See my previous post:
hovel[ huhv-uhl, hov- ]
noun
Too much so for my tastes, certainly, but less so than Egypt. Most of Pakistan’s human rights abuses are the product of the military or private citizens, more so than the government.
Yes, I’m aware of that. Your point is?
It’s almost like watching a science experiment. Statement A will result in response X, and then statement B results in response Y.
Example [disclaimer–not real quotes]:
NfbW says something.
Poster: You said this.
NfbW: No I didn’t.
Poster: Here’s your quote where you say that.
NfbW: That’s a snippet taken out of context.
Poster: No, it’s not.
NfbW: You have failed! I am winning!
Yep, and that’s why he refused to answer my question, above. Because the answer is “Morsi”. If the election had been “voided”, the answer would be “no one”. But he knows that “no one” is not the correct answer.
It’s about as good an analogy as there is. Consider the difference between a divorce and an annulment. What we had in Egypt was a divorce, not an annulment.
Who of significance says "An invalid election must be “one overturned due to a problem with the election itself” - not the resulting administration? I see no reason to take your word for it. Overturned elections generally refers to overturning them before they are certified.
I am talking about an election in the midst of a revolution. The first election. This election was overturned by the revolutionaries who throw off their previous dictatorship. The first election has been voided… killed… ended… Invalidated and so it is with the 'resulting administration… the revolutionaries ended it.
I did not misspeak.
Did you use the term, ‘election itself’ … cool.
Was the ‘resulting Morsi administration’ an **elected **administration based upon a valid election? Do some people use the phrase ‘elected official’?
In a functional democracy it is the ‘election’ that gives the resulting administration the ‘power of force’ … so it is quite proper to say that when that ‘power of force’ which was **granted by a valid election has been taken away **by whatever means and for whatever reason that the valid election has become no longer valid. Yes NOT VALID.
This is the definition of ‘valid’: 4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force. VALID Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
So NOT VALID means, “NOT HAVING LEGAL FORCE”.
The valid election of Morsi no longer has valid legal force because he was removed from office by what technically would be call a coup d’état.
When Morsi was *‘removed from office’ *did the ‘election’ of Morsi ceased to be effective, ceased to be binding and no longer has any legal force?
Also I am not asking about policies that he enacted during his first year. Is he effectively the President of Egypt now? Does his signature have any legal force now that he has been removed from office?
[my italics]
Since you like pointing out mistakes, you do know there was no Nixon/Ford election, right?
Wait, don’t tell me–there’s another definition of election that makes this true.
I didn’t refuse to answer your question. You have made another error.
And your statement is in error too. The election was not voided until 2013. Morsi was president in 2012 until he was ‘removed from office’ and his election to public office was voided at that point.
Notice that he’s still dodging the question about who was the president of Egypt in 2012.
Emphasis added. Then the election was not voided. Q.E.D.
Do you dispute that?
Nope I forgot Spiro… There’s a real correction… Thanks. Now my point still survives my mistake. Big picture right. Ford was the Vice President when Nixon resigned. The Vice President becomes the President. The Nixon/Agnew election went to finish without a new election … right? Morsi’s elected office ended. That is what the 'BAD DEMOCRACY NOW!!! Crowd is weeping about. There was no legitimate constitutional means for a transfer of power to fulfill the Morsi election term it is lawful and legitimate completion.
http://vicepresidents.com/blog/2012/01/16/a-history-lesson-how-we-choose-vps/
Perhaps the Egyptians should try that… and then if approved Morsi’s term could be completed… But I guess Morsi’s opposition is in exile somewhere …
I don’t know that I can speak for everyone here, but for myself you need to understand that this isn’t about debating with you. It’s about fighting ignorance. I think most people on this MB realize there is no point in trying to convince you of anything.
But, when you post ignorance, we’re going to smack it down. If someone reads a statement like “the election was voided”, they would be perfectly reasonable to assume that the election had been declared invalid and that the winner was never legitimately an office holder. That is to say, that their tenure in office was made void from the day they took it.
Go back to the analogy of the annulment and a divorce. With the former, the marriage is declared to have never existed. With the latter, it was simply terminated after having existed for some time.
So, in the spirit of fighting ignorance, we feel compelled to confront you when you spread ignorance. That is all. This ceased to be a debate a long time ago. It’s now about correcting the erroneous posts you are making.
No the election was voided. Morsi was ‘elected to a four year term’ … that means the **valid election **in 2012 granted him power for four years. His four years of power came to him because he won an election. That ELECTED power… that election result was voided one year after it was invoked.
You cannot define what I’ve written that is ignorant.
“IF SOMEONE” … sounds somethinga similar to an anecdotal story… a story told by someone who may very well be ignorant…
Your refusal to apply context to things does not sit well with your claim that you are fighting ignorance…
Is it ignorance to read into one’s own words that the statement is about whether or not Morsi’s exit was a coup or not when there is absolutely no words that suggest that is what the statement was about. And then to never respond when asked about it.
