When I said Morsi’s lies invalidated his election I meant what I said to mean his lies made his election not valid. The definition of valid is in part having the power of force. Not valid means therefore that Morsi did not have the power of force that his election to high office gave him from the very moment that he was arrested by the military.
It must be commonly known that the election itself was valid and certified and that Morsi had power of force for one year that was granted to him for winning the valid election.
When five people tell me that I may not use a definition of ‘valid’ that is precisely what the dictionary tells me is one of its meanings, then five people are wrong and its a shame that all five will not admit that they are wrong when it is clear that they are.
Did the US election of 1972 continue to have full legal and Constitutional ‘power of force’ during the full term that Nixon and Agnew’s election enacted.
If it did then the full elected term of Nixon Agnew was valid. That election was never invalidated. Morsi’s election was.
Yet I got 2 infractions for saying a POST which said ’ political protests were illegal’ (which they are not and is easily proven) and me using the English word that I know of which is ‘lie’ because I don’t know what other word to use to describe something which is not true.
What is the word English speakers use to say something printed is not true?
Just some friendly advice, since I’m not a moderator:
The rule only applies to people posting on this MB. I can’t say that you have lied, but I can say that Obama lied, or Bush lied or Morsi lied. In the post you quoted, HA was referring to Morsi’s lies, not the lies of anyone posting on this MB.
“Ignorant” isn’t necessarily an insult because it simply implies the person is uninformed. Calling them “stupid” would not be allowed. “Posting ignorance” is not a problem, since that refers to the post and not the poster.
But question about moderation are supposed to be taken up in the ATMB forum, not in the other forms like this one.
Missed that one… Just say it’s untrue or incorrect. Those are value-neutral, and don’t say anything about the motive of the poster. If you say it’s a lie, that means you are accusing the poster of deliberately trying to deceive the rest of us.
Given that “election” refers to the process of voting in the president/leader, then an invalid election would be one where there was a problem with that process.
Exactly. See, you get it. After that point, the term is “removed from office”, (or “removed from power”, “deposed”). The word “election” isn’t interchangeable with the word “term.”
That would entail acting as though Morsi had never legally been President. An annulment, so to speak. That is not what’s happened. No one is saying Morsi was never President, they are saying he’s no longer President.
Called it.
Yes.
Yes.
The powers of the President come from Egypt’s constitution. The election is how a president is chosen, it doesn’t give him his powers.
His election did have legal force, though. He issued orders, and carried out his presidential duties. How do you account for this? If his election was invalid, then he was never President…and that’s plainly not what happened.
No, his election was unaffected. What changed was his ability to carry out the office of President (and facing charges in a kangaroo court, of course).
Naturally, since if any edicts or policies he put in place are still effective, even if it was the contract to empty Parliament’s trash cans, then your bizarre argument is destroyed.
Nope, he was removed from office after serving one year.
See above. Again, “election” /= “term”. Different words mean different things.
So he was never legally President?
So he was legally President?
You’re using “valid” correctly, the problem is that you’re joining it to the word “election”, then using “election” as a synonym for “term of office”.
There you go. You are the one having a problem with English. In Nixon/Ford’s case it does not matter because their election was never invalidated, ended, terminated. Ford did serve out Nixon’s term according to the Constitution or am I missing something?
While I have your attention, I’ll ask you again. Here’s what you wrote:
{A} “So, reading the news today it looks like there are Senators in both parties who are taking both sides on this. Very complicated. But, it also notes that Obama is the decider as to whether this is a coup or not, so it’s really up to him unless Congress writes a new law. As violence escalates, there really are no good options for us here.” -John Mace
Since you claim to have mastered English, how have you determined that the above statement {A} from you is an argument that it was a coup.
My response to {A} was. *“I’ll go with what an Egyptian thinks about it:” *
and then I cited this, *“This is a historical revolution and **not a coup d’etat **or protest movement or outraged uprising. It is a revolution that will continue until all of its goals are realized.” *-Nawal El Saadawi from this link: http://www.juancole.com/2013/07/peop...n-saadawi.html
You wrote {A} that it was up to Obama to decide. I responded {B} that I’d go with what an Egyptian thinks about it. Plain English means that I was non-committal at this point on whether or not it was a coup just like you were. My argument is that I will let an Egyptian decide what to call it.
But then you have the audacity to tell me that:
{C}
“It matters not” … you tell me “It matters not” … as if you are the final authority who gets to decide ‘it matters not’. I did not argue that it was a coup d’état. I didn’t argue anything on it.
