Printable View
If you think that the vote is secure then I'm with you. I expect that to be held on whichever wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Now Greece is a different story. Maths do not add here there is no way to get 100% more and loose 3/4 on mail vote plus the "justice" system did not accept recount on major cities. So will see in a few days and take it from there.
No mail in voting? What about the very old, the disabled or anyone that can't drive?Quote:
Not sure how scalable this is considering only ~3million people fly per day, but there's also the fact that they would only be doing the first half of what the TSA does (the ID verification) whereas the last half (the security screening which is also the longest) wouldn't need to be done.
I think your right about the scalability being a problem. There's exponentially more voting sites than airports.Quote:
Not sure how scalable this is considering only ~3million people fly per day, but there's also the fact that they would only be doing the first half of what the TSA does (the ID verification) whereas the last half (the security screening which is also the longest) wouldn't need to be done.
My GUESS is before long you'll be able to vote from your phone.Quote:
The fact that we have come so far along with technology and we're basically doing the same thing we've been doing for the past 60 years (only pushing a button rather than pulling a lever) is just insane to me.
I love our system in Germany, but I'm sure Dems and maybe Reps would be slamming it left and right. Dems would hate it because valid proof of citizenship is needed on hand in order to vote. Reps might hate it because there is no electoral college, but needing an ID to prove citizenship in order to vote would even the playing field between both parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
One of the biggest problems in the states is that anyone can run for office with no experience in politics. In Germany that's not possible. Polticians in Germany start in their teens, and work their way up the ranks for years.
We can't get past the electoral college let alone electronic voting becoming a reality. We do have the secure "Star" id and I just set up my secure government ID for social security. Meaning the mechanisms are in place but I can't see us voting that way soon. The republicans don't even want drop boxes and mail in voting. They would flip out if we tried to do anything more modern than that, anything that makes voting easier they try and stop.Quote:
I don't like our system, but if it were to be improved then the good model to look towards would be what we do with the TSA in airports.
TSA uses facial recognition cameras along with ID scanners to verify the person coming through the checkpoint. Then on top of that, they regularly deploy decoys and can say that 9 out of 10 decoys trying to bypass the system get caught.
Not sure how scalable this is considering only ~3million people fly per day, but there's also the fact that they would only be doing the first half of what the TSA does (the ID verification) whereas the last half (the security screening which is also the longest) wouldn't need to be done.
The fact that we have come so far along with technology and we're basically doing the same thing we've been doing for the past 60 years (only pushing a button rather than pulling a lever) is just insane to me.
But the conflict that our current system causes is incentive enough for both parties to keep it going as is. Hot button issues like this don't get resolved, they get exploited.
You already need an ID to register to vote. I don't seeing having to produce your ID when voting in person as making any significant difference but I don't see it as a big burden either.Quote:
I love our system in Germany, but I'm sure Dems and maybe Reps would be slamming it left and right. Dems would hate it because valid proof of citizenship is needed on hand in order to vote. Reps might hate it because there is no electoral college, but needing an ID in order to vote would even the playing field between both parties.
That's a bit of a long quote but I wanted to provide a full picture.Quote:
Before 2020, the majority of U.S. voters cast their ballots in-person at a polling location — usually on Election Day. In 2018, for example, more than 58% of voters in that election cast their ballots in-person on Election Day.
Voter turnout for the 2022 elections was the 2nd highest for midterms since 2000
Elections
Voter turnout for the 2022 elections was the 2nd highest for midterms since 2000
But in 2020, the most common method of casting a ballot was by mail. About 43% of voters voted this way in that election. According to the EAC, in-person voting on Election Day and early voting each comprised "about 30.5% of the population of voters," which was a first.
"However, the COVID-19 pandemic that affected the 2020 general election appears to have had lasting effects on how voters cast their general election ballots," the agency's report reads.
The agency found that 31.9% of voters who cast a ballot in 2022 did so by mail. That's compared to 25.6% of voters who voted by mail in the 2018 general election. According to the survey, almost half of all voters in 2022 voted in person on Election Day.
The relative popularity of voting by mail in the U.S. has persisted despite the fact that various states — mostly Republican-led states -- have passed new restrictions on mail ballot programs since 2020.
I would expect in person voting to keep declining. Unless forced to vote in person.
Just discovered we have mail in voting in Germany. Adult German's living abroad, with no residence in Germany can vote, as long as they were a German resident from birth up till they were 14 years old. If someone was born in Germany, but their family moved abroad when they were very young, then they have to register to vote for every election by mail through the municipality where they were last registered. All German citizens are automatically registered to vote at birth, but moving abroad at a young age (before 14) nixes that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
Only adult German's living abroad can vote by mail?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Porter
These things come and go. I think we'll get there.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
More getting off the sinking ship. This is far less about the candidates at the top than the fact of realignments underneath two old Party banners.
These Democrats are 'breaking up' with Kamala Harris and 'flirting' with Trump, GOP strategist says
https://youtu.be/Jo6M636Had0?si=08PaXa3DflLDHONI
A bit late though. Lots have already voted.
