Trump trying to worm his way outta debating Kamala Harris

[Tatetopa]

18 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I wouldn't bother watching because I know that if hell froze over neither of these ass holes would get my vote.  If I want to watch psychopaths on TV then Dexter is on Netflix and I'm in season 6

Why watch psychopaths anyway?  I thought you were into comedy.  But if it is dark and scary you want, you could re-watch the biography of the late great Hannibal Lecter.

[+OverSword]

2 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Why watch psychopaths anyway?  I thought you were into comedy.  But if it is dark and scary you want, you could re-watch the biography of the late great Hannibal Lecter.

Plenty to laugh at on Dexter.  Nothing funny or new about democrats or republicans.

edit:  If you never seen Dexter give it a watch.

Edited August 26 by OverSword

[Tatetopa]

20 minutes ago, acidhead said:

It's exactly what the Kamala camp is doing and they're trying their best to make it sound today like Trump is the one backing out. 

Her handlers are now insisting on a seated, not standing debate(she does turn 60 in October - women age twice as quickly as males do) and her handlers are also demanding she has notes to read from(a cheat sheet) because she's too incompetent to remember what she's supposed to say. She's not smart enough to memorize and repeat the talking points. 

😂

 

Well of course.  This is not a football game in which losers and winners shake hands at the end.  This is brutal,. this is a fight. 

Keep telling yourself that  Kamala  is not up to the task at your own risk.  

First off, the average life expectancy of women is 6 years more than men in the US, not that it matters.

It is a setup, it is a chess move, it is a trap. Trump's advisors know that, but can they convince him or will he just throw a tantrum?

Trump sitting makes him look old and weak and Kamala probably has a couple of remarks ready to point that out to viewers and take advantage of it.

An open mike allows Trump to blather and look less like a presidential candidate than a crazy old man in your  local retirement community.

[acidhead]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

First off, the average life expectancy of women is 6 years more than men in the US, not that it matters.

Ohh it matters...

Research suggests that women generally live longer than men, but they may experience more rapid aging in certain aspects of their health. This is often referred to as the "health-survival paradox." While women tend to live approximately 4-5 years longer than men on average, they may experience more age-related health issues, such as osteoporosis, Alzheimer's disease, and depression.

Some possible explanations for this phenomenon include:

1. Hormonal differences: Women experience a decline in estrogen levels during menopause, which can lead to increased bone loss, cardiovascular risk, and cognitive decline.
2. Genetic factors: Women have two X chromosomes, which can lead to a higher risk of genetic mutations and age-related diseases.
3. Lifestyle factors: Women may be more likely to engage in caregiving activities, experience stress, and have lower socioeconomic status, all of which can contribute to accelerated aging.

However, it's essential to note that individual factors, lifestyle choices, and medical conditions can influence aging, making it a complex and multifaceted process.

[+OverSword]

17 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Ohh it matters...

Research suggests that women generally live longer than men, but they may experience more rapid aging in certain aspects of their health. This is often referred to as the "health-survival paradox." While women tend to live approximately 4-5 years longer than men on average, they may experience more age-related health issues, such as osteoporosis, Alzheimer's disease, and depression.

Some possible explanations for this phenomenon include:

1. Hormonal differences: Women experience a decline in estrogen levels during menopause, which can lead to increased bone loss, cardiovascular risk, and cognitive decline.
2. Genetic factors: Women have two X chromosomes, which can lead to a higher risk of genetic mutations and age-related diseases.
3. Lifestyle factors: Women may be more likely to engage in caregiving activities, experience stress, and have lower socioeconomic status, all of which can contribute to accelerated aging.

However, it's essential to note that individual factors, lifestyle choices, and medical conditions can influence aging, making it a complex and multifaceted process.

True but at 59-60 she still has an advantage over trump who's age is really starting to show in the last year or so.  I would guess he is above average for his age in most ways but still almost 80.

[acidhead]

VIDEO: Trump just now on the muted mics during the debate: 

“We agreed to the same rules. I don't know. It doesn't matter to me. I'd rather have it probably on, but the agreement was that it would be the same as it was last time. In that case, it was muted. I didn't like it the last time, but it worked out fine. I mean, ask Biden how it worked out. It was fine, and I think it should be the same. We agreed to the same rules, same rules, and same specifications, and I think that's probably what it should be, but they're trying to change it. The truth is they're trying to get out of it because she doesn't want to debate. She's not a good debater. She's not a smart person. She doesn't want to debate.” 

VIDEO ---->

 

[the13bats]

mental illness

Trump isnt well, if he debates it will show how sick he is.

[psyche101]

 

[the13bats]

41 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

 

What in the grasping reaching of a maga in desperation does a fictional serial killer cannibal have to do with a candidate rally?

 

 

[psyche101]

Just now, the13bats said:

What in the grasping reaching of a maga in desperation does a fictional serial killer cannibal have to do with a candidate rally?

