New York City

#6,976
#6,976
EasternVol said:
What I saw of Europe was in pretty good shape the last time I was there. Other than pickpockets in a few places and petty theft, crime's less of a concern in their cities than ours. Sorry I didn't see or hear of any really scary stuff to report.
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying I was scared there, you are setting up a strawman. As for when it will get really bad, the scaring middle eastern crap - go there when it collapses.
 
#6,982
#6,982
When will the US and NY follow?
Need to ban all the extremist groups including the Muslim brotherhood.

Germany news: Interior Ministry bans 'Muslim Interactive'​


Germany's Interior Ministry has banned the "Muslim Interactive" organization, a newly founded Islamist organization, which has recently shocked the public by calling for a caliphate.

German authorities also conducted a search operation in other premises, as part of a wider investigation.

Elsewhere, Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul has caused a stir within his own conservative bloc by contradicting Chancellor Friedrich Merz's assertions that Syria is a safe country for refugees to return to.

Police union hails 'Muslim Interactive' ban, calls for deportations​

The German Police Union (DPolG) welcomed the news that the "Muslim Interactive" group, which advocated the overthrow of the German government, has been banned.
DPolG chair Rainer Wendt said that the government was "implementing...the active protection of our democracy and our constitution."
The Islamist association had called for a caliphate to replace the German state.
Wendt also said that membership of "Muslim Interactive" should be grounds for the deportation of non-citizens.
"We now expect the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees to review the respective residence status of the association's members in order to subsequently justify a special interest in expulsion," he said.
Deportation continued to be a hot topic in Berlin on Wednesday, as Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul openly disagreed as to whether it is safe for refugees to return to Syria.

www.dw.com

Germany news: Interior Ministry bans 'Muslim Interactive'

The Interior Ministry has also searched the premises of other Islamist organizations in Hamburg, Berlin and Hesse. Meanwhile, the foreign minister has caused an uproar with comments on Syria. Follow DW for the latest.
www.dw.com www.dw.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Good Ol' Charlie Brown and LSU-SIU
#6,983
#6,983
MAD said:
When will the US and NY follow?
Need to ban all the extremist groups including the Muslim brotherhood.

Germany news: Interior Ministry bans 'Muslim Interactive'​


Germany's Interior Ministry has banned the "Muslim Interactive" organization, a newly founded Islamist organization, which has recently shocked the public by calling for a caliphate.

German authorities also conducted a search operation in other premises, as part of a wider investigation.

Elsewhere, Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul has caused a stir within his own conservative bloc by contradicting Chancellor Friedrich Merz's assertions that Syria is a safe country for refugees to return to.

Police union hails 'Muslim Interactive' ban, calls for deportations​

The German Police Union (DPolG) welcomed the news that the "Muslim Interactive" group, which advocated the overthrow of the German government, has been banned.
DPolG chair Rainer Wendt said that the government was "implementing...the active protection of our democracy and our constitution."
The Islamist association had called for a caliphate to replace the German state.
Wendt also said that membership of "Muslim Interactive" should be grounds for the deportation of non-citizens.
"We now expect the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees to review the respective residence status of the association's members in order to subsequently justify a special interest in expulsion," he said.
Deportation continued to be a hot topic in Berlin on Wednesday, as Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul openly disagreed as to whether it is safe for refugees to return to Syria.

www.dw.com

Germany news: Interior Ministry bans 'Muslim Interactive'

The Interior Ministry has also searched the premises of other Islamist organizations in Hamburg, Berlin and Hesse. Meanwhile, the foreign minister has caused an uproar with comments on Syria. Follow DW for the latest.
www.dw.com www.dw.com
Click to expand...

The problem for Europe is so massive, I seriously doubt they will do what it will take. Once in Europe one can basically travel anywhere. By the time they decide to take action, it probably will be too late - I think it is already.

Serious pain coming to Europe in many forms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyVolette, MAD and Good Ol' Charlie Brown
#6,987
#6,987
McDad said:
I think it is only weird if you have some agenda with the observation. National election turnout is weak. NYC mayoral elections are weaker. It's a sad reality.

