[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1559435267262.png (905.05 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Mayor,_Let's_get_galloping….png) ImgOps Google

Welcome to /townhall/! This is an anonymous-only board for debates, dialectics, and discussions of a serious nature.

As the topics discussed on this board may deal with sensitive or controversial subject matter, we expect a higher standard of conduct than elsewhere on the site, and will enforce the board's rules with a greater degree of strictness. Inability or unwillingness to follow the rules will result in a /townhall/-only ban.


1) All posts in a given thread must contribute constructively to the conversation, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Off-topic, contentless, inflammatory, or hostile posts will be deleted and result in a ban.

1a) Derails that occur as a natural result of discussion progressing from the original subject will generally not be interfered with; however, if these hinder discussion of the original topic, making a new thread is preferred.

1b) Part of contributing constructively is understanding and addressing the reasoning behind an opposing view. While this can be a tedious task and will generally not be officially enforced, please make an effort to at the very least avoid "talking past" someone when presented with a counterargument. Simply doubling down on your initial point does not advance a discussion.

1c) Be as willing to "lose" as you are to "win", and above all else, be willing to learn and understand. You will not get the most out of this board if your only goal is to persuade, and you will not even be effective at that unless you understand what you are arguing against.

2) Ad hominems and other uncivil behavior will not be tolerated. You may have a significant personal stake in some subjects discussed here, and it is normal to be frustrated when someone cannot relate; however, lashing out is not an effective way to engender sympathy for your position, and will not advance the conversation in a constructive way. Even if you find someone's argument morally abhorrent, there are constructive ways to express this.

2a) Attempting to deliberately provoke an uncivil reaction is prohibited, even if it is done within the letter of the law.

2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans.

2c) "Strawmanning" an "opponent" deliberately will be regarded as uncivil conduct and will be dealt with accordingly. This will not apply to genuine misunderstandings.

3) While we do not claim to be arbiters of absolute moral or empirical truth and aim to moderate this board in a fair and even-handed, politically agnostic manner, the following extreme positions are considered "off-limits" regardless of how they are put forward, including attempts to "hint" or dogwhistle:

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1606435173948.jpg (187.29 KB, 732x1211, 732:1211, Minute_Man_Statue_Lexingto….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

The Militia Acts of 1792 required every free able-bodied male citizen of fighting age (with certain exceptions) to equip himself with a musket or rifle and ammo.

Should Congress again exercise its authority (under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16) to require free able-bodied citizens of fighting age to arm themselves?  
3 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


The usual way draft is accomplished isn't actually full time. Instead the draftees go through mandatory training and then are released into the wild, listed as reservists, with only the possibility of an occasional short recall for refresher training. Their equipment may or may not be issued for them to keep at home, this depends on the regulations. Typically it's all kept in the unit, but the Swiss for example do keep it at home. Doing it through the draft system rather than "just make sure you have a gun" ensures standards are kept and doesn't put an extra monetary expense on the people in addition to already requiring their time and effort.

As for these benefits, they have counterpoints:
@1: it also ensures that home invaders will likely themselves be armed, increasing the lethality of any such encounters that do happen. The crime deterring effects aren't actually that obvious, either, especially not in terms of the scale. Besides, using militia regulations meant for deterring an armed invasion deliberately for civilian side effects is an iffy proposition at the best of times.
@2: "might" being a pretty crucial word. Also making it mandatory rather than voluntary makes it a burden and an infringement on freedom (a question of whether it's justified is a separate one to whether it is one) and can therefore also instead foster resentment towards those who put it on you, especially if there's no obvious pressing need for it but it rather being just for some social effects (that are actually controversial, meaning extra resentment in those who believe the effects would actually be bad but get forced into it anyway). Not everybody is mentally equipped to handle it, either, because of various psychological issues (which do not necessarily have to be about guns as such - extreme cases of social anxiety come to mind). I can guarantee the system would roll right over such cases and those people would not fare well in it, and that is even when things go smoothly in the social aspect of the unit which they absolutely won't everywhere.