Your someone would be perfectly more reasonable to assume (since they are assuming) that I was not saying that the winner was** never **legitimately an office holder. That is because I did not say that he was ‘never’ a legitimate office holder. He was a legitimate office holder until he was removed from office… and his election to office was voided… at the moment he was gone. When he began sitting in jail… He was not a legitimate elected official the day he went to the pokey. But he was before that… Easy to assume… If you are truly fighting ignorance… Perhaps not so easy to assume if **‘someone’s’ **agenda is something else.
Reasonable people are unlikely to assume what you are thinking. That’s been proven over and over again in this thread.
Reasonable people do not “assume” anything if there is some need for another poster to clarify what was meant by the use of words in a snippet residing within the context of the overall debate, discussion or argument. Reasonable people ask politely what was meant and move on. That could have been done here very easily. That is simply common polite manners.
And reasonable people do not claim something has been ‘proven’ when the topic being addressed is ‘assuming’ what other’s ‘are thinking’. You have proven nothing. Saying that you have is not reasonable.
And on another note, ‘reasonable people’ do not go on nit-picking to death something that was settled as a non-issue six months earlier on the exact same topic.
I can however show you that you are absolutely wrong to infer that I argued that the ouster of Morsi was NOT a coup because I chose to cite a third party opinion by someone who is part of the revolution in Egypt. I can do this by showing the following post which is a very reasonable and issue-settling account about the US aid package for Egypt and the date that it was posted.
Bayard’s information was posted BEFORE the post where you claimed that I argued that the coup was not a coup. That argument was not even a factor by the time my reply to you came around. Who the hell are the reasonable people who would care what I or Obama or McCain called the last day of Morsi’s unfinished election term? Whether it was called a coup d’état after this point really did not matter.
Read it all here: Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law (Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board)
I guess you have characterized my comment that - Moris’s removal from ELECTED office was technically a coup - as ignorance and inconsistency But you did not confront this ignorance when it happened last July:
Read the entire thread at Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law (Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board)
I believe Horatia Hellpop is a very reasonable man in this comment. This arguably does not meet the strict definition of a “coup,” although it kind of walks and quacks like one You know call it a coup if you like since it is technically a coup… But it could also arguably not meet the strict definition of a ‘coup’ because of the revolutionary and constitutional situation in Egypt during the past three years or since Mubarak’s ouster… when the military took control anyway.
You did not bother to stamp out Horatia’s quote unquote ‘ignorance’ back then. Why?
I’d say writing that there was a Nixon/Ford election qualifies.
Maybe you can help me out. I didn’t participate in the Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law thread. But is this not your first post in that thread? Here is the entire post so we can judge its context:
You say you “go with” what an Egyptian thinks about it. And what does “go with” mean to you? I suspect (don’t want to assume, now) most people—maybe not you—but most people would read that as you agree with what the Egyptian is saying. Infer that you agree, if you will.
And what is the Egyptian saying? Well, it appears that she’s saying Morsi’s overthrow, arrest, invalidation, being voided, or whatever is the result of “a historical revolution and not a coup d’etat”. I want to be sure, now. She’s saying it’s not a coup, correct? The title of the piece is “Egypt: A People’s Revolution, Not a Crisis or Coup (Nawal El Saadawi)”. This is the first sentence of your quoted material. And you “go with” that, because, well, that’s what you wrote just prior to your quote. Maybe you don’t realize this or agree with this, but you certainly seem to be making an argument by proxy. And you certainly didn’t qualify anything about your quote of her.
See, this is why people find your posts, umm…let’s say, disjointed and contradictory. You have not disavowed El Saadawi saying it’s not a coup and you “go with" what she’s said—it is not a coup. But because you say you “go with” her argument, most people—probably all of them (I again suspect and not assume, now)—would read/infer that as her argument is your argument. Isn’t that why you posted the quote in the first place? And yet two sentences later you say you have “never ever ever ever ever ever argued that Morsi’s ouster was NOT A Coup.”
It seems like you want to say “it’s not a coup” when you want to rebut John Mace’s assertion “that Obama is the decider as to whether this is a coup or not” in one thread, but say I “never said it is not a coup" in this thread.
Predicted response: I never said it was not a coup; the Egyptian I “go with” did and she is not me; and what Egyptians call it doesn’t matter anyways. And then you’re going to say I don’t get the context of your first post in the other thread. But it’s up to you to provide the context when you quote a poster and then reply. As your post stands, it appears that John Mace said Obama gets to say whether it’s a coup and you tried to rebut that by saying the Egyptians say it is not a coup and you agree/“go with” that.
However, before you latch on to a sentence or two above to rebut and “embarrass” me once again, maybe you should think on why it is no one “gets” those brilliant arguments you are sure you are making. How many times have people pointed out—incorrectly in your mind, I’m sure (that I will assume)—that you have said contradictory things?