[Primateus]

Some American buddies and I have been talking about it. We're all pretty certain that the guy is going to get a second term, but we all hope he will not.

And whoever is president has a huge impact on us here in Europe as well. So yes, anxiety increasing.

[Aptorian]

You can probably say goodby to NATO if Trump gets a second term.

In a way, that wouldn't bother me that much, since I'd like for Europe to be less dependent on the US in terms of defense but it's weakening to bonds between nations.

[Malankazooie]

This will put everyone's mind at ease in the week leading up to election day and the days after.

A Society on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown

[Gorefest]

Aptorian, on 26 October 2020 - 11:00 AM, said:

You can probably say goodby to NATO if Trump gets a second term.

In a way, that wouldn't bother me that much, since I'd like for Europe to be less dependent on the US in terms of defense but it's weakening to bonds between nations.

With the UK leaving the EU as well though, there wont be much of a unified European military presence left.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'Waiting to vote in Philly's long lines wasn't so bad thanks to musicians, motorcyclists, MTV, and free food



People wait in line to cast mail-in ballots behind the statue of Octavius Catto, who advocated for Black suffrage, outside Philadelphia City Hall'

https://www.inquirer...e-20201024.html

'Catto became a martyr to racism, as he was shot and killed in election-day violence in Philadelphia, where ethnic Irish of the Democratic Party, which was anti-Reconstruction and had opposed black suffrage, attacked black men to prevent their voting for Republican candidates.'

https://en.wikipedia.../Octavius_Catto

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 26 October 2020 - 06:27 PM

[Aptorian]

Gorefest, on 26 October 2020 - 06:04 PM, said:

Aptorian, on 26 October 2020 - 11:00 AM, said:

You can probably say goodby to NATO if Trump gets a second term.

In a way, that wouldn't bother me that much, since I'd like for Europe to be less dependent on the US in terms of defense but it's weakening to bonds between nations.

With the UK leaving the EU as well though, there wont be much of a unified European military presence left.

Eh, after Scotland, Wales and Ireland rise up and defeat the English, the UK will return to the EU. Or something.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Gorefest, on 26 October 2020 - 06:04 PM, said:

Aptorian, on 26 October 2020 - 11:00 AM, said:

You can probably say goodby to NATO if Trump gets a second term.

In a way, that wouldn't bother me that much, since I'd like for Europe to be less dependent on the US in terms of defense but it's weakening to bonds between nations.

With the UK leaving the EU as well though, there wont be much of a unified European military presence left.

I hope France's nuclear defense shield also works against ICBM from the United States / US bases... or Trump might threaten another Blitzkrieg. 'Give me ten trillion dollars or Europe gets it... we'll nuke one city at a time. And every city we destroy must be replaced by a beautiful golden Trump Tower concentration camp....'

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 26 October 2020 - 07:04 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Briar King, on 26 October 2020 - 07:19 PM, said:

Phony Power Hungry Kamala was vexed last night trying to fake smile/laugh that one question off she wasn't expecting. Sounded like she was on the verge of tears not long after that in a separate answer.

I can't imagine the stress these people are feeling here at the end game. I know I wouldn't want to go through it in person.

She laughed when they asked if she's a Socialist. Predictably, right-wingers are triggered... '"Nothing funny" about Kamala Harris laughing off questions about socialism'!

Should've just asked if she's a Satanic pedophile cannibal/lizard person with a hidden adrenochrome IV. Her nervous cackle would prove it beyond any reasonable doubt! Ready the containment cells....

[amphibian]

It really seems like BK is watching a whole different set of videos.

Pence is a non-answering moron.

[QuickTidal]

Azath Vitr (D, on 26 October 2020 - 07:31 PM, said:

Briar King, on 26 October 2020 - 07:19 PM, said:

Phony Power Hungry Kamala was vexed last night trying to fake smile/laugh that one question off she wasn't expecting. Sounded like she was on the verge of tears not long after that in a separate answer.

I can't imagine the stress these people are feeling here at the end game. I know I wouldn't want to go through it in person.

She laughed when they asked if she's a Socialist. Predictably, right-wingers are triggered... '"Nothing funny" about Kamala Harris laughing off questions about socialism'!

It's even more amusing when by any (and I do mean ANY) definition of "socialist" as a boogeyman term, Kamala Harris could never, ever fall into that category.