The big thing for both of those though is they aren't really a need. Lower crime and fostering a community spirit, if this can even reliably deliver them, are nice-to-haves. Mandating this sort of thing isn't free, it's invasive and itrusive and it comes at a cost to purses and freedoms. Until there is such a need tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


>not much of the US military is dedicated to direct defense again invasion of the homeland
The purpose then is to make invaders fight apartment complex to apartment complex to earn the conquest of America.  (I suppose the law would also have to require that landlords allow renters to keep weapons.)

>[if] Congress has the authority to arm disabled persons, then they can included too, to the extent that their disabilities allow.

The armed forces of another nation overtaking the largest military power in the world to land on American soil and subdue the population by force seems...a remote threat.  Never, of course, impossible, but I don't feel strongly for the need for a militia based on what I know so far.  True, I'm not privileged to the plans of competitor nations.


Isn't it an explicit violation of the 1st Amendment both in the letter of the law and in the spirit of the law to force religiously active Americans against their will to participate in either killing or preparation for killing when they view all that as inherently immoral?


File: 1603297801323.png (314.28 KB, 968x313, 968:313, Missing-Parents-NPR-Story.png) ImgOps Google

What should happen to infants, toddlers, and other kids who show up at the U.S. and Mexico border?

Is it ethically just as well as practical to punish them along with their parents if it turns out that their refugee statuses are invalid?

What if they show up unaccompanied, with that possibly changing matters?

What if they show up needing medical treatment or otherwise being in a state in which merely leaving them alone is questionable?
24 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



Inflation is the result of printing more money, not from people raising prices for things.

Which isn't to say people won't raise prices, that just seems important to clarify.


Isn't it technically the result of there being more money in circulation, rather than a straight up printing of more money? Giving it to people who will actually spend it instead of hoarding it does seem like it would raise the inflation somewhat. It's a different question as to whether this tradeoff is worth it (I'd say yes), but some inflation should actually be expected. I estimate not enough of it to offset the gains the minimum wage workers would personally see from getting a higher pay, but it's a different question yet again.



I guess the question becomes: Where is the extra money for the minimum wage increase coming from? I would say the idea answer would be it's coming from the scrooge-mcduck style hoards of money that the higher-up employers hoard away, but realistically speaking, that's not going to be the first choice of said scrooge-mcducks.

I think the bigger problem is the shareholder mindset of entitlement to unlimited growth. It's an absurd expectation, one that actually isn't physically possible on the macro level, and yet it's expected, and there's legal consequences to not following through on that. The natural consequence is that companies squeeze and squeeze until they implode, and one of the ways they squeeze is to get as close to reduce wages.

It's all absurd, but those who buy into the absurdity have all the power, so here we are.


File: 1605744308043.png (89.61 KB, 599x304, 599:304, Screenshot from 2020-11-18….png) ImgOps Google

What options does the American Federal Government have if the state's electors are considered invalid in their selection of the next President?

Much of partisan politics is commonplace, but this would seem to be new territory for the American Republic.  Or is this all just hyperbole and everything stays the same?
17 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



>So?  George Washington called forth the militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

That's also really bad.  He kind of went and fucked up a bunch of farmers.


If we do come to a civil war, is it really such a safe assumption that the U.S. military will automatically side with the executive branch against the people?

If we really do have somebody like a President Steve Bannon or a President Richard Spencer or the like who attempts to make alive the dream of a 'White Christian American Homeland', ordering the military to destroy every Mosque and Synagogue on American soil to say the least, wouldn't something like half if not more of the military refuse?

To put it down to brass tacks, wouldn't a significant number of current soldiers have grandparents who fought in WWII and go through a mental process like "Holy hell, granddad liberated Dachau, what would he think of me patrolling the streets for terrified Jewish-American kids?"


There's a widespread belief in the exceptionalism of the American military, that unlike some European forces in the last century or even soldiers in American campaigns against Native Americans, modern American military members can be relied on to defy unlawful or unethical orders.