They should have shat or got off the pot months ago, even before Biden was couped out of his spot by an illegal regime.
I totally get where you’re coming from. The whole election process has been such a rollercoaster, especially with all the court challenges we’ve seen recently. It feels like no matter who wins, we’re in for a long and stressful ride, with both sides ready to fight tooth and nail. I remember how tense it was after the last election, and honestly, I’m not looking forward to another round of that. Just hoping whatever happens, it doesn’t turn into a total circus again.
Was running on fumes when I started that sentence with "adult". :bigyello:Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
What I was asking is are ANY other German citizens allowed to vote by mail or only those living abroad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Porter
I haven't read all the details. I'm guessing German citizens staying in hospitals could probably vote by mail. Anyone over 18 who is a German citizen could vote by mail, including immigrants who have German citizenship for a required time.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Permanent residents who don't have German citizenship, but are married to Germans, can't vote.
How can it not? The main player of all that chaos and his party are in the race again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Napstore
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...llion-dollars/
I'd like to see a group really jump on that $100.00 referral and make it go viral. Musk can afford it. I'd sign up if was offered in my state.
If it's actually a go and is illegal it must be stopped if not, continue.
Of course if the government cut it will have deprived people a possible million per day. So it's a smart move either way it goes.
It feels like a pretty slimy move. Not directly buying votes but real close. It also implies that the first and second amendment are under attack. But that's pretty normal politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
I said earlier I thought Musk actively stumping for Trump could put him in the White House. That view hasn't changed.
On a side note, have the rules limiting the size of contribution a person can make been changed?? I've noticed the last few elections there doesn't seem to be any limits.
Americans are waking up. It's about time.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Without looking it up I think Political Action Committee's (PACs) don't have a limit. Also, I not sure how it is related but I think the Supreme Court ruled corporations can contribute like an individual. I think that really increased the level allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Well, I did a little Googling,
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-...bution-limits/
But with a little creativity it looks like the amount one person can donate has no limit.
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/16/g-s1-...merica-pac-fec
Yep....Musk got creative:Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
He was the sole donor to the political action committee he created, America PAC, a group that spent about $72 million to support Donald Trump's reelection bid between July and September, according to a new quarterly filing with the Federal Election Commission.
Well , donations. The evil moneytalks. Anyhow in Greece if you donate to a party you must keep it secret as it's sorta kinda illegal. I mean you kinda sorta go to jail as donations are equaled to bribes but any big, doner donor? How you write that? Anyhow none has done real time also Siemens was bribing Greek governments for years, when it was found out....Well people ended up in Germany instead of a prison. Good ol' Greece political traitors.
There is effectively nothing preventing straight up bribery in US elections, these days. Anybody can give any amount, anonymously or otherwise. What restrictions there are exist only as a fig leaf. Small donors don't need the anonymity, and large donors can bypass any reporting requirement by being selective.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how you could prevent the situation in the US, at the moment. After all, you can buy an ad to say whatever you want (within the limits of decency laws, such as they are). You can pool money with friends to buy more ads. So if you can't team up with a candidate to support said candidate, that doesn't mean that you can't support them, just that you have to pretend to be independent. Frankly, we have yet to take that to the logical extreme, but we are working closer to it. That logical extreme is the case where the candidate is pretty nearly irrelevant to the campaign run for them.
And all we are talking about right now is the up front money, the real bucks are with the lobbyists once you are elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
In just a couple of weeks this nation will pick between two very different people and two very different paths for the nation and the world. I hope for the best and fear the worst.
That sums up the Trump campaign, who would really want him to run the country? The party wants the power to rule, not to govern. I like the analogy, "If Trump was your grandfather, you would take the keys off him".Quote:
That logical extreme is the case where the candidate is pretty nearly irrelevant to the campaign run for them.
I absolutely do...He is surrounded by a capable team and is available everyday. Pull the debate out of the equation and it wouldn't be a question. Plus, you could say the exact same thing about Trump. Was he running the country while he was trying to subvert our democracy, seems like those two goals contradict each other? Lets drag out Reagan and Nancy running the country at the end of his term for a blast from the past.Quote:
You do remember the DNC doing a tag team swap out from Biden to Harris, WWE style right?
We're also in this weird pickle where it became too obvious that Biden was too old and senile to run for president but at the same time he's still the active president. Does anyone genuinely think that he's doing any actual governance?
"You do remember the DNC doing a tag team swap out from Biden to Harris, WWE style right?". I remember my elected delegates reacting to a situation that could have let Trump easily win. I agree with that 100%. By the way, whose family is running the RNC. The WWE's favorite president's kids.
I'd genuinely like to know what in my post you are calling "wild assumptions/justifications"? I'd appreciate a chance to respond.Quote:
I make one statement against your side and you jump to some wild assumptions/justifications. It's just too easy.
You posted:
"You do remember the DNC doing a tag team swap out from Biden to Harris, WWE style right?
