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

[San Lumen]

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.

I never said its inherently good.

And you have you not been saying that its unfair for the majority of the population such as in Washington who is voting for statewide officials next year to decide elections but if I'm wrong do correct me.

The majority of the population of the state is in the Puget Sound region. The counties that border it will decide the statewide officials

[Ors Might]

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.

I can almost see my old chemistry teacher chomping at the bits to prove that wrong. It’s not about preventing them from blowing shit up, it’s about preventing people that tried to illegally sidestep the political process from having a chance at doing it in any way at all.

[Telconi]

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

Quote me saying that.

I never said its inherently good.

And you have you not been saying that its unfair for the majority of the population such as in Washington who is voting for statewide officials next year to decide elections but if I'm wrong do correct me.

The majority of the population of the state is in the Puget Sound region. The counties that border it will decide the statewide officials

I don't understand where you keep getting this whole unfair election line.

[San Lumen]

I never said its inherently good.

And you have you not been saying that its unfair for the majority of the population such as in Washington who is voting for statewide officials next year to decide elections but if I'm wrong do correct me.

The majority of the population of the state is in the Puget Sound region. The counties that border it will decide the statewide officials

I don't understand where you keep getting this whole unfair election line.

you yourself said you thought an election system like that would be fair because it would keep those you dont like out of office despite the majority voting for them

[Ors Might]

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

Quote me saying that.

I never said its inherently good.

And you have you not been saying that its unfair for the majority of the population such as in Washington who is voting for statewide officials next year to decide elections but if I'm wrong do correct me.

The majority of the population of the state is in the Puget Sound region. The counties that border it will decide the statewide officials

Then why are you being so defensive of majority rule?

I haven’t made any statement on Washington one way or the other. In presidential elections, allowing smaller states to have a say and not be ignored is a good thing. Whether or not the system we have does that adequately is up for debate. For state elections, I see no reason why there shouldn’t be measures in place to give minorities a chance of not being ignored.

[Telconi]

I don't understand where you keep getting this whole unfair election line.

you yourself said you thought an election system like that would be fair because it would keep those you dont like out of office despite the majority voting for them

No, I specifically said it would be unfair.

[Telconi]

I never said its inherently good.

And you have you not been saying that its unfair for the majority of the population such as in Washington who is voting for statewide officials next year to decide elections but if I'm wrong do correct me.

The majority of the population of the state is in the Puget Sound region. The counties that border it will decide the statewide officials

Then why are you being so defensive of majority rule?

I haven’t made any statement on Washington one way or the other. In presidential elections, allowing smaller states to have a say and not be ignored is a good thing. Whether or not the system we have does that adequately is up for debate. For state elections, I see no reason why there shouldn’t be measures in place to give minorities a chance of not being ignored.

But then how will Lumen's frienda ignore the minorities!?!?

[Galloism]

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.

I can almost see my old chemistry teacher chomping at the bits to prove that wrong. It’s not about preventing them from blowing shit up, it’s about preventing people that tried to illegally sidestep the political process from having a chance at doing it in any way at all.

I didn’t say it was impossible.

But why? This is like barring a drunk driver (your comparison) from taking the train or bus or a cab, as they tried to travel drunk and shouldn’t be allowed to travel at all.

[Ors Might]

I can almost see my old chemistry teacher chomping at the bits to prove that wrong. It’s not about preventing them from blowing shit up, it’s about preventing people that tried to illegally sidestep the political process from having a chance at doing it in any way at all.

I didn’t say it was impossible.

But why? This is like barring a drunk driver (your comparison) from taking the train or bus or a cab, as they tried to travel drunk and shouldn’t be allowed to travel at all.

I don’t see why prisoners would be traveling at all. Just how big are we building these prisons?

[Telconi]

I can almost see my old chemistry teacher chomping at the bits to prove that wrong. It’s not about preventing them from blowing shit up, it’s about preventing people that tried to illegally sidestep the political process from having a chance at doing it in any way at all.

I didn’t say it was impossible.