File: 1605851412878.jpg (388.48 KB, 800x1156, 200:289, 1451527874348.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Maybe you get a higher good when there is an opposition between good and evil.
>Maybe the good you get when good and evil are both possibilities is a higher good than the good you get with just good.
Any thoughts on this?
5 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


You probably should have laid out what "the problem of evil" is for people who may not be aware. Basically, it's this:

God is said to be omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing) and omnibenevolence (all-good).

An all-powerful being would have the power to eradicate evil.

An all-knowing being would know how to eradicate evil.

An all-good being would wish to eradicate evil.

Evil exists. Therefore, God cannot be all three of those things at once.


This might be unfair, I suppose, but given that Peterson is somebody with a reputation for being misleading to the point of maybe outright lying and/or trolling, what makes his opinions on an ancient philosophical debate that's never been even close to solved relevant?


I'm not sure I'd agree with characterising it as "never been even close to solved". The solution is obvious and has been standing for thousands of years ever since Epicurus and it's the one in the last line here: >>8121 (more or less, some form of "evil does not exist" is the other option). What hasn't been solved is the problem of finwangjangling the logic to successfully arrive at an answer fully in line with the preferences of folks who really want their omnigod, but that one will never see a solution. The logic is simply too straightforward to do anything but sow rhetorical confusion and hope to sneak a shoddy logical element through under its cover. Which, honestly, sounds exactly like Peterson's MO so there's the connection I guess.


File: 1605105738250.jpg (11.22 KB, 225x224, 225:224, download (27).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Honestly, this thread may seem like an old man's rant on the times of today and I don't even know if I have the drive to engage in a serious discourse on this, but I do want to vent my thoughts on this matter somewhat.

So I was reading the news and there was an article where they were looking for a young man who approached a young woman for sexual favours in exchange for money. She turned him down a few times but he would have pressured her to follow him into a fast food joint - bathrooms and there she would have performed sexual favours on him. It was to be classified as rape, as this was under pressure and the woman had some mental disabilities. She herself has come out to her attendants and clearly wasn't consensual in the act.

So reading some comments on the article, I did find people ask "why didn't she just leave?" It bothers me that that is exactly what the man will claim and what might be his ticket to getting away with this. He was just offering money for sex, she agreed. he paid her and now why is she saying he raped her?
Which falls under that old victim blaming. It was pointed out that she was mentally challenged, to have the mind of a younger child, so she didn't know any better. personally, I think that when being pressured you always put someone in a hard place. If you refuse and they turn away, you can just go on with your day. but if they stand over you, plead, maybe threaten or hide their intentions with different requests... you're also getting intimidated by the others insistence and you do get set up with the fear of what will happen if you don't comply, especially if threats are involved.
Anxiety and discomfort will simply put you in the mind that if you comply, then maybe it will just be over and you can live on safely again...

Anyways, I do find some point where I have problems with this and where I feel this is an issue with society overall as well. What is it with men like these who simply approach a woman and haggle over sexual favours like that out of the blue. To me that's as if sexual intimidation has become such a normalcy in society that to some it becomes a legit means of getting off. If you're out dating with someone online , or meet some woman at the club and you pop up the option of having sex, I can sort of understand. Or if you meet a woman in public, chat up and exchange contact to be followed up by the possibility of sex on one of the following dates.
But simply approaching somePost too long. Click here to view the full text.
39 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



These are good points. It would be good to really hone in on the authorities/enforcers of these stereotypes and tell them to fuck off.

I don't think that solves the issue of why a woman would date a guy for free when she could charge him, tho. That just doesn't make economic sense. If we're being super optimistic, maybe enough women would have enough lust for men that the whole thing would supply/demand itself out. I do think that's being unrealistically optimistic, though.


Haven't we gotten further with those in the last 200 years though? Seems we've seen little to no improvement in terms of womens' boldness as a result... Wouldn't that suggest we'd have the same problems regardless of how much we aleviate the stigma of being a "slut"? Otherwise you'd think we'd be farther along than in salem times, but in a practical sense, how far have we actually come since then? It's literally never existed, human women being sexually proactive on the macro-level, i mean. Why would a few social changes now flip the record of human history? Seems a bit self-aggrandizing of us, no?