We're also in this weird pickle where it became too obvious that Biden was too old and senile to run for president but at the same time he's still the active president. Does anyone genuinely think that he's doing any actual governance?"
I posted:
"I absolutely do...He is surrounded by a capable team and is available everyday. Pull the debate out of the equation and it wouldn't be a question. Plus, you could say the exact same thing about Trump. Was he running the country while he was trying to subvert our democracy, seems like those two goals contradict each other? Lets drag out Reagan and Nancy running the country at the end of his term for a blast from the past.
"You do remember the DNC doing a tag team swap out from Biden to Harris, WWE style right?". I remember my elected delegates reacting to a situation that could have let Trump easily win. I agree with that 100%. By the way, whose family is running the RNC. The WWE's favorite president's kids."
I see very little difference in the tone or approach of either post.
Edit: It crossed my mind you were just trolling me. If so, touché.
It seems pretty clear that some people are comfortable having the strings pulled by an unelected Politburo behind the scenes when our system was set up to prevent just that. I guess that's why having a bobblehead in the hot seat doesn't bother them, they don't intend to let the Executive execute policy anyway.
Thankfully the nightmare would appear to be almost over.
Here in relevant States we're seeing bizarre ads trotting out nothing but character assassination since they have no popular policy positions anyone trusts them on. I've seen several nearly identical ads with different talking heads giving negative testimonials. From the look of these old bags they must be filming at a Birkenstocks & Army Boots Outlet Mall somewhere.
If I'm not mistaken the previous bets where somewhere to 53-57 , now it's over 60.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/bet...2024/president
I was told that it does not mean anything but the "anything" seems to open the gap more and more.
It is getting nasty and personal on the campaign trail. Maybe not for the same reasons you give though.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
I doubt anyone is even paying attention to that drivel.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
Just watch TYT's nightly meltdowns. Hilarious that they don't accept Harris' natural constituency now that it's out in the open: corporate neocons. It has to be a struggle to drag themselves into work these days for them.
Now there's the idea she'll name Liz Cheney as Secretary of Defense! She'd better get on top of that and squash it in no uncertain terms. Cenk was practically coughing up blood.
Of course MSNBC can hardly get out of its own way pouring forth praise for Cheney.
It appears to me that the vast majority of people have made their choice. It's basically a tie. So the winner will be from the party that does the best job of getting their supporters to actually vote.
It's 60-40 according to betting companies but I don't really grasp the electors system or whatever you have there, popular vote, goth vote. So, yeah, it's not even close according to betting companies.
It's basically a tie according to most polls. Betting odds is something completely different. It just means more money is being bet on Trump to win. You can imply what ever you want from that but there's no research involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapator
I remember the first election that Trump won. I went to be early and in the morning got up and turned on the TV. Back then you knew the next day who won, but, unless it is a blow out I doubt it this election. First headline in bold letters was "Trump Wins". I lowered my head down in sadness and disbelief.
Maybe this time I'll video myself and if Trump wins Ill make a post of a grown man crying :p
I'm trying to get ready for that, Trump winning not crying. Despite what I hope I think Trump is going to win the electoral vote. I guess it is what it is...at least a lot of people will be happy that day :)
Hopefully he wins for several reasons.
The I told you so usual comment, stop the wars, stop illegal immigration, put out the pedophile papers etc etc and of course the rub it in here. Also we will have material to talk about on if he does what he promises or not.
Bear in mind that neither Trump or Rothschi.. Sorry Harris, I meant Harris are positive biased for Greece so we won't get anything out of it as our sold out, born of a flickering in a sweeping grasshopper, politician traitors remain US puppy. So at least US will be saved ( :cool: ) and I'll be able to rub it in to some :p
..Sorry, what does this do?....Ahh thumps up the thread, OK can't say I have ever used it...
If I HAD to pick a winner, at this point it would probably be Trump. But I remain hopeful he wont. Our country deserves better. Well, maybe not, it was our choice. I wont see any difference in my life either way.
Why would you think that will happen? None of that happened the first time he was president. Do you really believe what he says??Quote:
The I told you so usual comment, stop the wars, stop illegal immigration, put out the pedophile papers etc etc and of course the rub it in here.
I believe the first time he promised to "drain the swamp". The US isn't any less "swamppy". lol
Well Dems certainly won't do that so...The first time I believe you bailed for Afghanistan and he did not start any wars, also was building a wall(?) and there where no pedo thing happening. So I would advise not to jump to conclusion and have an instant negativity. We do want, hope, for these things to happen,no?
Wrong on everything.Quote:
The first time I believe you bailed for Afghanistan and he did not start any wars, also was building a wall(?) and there where no pedo thing happening.
The US withdraw from Afghanistan was during Bidens presidency and was criticized by Trump for doing so.
Trump did build a wall. Obviously the wall didn't solve any problems. The immigration problem isn't that simple. Also, Trump has consistently had the republicans block any new legislation to help improve the border problem. He knows without the "immigrant scare" that he spreads he wont win the election.
There is no "pedo Thing" happening. I've seen you make that claim several times. I have no idea why you have that delusion.