I don't feel weird with the observation because I am one of those who doesn't vote.
Click to expand...

It's very sad that so few people value their voice in local/state elections. Local and state elections are what should garner the largest turnouts since they SHOULD have the most impact on daily lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, 825VOL, VolsAgainstTheWorld15 and 6 others
#6,988
#6,988
LSU-SIU said:
The problem for Europe is so massive, I seriously doubt they will do what it will take. Once in Europe one can basically travel anywhere. By the time they decide to take action, it probably will be too late - I think it already.

Serious pain coming to Europe in many forms.
Click to expand...
Have you ever lived in Europe? or are you just guessing? Traveling is different than living there.
What's more, They carry Uzis and will shoot first then ask questions. The laws are extremely different, what they can do there is completely opposite of what we do here.

I would be love to do what they do in Europe. They Will do what it will take if that is what is required. Land of the Free should not mean that we accept every breed and let them run in the streets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#6,989
#6,989
hog88 said:
It's very sad that so few people value their voice in local/state elections. Local and state elections are what should garner the largest turnouts since they SHOULD have the most impact on daily lives.
Click to expand...

I gave up on voting decades ago, but I have in recent years gotten into more of the county's business and have regular engagement with elected officials on certain matters. I have been gone back and forth as to whether to vote in the future as it pertains to local. I think for America to survive in its traditional form, drastic action probably needs to be taken and not sure it will be in time or matter at a national level.
 
#6,990
#6,990
Sudden Impact said:
Have you ever lived in Europe? or are you just guessing? Traveling is different than living there.
What's more, They carry Uzis and will shoot first then ask questions. The laws are extremely different, what they can do there is completely opposite of what we do here.

I would be love to do what they do in Europe. They Will do what it will take if that is what is required. Land of the Free should not mean that we accept every breed and let them run in the streets.
Click to expand...
Yes, for extended periods of my life.
 
#6,991
#6,991
NashVol11 said:
Funding is often tied to the percentage of the vote a party receives, I don't get why this is supposed to be nefarious
Click to expand...
I see two categorical ways its nefarious. the first is just objective data collection. the second I will call political manipulation.

-first, it presents the illusion of more choices than exist. you are voting for a candidate, not the individual party. but the individual parties are how the ballot is broken out.
-second, from a purely objective data collection standpoint with multiple options, listing one option multiple times is going to going to twist the data. in any type of poll some percentage of people are just going to choose randomly. so having multiple options increases the likelihood of someone randomly choosing a single candidate a disproportionate amount of time vs someone who is listed once.
-third, beyond the third option, listing an option multiple times makes it seem more important, or the more correct answer. again unfairly slanting the opinion of those voting for it. someone who is undecided is going to feel like someone who shows up multiple times is a better choice just because they are there multiple times.
-fourth, the formatting is bad. English is read left to right, top to bottom. the choices read that way are (A, B, C, D, E, F, space, space, space, J, I, G). reading left to right one could incorrectly assume the blank spaces represent the end of the choices in that category before moving on to the next election. if nothing else this also plays into the psychology of someone looking at the options, seeing them after a gap, and out of the most logical order, makes them seem like worse choices than those who follow the usual pattern. the repeated names also make it seem like you have made it to the end of the list.

-fifth, this may not be a nefarious issue, but I would be curious about how the order is determined. it does seem suspect that some people are listed twice before some names even come up once.

-sixth, I am willing to be most people who vote in it don't really understand the system, and candidates use that as an opportunity to boost their support.
-seventh, unless there is a law specifically tying funding to support based on party in the fusion system, it is a best hopeful that a fusion candidate will actually divide their policies based on the actual support they got.
-eighth, it shafts anyone who is a one issue voter. I will use an extreme made up example just to illustrate. Lets say a voter is single issue voter on gun control. they know Party D is staunchly anti-gun. but Mamdani in this case is also on Party As more popular platform, and they are relatively pro-gun. Should the voter vote D, knowing they are voting for someone who is going to side more pro-gun options based on the party A support?
-ninth, it allows politicians even more room to shady and go back on promises without being held accountable. they can just play off the two parties that voted for them. similar to the division we see nationally between R & D, just played out on a smaller scale.
-tenth, it screws over people who are staunchly against one of the parties in general, beyond the one issue voter above. they want to vote for someone new, but instead one of the small groups is really just one of the big guys wearing a different hat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jp1 and hog88
#6,994
#6,994
Sudden Impact said:
Have you ever lived in Europe? or are you just guessing? Traveling is different than living there.
What's more, They carry Uzis and will shoot first then ask questions. The laws are extremely different, what they can do there is completely opposite of what we do here.

