• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: 2024 Election Thread part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
That's all fair. And I respect your opinion. Especially considering your courage to share your personal history.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly open about it. It was a life changing experience and I've advocated for eliminating certain things from background checks during hiring.

That's one of the things that I liked about Obama that I'm hoping Harris will pickup. He did the following:

On Monday, President Obama is announcing a new order to reduce potential discrimination against former convicts in the hiring process for federal government employees.

It is a step towards what many criminal justice reformers call “ban the box” – the effort to eliminate requirements that job applicants check a box on their applications if they have a criminal record.
Click to expand...

It was a pretty huge step for people to get federal jobs. It also encouraged local governments, like the one I work for, to only go back 7 years on background checks. Probably the only reason I have a job for the city right now.

Felons aren't a huge voting bloc so they don't get a ton of attention, but the discrimination is real.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
Yes, I assumed people knew that you wouldn't be completely stripped of all humanity. You can't vote, can't own a firearm, have no rights to search and seizure, and the normal things that most people enjoy.
If I remember right I couldn't vote for 10 years after I was off of probation, but that could be the state law for guns too. I don't remember offhand and that was 25 years ago.

We'll have to disagree on the prisoners being allowed to vote. I'm not in agreement there.
Click to expand...

**** me!
 
Shalamar said:
I assumed the same. I can't imagine someone on the team wouldn't raise their hand to point out the terrible optics.
Click to expand...

Given the demographics that they're leaning into really hard, both for votes and staffing, it becomes less surprising for people not to care about the optics.

To go a little further, for the people who would actually care, they likely consider them to already be either firmly opposed from the start or too willfully blind to see and believe them when they tell us all who they are. If people are still in denial after the incredible number of harmful things that they've been caught doing, they're likely to just rationalize it away like they have been doing with so many other things.
 
plague311 said:
Felons can still do that if you're a consenting adult :D
Click to expand...

:D
I have a 'friend' that's done time. He passionately believes that prison is for rehabilitation, not punishment. He had access to the library and the OU. He wasn't punished. He completed his three years and, as you have have, led a good life since.
 
welshdean said:
:D
I have a 'friend' that's done time. He passionately believes that prison is for rehabilitation, not punishment. He had access to the library and the OU. He wasn't punished. He completed his three years and, as you have have, led a good life since.
Click to expand...

That's good, love to hear it.

Hopefully another Dem administration will encourage more focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. I'm a little skeptical given Harris's past as a prosecutor and the "tough on crime" mantra, but I'll hold out hope.
 
A good part of the media is focused on the national polling when the real race is state-by-state via the Electoral College. But another battle is between Nov. 6 and Jan 20 when all states' counts must be certified by the states. Trump has already praised an election commission in Georgia, implying the fix is in (for Trump).

The good news is that only a few blue or battleground states have election deniers as Sec of State or Governor (Repub. Gov. Lombardo in Nevada being the most prominent, but even he didn't dispute the results of 2020). But how much trouble can county or lower state officials cause?

The other good news is that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has a report outlining the certification threat at the county/state level, which threat can be countered by existing state and federal law requiring certification, confirming that certification is ministerial only, etc. The bad news is the supreme courts of the states and the national SCOTUS will have final say on legal action on state/county certification.

The other scenario that my brief scan of the CREW report didn't see is the attempt to create a faux controversy that delays and thus prevents certification and so sends the election over the the federal House of Representatives in which each state gets a single vote which means Trump would win.

Talk me down, but I was the first here at ISF (AFAIK) in 2020 to bring up the danger of Pence being the one to certify the 2020 election. That danger was avoided, but here is a very important fulcrum for the 2024 election.
 
Inflation is one of the strongest issues the GOP has; granted, it was not Biden's fault but if you are POTUS you get the blame evenif you don't deserve it but he managed to mess that up as well.
 
Paul2 said:
A good part of the media is focused on the national polling when the real race is state-by-state via the Electoral College. But another battle is between Nov. 6 and Jan 20 when all states' counts must be certified by the states. Trump has already praised an election commission in Georgia, implying the fix is in (for Trump).

The good news is that only a few blue or battleground states have election deniers as Sec of State or Governor (Repub. Gov. Lombardo in Nevada being the most prominent, but even he didn't dispute the results of 2020). But how much trouble can county or lower state officials cause?

The other good news is that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has a report outlining the certification threat at the county/state level, which threat can be countered by existing state and federal law requiring certification, confirming that certification is ministerial only, etc. The bad news is the supreme courts of the states and the national SCOTUS will have final say on legal action on state/county certification.

The other scenario that my brief scan of the CREW report didn't see is the attempt to create a faux controversy that delays and thus prevents certification and so sends the election over the the federal House of Representatives in which each state gets a single vote which means Trump would win.

Talk me down, but I was the first here at ISF (AFAIK) in 2020 to bring up the danger of Pence being the one to certify the 2020 election. That danger was avoided, but here is a very important fulcrum for the 2024 election.
Click to expand...

I think the GOP "stealing: the election wold result in what amounts to a state of mass chaos that would amount to a second Civil war.
 