Recall how far from Bernie and Warren on these topics Harris (and Biden) are...and even on the world stage comparing them to....oh I dunno, places with strong social programs like let's say Norway...Bernie and Warren would seem really centrist there....but somehow in the minds of moronic Right Wing Americans, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden are socialists...it BOGGLES my mind anyone believes that nonsense. It's like the "socialist" targeting used by the Republicans is "whoever is not Republican is a filthy socialist!"....I...jeezus I can't even.

But then, the Right Wing American version of 'Socialism' is some sort of scare-tactic, Soviet-era spliced communism horror show that means the country would dive into some hell...that they've largely invented in their heads.

Meanwhile actual socialist countries (again, by their narrow definition of such things) are not only doing fine, but have some of the highest quality of life on the planet....because you know Healthcare, and Education, and social programs are apparently the fucking devils work? and gods forbid your taxes contribute to EVERYONE being able to live their lives?

I will NEVER understand the "socialism is a boogeyman" take....and I certainly don't think you could lay socialism anywhere NEAR Kamala Harris or Joe Biden's feet by the stretch of even the wildest imagination.

EDIT: At some point won't those people realize that it's actually Capitalism (Late stage) that has them by the short and curlies, and that social structures and programs being vilified would make their lives better? Like the establishment politicians and government exists as it does... to serve corporate interests, nothing else and certainly not the common citizen...can't let down the giant fucking insurance companies with * checks notes * socialized medicine/healthcare. The horror.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 26 October 2020 - 07:56 PM

[Malankazooie]

Also, the "on the verge of tears" comment is right out of a MAGA hat wearing Trump supporter playbook. I anticipate next will be to call Kamala Harris a nasty woman when she critisizes Trump.

Pity party, victim card played in 3 ... 2. ... 1

#NotASheep

[Cause]

Awesome I recognize the statue. Philli city hall is beautiful.

[Mentalist]

QuickTidal, on 26 October 2020 - 07:51 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 26 October 2020 - 07:31 PM, said:

Briar King, on 26 October 2020 - 07:19 PM, said:

Phony Power Hungry Kamala was vexed last night trying to fake smile/laugh that one question off she wasn't expecting. Sounded like she was on the verge of tears not long after that in a separate answer.

I can't imagine the stress these people are feeling here at the end game. I know I wouldn't want to go through it in person.

She laughed when they asked if she's a Socialist. Predictably, right-wingers are triggered... '"Nothing funny" about Kamala Harris laughing off questions about socialism'!

It's even more amusing when by any (and I do mean ANY) definition of "socialist" as a boogeyman term, Kamala Harris could never, ever fall into that category.

Recall how far from Bernie and Warren on these topics Harris (and Biden) are...and even on the world stage comparing them to....oh I dunno, places with strong social programs like let's say Norway...Bernie and Warren would seem really centrist there....but somehow in the minds of moronic Right Wing Americans, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden are socialists...it BOGGLES my mind anyone believes that nonsense. It's like the "socialist" targeting used by the Republicans is "whoever is not Republican is a filthy socialist!"....I...jeezus I can't even.

But then, the Right Wing American version of 'Socialism' is some sort of scare-tactic, Soviet-era spliced communism horror show that means the country would dive into some hell...that they've largely invented in their heads.

Meanwhile actual socialist countries (again, by their narrow definition of such things) are not only doing fine, but have some of the highest quality of life on the planet....because you know Healthcare, and Education, and social programs are apparently the fucking devils work? and gods forbid your taxes contribute to EVERYONE being able to live their lives?

I will NEVER understand the "socialism is a boogeyman" take....and I certainly don't think you could lay socialism anywhere NEAR Kamala Harris or Joe Biden's feet by the stretch of even the wildest imagination.

EDIT: At some point won't those people realize that it's actually Capitalism (Late stage) that has them by the short and curlies, and that social structures and programs being vilified would make their lives better? Like the establishment politicians and government exists as it does... to serve corporate interests, nothing else and certainly not the common citizen...can't let down the giant fucking insurance companies with * checks notes * socialized medicine/healthcare. The horror.

Umm, QT, we live in a country with socialized medicine/healthcare. And banks + insurance cos still run everything, lmao.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Briar King, on 26 October 2020 - 11:46 PM, said:

Malankazooie, on 26 October 2020 - 07:56 PM, said:

Also, the "on the verge of tears" comment is right out of a MAGA hat wearing Trump supporter playbook. I anticipate next will be to call Kamala Harris a nasty woman when she critisizes Trump.