 

 

Covefe?

[the13bats]

 

trump will be trump

This is great news harris requested hot mics, during the trump biden debate the non speakers mic was killed to prevent the overbearing insulting interruptions from the uncouth lout,

Trump wanted open mics until he learned why Harris wants them open, she knows he simply can not control his unhinged outbursts, she is court room prosecutor savvy, i give it 10 maybe 15 minutes trump will blurt some sexist misogynist racist insult and Harris will laugh.

 

[CrimsonKing]

https://nypost.com/2024/08/28/us-news/kamala-harris-dragged-on-cnn-for-weaksauce-decision-to-bring-tim-walz-to-first-interview-lack-of-confidence/

Just when I thought she was heading towards being able to stand on her own 2 feet...

I mean c'mon.

[Zebra3]

She needs her service animal.

[acidhead]

Big-T on X: 

 

[+Razman]

Aint it strange though that he talks about exposing someone as a fraud , while lying again. 

[+Razman]

This is something i don't understand about Democrats, why will they not support proof of citizenship to vote?

‘Outrageous Partisan Poison Pills’: Dems Threaten To Torpedo GOP’s Gov’t Funding Bill Targeting Noncitizen Voting (msn.com)

[psyche101]

6 minutes ago, Razman said:

This is something i don't understand about Democrats, why will they not support proof of citizenship to vote?

‘Outrageous Partisan Poison Pills’: Dems Threaten To Torpedo GOP’s Gov’t Funding Bill Targeting Noncitizen Voting (msn.com)

The main reason is that current laws to prevent noncitizen voting work as intended and that the bill risks purging eligible voters from the voter rolls. They are also concerned that it will result in less motivation to vote. 

The democrats are more saying don't fix what isn't broken. 

I don't know about America but here you have to be on a register to vote. To receive a voting card one supplies name and address to ascertain voting eligibility, but on the other hand we have compulsory voting.

[+Razman]

2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

The main reason is that current laws to prevent noncitizen voting work as intended and that the bill risks purging eligible voters from the voter rolls. They are also concerned that it will result in less motivation to vote. 

The democrats are more saying don't fix what isn't broken. 

I don't know about America but here you have to be on a register to vote. To receive a voting card one supplies name and address to ascertain voting eligibility, but on the other hand we have compulsory voting.

Well , in the area where i am from , we have to show ID and they check to make sure we live in the district we are voting in. So they already have a list with people who are registered in that district , then they match your ID up to it. At first i thought it was this way everywhere in the US, and if it aint , i don't understand why. I mean i would think it would be the same everywhere here.

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, Razman said:

Well , in the area where i am from , we have to show ID and they check to make sure we live in the district we are voting in. So they already have a list with people who are registered in that district , then they match your ID up to it. At first i thought it was this way everywhere in the US, and if it aint , i don't understand why. I mean i would think it would be the same everywhere here.

 

 

That sounds like a more than sufficient system already in place? 

 

[+Razman]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

 

 

That sounds like a more than sufficient system already in place? 

 

Yea , at least here in the midwest, i'm not sure if it is different in some states or not. I mean , even with mail in voting , they should still be able to check those against the list of registered voters in any given area, i would think. 

[+Link of Hyrule]

1 hour ago, Razman said:

Well , in the area where i am from , we have to show ID and they check to make sure we live in the district we are voting in. So they already have a list with people who are registered in that district , then they match your ID up to it. At first i thought it was this way everywhere in the US, and if it aint , i don't understand why. I mean i would think it would be the same everywhere here.

Not every place has voter ID like you. Large parts of the US don't have voter ID and some have labelled it racist to expect voter ID (I don't agree with that, but it's what some people believe). Here in Australia you don't need ID to vote. Arguably the reason for this is the government would need to make ID free in order to avoid potential voter suppression, and the government gets too much money from fees associated with government issued ID, so they don't want to create a voter ID system (last I checked, which was years ago, a basic photo ID can set you back $50, and a driver's license can be hundreds of dollars - and if you have any unpaid fines or parking tickets, you need to pay them before they give you your ID). Unfortunately for us, as long as you're registered to vote, all you need to do is turn up to a voting booth and give your name and address. That name and address is crossed off a manual document that is present at every polling station (there's not even a computer with a State-wide database to check if people have voted more than once). If I wanted to, I could theoretically get my next door neighbour's name and address (or the guy down the street, or any of the other people in my local area that I know by name), then vote at every polling station in my area (literally dozens of potential schools), and every polling station will simply accept my name and address, then my neighbour will receive multiple "please explain" notifications in the mail asking why he voted multiple times, and charging him a $50 fine for every single one (as long as I also vote myself at one of the locations I won't receive any fine, and of course as long as I don't go to the venue that my neighbour went to). Because our votes are written onto an untraceable ballot in pencil on the day, the votes I hypothetically cast for my candidate will be accepted by the electoral commission, and the only person in trouble is my neighbour for allegedly voting multiple times. My neighbour could theoretically do the same to me and then he'd be the one getting off free and I'd be the one having to explain why I voted multiple times. 

