Errm, history is full of bad leaders who were elected by people and by democratic means. I won’t start a list here, but their effects on our world is pretty profound.
So, being elected is by no means an indicator of any sort.
Nobody in this thread is stating that Trump is either good or bad, that is a straw man you have created to argue with.
Being elected is obviously an indicator of the will of the people. The platform that leader was elected on includes items that went against the left leaning of third-party so-called fact checking services. This is easily variable by looking at the platform of the winning party and the policies of the so-called fact checkers.
Nobody in this thread is stating that Trump is either good or bad
That's true, incl. me.
that is a straw man you have created to argue with.
Did I said or implied Trump is bad? No. What I said is, being elected is not an indicator of goodness of badness of a leader, and said that there's a large list, without giving any names, because goodness and badness is subjective.
Being elected is obviously an indicator of the will of the people.
Yes. That part is true, too. People wanted that particular flavor this time, and will decide whether they liked the experience or not.
The platform that leader was elected on includes items that went against the left leaning of third-party so-called fact checking services.
"So-called" from your perspective, so from that point on your opinions are biased, and there's no point on arguing any further.
Of course you're free to vote for whoever you want, and AFAICS, the person you support has won. Congrats. My only hope is what you get in the end won't be more than what you bargained for.
BTW, on that "getting men out of women's sports" thing, watch this video [0]. In the end, performance is enhanced so much, the gap between genders are closed nevertheless. On the other hand, gender in Olympic games are determined with genetic testing anyway, so your looks doesn't have any effect on whom you compete with.
Maybe we should prevent this in the future, so humans can compete with their true potential, not with "monstrous performances" enabled by designer drugs and doping. So there's a whole forest running when people are looking to the wrong tree.
Precisely, you wrote you will see whether Trump is bad:
Errm, history is full of bad leaders who were elected by people and by democratic means.
You then wrote that being elected is by no means and indicator. It is not an indication of being good or bad, but rather an indication of the will of people. Which in this case, for the fifth time is that men should be out of women’s spaces.
I don’t think this conversation is working. We have very different ways of engaging in debate.
You then wrote that being elected is by no means and indicator.
Yes.
It is not an indication of being good or bad, but rather an indication of the will of people.
I did tell "elected by people and by democratic means", which squarely means "this was the will of the people", so we have no disagreements on that front.
Which in this case, for the fifth time is that men should be out of women’s spaces.
?
I don’t think this conversation is working.
That's absolutely correct.
We have very different ways of engaging in debate.
* Trump has explicitly threatened to jail Mark Zuckerberg [1]
* Trump has threatened to use the justice system against his enemies
* Trump's 'best mate' (who's about to get a job in government) owns a rival social network
* Facebook banned Trump over the Jan 6th insurrection
* Trump could use the banning of TikTok as leverage
With all that Occam's Razor tells you that an authoritarian leader is taking over the USA and the oligarchy that are the tech-billionaires are lining up behind him lest they feel his wrath.
These are extremely dangerous times for the US. An authoritarian leader paired with an extreme concentration of power (the tech companies). You have something approaching a turnkey feudal system. With willing participants.
Comments
They're making a decision based on political pressure.
How do you know? Occam's razor suggest that the fact checkers did indeed veer too far left of the American public.
From here, Occam’s razor suggest that big companies want to be cozy with the new president, so they can continue getting what they want.
Money doesn’t care about wings.
That new president was elected by most Americans, and had 'get men out of womens sports' as an official part of their platform.
Errm, history is full of bad leaders who were elected by people and by democratic means. I won’t start a list here, but their effects on our world is pretty profound.
So, being elected is by no means an indicator of any sort.
Nobody in this thread is stating that Trump is either good or bad, that is a straw man you have created to argue with.
Being elected is obviously an indicator of the will of the people. The platform that leader was elected on includes items that went against the left leaning of third-party so-called fact checking services. This is easily variable by looking at the platform of the winning party and the policies of the so-called fact checkers.
That's true, incl. me.
Did I said or implied Trump is bad? No. What I said is, being elected is not an indicator of goodness of badness of a leader, and said that there's a large list, without giving any names, because goodness and badness is subjective.
Yes. That part is true, too. People wanted that particular flavor this time, and will decide whether they liked the experience or not.
"So-called" from your perspective, so from that point on your opinions are biased, and there's no point on arguing any further.
Of course you're free to vote for whoever you want, and AFAICS, the person you support has won. Congrats. My only hope is what you get in the end won't be more than what you bargained for.
BTW, on that "getting men out of women's sports" thing, watch this video [0]. In the end, performance is enhanced so much, the gap between genders are closed nevertheless. On the other hand, gender in Olympic games are determined with genetic testing anyway, so your looks doesn't have any effect on whom you compete with.
Maybe we should prevent this in the future, so humans can compete with their true potential, not with "monstrous performances" enabled by designer drugs and doping. So there's a whole forest running when people are looking to the wrong tree.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2op5XG7LGkI
Yes, you wrote history is full of bad leaders. Nobody is discussing whether Trump is good or bad.
Exactly. I said "we'll see", not "Trump is bad".
Precisely, you wrote you will see whether Trump is bad:
You then wrote that being elected is by no means and indicator. It is not an indication of being good or bad, but rather an indication of the will of people. Which in this case, for the fifth time is that men should be out of women’s spaces.
I don’t think this conversation is working. We have very different ways of engaging in debate.
Yes.
I did tell "elected by people and by democratic means", which squarely means "this was the will of the people", so we have no disagreements on that front.
?
That's absolutely correct.
Yes. I won't argue about that further.
Have a good day.
* Trump has explicitly threatened to jail Mark Zuckerberg [1]
* Trump has threatened to use the justice system against his enemies
* Trump's 'best mate' (who's about to get a job in government) owns a rival social network
* Facebook banned Trump over the Jan 6th insurrection
* Trump could use the banning of TikTok as leverage
With all that Occam's Razor tells you that an authoritarian leader is taking over the USA and the oligarchy that are the tech-billionaires are lining up behind him lest they feel his wrath.
These are extremely dangerous times for the US. An authoritarian leader paired with an extreme concentration of power (the tech companies). You have something approaching a turnkey feudal system. With willing participants.
[1] https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-threatens-to-impriso...
"Donald Trump threatens to imprison Mark Zuckerburg for 'rest of his life' if 'he does anything illegal' over election"
Lying through omission. The rest isn't worth responding to.