Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

Who do you think will win in November?


  • Total voters
    101
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
1. Is it true the McDonald's thing was staged and the whole place was actually shut down w/ fake customers being served, while the food was actually cooked by staff?

2. Is it true that McDonalds confirmed that the Kamala thing is actually a lie and that she actually worked there?

Thx from someone who doesn't really follow American politics as much as that is possible
As someone who works in Food Service, the main thing that caught my attention, and the obvious way to see it was staged was that Trump wasn't wearing a hat. You need to wear some sort of hat or hair net in order to make sure your hair doesn't get into the food and is a health violation.

I have to wonder if the county health department was a Trump supporter or if someone called the state food inspector. I highly doubt Trump's campaign would have gotten called ahead to health inspectors.
 
1. Is it true the McDonald's thing was staged and the whole place was actually shut down w/ fake customers being served, while the food was actually cooked by staff?
All true. The fake "customers" were just Trump supporters who applied/volunteered for the event. They didn't even place actual orders. The staff just made pre-planned sandwiches/fries and let Trump randomly hand them out. There was no actual ordering of food. Trump wasn't temporarily working at Mc'Donalds... he was playing a POTUS candidate working at McDonalds in a TV show. It was essentially theatre for a campaign rally/event at McDonalds.

The franchisor of the particular McDonalds was apparently a big Trump supporter. I'm guessing the Trump campaign paid all the workers for the event and paid for all the food they handed out and paid the franchisor for the lost revenue for closing his store for a day. If not, I'm thinking they might have to report the whole staged event as a campaign donation by the franchisor.

I think that regardless of all that, the event was good for Trump. Him "working" for McD's was good optics I'd say. A good photo op.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, thanks for the mcd's insights.

I forget, how long do American federal elections take to count? I'm going to be on vacation, is there a specific day or range of days when we can expect the counting to be finished or at least enough counting to be finished to be able to declare a winner? Here in Canada we usually know late into the night right after the votes are cast, but I seem to remember American elections taking longer (but could be totally misremembering)
 
Interesting, thanks for the mcd's insights.

I forget, how long do American federal elections take to count? I'm going to be on vacation, is there a specific day or range of days when we can expect the counting to be finished or at least enough counting to be finished to be able to declare a winner? Here in Canada we usually know late into the night right after the votes are cast, but I seem to remember American elections taking longer (but could be totally misremembering)
Every state and territory must certify voting results by Friday 5 p.m. local time. Then we start the Trump lawsuits, challenges and Benedict Donald's tantrums.
 
I couldn't prove what job I had 12 years ago. All the people who could prove it are dead. And yet still I got a US government job.
And also, the post office requires you to take responsibility for your job performance, which elected politicians aren't required to.
 
I'm guessing the Trump campaign paid all the workers for the event and paid for all the food they handed out and paid the franchisor for the lost revenue for closing his store for a day.

Given Trump's endless track record of not paying for things, I'm going to guess he absolutely did not pay the franchisor or the workers for this.
 

US warns Musk political group that $1m voter giveaway may be illegal​

A letter sent to Elon Musk's political action committee from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) warned that his lottery-style giveaway of $1m per day to a registered voter may be illegal, according to US media.
Mr Musk, who is the world's richest man, actively campaigns for Republican Donald Trump in his presidential bid against Kamala Harris.
Over the weekend, the owner of Tesla and X/Twitter began giving away prizes to American voters who signed a petition.
It's unclear when the DOJ letter was sent to Mr Musk's organisation, America PAC. DOJ investigators have declined to comment on the case.

US outlets, including CBS News, the BBC's US partner, reported on Wednesday that the letter informed Musk's team that the giveaway may violate federal election laws.
It was sent by the DOJ's Public Integrity Section following outrage from Democrats over the cash stunt.
Under US law, it is illegal to pay people to register to vote. But it remains unclear whether the sweepstakes breaks any laws.
Mr Musk's contest offers money to signatories of a petition, which the PAC circulated.
“We want to try to get over a million, maybe 2 million voters in the battleground states to sign the petition in support of the First and Second Amendment,” Mr Musk said in Pennsylvania on Saturday when he announced the event.
The contest rules state that winners must be registered to vote, but no party affiliation is required.
“We are going to be awarding $1 million (£770,000) randomly to people who have signed the petition, every day, from now until the election,” he said.
The America PAC website states the goal is getting “1 million registered voters in swing states to sign in support of the Constitution, especially freedom of speech and the right to bear arms”.
It is open to voters in seven swing states - Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina. US election day is 5 November.

