2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
I'm willing to be proven wrong on this, but I believe then - and even more so now - if the questions were on individual parts of ACA, the a much larger majority was in favor of each one. But call in ACA or Obamacare and a good chunk of people would change to "Obama bad, ACA bad, boo".
And the same reversed applies to Roe v Wade, so?
If you poll "no question asked abortion for healthy babies at 22 weeks without any fear for the health of the mother et cetera should be Always legal" it polls like 25 points lower than Roe, while being exactly Roe
Anything related to campaign finance reform polls near 80% and not only do Republican lawmakers not support it they're actively trying to loosen the rules even further esp for big donors.
But citizen united is a constitutional problem for campaign reform, so what I said doesn't apply to that topic
You don't seem to understand that America is a Representative Democracy, not a Direct Democracy. If voters disagree with the actions their elected officials are taking they can have their will exercised during elections.
So your point is that you do admit democrats go against the will of the vast majority of people yet that's democratic anyway because they can be voted out, is that your take?
you must live a delusional reality... because you do NOT live in a democracy, NOR SHOULD YOU.
You live in a Constitutional Republic.
Without a governing doctrine or rule set, you can not merely rely on mass hysteria to make significant decisions of policy... NOR SHOULD YOU.
If this basic idea has to be explained, then I fear you will never be able to grasp the concept and you will continue to prattle on about rights and class distinction from a misguided perspective until you are BLUE IN THE FACE..
The constitution is what protects you from mass hysteria, do I have to explain that?
Even if we accept your statistics, you are espousing a view of democracy that is far from universal. You essentially are saying that democracy implies that elected officials should be weathervanes. There is another school of thought that says elected officials should pursue the policies that they believe are best for the country, with the understanding that voters might disagree with their judgment and vote them out of office in the next election.
Don't try this, what you wrote might make sense if my claim was that there was a duty to pass stuff that polls temporarily at 55%, we are talking 80+% though and yes I think there is a moral imperative duty in a democracy to enact something that the vast majority of people requires if it doesn't violate the constitution nor it costs money to implement (in which case you need the same rate of agreement about where to find the money before feeling compelled to act)
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/four-t...
How do election offices verify voters’ citizenship status?
The process of verifying voter citizenship varies across the United States. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires states to use a common voter registration form, which includes under penalty of perjury an attestation that the applicant is a U.S. citizen.
States verify voter identity and information using state and/or federal databases, such as the Social Security Administration or state departments of motor vehicles.[1] By cross-referencing information that the voter provides against information provided by these entities, election administrators can ensure that identifying information submitted on voter registration forms is accurate and legitimate. This hinders those who may attempt to register to vote using fraudulent or false information.
But citizen united is a constitutional problem for campaign reform, so what I said doesn't apply to that topic
Wrong. There are many areas of campaign finance reform that are in no way limited by the Citizen United ruling, including even laws that are covered by Citizen United, such as disclosure requirements.
So your point is that you do admit democrats go against the will of the vast majority of people yet that's democratic anyway because they can be voted out, is that your take?
I'm of the opinion that America is a representative democracy and both parties have voted against the will of the people at times throughout history. The fact you call it anti-democratic demonstrates you don't understand how our country's political system works.
X Owner Musk Warned by DOJ: Paying Voters Is Illegal and Could Lead to Prison Time
By Dharmesh Sahu / October 25, 2024
Elon Musk was warned by the DOJ that offering monetary incentives tied to voting intentions is illegal and violates federal law.
Elon Musk’s recent initiative, where he has promised to give $1 million daily to registered voters who sign a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments, has drawn attention from the Department of Justice (DOJ). So far, Musk has given away $4 million to voters in critical swing states and plans to continue through Election Day. However, the DOJ recently reminded him that such acts could violate federal law, as offering financial incentives to influence voting is punishable by up to five years in prison.
-----
I don't really understand this. Why are there "warnings" being given? Does everyone get a free felony with just a warning before you start getting punished or is it just based on something like net worth?
If I feel it necessary, I might. I can only think of one other time I've ever said that, for the record. It must have really bothered you.
Actually, I have only seen it one other time and was surprised by it but I think it’s an appropriate response to Luciom throwing everyone in the liberal/left/Marxist bucket for disagreeing with his nonsense.
Don't try this, what you wrote might make sense if my claim was that there was a duty to pass stuff that polls temporarily at 55%, we are talking 80+% though and yes I think there is a moral imperative duty in a democracy to enact something that the vast majority of people requires if it doesn't violate the constitution nor it costs money to implement (in which case you need the same rate of agreement about where to find the money before feeling compelled to act)
So in Usa Luciontopia we eliminate personal income taxes every April and declare war based upon popular vote of the people. Sounds stupid to me.
I don't really understand this. Why are there "warnings" being given? Does everyone get a free felony with just a warning before you start getting punished or is it just based on something like net worth?
The DOJ sometimes does this sort of thing in cases where a person is violating the spirit of the law but may be in a grey area or technically in compliance with the letter of the law.
And a good reason Musk is suddenly so all-in on Trump having to win...
Elon Musk Has Regularly Held Secret Talk...
No a great look when you deal with a lot of highly classified information, and you have contracts with the top US defence and intelligence agencies - SpaceX Starshield
Seem there is a distinction between a referendum and a democracy .
Remember kids, literally millions of "illegals" somehow voting where there's exactly zero evidence of this happening is a mainstream GOP position. Deranged conspiracy nonsense isn't even close to being fringe anymore.
tens of millions of dollars and thousands of man hours have been spent on this conspiracy theory and they've managed to scrounge up a dozen or two cases over DECADES. and it's like their only real position. i have no idea how anyone that isn't very wealthy that has a brain votes for these guys.
you must live a delusional reality... because you do NOT live in a democracy, NOR SHOULD YOU.
You live in a Constitutional Republic.
Without a governing doctrine or rule set, you can not merely rely on mass hysteria to make significant decisions of policy... NOR SHOULD YOU.
If this basic idea has to be explained, then I fear you will never be able to grasp the concept and you will continue to prattle on about rights and class distinction from a misguided perspective until you are BLUE IN THE FACE..
You don't seem to understand that America is a Representative Democracy, not a Direct Democracy. If voters disagree with the actions their elected officials are taking they can have their will exercised during elections.
Right, until the question about the popular vote and the electoral college come up in talks about the Presidency, or Supreme Court decisions, and then all of a sudden we need to change all those things so the "people" are better represented. Progressives don't argue from principles, they argue for power, and any position will do so long as it moves their agenda forward.
Uh? The masses are exceptionally ignorant, always have been. Median IQ people have barely a grasp of most topics, often a very imprecise one, and half of the population is worse than that.
Pointing out that answers to polls might be based on misinformation of various kind is like pointing out the fact that normies don't have a ****ing clue about reality.
If you think that's enough to be anti democratic SAY THAT , otherwise the fact that polls about the ACA are based upon vibes and not fact is not a reason to disregard them. Almost everything is based on vibes and not reality, when you ask the masses.
You either accept to give people with no clue actual power, or you don't. If you don't you are anti democratic. Which might be fine. Just you can't accuse opponents of being that as if that was a negative you know?
