52% of Republicans Believe ACORN Stole the Election

Started by jimmy olsen, November 19, 2009, 08:36:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Eddie Teach

The anti-Randians are almost as uncool as the Randians. :whogivesafuck:
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

grumbler

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 20, 2009, 09:47:09 AM
Doesn't legitimately just mean legally?  So even if he won just because he's black, that's legal.  If he didn't win the election legitimately then you need a conspiracy theory.
Are you talking about what i think, or about what the poll question was asking?  If the latter, then what does the most limited technical definition of "legitimate" have to do with this issue?  The popular definition (and the one likeliest to be used by a random sampling of Americans) would be more along the lines of "in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles," which many may see as excluding riding one's race (particularly if one is riding "guilt" by implicitly "playing the race card") to a win.

If you want to argue that the question was well-written (or that it was poorly-written but we should accept the implications of its responses as legit anyway), then by all means we can debate either of those.  I don't think we should debate them on the basis of which definition of "legitimate' we choose to favor, though.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Sheilbh

Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 10:01:24 AM
Are you talking about what i think, or about what the poll question was asking?  If the latter, then what does the most limited technical definition of "legitimate" have to do with this issue?  The popular definition (and the one likeliest to be used by a random sampling of Americans) would be more along the lines of "in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles," which many may see as excluding riding one's race (particularly if one is riding "guilt" by implicitly "playing the race card") to a win.
Well I don't think that defining legitimate as legal, in terms of elections, is a narrow definition.  For example in the developing world if there's a question of fraud or anything like that the election is 'illegitimate' and that's the word in common currency, not in it's most technical definition.  A legitimate election is one that is free and fair and in which the votes are counted.

So if you don't think that the election of Barack Obama was legitimate then I think you have to fall back on a crazy conspiracy theory.

QuoteIf you want to argue that the question was well-written (or that it was poorly-written but we should accept the implications of its responses as legit anyway), then by all means we can debate either of those.  I don't think we should debate them on the basis of which definition of "legitimate' we choose to favor, though.
No, I'm past the question.  It's badly written.
Let's bomb Russia!

garbon

As grumbler said, why are you picking out one definition of legitimate but leaving out others? I doubt it is because you find the crazy Republican narrative appealing.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Sheilbh

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2009, 10:10:36 AM
As grumbler said, why are you picking out one definition of legitimate but leaving out others? I doubt it is because you find the crazy Republican narrative appealing.
When you are talking about the formation of a government I think legitimate only has one meaning.  If a government is illegitimate it is illegal: it came to power by a military coup or by a fraudulent election.  That is how the word legitimate is used in popular discourse about governments.  It's not a highly technical and narrow definition.  And I'd add that when you're talking about the American 'accepted standards and principles of an election' I'd consider that to mean the election was free, fair and the votes were counted.
Let's bomb Russia!

alfred russel

Quote from: Scipio on November 20, 2009, 08:01:51 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 19, 2009, 09:37:41 PM


The count in the 2000 was totally legit--Bush won 5-4.
Actually, he won 7-2.

But didn't 2 of those 7 want to send it back to the Florida courts? With the Florida Supreme Court in Gore's corner, they were voting to hand it to Gore.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

DGuller

Quote from: alfred russel on November 20, 2009, 10:14:38 AM
Quote from: Scipio on November 20, 2009, 08:01:51 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 19, 2009, 09:37:41 PM


The count in the 2000 was totally legit--Bush won 5-4.
Actually, he won 7-2.

But didn't 2 of those 7 want to send it back to the Florida courts? With the Florida Supreme Court in Gore's corner, they were voting to hand it to Gore.
Any way you look at it, it was quite a surreal situation (and way more than that in hindsight, given the implications of the eventual outcome).

PDH

Whatever. Fuck.  Don't blame me, I wrote in Charlton Heston.
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.
-Umberto Eco

-------
"I'm pretty sure my level of depression has nothing to do with how much of a fucking asshole you are."

-CdM

Razgovory

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 20, 2009, 09:54:34 AM
The anti-Randians are almost as uncool as the Randians. :whogivesafuck:

Anti-Randian is like anti-communist.  It's not cool or uncool.  It's the norm.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Caliga

Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 09:41:39 AM
But crazy people believe that all disagreements with them are due to some weird conspiracy or belief system held by their opponent, so Raz will probably see your denial here as proof that his statement is true.
Ah, gotcha.  So in my denial I will definitely be lying.  Because I have some compelling reason to lie about this. :yes:  :cool:
0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points

Caliga

Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2009, 10:43:07 AM
Anti-Randian is like anti-communist.  It's not cool or uncool.  It's the norm.
Nope, the norm is "I don't know who Rand is and don't care." ^_^
0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points

grumbler

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 20, 2009, 10:13:10 AM
When you are talking about the formation of a government I think legitimate only has one meaning.
What if you are talking about a poll?

The argument that all governments that are elected according to their laws are "legitimate" is technically correct, but I think you will find that you are in a minority when you claim that that is the only possible meaning of the term, even with regard to governments.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Sheilbh

Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 11:11:37 AM
The argument that all governments that are elected according to their laws are "legitimate" is technically correct, but I think you will find that you are in a minority when you claim that that is the only possible meaning of the term, even with regard to governments.
Okay.  But give me an example of a time when illegitimate has been used for any allegation other than the legal formation of a government? 
Let's bomb Russia!

Neil

Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 10:01:24 AM
If the latter, then what does the most limited technical definition of "legitimate" have to do with this issue?  The popular definition (and the one likeliest to be used by a random sampling of Americans) would be more along the lines of "in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles," which many may see as excluding riding one's race (particularly if one is riding "guilt" by implicitly "playing the race card") to a win.
I think somebody has hacked grumbler's account.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Eddie Teach

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 20, 2009, 11:17:54 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 11:11:37 AM
The argument that all governments that are elected according to their laws are "legitimate" is technically correct, but I think you will find that you are in a minority when you claim that that is the only possible meaning of the term, even with regard to governments.
Okay.  But give me an example of a time when illegitimate has been used for any allegation other than the legal formation of a government?

children born out of wedlock
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?