On Tuesday, a group of Republican ex-prosecutors wrote to the DOJ urging officials to investigate the contest.
"We are aware of nothing like this in modern political history," they wrote, pointing to potential federal and state law violations.
"Law enforcement agencies are appropriately reluctant to take action shortly before elections that could affect how people vote. But serious questions arising under laws that directly regulate the voting process must be an exception."
Mr Musk previously dismissed claims that the contest is illegal, saying: "You can be from any or no political party, and you don’t even have to vote."
On Sunday, the contest reframed its rules, describing the money as payment for a job, according to CNN.
America PAC said the winner will be “selected to earn $1M as a spokesperson for America PAC”. Winners have gone on to film pro-Trump videos.

Several legal experts have told the BBC that they believe the contest may be illegal.
"His offer is only open to registered voters, so I think his offer runs afoul of this provision," said Paul Schiff Berman, a law professor at the George Washington University.
He pointed to the US Code on electoral law, which states that anyone who "pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting" faces a potential $10,000 fine or a five-year prison sentence.
Adav Noti of the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center said Mr Musk's scheme "violates federal law and is subject to civil or criminal enforcement by the Department of Justice".
"It is illegal to give out money on the condition that recipients register as voters," Mr Noti told the BBC.
But Jeremy Paul, who teaches law at Northeastern University, said that Mr Musk may have found a legal loophole.
He said that, while there is an argument that the offer could be illegal, it is “targeted and designed to get around what’s supposed to be the law" and he believes the case would be difficult to make in court.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c748l0zv4x8o
 
"We are aware of nothing like this in modern political history," they wrote, pointing to potential federal and state law violations.
Do they live in a hole?
Cards Against Humanity campaigns to encourage voting, expose personal data abuse

The "Cards Against Humanity Pays You to Give a Poo" campaign uses US citizens' personal data obtained from a broker to identify whether individuals voted in the 2020 US presidential election and how they lean politically. Those who didn't vote are asked to put info into the website, promise to vote in the upcoming election, make a voting plan, "and publicly post 'Donald Trump is a human toilet'" in exchange for up to $100.

The amount paid out will vary, depending on a voter's home state and political leanings. Democrat-leaning voters in the so-called swing states that will likely decide the presidential election under the US Electoral College system are eligible for the $100. People in other states – and, presumably, Republicans – get less.

"Cards Against Humanity is exploiting a legal loophole," the org explains. "This whole thing should probably be illegal – so quick, give us your money before they change the law!"
 
Given Trump's endless track record of not paying for things, I'm going to guess he absolutely did not pay the franchisor or the workers for this.
The publicity alone could count as payment in kind.
 
I think the networks will be announcing the winner of this year's election at 11:00 ET on Nov. 5, and they'll have been holding back for four hours to do so.

Once Florida flips, everyone will know the winner, but TV will hold off calling the election until polls on the west coast close.

This without knowing the count in PA--and likely GA, too- until some days later.

A bunch of BS lawsuits will ensue, as others have mentioned, theoretically keeping the matter unsettled.

The publicity alone could count as payment in kind.
That's what he'll tell them.

Yelp had to shut off comments to that McD in the wake of the event.

And the stunt called attention to the fact that that restaurant had previously had health-code violations.

Everything Trump touches dies.
 
Ah yes, he happens to wield the touch of Sadim.

It could just be that anybody still willing to work with Trump is already somewhere down the path of corruption to begin with.
 
Poll aggregator sites are now showing Trump much closer. RCP is counting last 4 polls in favor of Trump, including, of course, a new Rasmussen poll with Trump +3%, Forbes/Harris with Trump at +2%, CNBC with Trump at +2% and Wall St Journal with Trump at +3%, thus virtually erasing Harris lead down to 0.2% nationally as of today. 538 similarly has Harris' lead down to 1.7% as of today and Silver Bulletin has Harris lead down to 1.6%. If any of these averages hold, Harris would be unlikely to win the Electoral College.

More critically, 538 has Harris' lead in Michigan down to 0.1%, in Wisconsin down to 0.2% and Trump leading in Pennsylvania by 0.3%. If Harris loses any of those three states, Trump is likely to win.
 
So how many weeks/months after the actual election date (whenever that is) can one expect a result to be announced?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom