Amy Coney Barrett

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by sculptor, Sep 25, 2020.

  1. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,797
    I watched an interview recently with former CIA Director, John Brennan, who stated that although the CIA and FBI don't get involved in the political arena, they will all do their very best to make sure this upcoming election does NOT fall to corruption from the Republicans. In other words, they will do their best to not allow Trump and his goons to steal the election.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,065
    Brennan/Trump
    Take it with a grain of salt.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,797
    What does that even mean?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,065
    Brennan ain't unbiased.
    and
    If he said what you think he said
    He may be unhinged.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2020
  8. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,797
    You're free to substantiate that claim, of course, considering that would probably make every director and every agent of the CIA and FBI, unhinged and biased.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,192
    This may be topical;

    (warning crude language)
     
    foghorn likes this.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,626
    Not as unhinged as someone who thinks we can't set up an honest election with secret ballots in the US. We've been doing it routinely for centuries.
     
  11. candy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    868
    There have been questions about a number of elections. 2000 was the most recent.
     
  12. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,797
    There was no question about the 2016 election, Trump lost by over 3 million votes, but once again, the GOP used the electoral college to get elected, which they have used in the past to get elected. In other words, more people in America did NOT want the GOP to get elected, yet they did.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,817
    Indeed. And 2000 was controversial because of in-person ballots. Mail-in would have been an improvement.
     
    candy likes this.
  14. candy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    868
    I like that we now have the vote by mail option in PA. It has not been without problems. The lawsuit to get the greens off the ballot delayed printing the ballots. I understand the Pittsburgh area has sent the wrong ballots to some people. Hopefully there is time to fix that. The firm my county contracted to do the job listed the ballots as mailed on the 3rd but never mailed them until the 10th. It has finally arrived.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,626
    The election of 2000 is no longer (in the reality based world) controversial - Gore took Florida and won the electoral as well as popular vote, the Supreme Court debased itself by taking a Partisan side - both tactically (in scheduling etc) and ideologically (in over-ruling a valid and legitimate Florida Court decision).

    On the topic of "packing": We are looking at the confirmation of the third Supreme Court Justice who worked for the Republican Party in that one now universally derided 2000 legal mess - the Partisan legal team from that one Partisan and legally dubious case (people have suggested disbarring some of the lawyers involved) has staffed a third of the United States Supreme Court.

    2004 and 2016 were also reversible on the evidence (2016 certainly, 2004 probable) if accurately counted and vote suppression prosecuted. (Kerry probably "wins" the electoral vote, Clinton pretty much landslides - the popular vote by 4 or 5 million, the electoral college reflecting that.)

    That's nationally, a cumulative product of the individual Republican-governed States suppressing the vote under a variety of dishonest pretensions, threats, and bribes. It is one of the ordinary and characteristic features of fascist government - the necessity of holding an election as part of the theater of legitimacy, the necessity of preventing an election from registering the majority will or allowing it access to power (fascist governance being by consequence and physical necessity governance by a minority faction - parasitic, therefore smaller, like all criminal familias).

    At my State level the holding and vetting of reasonably, statistically, and apparently, honest elections has been routine since WWII at the latest. Since US elections are run by the States, any other State could imitate this one (Minnesota) or another of the more honest ones - they would need to replace their current administrations with non-Republicans, of course.

    It's the counting, not the voting, that identifies democratic representative governance.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,626
    Extrapolating from the pattern displayed in every single one of the past twenty five US elections: If you keep track, you will find that a statistically significant majority of such "mistakes" were made by Republican Party supporters and benefit the Republican candidate in the campaign most affected. The major media will discuss that pattern within a frame of "bothsides", deride what they will describe as "conspiracy theories", and come to no conclusions or even straightforward descriptions of the sources of these "mistakes".
     

Share This Page