As far as I'm aware this isn't a common practice. I've never been accused of multiple votes and I don't know anyone who has. So I'm not saying this is something that is a problem in Australia, but it is a potential problem that can't be resolved without voter ID. 

Edited September 4 by Link of Hyrule

[Golden Duck]

On 9/4/2024 at 3:21 PM, Link of Hyrule said:

Not every place has voter ID like you. Large parts of the US don't have voter ID and some have labelled it racist to expect voter ID (I don't agree with that, but it's what some people believe). Here in Australia you don't need ID to vote. Arguably the reason for this is the government would need to make ID free in order to avoid potential voter suppression, and the government gets too much money from fees associated with government issued ID, so they don't want to create a voter ID system (last I checked, which was years ago, a basic photo ID can set you back $50, and a driver's license can be hundreds of dollars - and if you have any unpaid fines or parking tickets, you need to pay them before they give you your ID). Unfortunately for us, as long as you're registered to vote, all you need to do is turn up to a voting booth and give your name and address. That name and address is crossed off a manual document that is present at every polling station (there's not even a computer with a State-wide database to check if people have voted more than once). If I wanted to, I could theoretically get my next door neighbour's name and address (or the guy down the street, or any of the other people in my local area that I know by name), then vote at every polling station in my area (literally dozens of potential schools), and every polling station will simply accept my name and address, then my neighbour will receive multiple "please explain" notifications in the mail asking why he voted multiple times, and charging him a $50 fine for every single one (as long as I also vote myself at one of the locations I won't receive any fine, and of course as long as I don't go to the venue that my neighbour went to). Because our votes are written onto an untraceable ballot in pencil on the day, the votes I hypothetically cast for my candidate will be accepted by the electoral commission, and the only person in trouble is my neighbour for allegedly voting multiple times. My neighbour could theoretically do the same to me and then he'd be the one getting off free and I'd be the one having to explain why I voted multiple times. 

As far as I'm aware this isn't a common practice. I've never been accused of multiple votes and I don't know anyone who has. So I'm not saying this is something that is a problem in Australia, but it is a potential problem that can't be resolved without voter ID. 

You don't get fined for having your name marked off the role more than once.

[+Link of Hyrule]

13 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

You don't get fined for having your name marked off the role more than once.

My bad, I just double checked and it seems the penalties for multi voting is far more serious than a fine. Nevertheless, I think you'll find that the principle I outlined is the same - a person can use a neighbour's name/address and vote multiple times, and the only person who would get in trouble is the neighbour. True, if the person voting illegally gets caught they can go to prison for 6 months. But how realistic is that? Will they get security camera footage from every venue and pore over it until they find one person among thousands who attended multiple venues and then accuse them of voting illegally? 

The easy fix to this potential problem is voter ID, but it's too much of a money maker for our government to ever consider such a reasonable solution. 

Edited September 9 by Link of Hyrule

[Golden Duck]

6 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

My bad, I just double checked and it seems the penalties for multi voting is far more serious than a fine. Nevertheless, I think you'll find that the principle I outlined is the same - a person can use a neighbour's name/address and vote multiple times, and the only person who would get in trouble is the neighbour. True, if the person voting illegally gets caught they can go to prison for 6 months. But how realistic is that? Will they get security camera footage from every venue and pore over it until they find one person among thousands who attended multiple venues and then accuse them of voting illegally? 

The easy fix to this potential problem is voter ID, but it's too much of a money maker for our government to ever consider such a reasonable solution. 

The AEC call you to discuss the situation. When it happened to me, I told the booth I voted at.

You havr hit the nail on the head about how they would establish someone cpmmitted fraud.   And you have accordingly changed your story.

[+Link of Hyrule]

32 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The AEC call you to discuss the situation. When it happened to me, I told the booth I voted at.

I once voted out of area, but AEC didn't get the paperwork, so I got a fine, I sent them the details of when/where I did vote, and a couple of weeks later it was all good. But that's not quite the same as multi voting. 

 

32 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You havr hit the nail on the head about how they would establish someone cpmmitted fraud.   And you have accordingly changed your story.

I have not changed any story. The only thing I've changed is the penalties, which I have revised from "fines" to "prison". The point is that Voter ID would be the easiest way to fix this potential problem. Even if you were able to catch every single person who has ever done this and imprison them, it doesn't change that once they are inside the voting stations with a paper ballot their vote is untraceable and you can't change the outcome of the election. 

As said, this isn't exactly a widespread problem, so I'm not suggesting this is something that happens regularly. But it is a potential problem that can be easily solved with voter ID laws. . 

Edited September 9 by Link of Hyrule