Mereja.Forum

[Naga Tuma]

To those interested in observing the cause of democracy anywhere, the debate following the recent Presidential election in the U.S. must have been quite interesting.

I am not talking about who won the popular or pledged electoral college votes here.

The simple logical lapses in the debate are quite fascinating in view of the essence of democracy, particularly when it comes to the legality of the votes in the face of the margins of both votes.

I am not a lawyer. However, I love logic even when it is hard to understand. In this case, I find it easy to understand.

Here is why. The Civil Rights Act of the U.S.A. spells that it is illegal to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

I have heard with my own ears and watched with my own eyes when Donald Trump said during his interview with Don Lemon on CNN back in 2015 or so that he is "the least racist person." That is an admission, with no benefit of the doubt left, that he is a racist person. I think that any racist man is entitled to live his private life if he thinks that ignorance is not the worst calamity that he can bring upon himself.

However, based on this simple public law and simple logic, how can anyone be wrong to think that a vote for Donald Trump is illegal according to the law of the U.S.?

[Zmeselo]

In that case, none of them qualifies!!!

[Naga Tuma]

Well, logically proving one wrong doesn’t mean proving the other one right. In that case, one may have to deal with Logic while the other may have to deal with Paradox. Then again, didn’t someone already say a known charlatan and a known king?