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

[Shrillland]

Nah, I don't think you guys brainwash people. People see you and aspire to be something better, nothing wrong with that.

Lmao

I meant as individuals. That the ruling class has a divide and conquer strategy isn't anything new to anyone.

[Nakena]

The biggest brainwashing that I keep encountering at least here on NSG are totalitarian close-circut logic ideologies which I am not going to name here. (I did frankly enough at other places so ya know what I am talking about)

Beyond that theres always people who are politically desinterested or apathic and just go with the tide.

But the later doesnt equals brainwashing which is an entire different topic and one I happen to know a few things about it.

[Page]

They're the problem that Page described.

Financially successful people are a problem?

Not all financially successful people, only the ones whose wealth is inseparable from inflicting harm, exploitation, and influencing the government to further serve their agenda.

[Bear Stearns]

Financially successful people are a problem?

Not all financially successful people, only the ones whose wealth is inseparable from inflicting harm, exploitation, and influencing the government to further serve their agenda.

That would basically be every rich person from a Third World country.

[Kowani]

Not all financially successful people, only the ones whose wealth is inseparable from inflicting harm, exploitation, and influencing the government to further serve their agenda.

That would basically be every rich person from a Third World country.

Yes, fuck them too.

[Telconi]

Financially successful people are a problem?

Not all financially successful people, only the ones whose wealth is inseparable from inflicting harm, exploitation, and influencing the government to further serve their agenda.

This seems to describe pretty much everyone with wealth, given the loose definition of "harm".

[Tombradyonia]

Scalia is as far from an activist judge as one can get. He was aligning with the constitution when ruling on Bush v. Gore.

Nope. Anytime anything is that close, recount. Sense then many states have mandatory recounts.

States run their own elections and Scalia stopped that as part of the 2000 PNAC coup. Activist con judge. Enemy of the people (let's just use Trumpian language).

[Tarsonis]

Nope. Anytime anything is that close, recount. Sense then many states have mandatory recounts.

States run their own elections and Scalia stopped that as part of the 2000 PNAC coup. Activist con judge. Enemy of the people (let's just use Trumpian language).

Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

[Sidesh0w B0b]

I will let you know I'm more irritable due to the recent dangers in my city so am more willing to drop my usual get-along-with-everyone to call stuff out as they are, bluntly, without concern for rudeness.

This is NSG though, located on australian (?) servers, an entire ocean away.

Isn't that where we got Rupert Murdoch from???

Uh oh.

[Northern Davincia]

Why? You need more to justify a recount than a close result, and the constitution doesn't speak of the matter at all.

No you don't. Especially in a state like Florida that is known for its slow counts and mistakes. That's why many states have mandatory recounts if a result is close.

Founding fathers didn't foresee Bush v. Gore and the constitution is vague anyways. Scalia wanted a conservative so he voted along his lines.

There first needs to be an indication of mistakes being made, or the counting exceeding a deadline of some sort. Scalia made the legally correct choice in any case, despite your assumption.

[Kowani]

No you don't. Especially in a state like Florida that is known for its slow counts and mistakes. That's why many states have mandatory recounts if a result is close.

Founding fathers didn't foresee Bush v. Gore and the constitution is vague anyways. Scalia wanted a conservative so he voted along his lines.

There first needs to be an indication of mistakes being made, or the counting exceeding a deadline of some sort. Scalia made the legally correct choice in any case, despite your assumption.

On the eve of the election Sandra Day O'Connor had made a public statement that a Gore victory would be a personal disaster for her. Clarence Thomas's wife was so intimately involved in the Bush campaign that she was helping to draw up a list of Bush appointees more or less at the same time as her husband was adjudicating on whether the same man would become the next President. Finally, Antonin Scalia's son was working for the firm appointed by Bush to argue his case before the Supreme Court, the head of which was subsequently appointed as Solicitor-General.

Yeah, that sounds impartial and non partisan.

[Telconi]

There first needs to be an indication of mistakes being made, or the counting exceeding a deadline of some sort. Scalia made the legally correct choice in any case, despite your assumption.

On the eve of the election Sandra Day O'Connor had made a public statement that a Gore victory would be a personal disaster for her. Clarence Thomas's wife was so intimately involved in the Bush campaign that she was helping to draw up a list of Bush appointees more or less at the same time as her husband was adjudicating on whether the same man would become the next President. Finally, Antonin Scalia's son was working for the firm appointed by Bush to argue his case before the Supreme Court, the head of which was subsequently appointed as Solicitor-General.

