NY Times Proudly Proclaims America Should be Governed by Mob Rule

[dudmuck]

What did Hillary say about people who refuse to accept the election results?

This.. View attachment 220997

The one time I agreed with Hillary. Couple that with Obama’s “Elections have consequences”. Why don’t the Democrats listen and adhere to the standards and edicts of their leaders?

You could answer that question by understanding those who still think 3 million illegals voted.

Prove they didn't.

Thanks for helping show how people wont accept elections. There is a practical aspect as well: illegals never want to take actions which would attract law enforcement.

• News21, a national investigative reporting project funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, found just 56 cases of noncitizens voting between 2000 and 2011.

• A report by the liberal Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that most cases of noncitizens voting were accidental. "Although there are a few recorded examples in which noncitizens have apparently registered or voted, investigators have concluded that they were likely not aware that doing so was improper," reads the 2007 report.

• In 2012, Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s administration started an effort trying to crack down on noncitizens voting by comparing driver's license data against voter rolls. The Florida Department of State created a list of 182,000 potential noncitizens that had voted. That number was whittled down to 2,700, then to about 200 before the purge was stopped amid criticism that the data was flawed given the number of false positives — including a Brooklyn-born World War II vet. Ultimately, only 85 people were removed from the rolls.

Meanwhile, ProPublica, an investigative journalism project, tweeted that "we had 1,100 people monitoring the vote on Election Day. We saw no evidence the election was ‘rigged’ " and "no evidence that undocumented immigrants voted illegally."

 

[miketx]

What did Hillary say about people who refuse to accept the election results?

This.. View attachment 220997

The one time I agreed with Hillary. Couple that with Obama’s “Elections have consequences”. Why don’t the Democrats listen and adhere to the standards and edicts of their leaders?

You could answer that question by understanding those who still think 3 million illegals voted.

Prove they didn't.

Thanks for helping show how people wont accept elections. There is a practical aspect as well: illegals never want to take actions which would attract law enforcement.

• News21, a national investigative reporting project funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, found just 56 cases of noncitizens voting between 2000 and 2011.

• A report by the liberal Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that most cases of noncitizens voting were accidental. "Although there are a few recorded examples in which noncitizens have apparently registered or voted, investigators have concluded that they were likely not aware that doing so was improper," reads the 2007 report.

• In 2012, Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s administration started an effort trying to crack down on noncitizens voting by comparing driver's license data against voter rolls. The Florida Department of State created a list of 182,000 potential noncitizens that had voted. That number was whittled down to 2,700, then to about 200 before the purge was stopped amid criticism that the data was flawed given the number of false positives — including a Brooklyn-born World War II vet. Ultimately, only 85 people were removed from the rolls.

Meanwhile, ProPublica, an investigative journalism project, tweeted that "we had 1,100 people monitoring the vote on Election Day. We saw no evidence the election was ‘rigged’ " and "no evidence that undocumented immigrants voted illegally."

Oh my, some lying media pukes saw "no evidence"! I am astounded! Non citizens voting were "accidental". Oh my! It's an accident!

 

[dblack]

The NYT is far too cerebral for any Trump supporter to read, so I know all the Trump cult on this board has not read the article. In fact, why does any Trump supporter post a link to a story in the NYT anyway? None of you dullards are going to read it, you get your news in 30 second soundbites from Faux News, Breitbart, and other wingnut, fake news sites.

I'm not a Trump supporter, but I think the article was 180 degrees wrong. We NEED "justices who do not represent the will of the majority". That's one of the key functions of the Court - telling the majority "no" when their ambitions are limited by the Constitution.

 

[whitehall]

The term "lynching" does not necessarily include murder. When a mob tries to ruin the life of an innocent man and his family and the media authorizes and encourages mob violence they are guilty of lynching.

 

[Uncensored2008]

`
While I'm sure you didn't read the entire article (I did) I found the author, Michael Tomasky, logic to be wanting. While I agree that the high court has been rigged with an evangelical, so-called catholic, right winger, I don't agree that SCOTUS should represent a mob, which pretty much sums up the reaction of the far left to Kavanaugh's election.

