US Politics Thread 2021-24

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Judgement day approaching

Will USA survive 4 years with one of these two candidates ?
Or
Will USA flourish during these 4 years with one of these two candidates ?

Markus

The USA survived under Trump and will again. For Harris, it will be 4 more years of the same or worse IMO. She is a far far left progressive. The citizens are not better off under Biden. Harris said she would not change a thing Biden has done. That should tell you enough.

[les green01]

her 4 years of same open border the whole 9 yards him 4 years of mean tweets and watching don but his foot in his mouth better off under him and gets some laughs or laughing at the morons blowing everything he says up and away

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Good, I never thought Hitler was as bad as that

"Thank you" from Germany
Lol

[AVGWarhawk]

Nothing like clingy, deplorable garbage!


See a pattern here? The dems sure don't.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

She is far far left progressive.

Only if your scale ends at the dead center.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

Only if your scale ends at the dead center.

Where does yours end?

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by u crank

Where does yours end?

Like most Europeans: mine ends with true left and true right. Harris would barely manage to fall into the social democrat category in Europe (and the rest of the world...), and the Democrats at a whole are left leaning centrists at best.


But yeah, if you cut of the scale at the center and erase anything left of it Harris would certainly appear to be far far left...

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

Like most Europeans: mine ends with true left and true right. Harris would barely manage to fall into the social democrat category in Europe (and the rest of the world...), and the Democrats at a whole are left leaning centrists at best.


But yeah, if you cut of the scale at the center and erase anything left of it Harris would certainly appear to be far far left...

Kamala Harris' voting record when she was a Senator was to the left of Bernie Sanders. In the US that makes her a far lefty. Americans are not going to use the European standard to determine her political stance. Almost all of her positions are well to the left.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by u crank

Kamala Harris' voting record when she was a Senator was to the left of Bernie Sanders. In the US that makes her a far lefty. Americans are not going to use the European standard to determine her political stance. Almost all of her positions are well to the left.

Harris' voting record makes Bernie look like a Reagan republican.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Wasn't it Vance who compared Trump to Hitler first?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/jd-...es-2024-07-15/

He did. But then he saw the light.

[vienna]

This whole "voter fraud" issue has grown tiresome; there is absolutely no verifiable proof of any massive voter fraud and there has been no one who has been able to prove rampant voter fraud, under the existing systems in the various states, is a problem that in any way invalidates the process(es); I recall one member on this thread who made the blunt statement statement that 'millions of illegal aliens" had cast votes in the last Presidential election; I was tempted to call him on his claim and make him prove it, but I figured all the response I would get would be something along the line of "What about Hunter Biden!?!" or some such other nonsense or, most probably no response at all; it is, indeed, rather curious how silent those who make such ridiculous claims become mute when challenged...


Here are some articles detailing the background of supposed fraud in the election process(es):


Caltech Science Exchange / Topics / Voting and Elections / Voting by Mail
How Does Voting by Mail Work? --

https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/...-mail-security


Fraud is rare in U.S. mail-in voting. Here are the methods that prevent it --

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...idUSKBN2482SA/


How are mail-in and absentee ballots verified? --

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midt...513e7c9e2f7509


For an authoritative and comprehensive overview and description of the mail-in ballot process(es), this link is for a web page published by The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL); why is this an authoritative link? Well, perhaps, the self-description of the NCSL gives credence:

The National Conference of State Legislatures, created by state legislators and legislative staff in 1975, serves America’s 50 states, commonwealths, territories and the District of Columbia. Every state legislator and staffer is a member of the organization and has complete access to the latest in bipartisan policy research, training resources and technical assistance tailored specifically to their needs. And, NCSL offers members a variety of opportunities to connect and collaborate, notably at its signature event, the NCSL Legislative Summit.

Seems to me their take on mail-in ballots should be damn near to irrefutable...


Voting Outside the Polling Place: Absentee, All-Mail and Other Voting at Home Options --

https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-c...-polling-place


Now, about verifying signatures; this link shows how the State of California mandates the verification process:


Signature Verification, Ballot Processing, and Ballot Counting (Emergency Regulations) --

https://www.sos.ca.gov/administratio...cy-regulations


From the NCSL, here is a table of each state's verification process(es):


Table 14: How States Verify Voted Absentee/Mail Ballots --

https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-c...e-mail-ballots


...and, from The Bipartisan Policy Center, this:


Mail Voting is Safe and Secure --

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/...s-safe-secure/


Now, I've posted a goodly range of backup for my stance and, in the interest of fairness, it is expected that those who espouse a contrary view should, and will, provide similarly authoritative sources for their argument(s); I'm not talking 'op-ed' pieces or YT talking heads or Faux News spokesholes gassing on about 'might've, could've, would've' theories about fraud in the voting process(es); if you're gonna claim "massive fraud", then show us the verifiable facts to back it up; c'mon, don't be shy - it's ante up time...


One main thing to consider, and its just common sense and logic: this upcoming election is going to be even more scrutinized and monitored than the last election in 2020; does any rational, thinking person actually believe any state or county election official is going to be so slack, while under the microscope, as to allow the process they oversee to fail at a level that would jeopardize the out come of the election? Does anyone seriously think that any state or county official wants to forever known as the one who bollocks up the vote count? The scrutiny alone fairly guarantees the officials are going to be giving their best (bestest) efforts come Election Day; anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves...