I would be love to do what they do in Europe. They Will do what it will take if that is what is required. Land of the Free should not mean that we accept every breed and let them run in the streets.
Click to expand...

Pack accordingly

IMG_4327.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and TrumpedUpVol
#6,995
#6,995
LSU-SIU said:
Yes, for extended periods of my life.
Click to expand...
The you should know that they will take action necessary to rid the country of Islamic groups deemed harmful to their laws or a threat to the nation. If that is what that is their true intentions.
 
#6,997
#6,997
LouderVol said:
I see two categorical ways its nefarious. the first is just objective data collection. the second I will call political manipulation.

-first, it presents the illusion of more choices than exist. you are voting for a candidate, not the individual party. but the individual parties are how the ballot is broken out.
-second, from a purely objective data collection standpoint with multiple options, listing one option multiple times is going to going to twist the data. in any type of poll some percentage of people are just going to choose randomly. so having multiple options increases the likelihood of someone randomly choosing a single candidate a disproportionate amount of time vs someone who is listed once.
-third, beyond the third option, listing an option multiple times makes it seem more important, or the more correct answer. again unfairly slanting the opinion of those voting for it. someone who is undecided is going to feel like someone who shows up multiple times is a better choice just because they are there multiple times.
-fourth, the formatting is bad. English is read left to right, top to bottom. the choices read that way are (A, B, C, D, E, F, space, space, space, J, I, G). reading left to right one could incorrectly assume the blank spaces represent the end of the choices in that category before moving on to the next election. if nothing else this also plays into the psychology of someone looking at the options, seeing them after a gap, and out of the most logical order, makes them seem like worse choices than those who follow the usual pattern. the repeated names also make it seem like you have made it to the end of the list.

-fifth, this may not be a nefarious issue, but I would be curious about how the order is determined. it does seem suspect that some people are listed twice before some names even come up once.

-sixth, I am willing to be most people who vote in it don't really understand the system, and candidates use that as an opportunity to boost their support.
-seventh, unless there is a law specifically tying funding to support based on party in the fusion system, it is a best hopeful that a fusion candidate will actually divide their policies based on the actual support they got.
-eighth, it shafts anyone who is a one issue voter. I will use an extreme made up example just to illustrate. Lets say a voter is single issue voter on gun control. they know Party D is staunchly anti-gun. but Mamdani in this case is also on Party As more popular platform, and they are relatively pro-gun. Should the voter vote D, knowing they are voting for someone who is going to side more pro-gun options based on the party A support?
-ninth, it allows politicians even more room to shady and go back on promises without being held accountable. they can just play off the two parties that voted for them. similar to the division we see nationally between R & D, just played out on a smaller scale.
-tenth, it screws over people who are staunchly against one of the parties in general, beyond the one issue voter above. they want to vote for someone new, but instead one of the small groups is really just one of the big guys wearing a different hat.
Click to expand...
A lot of this is just nonsense, though, and several different ways of saying "someone who somehow has no idea who any of the candidates are may just pick the one listed twice (which applies to both the Democrat and the Republican)."

It doesn't have anything to do with the candidate dividing policy among parties. Zohran's campaign promises are his promises, he doesn't have one set for Democrats and one set for WFP or something. IIRC it's about matching funds (or similar funds) only going to parties that get 5% or more of the vote; very easy way to give parties outside of the 2 major parties more of a voice.
 
#6,998
#6,998
C-south said:
You don’t make the rules but glad you’re able to try and break these things down to determine the level of offensiveness.
Click to expand...
Ok, I'll leave nazi salute regulationsto you as long as you don't try to pass off things like fair catch signals and Mamdani's wave as sieg heils.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top