Not before time.

His life has been too long, and his reign not short enough.

Sure, but that’s not a service weapon.

It’s a brutal message to westerners who are whining about Chinese dominance in electric cars, claiming it’s ‘‘unfair’’

That’s the Chinese quality insurance system.

That only applies of the quality of the product hurts Chinese people. Cheap mass market crap for westerners isn’t gonna be held to such standards.

Because the US Army is planning to deliver parts and ammo for 70 different custom rifles to all its bases and outposts.

The logistics challenges would be incredible.

He may be, but this is a very US centered post.

You know they don’t let us take our guns home, right?

Indeed.

Of course, they are doing all the other for you mentioned, too. Morally, even if not legally. IANAL, so I can’t speak with authority.

If words matter, I’m curious to know what definition of “deporting” you are using to claim that what they are doing is not deporting people.

Win98SE was my favorite. Maximum just working, minimum trying to “help.”

Also wouldn’t work with the internet.

I remember being very frustrated by this particular implementation.

The 90’s kids who bypass the old rules are the same ones trying to implement new rules.

Attacking any remaining trust in the US government, I see.

Not for me. I hope those given the opportunity will take it.

That will be helpful, but for ducks sake. . .

Can we please get some sanity in the white house?

Chattel slavery is incompatible with liberal democracy. There’s no fuzzy area to debate the point.

I would agree with that. Can you point to where we were discussing liberal democracy?

For any policy authored by the enfranchised majority that impacts the disenfranchised minority, its passage and execution is categorically and indisputably undemocratic.

So no laws involving children or immigrants, then?

You’re doing exactly what I’m arguing against. You’re attributing a bunch of other qualities to “democracy,” and demanding that they be treated as part of the actual definition.

I think we are done here. You’re arguing against things I’m not writing.

One-Person, One-Vote is the generally recognized answer.

Yes, that is the general answer for who gets to vote. But as I describe, that doesn’t guarantee fair.

To get what we think democracy means, we need as fair system, (who gets to vote) and a fair election. (votes counted properly)

But you’re missing my point. I’m not arguing that a restricted voter population is a good thing. I’m arguing that it’s still a democracy, provided it meets certain qualifications. I’m arguing that words have meanings, and that we shouldn’t be letting 1960 anti-red patriotism trick is into thinking that “democracy” means anything more than leaders appointed by voting.

A bad democracy is still a democracy. An unfair democracy is still a democracy. A corrupt democracy may be a democracy, depending on the nature of the corruption.

And the Wright Flyer was an airplane.

This depend very much on how you define “fair,” and how it is used in context.

So, I would say a system that only let’s white male landowners vote is not “fair” because only an elite group gets to vote. But if their votes are counted properly, and their decision upheld, the election is “fair,” and it’s a democracy.

On the other hand, a system that lets everyone over 18 vote is arguably “fair.” But if the votes are not counted correctly, and the results are false, then the election is not “fair,” and you don’t have a democracy.

To further the thought, I suppose that if the voting populating is a small enough percentage of the general populating, then it is not a democracy, rather than just a bad democracy. Not sure where that line is, though.

Yea. If we counted popular vote, rather than EC, that would not qualify him for president.

I’m not actually sure what happens if no candidate gets a majority.