I voted a couple of weeks ago by dropping off my ballot in an official ballot collection box outside my local library; I signed up for email notifications on the progress of my ballot, and it was duly received, logged and processed, and is just awaiting Election Day to be officially counted: I voted for Harris, not because I particularly like her, but because the prospect of another four years of the chaos and incompetence of the Big Orange Baby Huey and his cohorts is really not very appealing as away forward for this country...

When a sitting President runs for re-election, the votes cast are a sort of 'performance evaluation' of that President and the confidence the voters have of the POTUS' efforts; its sort of like the job/performance evaluations a lot of us experience in our workplaces; raises, promotions, etc., all hinge on that evaluation; when Trump went up for re-election, the voters looked back at the near four years Trump occupied the Oval Office, considered his performance, and sacked him; he has only himself to blame for that...

...not that he will ever man up and accept blame for anything he does...




<O>

[mapuc]

Said it before-With so many million voters there will always be some, on both side, who will try to cheat.

Markus

[vienna]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Said it before-With so many million voters there will always be some, on both side, who will try to cheat.

Markus

That is indeed true: however, it is also true that the existing election laws and processes have been more than able to detect and stop those who seek to 'game' the system; one thing little noted about all those who bring up supposed cases of "massive voter fraud" by citing singular, isolated examples of voting irregularities and attempted fraud is that their "proof" exemplars exist because the flaws were detected and stopped by the checks and safeguards already in existence; when the news reports some sort of situation like, say, illegal registrations, the news got their info from the voting officials who are reporting on such situations as part of their normal course of duties; illegally registering doesn't mean those individuals actually got the opportunity to vote because they were caught and removed from the process; likewise with the news about dead people on the election rolls or other such things; in all those cases, there really isn't a vote cast because the system really does its best to weed out the frauds; is it 100% perfect? No, nothing as massive as an election is absolutely perfect; but the fact that in cases cited about voter fraud, the overwhelming fact is that the number of frauds in almost nil when you consider millions of votes are cast and only a handful of frauds are recorded; now, if someone has real, verifiable proof of an actual vote result being over turned by massive voter fraud, or even, the existence of massive voter fraud, please, do come forward and enlighten us poor, bedarkened souls...


Wait, what's that you just said? "Hunter Biden...?"...




<O>

[Gorpet]

Originally Posted by Skybird

[FOCUS] A German expert has weighed in on the debate surrounding US presidential candidate Donald Trump's possible dementia shortly before the election on November 5. Trump is showing clear signs of frontotemporal dementia, Hamburg-based behavioral neurologist Wido Nager told RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland (RND). Nager is a private lecturer and court expert and was previously the neurological head of the dementia outpatient clinic at Hanover Medical School for many years. “Dementia is all too often associated, both in the USA and here in Germany, with memory disorders that are already dominant at the beginning,” said Nager. Frontotemporal dementia, on the other hand, manifests itself differently at an earlier stage, particularly through increasingly disinhibited behavior away from social norms. Due to a lack of own examinations, no one can officially pronounce a diagnosis. However, the signs that Trump is showing in this respect are now textbook.
Last week, more than 200 doctors in the USA expressed doubts about Trump's mental health in an open letter. The debate came to a head when Trump recently commented on the size of a deceased celebrity golfer's genitals, made increasingly incoherent statements at events, insulted his rival Kamala Harris in fecal language and interrupted a question-and-answer session to give an unexpected dance interlude to his favorite music for 37 minutes. Nager said that Trump was in an extremely difficult situation that you couldn't wish on anyone. The 78-year-old actually urgently needs the best possible diagnosis and treatment, but at the same time his resistance to advice is growing, especially in this phase of his illness.

Harry Segal, a lecturer at Cornell University's psychology department, expressed a similar view to Nager last week. In the USA, there has recently been a growing willingness to highlight psychiatric aspects in election campaigns. For decades, the so-called Goldwater Rule from the 1960s put the brakes on debates of this kind.
-------------
I know this described syndrome. Its well-known and well-documented in literature. Its no propagandsitsic mumbo-jumbo.

And already during Trumps first term I pointed at the imo all too obvious indices revealing his underlying psychopathic, anti-social personality disorder, meaning a psychiatrically relevant condition by that.

And I recall from these years that I think a nice of his, a studied clinical psychologist as well if I recall correctly, also gave descriptions of her uncle in this direction, quoting the destructive relation of his to his father as the reason for his derailed personality today.

None of these new assessments surprises me, therefore.

And heck, that old sack is OLD. Old, dont you see...? Old.

Well, the Democrats had to take Joe Biden out.Look they could only run this crook for so long.He was a good party member and played his part.And if the party wants to survive, Joe's gotta go. Now the party will give us a new Puppet.And will you dive into the psychological mind of Kamala and give us a unfettered conclusion of your discoveries ?
.

[Gorpet]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

.

The courts when the accused get prosecuted. That is how our system works.

That's right, In America, It just depends on what town and city your in as how you will be prosecuted. You could be traveling with a dog named Boo, living and traveling across the land. And get prosecuted.