But why? This is like barring a drunk driver (your comparison) from taking the train or bus or a cab, as they tried to travel drunk and shouldn’t be allowed to travel at all.

We bar people who drunkenly ride bicycles from operating cars...

[San Lumen]

I never said its inherently good.

And you have you not been saying that its unfair for the majority of the population such as in Washington who is voting for statewide officials next year to decide elections but if I'm wrong do correct me.

The majority of the population of the state is in the Puget Sound region. The counties that border it will decide the statewide officials

Then why are you being so defensive of majority rule?

I haven’t made any statement on Washington one way or the other. In presidential elections, allowing smaller states to have a say and not be ignored is a good thing. Whether or not the system we have does that adequately is up for debate. For state elections, I see no reason why there shouldn’t be measures in place to give minorities a chance of not being ignored.

Elections should be decided by who gets the most votes and nothing else. We have courts to remedy things if elected officials go too far.

And what system would that be? Electing statewide officials by how many counties they win would be fair to you? That would ensure the rural sparsely populated counties always gets the person they choose in statewide offices in Washington and many others.

[Ors Might]

I didn’t say it was impossible.

But why? This is like barring a drunk driver (your comparison) from taking the train or bus or a cab, as they tried to travel drunk and shouldn’t be allowed to travel at all.

We bar people who drunkenly ride bicycles from operating cars...

Like, non-motorbikes? That seems a tad excessive.

[Telconi]

Then why are you being so defensive of majority rule?

I haven’t made any statement on Washington one way or the other. In presidential elections, allowing smaller states to have a say and not be ignored is a good thing. Whether or not the system we have does that adequately is up for debate. For state elections, I see no reason why there shouldn’t be measures in place to give minorities a chance of not being ignored.

Elections should be decided by who gets the most votes and nothing else. We have courts to remedy things if elected officials go too far.

And what system would that be? Electing statewide officials by how many counties they win would be fair to you? That would ensure the rural sparsely populated counties always gets the person they choose in statewide offices in Washington and many others.

Wait, should they be decided by who gets the most votes and nothing else, or by courts? Because those are two different things...

[Galloism]

I didn’t say it was impossible.

But why? This is like barring a drunk driver (your comparison) from taking the train or bus or a cab, as they tried to travel drunk and shouldn’t be allowed to travel at all.

I don’t see why prisoners would be traveling at all. Just how big are we building these prisons?

Pretty big.

Point is though, we don’t bar alcohol to teach a lesson about responsible use of alcohol. So I don’t see how we should bar voting to teach responsible voting.

I didn’t say it was impossible.

But why? This is like barring a drunk driver (your comparison) from taking the train or bus or a cab, as they tried to travel drunk and shouldn’t be allowed to travel at all.

We bar people who drunkenly ride bicycles from operating cars...

We’ve done that with lawnmowers a few times too. I didn’t say we never do retarded things.

[San Lumen]

Elections should be decided by who gets the most votes and nothing else. We have courts to remedy things if elected officials go too far.

And what system would that be? Electing statewide officials by how many counties they win would be fair to you? That would ensure the rural sparsely populated counties always gets the person they choose in statewide offices in Washington and many others.

Wait, should they be decided by who gets the most votes and nothing else, or by courts? Because those are two different things...

I did not say that. I said if elected officials go to far we have courts to remedy it.

[Telconi]

We bar people who drunkenly ride bicycles from operating cars...

Like, non-motorbikes? That seems a tad excessive.

At least in CA, a DUI can be issued for intoxicated use of any form of conveyance that isn't your own feet. So you can receive a DUI for skateboarding drunk, or roller skating drink, or riding a horse drunk. The penalty is license suspension.

So, a person can lose their ability to drive a car if they hopped on a skateboard with too high of a BAC.

[Ors Might]

Then why are you being so defensive of majority rule?

I haven’t made any statement on Washington one way or the other. In presidential elections, allowing smaller states to have a say and not be ignored is a good thing. Whether or not the system we have does that adequately is up for debate. For state elections, I see no reason why there shouldn’t be measures in place to give minorities a chance of not being ignored.