We as a society have evolved from "Women perceived as 'sluts' are burned to death" to "Women perceived as 'sluts' are fired from their jobs or otherwise not hired in the first place, not promoted, not given adequate benefits, et cetera plus are kicked out of their homes plus are forced out of their social communities plus... it goes on". Progress? Yes, of course, and it's wonderful.

That doesn't change the fact that authoritarian sexual morality still contaminates U.S. social life the same way that, say, horrendous smog used to cover England. No one individual or institution is solely to blame. Yet it's still an active problem nonetheless.

To be honest, I'm rather exasperated with you still relying on that gender stereotype that women aren't into sex but men are as the be-all-and-end-all here. If the stereotype was encoded to our DNA and inescapable, say, then why the hell would be need cliques that the American Catholic Church that work their hardest day-in and day-out to make sure that those who defy traditional sexual morality suffer as much as possible?v If it was in our DNA, why would there need to be enforcers of those stereotypes? They're pretty solidly cultural, I think.

When it comes to biology, a lot of statistical associations are true. Men are generally taller than women. Men generally perspire more. Men generally weigh more. And so on.

Yet none of those extremely broad generalizations really apply when you're looking at individual circumstances and small group circumstances. Not only is it not difficult to find a sweaty, tall woman with a full-figure, but they might as well grow on trees. With sex, well, you're just flatly wrong. Women who enjoy sex a great deal exist in very large numbers. It might very well be true (I've yet to see concrete scientific evidence on the subject) that mens' libidos are so much different than womens' generally that a statistical gap exists that can be measured noticeably. Maybe. That still doesn't change things for the individual and the small group.


File: 1602908688125.jpg (409.17 KB, 1332x1532, 333:383, 1602715851324.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Will the Hunter Biden laptop leak have much influence on the election?
29 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I'm just curious. I remember Carlson saying he would have damning evidence "tomorrow". I have no trust of Carlson but Hunter and Joe are also sus as fuck. It seemed excessively convenient that he'd just randomly forget a stack of government laptops at a computer repair store that apparently has a policy of picking through the emails of their clients with a fine tooth comb and handing over anything suspicious to the National Enquirer.

But stranger things happen and it's also entirely possible that the cliffnotes version of events looks far more suspicious than it is. Discrediting an unexpected source in the national narrative isn't too difficult.


Tucker Carlson claims the "evidence" was lost by his editor. Which is like one step above "my dog ate it."



1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


Hmm...Trump may be slowly accepting his defeat, regrouping to run again in 2024.  Normally a state contradicting the federal government would be disrespectful, but I don't think Trump has the power to punish states for not being as fraudulent as required for a Trump victory.  Disrespect is only legitimate when an authority has the power to punish people for it.


>It's pretty clear that all of these legal actions seem frivilous.
Last I heard, Trump lost 32 cases and won only 2 cases.  The Republicans will likely win the Pennsylvania case pending before the US Supreme Court if the Court decides the case on the merits. (However, the number of ballots affected is much less than Biden's margin of victory, so it won't make a difference in who wins PA.)


>Normally a state contradicting the federal government would be disrespectful
I disagree.  States are independent sovereign entities; they are not subordinate to the federal government.  E.g., Congress lacks the authority to pass a law commanding state law-enforcement officers to perform specific actions.  Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States


If rule of law is preferred by an authority, one can expect bounds to their power.  But as well, the Supreme Court is a federal institution, in this case allowing states some prerogative in law enforcement.

As I understand, American states are sovereign and subordinate.  At least, states that saw it otherwise were corrected by force during the American Civil War.


We have a new President who cares if i and people i care about live or die and even if we live well or suffer.

AND a preliminary statement i heard has 5 Justices including new Kavanaugh stating that the ACA's stricken mandate is severable and the rest will stand.

This lifts a major burden because people who work can get cheap medical now and on public minimum-standard-of-care i can get all the holes i need drilled and filled and before ACA neither of these things were true and i'm dancing in the streets not because anyone lost but because i and many others get to be a cared-for firstworld person and not a decaying animal.  This was a very real threat to my world on every level.  

What good thing do recent events mean to you?

