2019-2020 US Election Megathread II: Tim Ryan's Empire

[San Lumen]

elections have consequences. Whoever gets elected should get to pick who they want for appointed positions and the legislature can reject or confirm those nominees.

So you're saying yes the majority should be able to fuck over the minority just cuz.

Cool, can't wait to outlaw abortion and LGBT marriage cuz the GOP won.

Yes because trees, farms and cattle dont vote. Elections are decided by who votes and judges nominated are a result of who wins the election.

well if people who support the the right to chose and LGBT rights couldn't get off their butts to vote then so be it.

[San Lumen]

We should therefore make land area count more than votes and effectively rig elections for one side?

Should minorities submit to the majority in all things?

in a scenario like Jim Crow no.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So you're saying yes the majority should be able to fuck over the minority just cuz.

Cool, can't wait to outlaw abortion and LGBT marriage cuz the GOP won.

Give it a few months for those new abortion laws to get to the Supreme Court.

I actually don't think those are going to go anywhere tbh, not with Roberts being the deciding vote. If Trump replaces RBG then yeah I'd say they'd start chipping away at abortion protections ASAP but Roberts cares too much about PR to do anything drastic.

[San Lumen]

Give it a few months for those new abortion laws to get to the Supreme Court.

I actually don't think those are going to go anywhere tbh, not with Roberts being the deciding vote. If Trump replaces RBG then yeah I'd say they'd start chipping away at abortion protections ASAP but Roberts cares too much about PR to do anything drastic.

if that's the case then hopefully he rules against the citizenship question on the census

[Galloism]

Give it a few months for those new abortion laws to get to the Supreme Court.

I actually don't think those are going to go anywhere tbh, not with Roberts being the deciding vote. If Trump replaces RBG then yeah I'd say they'd start chipping away at abortion protections ASAP but Roberts cares too much about PR to do anything drastic.

After Minersville vs Gobitis the court got a lot more careful, tbh.

[Ors Might]

There’s an argument to be made that prisoners that commit acts of terrorism shouldn’t be allowed to engage in the political process while they’re in prison. It kinda falls apart when applied to petty thieves but it’s there.

I'm not sure why terrorism. Clearly they're political activists who want political change.

Now voter fraud I think I can get behind. There the punishment explicitly fits the crime.

I’d say it’s because the way they wanted to cause political change was vilently radical and an affront to the political systems in place, demonstrating a need for rehabilitation before they should be allowed back into the process.

Should minorities submit to the majority in all things?

There are things called courts.

Elections are decided on who gets the most votes not who wins the most land area. To have a system like your proposing would mean that the majority of the population in Washington state would be outvoted by the rural minority. The Republican would be almost guaranteed of winning every statewide office next year. How is that fair?

Courts aren’t magical solutions to social injustice Lumen. You can’t keep bringing them up every time someone proposes that there’s a flaw in the system.

What system have I proposed? Use quotations, please.

I have been stating that cultural minorities shouldn’t be at the merch of the majority and that there should be protections in place.

[Ors Might]

Should minorities submit to the majority in all things?

in a scenario like Jim Crow no.

If that was voted on by the majority, why not?

[Galloism]

I'm not sure why terrorism. Clearly they're political activists who want political change.

Now voter fraud I think I can get behind. There the punishment explicitly fits the crime.

I’d say it’s because the way they wanted to cause political change was vilently radical and an affront to the political systems in place, demonstrating a need for rehabilitation before they should be allowed back into the process.

Lets call me skeptical of the state to know what is and isn’t terrorism.

[Ors Might]

I’d say it’s because the way they wanted to cause political change was vilently radical and an affront to the political systems in place, demonstrating a need for rehabilitation before they should be allowed back into the process.

Lets call me skeptical of the state to know what is and isn’t terrorism.

Fair but it’s not a huge leap to assume that someone who bombs innocents in an attempt to force political change probably doesn’t have much respect for democracy.

[Galloism]

Lets call me skeptical of the state to know what is and isn’t terrorism.