Pity party, victim card played in 3 ... 2. ... 1

#NotASheep

I don't wear hats. They cause dandruff and anyway I don't look good in red. I happen to get along with and like nasty women very much. Never the less you could read Kamala's face on that bit, she didn't like it when interviewer sited a source about the issue. Correct? I even sympathized with her when I stated the endgame pressure after the shaky voice.

You best believe I will say something when someone absurdly twists or adds words into my mouth. This hasn't happened today to merit a call out. Hell I even laughed at today's little burn.

NotASheep wasn't directly political with aims at any election material just something that pissed me off which I then asked mods to change days later once I was over it.

#tryagain or better yet don't before we both get fussed at yet again.

The interviewer cited GovTrack to claim she's 'considered the most liberal United States senator', but that's wrong and extremely misleading. GovTrack didn't claim she's 'considered the most liberal'; their ranking was 'based on cosponsorship [of bills in the Senate; for 2019 only]. But [GovTrack says] looking at the legislation she's introduced tells a different story — judge for yourself.'

https://govtrackinsi...19-bbd25493ca72

'of course it only takes into account a small aspect of reality. [...] only legislative activity in 2019 is considered'

https://www.govtrack...port-cards/2019

Their methodology basically counted the number of Democrat-introduced bills she cosponsored and the number of Republican-introduced bills she consponsored in 2019.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 27 October 2020 - 12:25 AM

[Terez]

Daily reminder that Republican presidential nominees have only won the popular vote once in the last 30 years, and Republicans never win the Senate with the majority of the popular vote either, but they have chosen 15 of 19 SCOTUS justices in that same time frame.

[QuickTidal]

Mentalist, on 26 October 2020 - 08:43 PM, said:

Umm, QT, we live in a country with socialized medicine/healthcare. And banks + insurance cos still run everything, lmao.

Which is why my example wasn’t us.

We have a long way to go on a lot of social issues, and an even longer way to go with regards to unchecked capitalism...but we are not on the bottom of the list either like the states are.

Oh, and the real money maker scam in our country is goddamn Student Loans. That shit is rife. ~source, once worked for the NSLSC...the amount of money they make off interest alone is...insanity. We need free/socialized post secondary education like yesterday.

[Malankazooie]

I don't argue with stupid. The post speaks for itself. A male VP candidate wouldn't be referred to as "on the verge of tears." Full Stop.

But to put this to rest, here's the video. Kamala Harris laughs. In a MAGA hat Trumper, 4 more years supporter I guess we live on bizarro world and laughing is now flipped to be on the verge of tears? *shrugs #NotASheep.

[Mentalist]

QuickTidal, on 27 October 2020 - 12:50 AM, said:

Mentalist, on 26 October 2020 - 08:43 PM, said:

Umm, QT, we live in a country with socialized medicine/healthcare. And banks + insurance cos still run everything, lmao.

Which is why my example wasn’t us.

We have a long way to go on a lot of social issues, and an even longer way to go with regards to unchecked capitalism...but we are not on the bottom of the list either like the states are.

Oh, and the real money maker scam in our country is goddamn Student Loans. That shit is rife. ~source, once worked for the NSLSC...the amount of money they make off interest alone is...insanity. We need free/socialized post secondary education like yesterday.

*shrug* I'm one of the lucky ones, I guess. I paid off all of my debt in less than the 10 years they give you post-graduation.

It's not an amazing system, but from what I've seen (among my peers), it works.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'Barrett's First Votes Could Throw the Election to Trump

[...] Republican lawmakers revived the original Bush v. Gore argument in fraught election cases this year, and, following Amy Coney Barrett's nomination, four sitting justices appeared to endorse it. Barrett's confirmation on Monday will almost certainly tip the balance to make that argument the law of the land on the eve of an election. The result would be an immediate invalidation of thousands of disproportionately Democratic ballots in Pennsylvania and North Carolina—two swing states that could decide the outcome of the election. [...]

Rehnquist's concurrence rested on the electors clause of the Constitution, which says that "Each State shall appoint" presidential electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." He accused the Florida Supreme Court of having "impermissibly distorted" the state's election code when it ordered a recount. Because the court ran afoul of the "clearly expressed intent of the legislature," Rehnquist concluded, it had violated the electors clause.