Those who are unhappy, im sorry for your loss but this thread is only for positive things.  You will also be cared for and you can take ypur laments to your /townhall where the denizens of this site deem they belong.

Now.  Whos a silly pony?  Im a silly pony.  Youre a silly pony.  Whos a silly pony APPLEJACK la la la

happy things please.  silly ponies
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1605398397512.png (26.24 KB, 308x479, 308:479, Screenshot from 2020-11-14….png) ImgOps Google

Hmm...my love for humans means I understand all state subjugation -- whether Nazi totalitarianism or Plato's Republic -- as appropriate and just, so I am not to celebrate or lament any changes in state power for their sake; they are always loved.

>What good thing do recent events mean to you?

However, my kind usually prefers words to mean things scientific.  I do not feel entitled to clarity, of course, but President Trump mostly doesn't care for this kind of communication -- Tweets are short strings to annoy his opposition and please his followers, not to be taken literally or well-connected logically.  That's his right, and all politicians will do this to a degree, but perhaps others will do it less.


Well, long time no see Flower.

Hope u r well.


I, of course, am not authorized to know what Flower and lp represent.  I hope are you well, OP.  Slendid Llama is overworked, but alive.


File: 1604629349829.png (198.86 KB, 1513x983, 1513:983, US_counties_by_population_….png) ImgOps Google

Every election at least one person will bring up the idea of Democracy.  America, of course, is not a Democracy, it's a Republic.  There were legacy reasons for America not electing the President directly -- difficulty of tabulating a popular vote, belief that electors or state legislatures should use discretion, compromises between large and small states required to form the union, but now it seems that the most relevant remaining argument is that land surrounding a person should have sway in elections, or put another way rural areas should not be held hostage to population centers.  Is this a good political argument for Republican Presidential elections?  Is there a better one I'm missing?  Or do you favor Democracy instead?
15 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Land may not be legitimately owned as property?  That seems to be an uncommon view, although I suppose it is somewhat affirmed by the existence of some public land.  I doubt I quite understand, though.


I think that they mean that most developed nations were build on conquest/colonization, and thus was originally stolen from the indigenous peoples of that land. This is certainly true of much of North America, and many of the UK's territories.


I think it is true that if you traced the lineage of title (or the idea of ownership or tribal/clan occupation before formal titles) of any given acre of land, excepting remote wastelands, you would find at least one transfer of ownership due to armed conquest or dominating coercion.  If titles must be clean from the first claim to the last, most ownership is problematic.


File: 1605305286065.png (327.59 KB, 1480x1556, 370:389, 6b2.png) ImgOps Google

How much of an impact do you think COVID-19 (and especially Trump's response to it) had on the presidential election?  Would Trump have won but for his poor handling of the pandemic?
27 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Biden? Yes, he's unlike that completely. Not sure if it's right to see Biden as the norm and Trump as the exception, though. There's a lot of continuity from what Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush did in terms of using state power to crush perceived enemies, say, compared to Trump.


I'm noticing a pattern here. All those people you mentioned were Republicans.


File: 1605569405551.png (573.28 KB, 683x1024, 683:1024, large.png) ImgOps Google

I...live in a sorta blue place politically.  People complain at lot about Trump's responses to COVID.

>poor handling of the pandemic

But I do see more broadly some feel the use of state power in the interest of public health is bad.  Some feel state impotence in allowing COVID to spread or lack of preparation for treatment is bad.  So, how do you judge the state's handling of the pandemic in a general American way, except perhaps to say: if you like Trump, he did a great job; otherwise not.  Suppose it's really the edge cases that matter -- people (unicorns?) not strongly for or against Trump, and those cases are harder to comment on.


File: 1603410516980.png (6.38 KB, 250x250, 1:1, okay-to-be-white-or-any-ra….png) ImgOps Google

A while ago, there was controversy related to the posting of signs that read "It's okay to be white".  At the time, I was completely baffled by accusations that sign was racist.  But now I have a theory.  Were those who were offended by the signs employing an interpretive principle such as expressio unius est exclusio alterius to read the signs as suggesting that it's not okay to be non-white?  E.g., would a message like pic related be considered by them to be inoffensive?

