by a majority vote in the Reichstag. It would presumably also have been antithetical to freedom for anyone to protest the results of the subsequent Federal Election in November of the same year, which was conducted under the terms of the Enabling Act, and therefore excluded all parties other than the NSDAP from the ballot.

Show

(Cue claims of Godwin's Law applying to this perfectly apt analogy to real and directly relevant historical events. Note that I am NOT suggesting that anyone is 'as bad as the Nazis', or comparing anyone to Hitler; I am simply pointing out that the claims made by whichphilosophy are demonstrably absurd, by observing an incident from history where democratic election results clearly led to the abrogation of freedom, and where the continuation of freedom was impossible in the absence of widespread and vehement protests against those democratic results).

 

[whichphilosophy]

It wasn't a democratic election.

But even if it had been, the losing party and its supporters have a right - indeed, in a free nation, a duty - to protest, if they are being hurt, or robbed of their freedom, by the policies of the new leadership.

In March 1933, the NSDAP won the German Federal Election. This was a democratic vote, and by whichphilosophy's reasoning, nobody had any right to "oppose freedom" by protesting the result, nor by complaining about the (perfectly legal) passage on March 23 of the 'Enabling Act', which was passed by a majority vote in the Reichstag. It would presumably also have been antithetical to freedom for anyone to protest the results of the subsequent Federal Election in November of the same year, which was conducted under the terms of the Enabling Act, and therefore excluded all parties other than the NSDAP from the ballot.

Show

(Cue claims of Godwin's Law applying to this perfectly apt analogy to real and directly relevant historical events. Note that I am NOT suggesting that anyone is 'as bad as the Nazis', or comparing anyone to Hitler; I am simply pointing out that the claims made by whichphilosophy are demonstrably absurd, by observing an incident from history where democratic election results clearly led to the abrogation of freedom, and where the continuation of freedom was impossible in the absence of widespread and vehement protests against those democratic results).

We are somehow discussing something different where the Nazis intertwined the Party with the State.
The NSDAP won the elections but did not hold the majority of seats. The Enabling Act was preceded a month or so earlier by the Reich stag Fire which was used as an excuse. This gave the cabinet authority to enact laws without parliament.

Back to the USA it is simply of protests against one party which won the election which is a right if people so choose but protesting against democratic procedure could lead to undemocratic remedies.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Of course I heard of the Boston Tea Party. It spoilt a lot of tea but in an excellent cause of course.

I wouldn't describe the protection of wealthy smugglers as 'an excellent cause'; But then, I wouldn't describe protests as antithetical to freedom, either.

Protesting is one thing in a democracy and that is a right. However but it become farcical irony when the losing party protests the results in a democratic election.

No. It is antithetical to freedom to allow a tyranny of the majority. Even in a situation where the majority of the population supports a leader or a policy, it is vital to freedom that the minority who oppose that leader or policy be allowed to protest.

They can if they want but that is not the problem. In a democracy you cannot force people not to protest but you can use logic, reason and education.

- - - Updated - - -

However but it become farcical irony when the losing party protests the results in a democratic election.

It wasn't a democratic election.

There is no evidence otherwise.

 

[Elixir]

Protesting is one thing in a democracy and that is a right. However but it become farcical irony when the losing party protests the results in a democratic election.

Were you making that complaint when Obama's democratic election was protested by right wing racists? I kinda doubt it. But you were on this forum then; maybe you could point me to some posts that would make you look like less of a hypocrite?

 

[ZiprHead]

However but it become farcical irony when the losing party protests the results in a democratic election.

It wasn't a democratic election.

There is no evidence otherwise.

Are you daft? Do you even know what a democratic election is?

A democratic election is one where the person that gets the most votes wins.

 

[Elixir]

However but it become farcical irony when the losing party protests the results in a democratic election.



There is no evidence otherwise.

Are you daft? Do you even know what a democratic election is?

A democratic election is one where the person that gets the most votes wins.

View attachment 9555

It could be teh stoopid, or...
Maybe what we have here is an agent in training, using this forum as a test ground for vacuous-yet-divisive rhetoric. Members of mendacious authoritarian organizations are prime candidates for such recruitment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I wouldn't describe the protection of wealthy smugglers as 'an excellent cause'; But then, I wouldn't describe protests as antithetical to freedom, either.

Protesting is one thing in a democracy and that is a right. However but it become farcical irony when the losing party protests the results in a democratic election.

No. It is antithetical to freedom to allow a tyranny of the majority. Even in a situation where the majority of the population supports a leader or a policy, it is vital to freedom that the minority who oppose that leader or policy be allowed to protest.

They can if they want but that is not the problem. In a democracy you cannot force people not to protest but you can use logic, reason and education.

Logic, reason, and education were never used to generate support for Trump.

 

[ElectEngr]

It could be teh stoopid, or...
Maybe what we have here is an agent in training, using this forum as a test ground for vacuous-yet-divisive rhetoric. Members of mendacious authoritarian organizations are prime candidates for such recruitment.

Я, например, приветствовать наших новых русских повелителей.