The ideological make up of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had nothing to do with it's decision.

That is an incredibly ignorant claim.

The divide at that time was not abortion, but slavery. Still the democrats of that time were just as violent and hate filled as democrats today.l The decision was the imposition of democrat will on a legislature that would not pass that sort of law.

 

[odanny]

`
While I'm sure you didn't read the entire article (I did) I found the author, Michael Tomasky, logic to be wanting. While I agree that the high court has been rigged with an evangelical, so-called catholic, right winger, I don't agree that SCOTUS should represent a mob, which pretty much sums up the reaction of the far left to Kavanaugh's election.

The ideological make up of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had nothing to do with it's decision.

That is an incredibly ignorant claim.

The divide at that time was not abortion, but slavery. Still the democrats of that time were just as violent and hate filled as democrats today.l The decision was the imposition of democrat will on a legislature that would not pass that sort of law.

The "democrats of that time" are the REPUBLICANS of today! Perhaps you need to learn some American history from somewhere other than Faux News or Breitbart.

And you have the audacity to say someone said something "incredibly ignorant"….

 

[jc456]

The Article will disappoint the Founding Fathers---who set up a Republic precisely with the intention of avoiding Mob Rule.

Is the person who wrote it a Suck-Ass Liberal Pinhead? Well, he wrote for the NYT so I guess I know the answer to that question.

Who said we've got "mob rule?" That's what you're going to call the left, now, when they protest, huh, "mobs?" Oh, that will bring over a few Independents and Democrats for sure.

What was the purpose of the protests then? Isn’t it, you better not vote against us? Ain’t that mob rule? That’s not a ballot box is it?

 

[jc456]

I watched fake the nation this morning, they all admitted it was a protest against Garland and not ms Ford! Now that’s special!

 

[jc456]

`
While I'm sure you didn't read the entire article (I did) I found the author, Michael Tomasky, logic to be wanting. While I agree that the high court has been rigged with an evangelical, so-called catholic, right winger, I don't agree that SCOTUS should represent a mob, which pretty much sums up the reaction of the far left to Kavanaugh's election.

The ideological make up of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had nothing to do with it's decision.

That is an incredibly ignorant claim.

The divide at that time was not abortion, but slavery. Still the democrats of that time were just as violent and hate filled as democrats today.l The decision was the imposition of democrat will on a legislature that would not pass that sort of law.

The "democrats of that time" are the REPUBLICANS of today! Perhaps you need to learn some American history from somewhere other than Faux News or Breitbart.

And you have the audacity to say someone said something "incredibly ignorant"….

You just did

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

The "democrats of that time" are the REPUBLICANS of today!

HERPADERPADERPITY DERP DERP

Fucking uneducated retard.

So the Antebellum democrats were advocates of limited government? Is that your lie, moron? They advocated strict limits on federal power? Such as they would never allow the federal government to return runaway slaves as that infringed state sovereignty? Is that it you fucking retard? The Antebellum democrats were advocates of individual rights inherent in the constitution? Liberty as the foundation of all things? Is that your claim, you drooling mongoloid idiot?

Perhaps you need to learn some American history from somewhere other than Faux News or Breitbart.

And you have the audacity to say someone said something "incredibly ignorant"….

Perhaps you should have stuck it out all the way through second grade, retard.

 

[OldLady]

The Article will disappoint the Founding Fathers---who set up a Republic precisely with the intention of avoiding Mob Rule.

Is the person who wrote it a Suck-Ass Liberal Pinhead? Well, he wrote for the NYT so I guess I know the answer to that question.

Who said we've got "mob rule?" That's what you're going to call the left, now, when they protest, huh, "mobs?" Oh, that will bring over a few Independents and Democrats for sure.

What was the purpose of the protests then? Isn’t it, you better not vote against us? Ain’t that mob rule? That’s not a ballot box is it?

I know you would prefer everyone just keep their mouths shut and let the Republicans do as they will, but ... hullo .... no, people aren't going to do that, and I do wish you folks would quit whining so much about it. It isn't manly.

