2020 US General Election Thread IX: One Month and Counting

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Why was a literal Nazi allowed to run in Illinois in 2018 then?

Because we have a shit and ineffective system that doesn't have good candidate vetting.

If you did have one-party rule er, "good candidate vetting" then a Nazi would not have been able to run for a state district office. Big fucking woop.

He actually ran quite a few times, generally coming last in the Republican primary for different offices. The high point of his career:

Illinois's 3rd congressional district general election, 2018[36]

Democratic Dan Lipinski (incumbent) 163,053 73.0%
Republican Arthur J. Jones 57,885 25.9%
Write-in votes Justin Hanson 1,353 0.6%
Write-in votes Kenneth Yerkes 1,039 0.5%
Write-in votes Richard Mayers 4 0.0%

He ran in the Republican primary again this year. Came last as usual.

What kind of chickenshit political analyst is afraid of this guy?

[Kannap]

I disagree with many views other than the wanton violation of human rights, they're welcome to express those.

Yet you don't want anyone who has opposing beliefs to yours to be able to vote or hold office.

If those opposing beliefs are the violation of human rights or otherwise harmful, then yes, I don't want that person in office.

But they should be. And we should make it clear that hate speech isn't free speech.



That's a nice strawman you have there, would be a shame if something were to happen to it.

You said that pro life and people who want LGBT rights repealed shouldn't be allowed to run.

I know what I said, you don't have to tell me.

How can you say you believe in democracy if you don't think those who disagree with you should be allowed to run?

There are plenty of people who disagree with me on many things that I would be fine with running for office. Though if your sincerely held beliefs are to violate the rights of other people or otherwise harm people, you shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

[Telconi]

And we can make them clearer.





That's right



You don't believe in people deciding whether or not they want a particular person in office, since you oppose recall elections.

What are you going to add to said qualifications?

It's up to the people to decide who they want the nominee to be in a given election and then if they want that person to hold the job. The people of Delaware nominated a Qanon person to run for senate and Governor. They liked what they were selling. Why do you hate democracy?

Wanting to improve something is not an indicator of hate.

[San Lumen]

What are you going to add to said qualifications?

It's up to the people to decide who they want the nominee to be in a given election and then if they want that person to hold the job. The people of Delaware nominated a Qanon person to run for senate and Governor. They liked what they were selling. Why do you hate democracy?

Would you be okay with a convicted criminal running for office?

If the answer is "no", do you not hate democracy?

If you don't hate democracy, why is it hating democracy to bar hateful people from running but not convicted criminals?

If state law allows it I say yes. It is up to the people to decide who they want. The mayor of Bridgeport. CT is a convicted felon who ran for his old job in 2015 after serving his sentence in prison and was reelected last year.

[Dresderstan]

He ran in a primary unopposed, something you have constantly said should not happen at all, why should he have run when he didn't even have a challenger face him?

its too blue of a seat for any Republican to win.

No it should be the election board and the party otherwise they can get fucked for all I care.

Its not their job to determine someones political beliefs and make decisions on who can run based on that. They are supposed to be non partisan.

Why didnt the Republican parties where Qanon people ran and got the nomination allow them to run? Why didn't they sue to get them tossed off the ballot? They would lose in court.

Why shouldn't it be up to the people to decide who they want in a primary and general election? Oh that's right you hate the very concept of democracy.

Weak excuse, you said that Marjorie girl from Georgia shouldn't run a general unopposed, why are you such a hypocrite and hater of democracy.

Calling for the deaths of minorities should not be partisan, someone calls for that they are a threat and should be barred.

[San Lumen]

Because we have a shit and ineffective system that doesn't have good candidate vetting.

If you did have one-party rule er, "good candidate vetting" then a Nazi would not have been able to run for a state district office. Big fucking woop.

He actually ran quite a few times, generally coming last in the Republican primary for different offices. The high point of his career:

Illinois's 3rd congressional district general election, 2018[36]

Democratic Dan Lipinski (incumbent) 163,053 73.0%
Republican Arthur J. Jones 57,885 25.9%
Write-in votes Justin Hanson 1,353 0.6%
Write-in votes Kenneth Yerkes 1,039 0.5%
Write-in votes Richard Mayers 4 0.0%

He ran in the Republican primary again this year. Came last as usual.

What kind of chickenshit political analyst is afraid of this guy?

he was unopposed in the primary in 2018.

[Kowani]

Would you be okay with a convicted criminal running for office?

If the answer is "no", do you not hate democracy?

If you don't hate democracy, why is it hating democracy to bar hateful people from running but not convicted criminals?

If state law allows it I say yes. It is up to the people to decide who they want. The mayor of Bridgeport. CT is a convicted felon who ran for his old job in 2015 after serving his sentence in prison and was reelected last year.

What a fucking cop-out lmao

[Estanglia]

Would you be okay with a convicted criminal running for office?

If the answer is "no", do you not hate democracy?

If you don't hate democracy, why is it hating democracy to bar hateful people from running but not convicted criminals?

If state law allows it I say yes.