Elections should be decided by who gets the most votes and nothing else. We have courts to remedy things if elected officials go too far.

And what system would that be? Electing statewide officials by how many counties they win would be fair to you? That would ensure the rural sparsely populated counties always gets the person they choose in statewide offices in Washington and many others.

Courts don’t always do the right thing, jesus christ. Why are you opposed to having protections in place to prevent it from getting that far?

How the hell should I know what system will work best? All I’ve said is that protections should be in place and that there needs to be a debate on how to best implement them.

[Telconi]

Wait, should they be decided by who gets the most votes and nothing else, or by courts? Because those are two different things...

I did not say that. I said if elected officials go to far we have courts to remedy it.

How would they remedy it?

[Ors Might]

I don’t see why prisoners would be traveling at all. Just how big are we building these prisons?

Pretty big.

Point is though, we don’t bar alcohol to teach a lesson about responsible use of alcohol. So I don’t see how we should bar voting to teach responsible voting.

We bar people who drunkenly ride bicycles from operating cars...

We’ve done that with lawnmowers a few times too. I didn’t say we never do retarded things.

I don’t think we give prisoners alcohol? I’m not suggesting that it should be permanent, just until they’ve been rehabilitated.

[Ors Might]

Like, non-motorbikes? That seems a tad excessive.

At least in CA, a DUI can be issued for intoxicated use of any form of conveyance that isn't your own feet. So you can receive a DUI for skateboarding drunk, or roller skating drink, or riding a horse drunk. The penalty is license suspension.

So, a person can lose their ability to drive a car if they hopped on a skateboard with too high of a BAC.

Sk8erboi rights!

[San Lumen]

Elections should be decided by who gets the most votes and nothing else. We have courts to remedy things if elected officials go too far.

And what system would that be? Electing statewide officials by how many counties they win would be fair to you? That would ensure the rural sparsely populated counties always gets the person they choose in statewide offices in Washington and many others.

Courts don’t always do the right thing, jesus christ. Why are you opposed to having protections in place to prevent it from getting that far?

How the hell should I know what system will work best? All I’ve said is that protections should be in place and that there needs to be a debate on how to best implement them.

What would be your system then in a state like Washington?

[Galloism]

Pretty big.

Point is though, we don’t bar alcohol to teach a lesson about responsible use of alcohol. So I don’t see how we should bar voting to teach responsible voting.



We’ve done that with lawnmowers a few times too. I didn’t say we never do retarded things.

I don’t think we give prisoners alcohol? I’m not suggesting that it should be permanent, just until they’ve been rehabilitated.

We typically don’t jail drunk drivers for long. We keep them in the drunk tank overnight, arraign them in the morning, they’re released on their own recognizance, then we send them home in the morning with a court date.

If it’s the second or third time we keep their license.

[Thuzbekistan]

Which is so dumb. Why on earth should prisoners vote? After they've served their sentences, absolutely. During that time? No. They are there because they HARMED society and should not be able to have a say in how that society is governed.

However, we should start reconsidering what crimes actually send you to jail, get rid of mandatory minimums, and allow people with felonies to vote even during their sentence so long as it wasn't a horrid crime like murder, theft above 5,000, or other heinous crimes.

Because they are an American citizen. Smoking a little weed shouldn't bar you from the right to a say in the makeup of the government.

Good thing misdemeanors dont rob you of the right to vote...

[Thuzbekistan]

I don’t think we give prisoners alcohol? I’m not suggesting that it should be permanent, just until they’ve been rehabilitated.

We typically don’t jail drunk drivers for long. We keep them in the drunk tank overnight, arraign them in the morning, they’re released on their own recognizance, then we send them home in the morning with a court date.

If it’s the second or third time we keep their license.

Until they kill someone of course

[Galloism]

We typically don’t jail drunk drivers for long. We keep them in the drunk tank overnight, arraign them in the morning, they’re released on their own recognizance, then we send them home in the morning with a court date.

If it’s the second or third time we keep their license.

Until they kill someone of course

Well, yes. Then that’s vehicular manslaughter, which we take a touch more seriously.