 

[dblack]

Who said we've got "mob rule?" That's what you're going to call the left, now, when they protest, huh, "mobs?" Oh, that will bring over a few Independents and Democrats for sure.

"Mob rule" refers to unlimited majority rule. One of the most important purposes of the Court is to deny the majority's will when it steps beyond the Constitution. The author of the article doesn't seem to understand that.

 

[Tilly]

The Article will disappoint the Founding Fathers---who set up a Republic precisely with the intention of avoiding Mob Rule.

Is the person who wrote it a Suck-Ass Liberal Pinhead? Well, he wrote for the NYT so I guess I know the answer to that question.

Who said we've got "mob rule?" That's what you're going to call the left, now, when they protest, huh, "mobs?" Oh, that will bring over a few Independents and Democrats for sure.

Leftards constantly behave like an angry mob when they don’t get their way.
If they don’t want to be viewed as an angry mob, maybe they should quit trying to have innocent men destroyed on the basis of accusations devoid of any evidence and GROW THE HELL UP!

 

[Tilly]

The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Crisis: It’s not about Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged behavior. It’s about justices who do not represent the will of the majority.

I’m sure Dred Scott knows what they’re talking about.

It's was bad then, and it's still bad now. Bart O'Kavanaugh is not only a lying rapist he's also the least popular nominee ever.

Who did he rape?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

The Article will disappoint the Founding Fathers---who set up a Republic precisely with the intention of avoiding Mob Rule.

Is the person who wrote it a Suck-Ass Liberal Pinhead? Well, he wrote for the NYT so I guess I know the answer to that question.

Who said we've got "mob rule?" That's what you're going to call the left, now, when they protest, huh, "mobs?" Oh, that will bring over a few Independents and Democrats for sure.

Why? Who would want to join a screaming mob, except the screaming mob? They look like the idiots they are.

Riots are more likely..........seems the Dems protest riot police and buses to haul off those to jail are needed every time. It is one thing to protest PEACEFULLY and entirely another to use violence as a means for political ends............

Time and time again the left use intimidation and fear tactics on their protests..........when they don't get their way or when they are offended and they try to trample the Freedom of those who speak against them............ANTIFA and BLM being prime examples..........brandishing metal clubs with homemade body armor going to crack heads of those they disagree with............

That isn't a Peaceful Protest................that is an intent to incite violence.

It just depend on how much money the Soros Foundations have set a side to pay for the Riots and which groups they hire.

 

[danielpalos]

we have a Constitution; what could go wrong?

 

[jc456]

The Article will disappoint the Founding Fathers---who set up a Republic precisely with the intention of avoiding Mob Rule.

Is the person who wrote it a Suck-Ass Liberal Pinhead? Well, he wrote for the NYT so I guess I know the answer to that question.

Who said we've got "mob rule?" That's what you're going to call the left, now, when they protest, huh, "mobs?" Oh, that will bring over a few Independents and Democrats for sure.

What was the purpose of the protests then? Isn’t it, you better not vote against us? Ain’t that mob rule? That’s not a ballot box is it?

I know you would prefer everyone just keep their mouths shut and let the Republicans do as they will, but ... hullo .... no, people aren't going to do that, and I do wish you folks would quit whining so much about it. It isn't manly.

I have no issue with protest, I have issue with threats from protest outside the ballot box!
Mob rule is what happened to Flake in the elevator and Manchun in the hall. Shouting people down isn’t protest. It’s mob rule

 

[Uncensored2008]

we have a Constitution; what could go wrong?

 

[jc456]

we have a Constitution; what could go wrong?

Crazy evil people who confront people eating dinner

 

[Uncensored2008]

I know you would prefer everyone just keep their mouths shut and let the Republicans do as they will, but ... hullo .... no, people aren't going to do that, and I do wish you folks would quit whining so much about it. It isn't manly.

Violent thugs in a restaurant screaming at people seated at a table is assault, not protest.

You Nazis are violent thugs - period.