Is civil war in Egypt averted? 90% yes for new Constitution.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

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.

Dictatorships just happen? There’s no political culture that makes them more or less likely? Fascinating. And it’s arrogance to point out these factors? Please explain, because that’s at odds with everything I’ve read or observed on the subject.

As for “superiority” and “condemning” them…that’s your position, boss. I want the Egyptian people to live in a democracy with the rule of law, just like the one I’m lucky enough to live in. You keep writing how they aren’t ready for it, because their democracy produced a a result you find unacceptable. You advocate minority rule by the government, I advocate democracy. You’re calling for outcomes that you’d never accept from your own government (unless you’d be fine with the military removing Obama from power, because there’s millions of Americans willing to protest him), you cheerlead for Morsi being jailed on bogus charges, and you blame the victims of police brutality for their treatment. You are smugly superior, and people with your attitude are condemning Egypt to Mubarak 2.0.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Dasmoocher’s argment failed because Nixon’s term went to completion without him. Nixon’s election therefore remained valid… because Ford finished the term.
[/QUOTE]
You do realize, do you not, that Ford was never elected?

Consider it a rhetorical question if you like. I realize that John Mace is correct and this is a huge waste of effort trying to understand what is basically incomprehensible, so perhaps you’d better declare “Yes I didn’t, No I did, an election isn’t invalid unless it’s valid - haha I win” a few times and we can let this thread go.

I am afraid, in a way, that I will read too much of your unique approach to debate and then start to bleed out the ears.

Regards,
Shodan

[dasmoocher]

@NotfooledbyW

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.

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 Rebublican Party and your civic act of voting chose Nixon and your individual effort contributed to making Nixon the president for four years, God willing. Then boom, misbehavior takes Nixon down after about two years. Your civic act of voting for a certain course of action for the next four years, (the election of Nixon), 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.

Congratulations, you’ve proved that Nixon’s election was voided.

[NotfooledbyW]

@dasmoocher

Let me ask you this: did Nixon’s administration end with his resignation?

The Administration (Nixon/Agnew) that was elected in 1972 did not end when Agnew resigned. There was no new election to appoint Gerald Ford to serve as Vice President. The Nixon/Agnew Adminstration is renamed the Nixon/Ford Administration. But it is the same continuous administration that was elected in 1972. Then after Nixon resigned Gerald Ford became President, Nelson Rockfeller became Vice President so the 1972 election had its second name change to Ford/Rockefeller and there was no new election to make that happen this time either. US elections went according to plan … Every four years , did that happen in Egypt?

The company I work for recently changed its name and there is no change in my pay or administration activities. One company did not end and a new one begin.

@dasmoocher

I think most people would consider Ford’s administration as not Nixon’s and a separate administration.

You think is fine but ‘most people’ is not verifiable so lets put that aside. Nixon and Agnew were removed so of course it became known as the Ford Administration . But the critical point you miss is that the Ford Administration held that office because of the election of 1972.

There is no similarity between US election and the full served term as a result of that election when comparing it to what happened to Egypt’s election of 2012. It just is not there. You are wrong and you need to accept it.

[dasmoocher]

@NotfooledbyW

But the critical point you miss is that the Ford Administration held that office because of the election of 1972.

I appear to have a firmer grasp on how the Ford Administration came about. You’re the that said there was a Nixon/Ford election.

Anyway, I think people may be interested how you argue with your own logic above.

[NotfooledbyW]

@dasmoocher

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 Rebublican Party and your civic act of voting chose Nixon and your individual effort contributed to making Nixon the president for four years, God willing. Then boom, misbehavior takes Nixon down after about two years. Your civic act of voting for a certain course of action for the next four years, (the election of Nixon), 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.

Congratulations, you’ve proved that Nixon’s election was voided.

.

The flaw in your argument is quite simply: ** Your vote did hold up for four years. **Why do you think it dudn? Don’t avoid that question. Your vote held up for four years but the crooks you voted for didnt. They were crooks. Nixon could have fought against the charges and maybe continued to the end of his term.

I am sure Morsi wanted to finish his but the election that put him in power was no longer valid after one year.
Egypt will have a new election that will overlap the remainder of the 2012 election.
That did not happen in th US in 1975 and 1976. There was no redo of an election or special election - was there?

But your stunt does provide that my English is fine because you just endorsed this definition of an election: "Seeing that an ‘election’ is also by definition a ‘determination by the act of voting for a certain course of action’ … Thank you very much
Now when you admit the US 1972 election outcome did not end or become void as the 2012 Egyptian election did, then this can easily be put to rest.

[NotfooledbyW]

@dasmoocher

I appear to have a firmer grasp on how the Ford Administration came about. You’re the that said there was a Nixon/Ford election.