It **matters fully **because your comment {A} was not presented as an argument or point or comment where I could have answered with an argument that it was not a coup. Yet you keep repeating that citing an Egyptian to decide what to call it is somehow my argument. That is absurd.
Who are you talking to? The first quote on top is mine but everything else below is, I believe, John Mace’s.
Let me ask you this: did Nixon’s administration end with his resignation? I think most people would consider Ford’s administration as not Nixon’s and a separate administration. Apparently, according to your logic, LBJ’s administration did not begin with JFK’s death, but with his [LBJ’s] election in 1964. If Ford’s administration finished Nixon’s election, the it follows that LBJ’s administration was finishing JFK’s.
Let me ask you something else:
If someone said “Barack Obama is considered the first black US President” and I said “Yeah, I’d go with that”, am I agreeing with that statement or not?
My attention or John Mace’s? Again, you illustrate your lack of clarity better than anyone else.
Where where you trained or advised or licensed or ordained to state with any power of force or any kind of authority, that an election refers only or is limited to the “process” of voting? One definition of election is “the act of electing” which refers to the meaning of ‘elect’. That takes me to this, "to determine in favor of a course of action, etc… So in that legitimate definition, not banned by you, I am easily and properly stating that in both cases, the Nixon and Morsi elections were the voters’ determination in favor of a course of action that was expected to last for four years. That legally binding expressed determination did not end when the process of the election ended.
The valid election process in Egypt determined a course of action to be governed by Morsi. That determination became not valid Morsi was forced out office and arrested. The process was not invalidated the result, or the determination of the majority was invalidated. The way I stated it is fine.
Guys, I really think it’s time to stop this hijack and let this thread die its natural death.
NFBW has his own ideas about what these words mean, and the rest of us disagree. No one is going to convince him he’s wrong, and he’s not going to convince us we’re wrong. All that is happening is the we’re posting the same things over and over and over.
“The act of electing” is the process of voting. See how it refers to an act, i.e. a singular, discrete event? That’s not interchangeable with a term, which is a span of time and not an event.
And yes, the election ends when the election ends.
Right.
It wasn’t, though. Morsi’s election still has “force, weight, or cogency”. Again, he’s being treated as ex-President Morsi, not never-was-President Morsi.
Even though it’s needlessly complex and unclear? Even though it requires using phrasing like “Morsi’s election in a valid election process was a legally binding determination in favor of a course of action that was expected to last for four years, but that determination became not valid when Morsi was forced out of office”, instead of “Morsi was duly elected, then forced out of office”? You really think your way is fine?
Didn’t preview, so I’m just now seeing this. That’s probably for the best, I’ve made my points on the election/validity stuff as well as I think I can, so assuming my previous post has no effect on him either, I’ll let it go and not reply further on this subject.
ETA: If nothing else, this thread was a glimpse into the Third World mindset that leads to endless dictatorships: contempt for the rule of law, refusal to see any value in the processes and political culture of more successful nations, a boundless appetite for conspiracy theory and demonization…
But if America had laws against interviewing the wrong people, then they’d have been arrested in America too!
That weasel-word approach to law, where the government has enough leeway to punish those it doesn’t like and to let off those it does like, seems to be pretty standard in Egypt.
terrorism is “the use of force, violence, threat, or intimidation perpetrated by the actor in carrying out a criminal enterprise individually or collectively for the purpose of disturbing public order or exposing to danger the safety and security of society.”
Also illegal:: “impairing the national unity or social peace”, “affronting the President of the Republic”, “villifying the King or President of a foreign country”, “founding, without authorization from the government, associations, corporations, or systems of any kind, of international quality”, “using religon in advocating and propagating by talk or in writing, or by any other method, extremist thought with the aim of instigating sedition and division”.
Sure when I use the dictionary to defend my use of words the quote 'reasonable people" unquote prepare to scatter for the hills.
Seeing that an ‘election’ is also by definition a ‘determination by the act of voting for a certain course of action’ lets try this. You are an extreme loyal member of the Muslim Brotherhood and your sacred act of voting chose Morsi and your individual effort contributed to making Morsi the president for four years, Allah willing. Then boom, the military takes Morsi down after one year. Your sacred act of voting for a certain course of action for the next four years, (the election), has been invalidated. Tends to piss you off right that your act of voting did not hold up for the full four years. The election was voided.
Such arrogance and demonstration of first-world superiority over these inferior third world beings that you so hastily condemn in the third year of revolution from under the thumb of a first world backed dictatorship for the past thirty years. Quite interesting to see it expressed so blatantly.