Fair but it’s not a huge leap to assume that someone who bombs innocents in an attempt to force political change probably doesn’t have much respect for democracy.

You’re talking such a tiny minority though it’s basically irrelevant. No one is going to go after the terrorist vote.

I’m also unconvinced that you can teach a person respect for democracy by immediately stripping their right to participate in it.

[San Lumen]

in a scenario like Jim Crow no.

If that was voted on by the majority, why not?

It was never voted on by the majority in a referendum and it violated the 14th amendment hence why we passed the civil rights act.

To be clear you think the result in the congressional district i mentioned and the likely result in Washington state next year for statewide elections is unfair because of land area won?

[Washington Resistance Army]

I actually don't think those are going to go anywhere tbh, not with Roberts being the deciding vote. If Trump replaces RBG then yeah I'd say they'd start chipping away at abortion protections ASAP but Roberts cares too much about PR to do anything drastic.

After Minersville vs Gobitis the court got a lot more careful, tbh.

I personally think Roberts is making the wrong call by doing this, and has been since the Obamacare decision. I get it, he doesn't want people to completely and totally hate the court, but when he really feels something is unconstitutional he should vote against it and not to try save face. It just further harms the nation if stuff is allowed to stand when it shouldn't cuz he doesn't want to piss people off.

[Ifreann]

The same reason you should be allowed to Gary, Indiana if you moved there, even though you're from New York.

Well, slow your roll here. We have a common law concept called a domicile, which is broadly defined as “your permanent home, the place to which you always intend to return”. This defines what your state of residence is.

If you take a temporary five year contract in Gary, but you maintain your home in New York and always intend to return there, New York is still your resident state. You still pay taxes there, keep your driver’s license there, vehicle registration there, and yes you still vote there.

Other than lifers with no possibility of parole (for which there’s an argument the prison has become their domicile), no one intends to make the prison their permanent home. So they should continue to vote where their domicile is.

I wouldn't be mad about people having to spend years, possibly decades, with no representation in the government under which they live.

[Telconi]

I’d say it’s because the way they wanted to cause political change was vilently radical and an affront to the political systems in place, demonstrating a need for rehabilitation before they should be allowed back into the process.

Lets call me skeptical of the state to know what is and isn’t terrorism.

>Expect citizens to know and obey laws.

>Block distribution of laws.

[Sidesh0w B0b]

Yep. Or at least, I'd allow the Boston Bomber to vote if it meant allowing those currently in prison for non-violent drug offences to vote. Allowing people to vote not only disabridges a fundamental democratic right, but also has quite a lot of positive consequences (enfranchising non-violent prisoners) and few negative consequences (unless all the deranged and malicious prisoners decide to vote as a bloc for whoever they deem would cause the most harm).

Well i don't. Your in prison and should not be able to vote whilst incarcerated.

What about a sexual predator going to a polling location to vote? Should we allow that to?

A person under house arrest (like Paul Manafort had been) could vote by absentee ballot. Might as well treat all the prisoners the same.

Same goes for parolees and people who have criminal records. And those that have been pardoned for a crime. Did Dick Nixon lose his right to vote? He accepted a full pardon. I'd bet he was still pulling a lever if CA for the GOP after 1974.

[Ors Might]

Fair but it’s not a huge leap to assume that someone who bombs innocents in an attempt to force political change probably doesn’t have much respect for democracy.

You’re talking such a tiny minority though it’s basically irrelevant. No one is going to go after the terrorist vote.

I’m also unconvinced that you can teach a person respect for democracy by immediately stripping their right to participate in it.

No more than you can teach someone respect for not driving while drunk by immediately letting them have access to both alcohol and the freedom to drive in a school zone.

[Telconi]

After Minersville vs Gobitis the court got a lot more careful, tbh.

I personally think Roberts is making the wrong call by doing this, and has been since the Obamacare decision. I get it, he doesn't want people to completely and totally hate the court, but when he really feels something is unconstitutional he should vote against it and not to try save face. It just further harms the nation if stuff is allowed to stand when it shouldn't cuz he doesn't want to piss people off.

