|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 5, 2020 15:49:39 GMT
It is possible. But the people doing the choice are very aware that IF Biden were to win the election, then the VP they choose is likely to be the President within 6 months by exercising the 25th Amendment Agree. The logical choice would be Candance Owens. However, logic isn't strong in the Democratic Party.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 5, 2020 15:56:43 GMT
All the 'mail in ballot' arguments are based on the claim that it is unsafe to vote in person.
I can think of multiple ways that a simple voting system could be set up. For example:
>Queue in cars or outside being called forward in small groups >Polling staff behind plastic screens with blown aircon via hepa filters from outside so they are in positive pressure >Misters at entry points with hypochlorous acid sprays (look it up its good for skin and kills Corona Virus) >plastic screens are positioned so that licenses/ID can be provided and voting form returned with disposable pens positive pressure ensures safety of staff >Voting booths have 'wipes' for desk area voters use and keep/discard single use disposable pen (could be paid advertising for local firm) >Voting form reader also under half plastic screen with attendant inside positive pressure. >After vote leave via an exit door not same entry door. >Helpers in the voter area could be positioned under a downdraft from blown aircon via hepa filters from outside and masked/gloved if any help required.
This could all be setup in a purpose built portable building if the usual sites cannot be used with the safety ideas above.
If wanted, I am sure that the USA could produce temporary structures with the capabilities above.
Why is this seen a problem compared with going to Walmart?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 5, 2020 16:01:01 GMT
All the 'mail in ballot' arguments are based on the claim that it is unsafe to vote in person. I can think of multiple ways that a simple voting system could be set up. For example: >Queue in cars or outside being called forward in small groups >Polling staff behind plastic screens with blown aircon via hepa filters from outside so they are in positive pressure >Misters at entry points with hypochlorous acid sprays (look it up its good for skin and kills Corona Virus) >plastic screens are positioned so that licenses/ID can be provided and voting form returned with disposable pens positive pressure ensures safety of staff >Voting booths have 'wipes' for desk area voters use and keep/discard single use disposable pen (could be paid advertising for local firm) >Voting form reader also under half plastic screen with attendant inside positive pressure. >After vote leave via an exit door not same entry door. >Helpers in the voter area could be positioned under a downdraft from blown aircon via hepa filters from outside and masked/gloved if any help required. This could all be setup in a purpose built portable building if the usual sites cannot be used with the safety ideas above. If wanted, I am sure that the USA could produce temporary structures with the capabilities above. Why is this seen a problem compared with going to Walmart? We have mail in voting. It is called Absentee Voting. Easy to do, should not be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 5, 2020 16:15:28 GMT
All the 'mail in ballot' arguments are based on the claim that it is unsafe to vote in person. I can think of multiple ways that a simple voting system could be set up. For example: >Queue in cars or outside being called forward in small groups >Polling staff behind plastic screens with blown aircon via hepa filters from outside so they are in positive pressure >Misters at entry points with hypochlorous acid sprays (look it up its good for skin and kills Corona Virus) >plastic screens are positioned so that licenses/ID can be provided and voting form returned with disposable pens positive pressure ensures safety of staff >Voting booths have 'wipes' for desk area voters use and keep/discard single use disposable pen (could be paid advertising for local firm) >Voting form reader also under half plastic screen with attendant inside positive pressure. >After vote leave via an exit door not same entry door. >Helpers in the voter area could be positioned under a downdraft from blown aircon via hepa filters from outside and masked/gloved if any help required. This could all be setup in a purpose built portable building if the usual sites cannot be used with the safety ideas above. If wanted, I am sure that the USA could produce temporary structures with the capabilities above. Why is this seen a problem compared with going to Walmart? We have mail in voting. It is called Absentee Voting. Easy to do, should not be an issue. We have both mail in voting and absentee voting - they are almost identical in both the voter has to request the mail voting form. However, if States are using inability to provide safe in person voting as a reason to move to 'mail shot' voting then it is easier and more secure to provide a safe polling place.
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Aug 5, 2020 20:01:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 5, 2020 23:23:53 GMT
Is this doctored?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 5, 2020 23:25:21 GMT
Sadly, nope.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 6, 2020 15:33:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 8, 2020 0:02:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 8, 2020 3:35:06 GMT
Actually not. Biden has been issuing pedal back statements - that was what he said. One of the reasons his handlers are trying to keep him in his basement.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 10, 2020 2:24:00 GMT
Yep.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 16, 2020 22:09:42 GMT
Found a new custom Covid mask here in Central Florida Across the front ... TRUMP 2020 NO MORE BULLSHIT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 30, 2020 0:23:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 31, 2020 4:09:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 3, 2020 18:31:03 GMT
The Great Reset a foundational view So the Great Reset is an attempt to remove the Bretton Woods agreement. "Klaus Schwab, impresario of the World Economic Forum, released a manifesto in the run-up to this year’s annual meeting at Davos, Switzerland, in which he called for a contemporary equivalent to the postwar conferences that established the liberal international order. “After the Second World War, leaders from across the globe came together to design a new set of institutional structures to enable the post-war world to collaborate towards building a shared future,” he wrote. “The world has changed, and as a matter of urgency, we must undertake this process again.” Schwab went on to call for a new moment of collective design for globalization’s alleged fourth iteration (creatively labeled Globalization 4.0).
Schwab is not the first to make this kind of appeal. Since the financial crisis, there have been repeated calls for a “new Bretton Woods”—the conference in 1944 at which, in Schwab’s words, “leaders from across the globe came together to design” a financial system for the postwar era, establishing the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in the process. It was the moment at which U.S. hegemony proved its most comprehensive and enlightened by empowering economist-statesmen, foremost among them John Maynard Keynes, to lead the world out of the postwar ruins and the preceding decades of crisis. Under Washington’s wise leadership, even rancorous Europe moved toward peaceful and prosperous integration.
This is a story with wide support in places like Davos. It’s also one that deserves far more scrutiny. Its history of the founding of the postwar order is wrong; more important, its implicit theory about how international order emerges—through a collective design effort by world leaders coming together to reconcile their interests—is fundamentally mistaken. What history actually suggests is that order tends to emerge not from cooperation and deliberation but from a cruder calculus of power and material constraints.
Bretton Woods may have been a conference of experts and officials, but it was first and foremost a gathering of a wartime alliance engaged in the massive mobilization effort of total war. The conference met in July 1944 in the weeks following D-Day and the final Soviet breakthrough on the Eastern Front. As a wartime rather than a postwar meeting, disagreements were minimized. Though the conference was about the future order of the international economy and though the aim of the talks was to link national economies back together, the building blocks were centralized, state-controlled war economies. The Bretton Woods negotiators were government officials, not businessmen or bankers. As they had done since the collapse of the global financial system in the early 1930s, central bankers played second fiddle to treasury officials. The Americans who were bankrolling the Allied war effort called the shots."Much more here:> foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/30/everything-you-know-about-global-order-is-wrong/Not sure how much this can be trusted but it provides a lot of background
|
|