Yeah, that sounds impartial and non partisan.

Nothing about the supreme court is impartial or nonpartisan.

[United States of Devonta]

On the eve of the election Sandra Day O'Connor had made a public statement that a Gore victory would be a personal disaster for her. Clarence Thomas's wife was so intimately involved in the Bush campaign that she was helping to draw up a list of Bush appointees more or less at the same time as her husband was adjudicating on whether the same man would become the next President. Finally, Antonin Scalia's son was working for the firm appointed by Bush to argue his case before the Supreme Court, the head of which was subsequently appointed as Solicitor-General.

Yeah, that sounds impartial and non partisan.

Nothing about the supreme court is impartial or nonpartisan.

Nothing about that.

[United States of Devonta]

No you don't. Especially in a state like Florida that is known for its slow counts and mistakes. That's why many states have mandatory recounts if a result is close.

Founding fathers didn't foresee Bush v. Gore and the constitution is vague anyways. Scalia wanted a conservative so he voted along his lines.

There first needs to be an indication of mistakes being made, or the counting exceeding a deadline of some sort. Scalia made the legally correct choice in any case, despite your assumption.

No their doesn't. That's why many states came up w/ recount laws after the fact. 500 vote margin is way to small not to do a recount. It was conservatives rapping their arms around conservatives. It was robbery. It was corruption at the highest levels. The law wouldn't of stopped a recall either. It goes bot ways.

[Telconi]

Nothing about the supreme court is impartial or nonpartisan.

Nothing about that.

Sorry, but what now?

[Pacomia]

Andrew Yang names 23 out of 24 candidates for president the highest of any candidate.

Wait, but Steve Bullock...

[Takso]

Andrew Yang is a pearl of reason in a sea of clowns.

[San Lumen]

There first needs to be an indication of mistakes being made, or the counting exceeding a deadline of some sort. Scalia made the legally correct choice in any case, despite your assumption.

No their doesn't. That's why many states came up w/ recount laws after the fact. 500 vote margin is way to small not to do a recount. It was conservatives rapping their arms around conservatives. It was robbery. It was corruption at the highest levels. The law wouldn't of stopped a recall either. It goes bot ways.

I don’t get why when it comes to vote counting we can’t do what the UK does and count all
Ballots by hand

[Pacomia]

Andrew Yang is a pearl of reason in a sea of clowns.

I, uh... don’t disagree. Everyone’s either got real unrealistic goals or are unknowns.

[Northern Davincia]

There first needs to be an indication of mistakes being made, or the counting exceeding a deadline of some sort. Scalia made the legally correct choice in any case, despite your assumption.

No their doesn't. That's why many states came up w/ recount laws after the fact. 500 vote margin is way to small not to do a recount. It was conservatives rapping their arms around conservatives. It was robbery. It was corruption at the highest levels. The law wouldn't of stopped a recall either. It goes bot ways.

It's not robbery if the election was never yours to win. It wasn't corruption either, as the ruling complied with the Equal Protection Clause.

[Shrillland]

No their doesn't. That's why many states came up w/ recount laws after the fact. 500 vote margin is way to small not to do a recount. It was conservatives rapping their arms around conservatives. It was robbery. It was corruption at the highest levels. The law wouldn't of stopped a recall either. It goes bot ways.

I don’t get why when it comes to vote counting we can’t do what the UK does and count all
Ballots by hand

Well, we suffer from this odd idea that if something involves more technology, it must automatically be better.

[San Lumen]

I don’t get why when it comes to vote counting we can’t do what the UK does and count all
Ballots by hand

Well, we suffer from this odd idea that if something involves more technology, it must automatically be better.

Which i have never understood. Why we have too fix what isnt broken or makes things complicated that dont have to be ill never understand

[Kowani]

Well, we suffer from this odd idea that if something involves more technology, it must automatically be better.

Which i have never understood. Why we have too fix what isnt broken or makes things complicated that dont have to be ill never understand

To make it better.

[San Lumen]

Which i have never understood. Why we have too fix what isnt broken or makes things complicated that dont have to be ill never understand

To make it better.

It doesn't make it better. It leave our elections vulnerable to hackers and election result changes. why can't we just have paper ballots and count them by hand like in England and we require that the paper be recycled as well?

[Kowani]

To make it better.

It doesn't make it better. It leave our elections vulnerable to hackers and election result changes. why can't we just have paper ballots and count them by hand like in England and we require that the paper be recycled as well?

I’m speaking in general, not this particular case.