New York City

#7,001
#7,001
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...
Boy I was stationed there and in the Middle East. You ain't wrong 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#7,002
#7,002
LouderVol said:
-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?
Click to expand...
To address the specific example, first of all these parties seem unlikely to nominate the same candidate, but I know it's an intentionally extreme example. If someone is anti-gun and still wants to vote Mamdani, then voting for him on Party D would give the pro-gun party more access to funding, and there are surely other races on the ballot where parties A and D have different candidates.

I see where you're coming from in the sense that a vote for him under Party D is in part a statement that you like him but disagree with his gun stance, and it's hard to gauge whether or how much a politician might take that "statement" under consideration, but I don't think that is the (or even a) primary driver behind fusion voting. I don't have different expectations when voting for someone under Working Families as opposed to Democrat, for example.
 
#7,004
#7,004
NashVol11 said:
If you think it could be scary that a Zohran intern said "jihad" (because what? Zohran is secretly a terrorist who's going to kill everyone?), then you should be less gullible
Click to expand...
Hadeeqa Arzoo Malik, his intern has said electing him is part of the Holy war and jihad.

I’m sure it’s just silly manufactured drama by his team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: appvol
#7,005
#7,005
Majors said:
Hadeeqa Arzoo Malik, his intern has said electing him is part of the Holy war and jihad.

I’m sure it’s just silly manufactured drama by his team.
Click to expand...
Manufactured by "DC Draino," actually, who seems to embarrass himself on a regular basis. The Kalshi "close race" thing was incredibly manufactured, though, and I appreciate you reminding everyone how right I was
 
#7,006
#7,006
NashVol11 said:
Manufactured by "DC Draino," actually, who seems to embarrass himself on a regular basis. The Kalshi "close race" thing was incredibly manufactured, though, and I appreciate you reminding everyone how right I was
Click to expand...
I’m actually referring to her video she made. But nice deflection. Credit for trying.
 
#7,007
#7,007
Majors said:
I’m actually referring to her video she made. But nice deflection. Credit for trying.
Click to expand...
An intern made a video and that means the NYC mayor is the next Bin Laden, people used to get meds for believing whacko things like this
 
#7,008
#7,008
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...

I only vote for beautiful women with large platforms.

Unfortunately there hasn’t been a lot of candidates that meet these standards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77 and McDad
#7,010
#7,010
NashVol11 said:
An intern made a video and that means the NYC mayor is the next Bin Laden, people used to get meds for believing whacko things like this
Click to expand...
Does she speak for you? She was part of his team, so there’s a connection and not a random on a message board. Most can remember she’s the same one in the face of the police officers a few months back getting badge names to dox. I don’t believe he’s OBL no matter how many times you say it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: appvol
#7,013
#7,013
LouderVol said:
so you weren't worried about those Young Republicans who were pro-Hitler? did you think those who were need to be less gullible?
Click to expand...
I think that is an insane comparison, nothing she said was "pro-terrorist". And a lot of those 1488 folks are currently running the White House/DHS public messaging
 
#7,017
#7,017
NashVol11 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Its not nonsense. 1/3 of voters don't know who the candidates are. That's a rather large chunk who are going to randomly or arbitrarily choose a canidate.

Clearly something that can weigh the votes of 1/3 of the voters, beyond policy, needs to be fairly handled.


But matching funds on what? The tag along party doesn't actually have someone in office to effect policy? How does it even work.

Mamdani wants 100 million for his bus program. Are you saying that 100 million gets split up somehow, and the party, not Mamdani gets the money and gets to decide how to use it?

Do you have some real world example of this? Because on its face it doesn't make sense.
 
#7,018
#7,018
NashVol11 said:
To address the specific example, first of all these parties seem unlikely to nominate the same candidate, but I know it's an intentionally extreme example. If someone is anti-gun and still wants to vote Mamdani, then voting for him on Party D would give the pro-gun party more access to funding, and there are surely other races on the ballot where parties A and D have different candidates.

I see where you're coming from in the sense that a vote for him under Party D is in part a statement that you like him but disagree with his gun stance, and it's hard to gauge whether or how much a politician might take that "statement" under consideration, but I don't think that is the (or even a) primary driver behind fusion voting. I don't have different expectations when voting for someone under Working Families as opposed to Democrat, for example.
Click to expand...
Your last is another issue I don't know if I covered. This helps the party. Not the voters. It gets the party more support without having inherently provided the voters with a better system or choice.

File this under the political manipulation side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#7,020
#7,020
NashVol11 said:
I think that is an insane comparison, nothing she said was "pro-terrorist". And a lot of those 1488 folks are currently running the White House/DHS public messaging
Click to expand...
Being pro Jihad seems pretty pro terrorist.

None of those linked to the pro Hitler comments were linked to the white house. The "most connected" one was an intern for a state AG or something. In like Kansas. I would Mayor of New York is far closer to the white house than attorney General. And not just the literal physical distance.
 
#7,022
#7,022
Just another night in one of the NY Boroughs in 2026.

33bae7b00d1d13598a684e8f61bc61808edef58d.gifv
 
  • Like
Reactions: theFallGuy
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top