Anyway, I think people may be interested how you argue with your own logic above.

Explain why you think the Ford Administration did not hold that office because of the election of 1972. Are you saying it would have happened without that election in 1972.

You are not showing that you have a better grasp of how Ford became President by any means.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

I want the Egyptian people to live in a democracy with the rule of law, just like the one I’m lucky enough to live in.

The democracy with the rule of law of which you speak contains many ‘democrats’ that say things like this on this thread:

*(Terr 01-17-2014 12:54 PM) So after all the brouhaha we went from a fairly secular/militaristic authoritarian regime of Mubarak to a fairly secular/militaristic authoritarian regime of Al-Sisi *

Do you agree with Terr?

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

The democracy with the rule of law of which you speak contains many ‘democrats’ that say things like this on this thread:

*(Terr 01-17-2014 12:54 PM) So after all the brouhaha we went from a fairly secular/militaristic authoritarian regime of Mubarak to a fairly secular/militaristic authoritarian regime of Al-Sisi *

Do you agree with Terr?

As of right now, yes, he’s correct, with the caveat that al-Sisi still needs to win an unfree election first. The current / incoming regime is, indeed, fairly (well, relatively) secular, militaristic, and authoritarian, as was the Mubarak regime.

I know your position is based on this coup transitioning to a liberal democracy, so surely you don’t defend the status quo as being acceptable?

[dasmoocher]

@NotfooledbyW

But your stunt does provide that my English is fine because you just endorsed this definition of an election: "Seeing that an ‘election’ is also by definition a ‘determination by the act of voting for a certain course of action’ … Thank you very much

So my copying and pasting your words is an endorsement in your mind? Well, that’s not surprising. Although, weren’t you recently saying something about making assumptions?

Now when you admit the US 1972 election outcome did not end or become void as the 2012 Egyptian election did, then this can easily be put to rest.

I’m not arguing that the 1972 election was void–you are with your own logic in your scenario. You just don’t see it. You said “lets try this” in your scenario to illustrate why Morsi’s election was void or invalid or not valid or negated or not not negated or whatever other term you’re going to come up with. When one substitutes Nixon for Morsi and Republican Party for Muslim Brotherhood and so on, it shouldn’t change the logic of the argument.

By the power of the transitive property invested in me, I say: If A=B and B=C, then A=C, by the same reasoning if X=Y and Y=Z, then X=Z.

Apparently, the rule is valid in Egypt and not valid in the US (or is it the other way around?).

Tell me, to which president does this scenario apply to?

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 a political party and your [descriptive adjective] act of voting chose a President and your individual effort contributed to making that President the president for four years, Flying Spaghetti Monster willing. Then boom, circumstance takes the president down after a period of time less than the full term.

This is your scenario.

So, which president does this scenario describe?

Your [descriptive adjective] 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.

This is your conclusion.

*The certain course of action would be an administration by Morsi or Nixon for four years. Morsi and Nixon didn’t finish their terms. And no one voted for Ford to replace Nixon. And further, where in this scenario do you specify how the election–really term of office–is to be continued or what comes next? You don’t. Boom! It ends there. It’s not my problem you didn’t fully qualify your scenario.

But you seem to have the same sense of logic as you do of history when you talk of Ford being elected.

And you haven’t answered the question whether a wedding is valid after a divorce.

So, let’s make this a simple yes or no question.

IF, by some fanciful, improbable, very, very remote occurrence, the US military overthrew the Obama administration next month and took power, would Obama’s election be valid?

Yes?

or

No?

If you say Yes, you are once again contradicting yourself because this is Morsi’s situation. If you say No, it just further illustrates your unusual sense of reality because you are then saying Obama is not the validly elected President of the US.

But enough of this sidetrack. I think everyone here sees your arguments for what they are.

[NotfooledbyW]

Why does H.Action quote what I write just to offer up a meaningless point in response?

Quote: “Cite” > Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW 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. <“Cite”

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. -Human Action 02-04-2014 10:07 AM

Why is H.Actions resonse meaningless? I am not sure how an elected official gets to exercise his ‘powers’ unless he wins an election. And generally in functional democracies like ours the Constitution sets up the rules and qualifications for the election. So the Constitution determines in H.Action’s words,how the president is chosen. It is meaningless to say the election does not give the President his powers because it is Constitutionally impossible to gain the power without winning an elections.
It is quite clear therefore that H.Action cannot challenge this part of my statement: "In a functional democracy it is the ‘election’ that gives the resulting administration the ‘power of force’ ??