Paul2 said:
A good part of the media is focused on the national polling when the real race is state-by-state via the Electoral College. But another battle is between Nov. 6 and Jan 20 when all states' counts must be certified by the states. Trump has already praised an election commission in Georgia, implying the fix is in (for Trump).

The good news is that only a few blue or battleground states have election deniers as Sec of State or Governor (Repub. Gov. Lombardo in Nevada being the most prominent, but even he didn't dispute the results of 2020). But how much trouble can county or lower state officials cause?

The other good news is that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has a report outlining the certification threat at the county/state level, which threat can be countered by existing state and federal law requiring certification, confirming that certification is ministerial only, etc. The bad news is the supreme courts of the states and the national SCOTUS will have final say on legal action on state/county certification.

The other scenario that my brief scan of the CREW report didn't see is the attempt to create a faux controversy that delays and thus prevents certification and so sends the election over the the federal House of Representatives in which each state gets a single vote which means Trump would win.

Talk me down, but I was the first here at ISF (AFAIK) in 2020 to bring up the danger of Pence being the one to certify the 2020 election. That danger was avoided, but here is a very important fulcrum for the 2024 election.
Click to expand...

One obstacle they'll have to overcome is that the person certifying the 2024 election in Congress is the sitting Vice President, Kamala Harris. Also, the new Congress will have been sworn in before the certification, so it's possible that Democrats might control both houses and shoot down any shenanigans. Also, we're seeing some of the fraudsters from the last election going to jail, so it might be harder for the GQP to find those willing to put their futures on the line for Trump. And finally, if the voters keep moving toward Kamala, she might win so many electoral votes that the GQP can't challenge enough of them to flip the decision.

But I'm not holding my breath or making any predictions. Anything could happen. When you least expect it, EXPECT IT!
 
dudalb said:
Inflation is one of the strongest issues the GOP has; granted, it was not Biden's fault but if you are POTUS you get the blame evenif you don't deserve it but he managed to mess that up as well.
Click to expand...

According to what Donnie is spouting right now, Kamala is responsible for inflation. That's great news for the leaders in the other countries around the world experiencing worse inflation than the US; they can just point to her and say, "It's Kamala's fault, not ours!"

Trump is still droning on in his 'news conference'.
 
Northeast Floridian here.

I haven't seen a single national election campaign ad yet. I don't think I've seen anything state level.

I've only seen local ads from Republicans are all of them are "Trump likes me, I'm Trump backed, here's a picture of me shaking Trump's hand."
 
shemp said:
One obstacle they'll have to overcome is that the person certifying the 2024 election in Congress is the sitting Vice President, Kamala Harris.
Click to expand...
Hopefully, given the new federal election law passed in response to Jan. 6, Harris will faithfully fulfill her ministerial duties only.

. . . .

Wait a minute! I guess they should have written the law so it came into effect in 2026. ; )

shemp said:
Also, the new Congress will have been sworn in before the certification, so it's possible that Democrats might control both houses and shoot down any shenanigans.
Click to expand...
From your mouth to the-god-that-isn't-there's ears.
shemp said:
Also, we're seeing some of the fraudsters from the last election going to jail, so it might be harder for the GQP to find those willing to put their futures on the line for Trump.
Click to expand...
Not that Garland would come anywhere close to this, but a little gentle warning from the DoJ - "We will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law any county or state official who does not fulfill their ministerial election duties faithfully" wouldn't hurt.
shemp said:
And finally, if the voters keep moving toward Kamala, she might win so many electoral votes that the GQP can't challenge enough of them to flip the decision.
Click to expand...
OK, now you're just messin' with me. You're teasing, right? You're trying to hurt me now.
shemp said:
But I'm not holding my breath or making any predictions. Anything could happen. When you least expect it, EXPECT IT!
Click to expand...
No ****.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I know musicians can (and are) suing him for using their songs without permission, can a company sue him for mentioning their product by name?
Click to expand...

Can these candies get a conviction of this sucker for disparagemint of their sugar confections or possibly a sweet civil suit? Probably not just for mentioning the product. If it were in a commercial there could be an issue of trademark infringement. Otherwise, there could be product disparagement, but only if he said something that is demonstrably false.

Maybe Mountain Dew could sue Vance for alleging that drinking Mountain Dew makes him racist. I don't think that it was the Mountain Dew that made him racist. There were probably other factors involved. Or maybe he just chose to be racist. A properly controlled double-blind experiment should conclusively prove that drinking Mountain Dew does not make a person racist and that Vance is racist for some other reason.

Trump could probably be sued f by Tic Tac for product disparagement for alleging that they have substantially reduced the size of their packaging. It certainly appears that he is holding contemporary Tic Tac boxes in the standard and travel mini sizes. The standard Tic Tac packaging, number of pieces per package, and weight have remained the same. Tic Tac refreshing mints come in a variety of sizes including the standard, slightly larger bulk, slightly smaller travel, and the mini. Half sizes were available in the 1970s.

While almost everything, especially food products, have experienced shrinkflation, that is not the case with Tic Tac refreshing mints. The box has been virtually unchanged since they were launched in 1969-70.

Suggesting that Tic Tac has reduced sizes to charge consumers for less product for the same price could be grounds for disparagement of quality Tic Tac refreshing mints, especially when combined with his past association of their fine product with his confessed actions of committing sexual assault.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom