[Istanbuller]

There is no simple two word answer to liberalism Istanbuller. It is an evolving idea and ideology. If there was a clear two word answer then there would be only one liberal philosopher of some sort and the rest would be irrelevant. Which is clearly not the case.

Here are your hints: capitalism and libertarianism. Guess who is more close to American state's these founding principles?

[SpecialOlympian]

Democracy is an obstacle to GOP goals so of course anyone supporting Trump doesn't want mail in ballots to be counted. The idea that we shouldn't count ballots is lol, and refusing to count mail ins isn't necessarily a boon to Republicans since their older voter base doesn't want to die and will be casting more mail in ballots this cycle.

Here are your hints: capitalism and libertarianism. Guess who is more close to American state's these founding principles?

Istanbuller just admitted that the enshrining of owning human beings into a nation's founding documents is more closely related to libertarian principles.

[colliric]

Mail in ballots need significant scrutiny since fraud and honest mistakes are more common with mail-ins.

I would support a full recount or two. Then a Supreme Court decision if still too close. Trump would win that by the way.

Same as in 2000. And again it will be Florida I bet.

As I support Trump, obviously you're wrong SO. Even Trump knows recounts will be good for him.

I'm tipping a similar result to this:


Michigan staying Red and one or two of the smaller states going back blue. I think yeah a slight 2% swing but not enough for Trump not to win the EC.

I supported Gore in that election because you Democrats put up a good candidate and Bush kinda sucked in 2000.

[SpecialOlympian]

Mail in ballots need significant scrutiny since fraud and honest mistakes are more common with mail-ins.

Yes, honest mistakes like not voting for Trump.

Congrats on worshiping the dumbest man to ever enter politics.

[colliric]

Yes, honest mistakes like not voting for Trump.

Congrats on worshiping the dumbest man to ever enter politics.

A repeat of 2000 is on the cards and you and I both know it.

No matter who wins, if Florida got him over the line the result will be challenged.

I will be shocked and graciously admit defeat if its a Biden landslide. But with his swing currently looking to be 2-3% there's no way that's happening.

[SpecialOlympian]

OK Colliric. Strong daddy is strong.

[Doug64]

[pugsville]

My job is about being suspicious of everything.

Vote by mail is one of the most interesting topics I have ever heard. I also read some news about small scale vote by mail frauds. But these were in previous US elections. This time it is different. Millions vote by mail.

In democratic countries, secret ballot is the most appropriate way of voting. Other options are not democratic and safe.

Why were Denocratics insist on this way of voting? Why do they refuse delaying the election to a safer date?

So no actual evidence?

Postal voting is pretty routine in Australia, Postal voting is by secret ballot. Complete spurious argument without any basis in fact.
Australia allows postal voting by request, early voting, and there no problem at all,

The election date is law, nothing the democrats can do about that,

[pugsville]

Mail in ballots need significant scrutiny since fraud and honest mistakes are more common with mail-ins.

I would support a full recount or two. Then a Supreme Court decision if still too close. Trump would win that by the way.

Same as in 2000. And again it will be Florida I bet.

As I support Trump, obviously you're wrong SO. Even Trump knows recounts will be good for him.

I'm tipping a similar result to this:


Michigan staying Red and one or two of the smaller states going back blue. I think yeah a slight 2% swing but not enough for Trump not to win the EC.

I supported Gore in that election because you Democrats put up a good candidate and Bush kinda sucked in 2000.

So your saying the Supreme court is so partizan towards Trunp to the extent it's incapable of ruling against him?

[SpecialOlympian]

So your saying the Supreme court is so partizan towards Trunp to the extent it's incapable of ruling against him?

Lol if you don't believe the SCOTUS is extremely politicized. The GOP nominated a drunken, crying rapist with six figures of gambling debt who swore a tearful vengeance on the Democrats for daring to question his qualifications haha

Not a single Trump humper on this forum has ever stated that Kavanagh is a qualified and experienced practitioner of the law who merits a place on the Court for his objectivity and legal knowledge. They only argued that the only bar to his being on the SCOTUS was, "Well, in a criminal case, he wouldn't be convicted of attempted rape."

This has been a standard of the GOP since they nominated Clarence Thomas, another sex-pest who was the first SCOTUS nominee to not earn the approval of the American Bar Association since its inception. Qualifications are not important to them, the only thing that matter is ideological purity.

This is because there are no modern conservative thinkers. Conservative ideology is irrelevant, becuase feelings don't care about your facts. Because reactionary thought does not extend beyond seizing power and Owning Da Libz, which is the ultimate expression of political power for them.

There are only grifters and fascist collaborators who support the GOP in seizing power and neutering governmental institutions or bending them toward GOP political goals. Any ideological framework placed upon that is but an afterthought and a lazy explanation for their actions.

[colliric]

So your saying the Supreme court is so partizan towards Trunp to the extent it's incapable of ruling against him?

I see the same situation as in the year 2000 being highly possible this year. Republican party controls the Supreme Court. And they'll use the 2000 decision as the precedent. Government can't afford to be crippled by continuous recounts.

[SpecialOlympian]

Yeah, counting the votes is the problem. Not the court. You got a little orange on your nose, Colliric.

Lmfao at being such an ideological bitch that counting things is somehow more subjective than the opinion of a court, something that is by definition subjective. You absolute fucking tool.

[colliric]

Yeah, counting the votes is the problem. Not the court. You got a little orange on your nose, Colliric.

Lmfao at being such an ideological bitch that counting things is somehow more subjective than the opinion of a court, something that is by definition subjective. You absolute fucking tool.

Says the dude who supports stacking the supreme Court and getting rid of or "reforming" the Electoral College system basically so the Democrats can win all the time.

[SpecialOlympian]

You're literally bending yourself into a pretzel to justify having the SCOTUS determine the outcome of a democratic election, because apparently counting things is subjective while the opinion of political appointees you agree with is not, while also saying the SCOTUS should have only 9 judges. A Decorum Bitch argument which is only convenient for you, but is not stated anywhere in the Constitution.

If Biden lost in 2024 you would jerk yourself dry saying the GOP President should stack the SCOTUS from 13 to 25, you weak ass tool. You fucking weak little hypocrite.

Note: I don't actually believe Biden is cool enough to stack the court.

You are a weak little bitch who can't justify their feelings, and you're tying to make me feel bad about your inability to form a cohesive ideology. Fuck off, and take that shit to your psychologist.

And yes, I am totally for eliminating the Electoral College and not allowing dipshits in Chudsville to have their votes count ~1.58 to my single vote. What are you going to say to that? Nothing, because your beliefs are incoherent and based entirely on your feelings. They are based entirely on the belief the system is fair when your feelings are validated.

[pugsville]

I see the same situation as in the year 2000 being highly possible this year. Republican party controls the Supreme Court. And they'll use the 2000 decision as the precedent. Government can't afford to be crippled by continuous recounts.

So thats a yes,. the republican party controls the supreme court.

What if it's trump demanding a recount?

[colliric]

So thats a yes,. the republican party controls the supreme court.

What if it's trump demanding a recount?

Should be a machine recount first, then if needed a manual recount process of the entire state beginning immediately.

Gore(who I supported in 2000) made the mistake of trying to get manual recounts in 4 select counties, when a full recount would have been better.

Trump would no doubt demand a full recount.

[SpecialOlympian]

You're literally arguing against Strong Daddy by saying votes should be counted, which is counter to your previous position of assuming mail in ballots are somehow suspect. You weak, fucking bitch who worships losers who wallow in their own aggrievement even in victory.

Here is the president's personal lawyer drunk as fucking shit on TV:

[SpecialOlympian]

Like lmfao that reactionaries constantly talk about how the media ~isn't fair to them~ while Rudy Giuliani is clearly so fucking drunk. Just incredibly fucking wasted, and isn't called out on it. Literally so drunk that his words are meaningless and he should be referred to an AA chapter rather than being allowed on camera.

But he has the fabled ~Hunter Fuck Tapes~ that will magically cHaNgE tHe ElEcTiOn so every fuck minded idiot has to spring to his defense, and prove that the dumbest man alive is a genius. Lmfao.

Rudy has the fabled laptop, the sword in the stone, that will bring Trump the election. So lets all protect him, lmfao. Conservatism is an empty shell for morons, Haha

[SpecialOlympian]

I can't stop laughing at the president's lawyer being drunk as fuck on TV and all the morons who think he's a genius strong man for whom all laws must be bent to ensure victory with absolute moral certaintude haha

[Rancid]

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe will be monitoring this election. THey have been monitoring US elections for the last 20 years or so.

They monitor elections of various countries, but point out the US is a bit harder because it's effectively like monitoring the elections of 50 countries at the same time.