[NotfooledbyW]

@dasmoocher

**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 Rebublican Party and your civic act of voting chose Nixon and your individual effort contributed to making Nixon the president for four years, God willing. Then boom, misbehavior takes Nixon down after about two years. Your civic act of voting for a certain course of action for the next four years, (the election of Nixon), 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. Congratulations, you’ve proved that Nixon’s election was voided.

Did you write this? "Seeing that an ‘election’ is also by definition a ‘determination by the act of voting for a certain course of action’ lets try this " as part of the argument you presented?

**You used that point **to tell me that I proved that Nixon’s election was voided. But you were wrong that it proves Nixon’s election was voided as I explained to you and others many times. But you used that point. It is my point, too. That means you agree with me that…

Are you telling me you write statements as part of your arguments but you know you don’t really mean to say what you said?

[dasmoocher]

@NotfooledbyW

Did you write this?

Actually, No. I copied and pasted it. I think that should be obvious. Are telling me you’re so confused you think I wrote that and you don’t even recognize what you’ve written?

I included your entire scenario, including your set-up because you are always complaining about context. If I had not copied and pasted it, you would probably being going on now about how I did not accurately reproduce your scenario.

What about the Yes/No answer?

[dasmoocher]

@NotfooledbyW

It is meaningless to say the election does not give the President his powers because it is Constitutionally impossible to gain the power without winning an elections.

Really, which election did Ford win to gain the Presidency?

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

Why does H.Action quote what I write just to offer up a meaningless point in response?

Why is H.Actions resonse meaningless? I am not sure how an elected official gets to exercise his ‘powers’ unless he wins an election. And generally in functional democracies like ours the Constitution sets up the rules and qualifications for the election. So the Constitution determines in H.Action’s words,how the president is chosen. It is meaningless to say the election does not give the President his powers because it is Constitutionally impossible to gain the power without winning an elections.

I know I said I’d drop this, but the 'Cats won convincingly tonight, so I’m full of good cheer.

You are exceptionally wrong. Please avail yourself of a list of the order of presidential succession, and behold all the unelected positions on it, starting with the Secretary of State at fourth in line.

It is quite clear therefore that H.Action cannot challenge this part of my statement: "In a functional democracy it is the ‘election’ that gives the resulting administration the ‘power of force’ ??

Generally an election is involved, but it’s not the sole source of the power of the office. “Presidnt” ia just a word. Someone elected president without powers is just a guy with a title.

While I have you: if “the election was invalidated” applies to a president who was duly elected and then removed in a coup, what phrase would you use for a president whose election victory was thrown out due to, say, missing ballot boxes, with another election then scheduled?

[NotfooledbyW]

Another meaningless non-responsive response from H.Action. Note that part of the statement H.Action quoted to respond reads like this. Very clearly I used the phrase ‘elected official’. I wrote, “I am not sure how an elected official gets to exercise his ‘powers’ unless he wins an election…” Here’s the cite"

“Cite” Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW (Post 17076323) I am not sure how an elected official gets to exercise his ‘powers’ unless he wins an election. … “Cite”

(-Human Action 02-04-2014 11:08 PM} You are exceptionally wrong. Please avail yourself of a list of the order of presidential succession, and behold all the unelected positions on it, starting with the Secretary of State at fourth in line.

This discussion is about Nixon/Ford being compared to Morsi/Nobody. I was not talking about selected officials so H.Action must have missed that. But Gerald Ford also got into the position to be VP based upon the re-ELECTION of Richard M Nixon in 1972. That is because although Gerald Ford was not elected to the Vice Presidency with Mr. Nixon in 1972 it remains a fact that the man who was elected to the presidency is the one who 'selected’ Ford to replace Agnew as VP.

So there you have it. I clearly referred to ‘elected officials’ have to win elections. And Ford was selected by Nixon to be his Vice President. I didn’t say Ford was elected President. I said it was because of the 1972 election that was the first step in how Ford became president.

Gerald Ford (born 1913) served as Republican leader in the House of Representatives before being selected by President Nixon to replace Spiro Agnew as vice president in 1973

Gerald Rudolph Ford | Encyclopedia.com

It is bad to tell someone they are exceptionally wrong while making a huge error as H.Action just did.

[NotfooledbyW]

(-Human Action 02-04-2014 02:46 PM) 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…

**mind-set **[mahynd-set] Show IPA noun 1. an attitude, disposition, or mood. 2.
an intention or inclination. Origin: 1925–30 MINDSET Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Do you think being a peasant or being subjected to life in a peasant class and being illiterate is an intentional or inclined mindset, **attitude or disposition **that is antithetical or not conducive to being able to refuse to see any value in the processes and political culture of more successful nations?