So if the status quo allows it, you're cool with it.

And if it doesn't?

It is up to the people to decide who they want. The mayor of Bridgeport. CT is a convicted felon who ran for his old job in 2015 after serving his sentence in prison and was reelected last year.

Should the people be able to pick from absolutely anyone willing to run? And by "anyone", I mean "literally everyone"? Convicted felon, someone sitting in jail, someone below the age of majority?

Your entire argument seems to be that restricting people from running is against the very concept of democracy, and I want to see if you actually follow that to its conclusion.

[San Lumen]

Yet you don't want anyone who has opposing beliefs to yours to be able to vote or hold office.

If those opposing beliefs are the violation of human rights or otherwise harmful, then yes, I don't want that person in office.

You said that pro life and people who want LGBT rights repealed shouldn't be allowed to run.

I know what I said, you don't have to tell me.

How can you say you believe in democracy if you don't think those who disagree with you should be allowed to run?

There are plenty of people who disagree with me on many things that I would be fine with running for office. Though if your sincerely held beliefs are to violate the rights of other people or otherwise harm people, you shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

So anyone who is pro life, anti gun control of any kind, anti lgbt rights or whatever else you want to add shouldnt be allowed to run for office? Many people in rural areas have those beliefs. Why shouldn't they be able to elect a person who represents their views?

Its not much of a democracy if you can bar people for viewpoints.

[Kannap]

He ran in a primary unopposed, something you have constantly said should not happen at all, why should he have run when he didn't even have a challenger face him?

its too blue of a seat for any Republican to win.

I distinctly remember making an argument a few weeks ago about how people shouldn't run for seats if the seat is "too _____" to be won and they'd just be wasting their time. You refused to have any of it, saying that no candidate should be running unopposed and pulling out all kinds of races people were expected to lose but won because they tried.

Who are you and what have you done with Lumen?

[San Lumen]

its too blue of a seat for any Republican to win.

Its not their job to determine someones political beliefs and make decisions on who can run based on that. They are supposed to be non partisan.

Why didnt the Republican parties where Qanon people ran and got the nomination allow them to run? Why didn't they sue to get them tossed off the ballot? They would lose in court.

Why shouldn't it be up to the people to decide who they want in a primary and general election? Oh that's right you hate the very concept of democracy.

Weak excuse, you said that Marjorie girl from Georgia shouldn't run a general unopposed, why are you such a hypocrite and hater of democracy.

Calling for the deaths of minorities should not be partisan, someone calls for that they are a threat and should be barred.

She's only running unopposed because the democratic candidate dropped out and Georgia law probably doesn't allow for a replacement to be named.

It ought to be up to the people to decide hence why far right extremists are not barred from running.

[Dresderstan]

If those opposing beliefs are the violation of human rights or otherwise harmful, then yes, I don't want that person in office.




I know what I said, you don't have to tell me.



There are plenty of people who disagree with me on many things that I would be fine with running for office. Though if your sincerely held beliefs are to violate the rights of other people or otherwise harm people, you shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

So anyone who is pro life, anti gun control of any kind, anti lgbt rights or whatever else you want to add shouldnt be allowed to run for office? Many people in rural areas have those beliefs. Why shouldn't they be able to elect a person who represents their views?

Its not much of a democracy if you can bar people for viewpoints.

When one threatens that democracy and the rights and life of other citizens it's their fault, no one else's for holding blatant human rights violating beliefs of killing people for being gay, black, Jewish, ect.

[San Lumen]

If state law allows it I say yes.

So if the status quo allows it, you're cool with it.

And if it doesn't?

It is up to the people to decide who they want. The mayor of Bridgeport. CT is a convicted felon who ran for his old job in 2015 after serving his sentence in prison and was reelected last year.

Should the people be able to pick from absolutely anyone willing to run? And by "anyone", I mean "literally everyone"? Convicted felon, someone sitting in jail, someone below the age of majority?

Your entire argument seems to be that restricting people from running is against the very concept of democracy, and I want to see if you actually follow that to its conclusion.

No how could someone in jail do the job of mayor or someone whose 14 or any other elected office. There needs to be a certain level of maturity to be able to run.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The nominees where chosen in the primary. In a democracy shouldn't the people be able to decide if they want said person in office?

You don't believe in people deciding whether or not they want a particular person in office, since you oppose recall elections.

That's extremely unreasonable. You are arguing for limiting eligibility for office, on arbitrary grounds of your own choosing. That is profoundly (and offensively) undemocratic. Way WAY beyond whether or not a person already elected should be permitted to serve out their term.

Kannap, that is disgraceful.

[Telconi]

So if the status quo allows it, you're cool with it.

And if it doesn't?



Should the people be able to pick from absolutely anyone willing to run? And by "anyone", I mean "literally everyone"? Convicted felon, someone sitting in jail, someone below the age of majority?

Your entire argument seems to be that restricting people from running is against the very concept of democracy, and I want to see if you actually follow that to its conclusion.

No how could someone in jail do the job of mayor or someone whose 14 or any other elected office. There needs to be a certain level of maturity to be able to run.