(I assume that most people who found the signs to be innocuous interpreted them simply as a rejection of anti-white claims such as "All white people are racist by virtue of being white" or "White people alive today are guilty for slavery imposed by earlier generations of white people".)
67 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Yep, it's the thing I'm talking about is a wider phenomenon which inclues it. It's actually pretty much this in fact: >>8033

I don't think you read the "no parking" example right. The hours it's pointing to are in the daytime, nighttime is the time it's not mentioning. But anyway, given that I'm explicitly not arguing how things should be but how they are, the mismatch with your explicitly saying you're not arguing how things are but how things should be kind of leaves no point in a discussion. It's literally perfect complements. There's plenty I'd disagree with anyway in what you wrote in this section, but since we're again seeing the explosion of ><><><>< here I think that's a good reason to cut it there in the interest of nipping it in the bud. If you want me to respond to it anyway, please try to narrow it down to some fragment or otherwise collate it somehow. Instead, onto the examples.


The point of asking you about the symbols was to establish whether you completely reject using context to inform your readings or not. It seems now we agree after all that the context is important for the reading of the message, even if you focused on "it's fine" vs "it's not". Okay, so what makes symbols special where they get to have that but text doesn't, with the text requiring the use of literal reading only? What of text in another language? Imagine a local Chinese mafia is using these symbols: 鸡块. Do you consider a guy more likely to be one such triad when you see he has those symbols tattooed? Should we start to discard such information once we learn that these symbols are actually legitimately text, text whose literal reading isn't "triad member" but "chicken nugget"?


What's the hypocrisy that the sign has shown in its opponents? I don't see it. Interpreting things in the worst possible light (regardless of whether that's actually what happened or not, since it's a side discussion of its own) isn't hypocrisy? As for your example of ice cream rage guy, my answer is "it depends". Why is the guy punchy? Some possibilities:
1. Let's say he's gotPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


>Someone will always be offended by something. I don't think it's realistic to idiot proof every single thing you say.
Here's a good example of how to clarify to avoid misinterpretations:

(from 21:41 to 22:33)

Notice that he specifically disclaims implications that people might otherwise infer from his statement.


>It's true that it's impractical to ward off every possible misinterpretation.  But if you realize that a large percentage of people might misinterpret your message, it's probably best to clarify it.

Yes, this is utterly correct.

Seconding in the strongest possible sense.

Suppose I walk up to a place with a large sign that says "The Rapists Here" and ask what the hell is going on only for somebody to say "This is a psychological counseling center, with our message meant to be 'Therapists Here'.". It's completely right to call them out and tell them that they should think about the consequences of their actions. Give reasonable criticism.

 No.7506[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1604366786177.png (82.41 KB, 989x723, 989:723, 2020Prediction.PNG) ImgOps Google

I bet I'm right.

454 posts and 73 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>I think it's difficult

Yeah, I can see that it's difficult.  Getting rights for black people has always been difficult.  It's like 200+ years of difficulty over here.


Yeah, unfortunately we can't really police (pun intended) who shows up to a protest, and people of all walks will gladly take advantage of the chaos to do whatever thye feel like.  In a sense I'm actually opposed to protesting, I just feel like it hurts a movement more than it helps.  That's a whole different topic, though.

>You can't just go to the 1/3 to 1/10 of Americans that are bigots and say "Fuck off!" and expect that that's the end of that

Certainly not, no.  Telling them that we disagree is merely the first step.  It's after that when we have to try to wrestle power away from them.


Eh, I think you can at least police your own to some extent, even with the most simple of actions just condemning the violence, and of course physically stopping, documenting, reporting,  all go a ways to help.
As is,  it seems like nothing is being done.

I don't disagree with you in regards to the effect of protests. I don't think they typically build much support. Though they might still work well at lest for getting publicity from media types.
The people you're going to interact with, though, aren't likely to be swayed and are more likely I think to become bitter to your cause


File: 1605281095904.jpg (1.05 MB, 5184x3456, 3:2, Wikicheese_-_Roquefort_-_2….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Any more than you'd be happy with me giving you a stick of cheese that's 25% mold and going "eat this".
Roquefort has entered the chat.