Do you think it is possible that the problem of illiteracy combined with what is in effect a wholesale dependence for sustenance on what ever governing system arises in a third world culture must be rectified and eradicated to some degree before large dependent third world populations can become as wonderful as we are with a mindset that is conducive to democracy and human rights and freedom of expression and religion.

And no this is not an absolute rejection that illiterate peasants can’t become part of a functional democracy. That depends on the educated class’s intent and ‘mindset’. The enlightened -pro-democracy educated class and the type of governance that evolves in nations with a large peasant class must have a means to that democratic ideal … that first must get passed a method where illiterate born ignorance does not have the power of majority rule. And in Egypt’s case it is quote obvious that ignorance born of illiteracy is more of a problem than in many places because it can be coupled with ignorance born of devotion to particular religious ideals and beliefs. Specifically involving a religion that is very much indeed easily misused as a means to opposing the very ideals of democracy and freedom that you are so puritanically demanding of this third world nation.

I don’t like referring to the Egyptians as third word also… They have a large third world population and third world problems … but the educated Egyptians I know are not living the third world mindset of which you speak, and they all agree that what I have defined as a serious problem for advancing freedom and democracy inside their homeland is not going to be resolved just by mirroring and understand how we got to where we are with first world culture and standard of living.

The military solution is the only path to democracy as far as they see it.

And all three Egyptians I know go home often and have friends and family going through these revolutionary times.

I know you will dismiss this as anecdotal… however I’m letting you know that I do not hold my opinion and reject yours without looking deeply into this historic event that we are witnessing including on a personal level with those who know more than I could ever know about the reality of what’s going on.
Bringing up a third world mindset as you did is a generalization that is very insulting to many very good and enlightened people of Egypt. The civilization that was far advanced many years before the Europeans got their shit together in building a democratic republic that we now see in nation’s like Germany.

The French Revolution hardly came along without much spillage of blood between peasant and ruling and middle elite class.

Being at the bottom of those messes of human history is not an intentioanal mindset. at all.

[NotfooledbyW]

Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW (Post 17076323) It is meaningless to say the election does not give the President his powers because it is Constitutionally impossible to gain the power without winning an elections. <“Cite”
(-dasmoocher 02-04-2014 10:16 PM) Really, which election did Ford win to gain the Presidency?

Birds of an error-prone feather stick together.

Just as H.Actiln did you have responded to a snippet of my full commentary but you got snarky with it. You ‘snipped’ out the part where I was talking about ‘elected’ officials - not officials that get there by other means. And you have not paid attention to my further explanation that it as still Nixon who was elected who selected Ford that provided Ford’s path to the presidency.
Here is what I wrote that you screwed up by missing a key point in my statement:

(-NotfooledbyW 02-04-2014 09:26 PM) Why is H.Action’s response meaningless? I am not sure how an **elected official **gets to exercise his ‘powers’ unless he wins an election. And generally in functional democracies like ours the Constitution sets up the rules and qualifications for the election. So the Constitution determines in H.Action’s words, how the president is chosen. It is meaningless to say the election does not give the President his powers because it is Constitutionally impossible to gain the power without winning an elections.

Do you know of any ‘elected’ President that gained the power’s of the Presidency without winning an election first?

[NotfooledbyW]

Correction to Post 657:

And no this is not an absolute rejection that illiterate peasants CAN become part of a functional democracy.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

Another meaningless non-responsive response from H.Action. Note that part of the statement H.Action quoted to respond reads like this. Very clearly I used the phrase ‘elected official’. I wrote, “I am not sure how an elected official gets to exercise his ‘powers’ unless he wins an election…” Here’s the cite"

This discussion is about Nixon/Ford being compared to Morsi/Nobody. I was not talking about selected officials so H.Action must have missed that. But Gerald Ford also got into the position to be VP based upon the re-ELECTION of Richard M Nixon in 1972. That is because although Gerald Ford was not elected to the Vice Presidency with Mr. Nixon in 1972 it remains a fact that the man who was elected to the presidency is the one who 'selected’ Ford to replace Agnew as VP.

So there you have it. I clearly referred to ‘elected officials’ have to win elections. And Ford was selected by Nixon to be his Vice President. I didn’t say Ford was elected President. I said it was because of the 1972 election that was the first step in how Ford became president.

Gerald Rudolph Ford | Encyclopedia.com
It is bad to tell someone they are exceptionally wrong while making a huge error as H.Action just did.

You wrote:

@NotfooledbyW

It is meaningless to say the election does not give the President his powers because it is Constitutionally impossible to gain the power without winning an elections.

That is exceptionally wrong, and I told you why.

I wasn’t objecting to the snippet you posted. I don’t know why you’d assume that I was.