Wanting to kill an entirely ethnicity is pretty damn immature.

[San Lumen]

its too blue of a seat for any Republican to win.

I distinctly remember making an argument a few weeks ago about how people shouldn't run for seats if the seat is "too _____" to be won and they'd just be wasting their time. You refused to have any of it, saying that no candidate should be running unopposed and pulling out all kinds of races people were expected to lose but won because they tried.

Who are you and what have you done with Lumen?

If someone wants to run in safe seat or titanium blue city why shouldn't they? If they want to go through the motions let them. That's democracy.

[Kannap]

If those opposing beliefs are the violation of human rights or otherwise harmful, then yes, I don't want that person in office.




I know what I said, you don't have to tell me.



There are plenty of people who disagree with me on many things that I would be fine with running for office. Though if your sincerely held beliefs are to violate the rights of other people or otherwise harm people, you shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

So anyone who is pro life, , anti lgbt rights or whatever else you want to add shouldnt be allowed to run for office?

That's right

Many people in rural areas have those beliefs. Why shouldn't they be able to elect a person who represents their views?

Because they believe in violating the rights of other human beings and that's not acceptable, what part of this aren't you understanding?

anti gun control of any kind

This is good actually.

[San Lumen]

So anyone who is pro life, anti gun control of any kind, anti lgbt rights or whatever else you want to add shouldnt be allowed to run for office? Many people in rural areas have those beliefs. Why shouldn't they be able to elect a person who represents their views?

Its not much of a democracy if you can bar people for viewpoints.

When one threatens that democracy and the rights and life of other citizens it's their fault, no one else's for holding blatant human rights violating beliefs of killing people for being gay, black, Jewish, ect.

I think your beliefs are a threat to democracy therefore if Im on the board of elections do I get to bar you from the ballot based on your own standard?

[Kannap]

You don't believe in people deciding whether or not they want a particular person in office, since you oppose recall elections.

That's extremely unreasonable. You are arguing for limiting eligibility for office, on arbitrary grounds of your own choosing. That is profoundly (and offensively) undemocratic. Way WAY beyond whether or not a person already elected should be permitted to serve out their term.

Kannap, that is disgraceful.

Opposing human rights violations is arbitrary?

[San Lumen]

So anyone who is pro life, , anti lgbt rights or whatever else you want to add shouldnt be allowed to run for office?

That's right

Many people in rural areas have those beliefs. Why shouldn't they be able to elect a person who represents their views?

Because they believe in violating the rights of other human beings and that's not acceptable, what part of this aren't you understanding?

anti gun control of any kind

This is good actually.

So only people you agree with ought to be allowed to run? That's utterly disgraceful and not a democracy in the slightest. That's borderline dictatorial if not outright so.

[Dresderstan]

When one threatens that democracy and the rights and life of other citizens it's their fault, no one else's for holding blatant human rights violating beliefs of killing people for being gay, black, Jewish, ect.

I think your beliefs are a threat to democracy therefore if Im on the board of elections do I get to bar you from the ballot based on your own standard?

No because A) you are one person an B) my beliefs are not a threat to democracy, they're are only a threat to your perceived view of keeping the status quo as law and fucking any reasonable reforms. Also, I'm not the one defending Nazis and blatant anti-semites, racists, homophobes and others with undesirable beliefs like you to run for office and do nothing.

[Dresderstan]

That's right



Because they believe in violating the rights of other human beings and that's not acceptable, what part of this aren't you understanding?



This is good actually.

So only people you agree with ought to be allowed to run? That's utterly disgraceful and not a democracy in the slightest. That's borderline dictatorial if not outright so.

No it's not, keeping people who literally want to kill you out of power is a good thing.

[Telconi]

That's right



Because they believe in violating the rights of other human beings and that's not acceptable, what part of this aren't you understanding?



This is good actually.

So only people you agree with ought to be allowed to run? That's utterly disgraceful and not a democracy in the slightest. That's borderline dictatorial if not outright so.

Disagreement which isn't genocide would be great.

[San Lumen]

I think your beliefs are a threat to democracy therefore if Im on the board of elections do I get to bar you from the ballot based on your own standard?

No because A) you are one person an B) my beliefs are not a threat to democracy, they're are only a threat to your perceived view of keeping the status quo as law and fucking any reasonable reforms. Also, I'm not the one defending Nazis and blatant anti-semites, racists, homophobes and others with undesirable beliefs like you to run for office and do nothing.

Really? Someone who doesn't want certain people to be able to run isn't a threat to democracy?

Its up to the people in a fair democracy to decide who they want the nominee to be and to get the job in the general. Its not the job of the Board of Elections or the party.

[Telconi]

That's right



Because they believe in violating the rights of other human beings and that's not acceptable, what part of this aren't you understanding?



This is good actually.

So only people you agree with ought to be allowed to run? That's utterly disgraceful and not a democracy in the slightest. That's borderline dictatorial if not outright so.

"Dictatorship is when you don't gas the Jews"