Как я могу получить билеты в Москве, которые пройдут симфонии?

Later,
ElectEngr

 

[Shadowy Man]

That's assuming that we have a fault-free application of democratic principles at work. Would you consider black people protesting against Jim Crow laws a farce, because the laws were established following proper procedure by duly-elected representatives?

If, say, the Republican party had been working hard to establish laws and other procedures that caused Democratic voters to be unjustly removed from the polls, turned away from the polling sites, or otherwise disenfranchised, then perhaps there might be a leg to stand on for protests against the winner.

Black people were denied the right to vote so they correctly protested against non democratic laws and correct if the second scenario.

So, what you are saying is that because there are currently no laws that prevent anybody from being able to exercise their right to vote, no one has the right to complain after an election if their preferred candidate loses?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Protests of any sort against a democratically elected leader is against the principles of freedom no matter how does it.

WT actual F???

Do you have any grasp at ALL of the meaning of the word 'freedom'? The right to protest against leaders (whether democratically elected or not) is a fundamental principle of freedom. One of the easiest ways to determine that freedom is absent from a country is to observe that protests against that country's leadership are discouraged, restricted or prohibited.

The right to complain about one's leaders is the basis of freedom.

Of course they have a right to protest. However protesting against the election results of a democratic election is somewhat contradictory.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Black people were denied the right to vote so they correctly protested against non democratic laws and correct if the second scenario.

So, what you are saying is that because there are currently no laws that prevent anybody from being able to exercise their right to vote, no one has the right to complain after an election if their preferred candidate loses?

No, if not enough people voted, it's no use complaining. Those who chose to vote did so and the election went in Trump's favour.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, what you are saying is that because there are currently no laws that prevent anybody from being able to exercise their right to vote, no one has the right to complain after an election if their preferred candidate loses?

No, if not enough people voted, it's no use complaining. Those who chose to vote did so and the election went in Trump's favour.

The electoral college went in Trump's favor. The plurality of Americans selected the other person and currently Trump is acting as if he won 1972 style. That is why people are protesting.

 

[bilby]

But even if it had been, the losing party and its supporters have a right - indeed, in a free nation, a duty - to protest, if they are being hurt, or robbed of their freedom, by the policies of the new leadership.

In March 1933, the NSDAP won the German Federal Election. This was a democratic vote, and by whichphilosophy's reasoning, nobody had any right to "oppose freedom" by protesting the result, nor by complaining about the (perfectly legal) passage on March 23 of the 'Enabling Act', which was passed by a majority vote in the Reichstag. It would presumably also have been antithetical to freedom for anyone to protest the results of the subsequent Federal Election in November of the same year, which was conducted under the terms of the Enabling Act, and therefore excluded all parties other than the NSDAP from the ballot.

Show

(Cue claims of Godwin's Law applying to this perfectly apt analogy to real and directly relevant historical events. Note that I am NOT suggesting that anyone is 'as bad as the Nazis', or comparing anyone to Hitler; I am simply pointing out that the claims made by whichphilosophy are demonstrably absurd, by observing an incident from history where democratic election results clearly led to the abrogation of freedom, and where the continuation of freedom was impossible in the absence of widespread and vehement protests against those democratic results).

We are somehow discussing something different where the Nazis intertwined the Party with the State.
The NSDAP won the elections but did not hold the majority of seats. The Enabling Act was preceded a month or so earlier by the Reich stag Fire which was used as an excuse. This gave the cabinet authority to enact laws without parliament.

Back to the USA it is simply of protests against one party which won the election which is a right if people so choose but protesting against democratic procedure could lead to undemocratic remedies.

You are of course correct; the Enabling Act would have been unnecessary had Hitler had a majority for his party in his own right.

Such legislation would be needless in a nation where the President's party had a majority in both legislative houses, and the President had the right to select key members of the highest judicial court.

It's a good thing that a US President with such disproportionate power couldn't be elected today - after all, even the stupid Americans would likely have millions more people vote for his opponent than would fall for his schtick.

And of course if he was elected anyway, the majority who voted against him always have the right to protest - surely nobody would be so stupid as to suggest that they should not.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, what you are saying is that because there are currently no laws that prevent anybody from being able to exercise their right to vote, no one has the right to complain after an election if their preferred candidate loses?

No, if not enough people voted, it's no use complaining. Those who chose to vote did so and the election went in Trump's favour.

So, you do not believe that there were people who chose to vote but were unable to do so for various reasons, many caused by Republican politicians changing laws about how and when people can vote?

 

[Elixir]

No, if not enough people voted, it's no use complaining. Those who chose to vote did so and the election went in Trump's favour.

So, you do not believe that there were people who chose to vote but were unable to do so for various reasons, many caused by Republican politicians changing laws about how and when people can vote?

"Well... um... er... uh ... but ... the Russians did NOT effect the outcome!"

(lather, rinse, repeat as needed)

 

[blastula]

As if nobody ever protests a president when in office. The point of the big protest is not to deny the outcome but to send a message against Trumpism.