Rehnquist's position constituted a breathtaking assault on state sovereignty. It is black letter law that state courts hold ultimate authority to determine the meaning of their own state's statutes and constitution. And the Florida Supreme Court had simply provided its best interpretation of a "legal vote" under Florida law. Secretary of State Katherine Harris rejected ballots with "hanging chads" on which voters had indicated their preference but failed to punch through the hole all the way. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed, citing a state statute that required the counting of defective ballots "if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter." Federal judges had a constitutional obligation to accept that (eminently plausible) reading of the law. By refusing to do so, Rehnquist, along with Scalia and Thomas, impermissibly substituted the Florida Supreme Court's judgment with their own.

After the 2000 election, Rehnquist's concurrence faded into the mists of history, and for good reason. It would, after all, transform SCOTUS into a national board of elections with veto power over each state's election rules. Rehnquist's position was categorically distinct from typical election cases, in which federal courts decide whether some regulation complies with the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes like the Voting Rights Act. Rather than defer to state courts protecting the franchise, SCOTUS would grant itself freewheeling authority to rewrite election laws based on its own subjective sense of a legislature's intent. And a right-leaning Supreme Court could use this power to crush state efforts to expand voting rights. [...]

[...] it would seem that only the legislature has standing to claim that courts have usurped its power, but the legislature is not a plaintiff in either case.

But the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants when it has five votes.'

http://slate.com/new...-vengeance.html

That's just the weak version: the US Supreme Court can overrule State Supreme Courts in interpreting state-level legislation about voting.

The strong version, not mentioned in that article, is more disastrous: the Constitution grants the state legislature sole authority to select electors, so it can ignore the state constitution and the governor....

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 27 October 2020 - 01:10 AM

[Mentalist]

Azath Vitr (D, on 27 October 2020 - 01:07 AM, said:

'Barrett's First Votes Could Throw the Election to Trump

[...] Republican lawmakers revived the original Bush v. Gore argument in fraught election cases this year, and, following Amy Coney Barrett's nomination, four sitting justices appeared to endorse it. Barrett's confirmation on Monday will almost certainly tip the balance to make that argument the law of the land on the eve of an election. The result would be an immediate invalidation of thousands of disproportionately Democratic ballots in Pennsylvania and North Carolina—two swing states that could decide the outcome of the election. [...]

Rehnquist's concurrence rested on the electors clause of the Constitution, which says that "Each State shall appoint" presidential electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." He accused the Florida Supreme Court of having "impermissibly distorted" the state's election code when it ordered a recount. Because the court ran afoul of the "clearly expressed intent of the legislature," Rehnquist concluded, it had violated the electors clause.

Rehnquist's position constituted a breathtaking assault on state sovereignty. It is black letter law that state courts hold ultimate authority to determine the meaning of their own state's statutes and constitution. And the Florida Supreme Court had simply provided its best interpretation of a "legal vote" under Florida law. Secretary of State Katherine Harris rejected ballots with "hanging chads" on which voters had indicated their preference but failed to punch through the hole all the way. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed, citing a state statute that required the counting of defective ballots "if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter." Federal judges had a constitutional obligation to accept that (eminently plausible) reading of the law. By refusing to do so, Rehnquist, along with Scalia and Thomas, impermissibly substituted the Florida Supreme Court's judgment with their own.

After the 2000 election, Rehnquist's concurrence faded into the mists of history, and for good reason. It would, after all, transform SCOTUS into a national board of elections with veto power over each state's election rules. Rehnquist's position was categorically distinct from typical election cases, in which federal courts decide whether some regulation complies with the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes like the Voting Rights Act. Rather than defer to state courts protecting the franchise, SCOTUS would grant itself freewheeling authority to rewrite election laws based on its own subjective sense of a legislature's intent. And a right-leaning Supreme Court could use this power to crush state efforts to expand voting rights. [...]

[...] it would seem that only the legislature has standing to claim that courts have usurped its power, but the legislature is not a plaintiff in either case.

But the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants when it has five votes.'

http://slate.com/new...-vengeance.html

That's just the weak version: the US Supreme Court can overrule State Supreme Courts in interpreting state-level legislation about voting.

The strong version, not mentioned in that article, is more disastrous: the Constitution grants the state legislature sole authority to select electors, so it can ignore the state constitution and the governor....

Fucking hell.

These idiots really don't get that if they consistently repress a growing majority, eventually they'll end up with an angry, armed mob.

There's only so far you can rachet up pressure until eventually you go too far, and then the whole mechanism explodes.