In one Michigan county, it was allegedly discovered that the counting software was miscounted some Trump votes as Biden counts.

They recounted the votes by hand and found that about 6,000 votes were miscounted by the software for that county.

47 other counties in Michigan use the same counting software, meaning there were potentially 200,000 miscounted votes in Michigan, which would flip the state.

If the software is used in other states, then those ballots will also need to be recounted, and could likely flip those states which are only Biden by a few tens of thousands of votes.

However, there are, understandably, many doubts about these claims, and it is highly likely that any ballots counted with this software will be recounted by hand, which will reveal if in fact there had been a software issue.

There have also been incidents of counting areas being blocked from the view of the count auditing witnesses in some areas, for reasons unknown.

It's looking like the 2000 election all over again (where Gore was called the winner for an entire month before the recount discovered Bush had won Florida), except on a much larger scale with many more states.

So even if Biden is the real winner of the election, Trump is going to push hard for hand recounts, and the election results won't be official until those are finished.


This is probably a dumb question, but from what I understand, what really matters is the voting of electors on Dec. 14.  Do electors have to vote based on vote counts?  How does it work if votes are not satisfactorily counted by then?


File: 1604800469951.jpg (25.44 KB, 380x470, 38:47, 1501124250049.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>what really matters is the voting of electors on Dec. 14.

>Do electors have to vote based on vote counts?
Depends on the state.  In Chiafalo v. Washington (2020), the Supreme Court held that "A State may enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee—and the state voters' choice—for President".

>How does it work if votes are not satisfactorily counted by then?
Again, varies by state.


Trump is going to try and delay the inevitable, no doubt. But Biden's lead is looking to be so big I'm not sure it will matter. It's being reported that those around Trump are trying to make him aware of this.

That said >>7539 can wait until January 20th to eat his MAGA hat.


File: 1603860721022.jpg (241.67 KB, 750x881, 750:881, fdr-baseball-scotus.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

"Biden's Proposed Bipartisan Commission on Court Reform Could be a Hopeful Sign for Opponents of Court-Packing"
>... this new promise to create a "national commission" seems mostly like a way to make the question go away. It's a tried and true political strategy: punt a controversial issue to a panel of supposed experts to make it look like you're doing something. As a longtime creature of the U.S. Senate—which isn't called the "world's most deliberative body" for nothing—Biden understands the value of doing nothing while looking like you might do something someday.
19 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1604267050313.jpg (23.81 KB, 203x216, 203:216, 1440270532397.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Well, then rather than calling it "Supreme Court", you should call it "Supreme Legislature".  And I would disagree with a doubly indirect method of altering the fundamental fabric of the Republic.  Such alterations should need to be approved either directly by the people or via only one layer of indirection (the people's elected representatives).



Perhaps, sure.  My reasoning here is that the actual Legistlative branch is a bit more open to minorities, as was mentioned, and while I think minorities should have an important position in law making, they won't necessarily have a complete knowledge of law history.

This third branch, regardless of what we call it, should be one that does absolutely require a healthy background in law and law history, for the purpose of determining exactly what was meant and intended not just by our constitution but by any laws enacted since then, such that they'll be able to write down and set precedents based on this.

I would say this is most similar to what we currently call the Supreme Court, but not necessarily the same thing.


File: 1604272884894.jpg (189.72 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 1434763360160.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Although major Constitutional rulings get the most press, a lot of the Supreme Court's work is ordinary judicial work interpreting federal statutes.  (E.g., Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission (2020) dealt with 15 U.S. Code §78u(d)(5).  The Court held: "A disgorgement award that does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims is equitable relief permissible under §78u(d)(5)".)  In such cases, Congress can effectively overrule the Supreme Court (but only prospectively, not retrospectively) by altering the statute at question.  And furthermore, the questions are often rather technical, and don't really involve any consideration for minorities.  What is desirable there is simply highly competent jurists.  So I'd say that we still need an institution like the Supreme Court to resolve splits between federal circuits and especially splits between state supreme courts and co-territorial federal circuits.

Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]