The year is 2456 2019, and SCOTUS now decides cases via American Idol style text-to-vote.

[San Lumen]

After Minersville vs Gobitis the court got a lot more careful, tbh.

I personally think Roberts is making the wrong call by doing this, and has been since the Obamacare decision. I get it, he doesn't want people to completely and totally hate the court, but when he really feels something is unconstitutional he should vote against it and not to try save face. It just further harms the nation if stuff is allowed to stand when it shouldn't cuz he doesn't want to piss people off.

having a court that is completely out of step with public opinion is not a good thing

[Ors Might]

If that was voted on by the majority, why not?

It was never voted on by the majority in a referendum and it violated the 14th amendment hence why we passed the civil rights act.

To be clear you think the result in the congressional district i mentioned and the likely result in Washington state next year for statewide elections is unfair because of land area won?

But it was voted on by democratically elected representatives.

I think that ensuring that minorities have a voice in government that can’t simply be ignored when convenient is essential to safeguarding the long term future of any democracy.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I personally think Roberts is making the wrong call by doing this, and has been since the Obamacare decision. I get it, he doesn't want people to completely and totally hate the court, but when he really feels something is unconstitutional he should vote against it and not to try save face. It just further harms the nation if stuff is allowed to stand when it shouldn't cuz he doesn't want to piss people off.

having a court that is completely out of step with public opinion is not a good thing

Public opinion means nothing when it comes to the law and constitution.

[San Lumen]

It was never voted on by the majority in a referendum and it violated the 14th amendment hence why we passed the civil rights act.

To be clear you think the result in the congressional district i mentioned and the likely result in Washington state next year for statewide elections is unfair because of land area won?

But it was voted on by democratically elected representatives.

I think that ensuring that minorities have a voice in government that can’t simply be ignored when convenient is essential to safeguarding the long term future of any democracy.

and Congress said sorry but you can't do that as did courts.

And you want ensure that by rigging elections so one side always wins?

[Ors Might]

I personally think Roberts is making the wrong call by doing this, and has been since the Obamacare decision. I get it, he doesn't want people to completely and totally hate the court, but when he really feels something is unconstitutional he should vote against it and not to try save face. It just further harms the nation if stuff is allowed to stand when it shouldn't cuz he doesn't want to piss people off.

having a court that is completely out of step with public opinion is not a good thing

The court isn’t supposed to rule according to public opinion.

[Ors Might]

But it was voted on by democratically elected representatives.

I think that ensuring that minorities have a voice in government that can’t simply be ignored when convenient is essential to safeguarding the long term future of any democracy.

and Congress said sorry but you can't do that as did courts.

And you want ensure that by rigging elections so one side always wins?

So then majority rule isn’t inherently good? Glad we cleared that up.

Quote me saying that.

[Galloism]

You’re talking such a tiny minority though it’s basically irrelevant. No one is going to go after the terrorist vote.

I’m also unconvinced that you can teach a person respect for democracy by immediately stripping their right to participate in it.

No more than you can teach someone respect for not driving while drunk by immediately letting them have access to both alcohol and the freedom to drive in a school zone.

The restriction on alcohol and/or driving given to drunk drivers (sometimes, if it’s extremely chronic) is not to teach them respect for alcohol and driving though. It’s to prevent them from driving drunk. It’s very specifically a preventive measure to keep them from driving drunk again.

This basis falls down with voting, as it’s not easy to make ballots explode, and therefore, there’s little risk of a terrorist committing an act of terrorism with their ballot.

[Telconi]

I personally think Roberts is making the wrong call by doing this, and has been since the Obamacare decision. I get it, he doesn't want people to completely and totally hate the court, but when he really feels something is unconstitutional he should vote against it and not to try save face. It just further harms the nation if stuff is allowed to stand when it shouldn't cuz he doesn't want to piss people off.

having a court that is completely out of step with public opinion is not a good thing

Contrarily, having a court that's completely out of step with what is just and correct is not a good thing.