Page 931 of 1194 FirstFirst ... 4318318819219279289299309319329339349359419811031 ... LastLast
Results 13,951 to 13,965 of 17905
  1. #13951
    The Undead One The Chou Lives's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,187

    Default

    https://youtu.be/qBwV0Dpy8mw

    It’s starting.

  2. #13952
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,870

    Default

    I just voted.

    New York City has a series of locations open from this weekend until this weekend for early voting. It took me about 20 minutes total. The lines were mainly outside. They printed a ballot with my local races, I filled it out and scanned it. It seemed reasonably active, although it is one location substituting for dozens of polling places that will also be open on Tuesday.

    I did officially vote for the Biden/ Harris ticket.

    Obviously New York won't be close, but I did see a potential problem with how the state handles certain things. New York doesn't ask for Voter ID, but they do ask for signature matches, except they're using electronic devices to record signatures, so you may easily have people signing in a way that doesn't match how they sign with a pen or pencil. If that policy is done elsewhere, that can cause complications.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  3. #13953
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Chou Lives View Post
    Yeah and it's going to backfire. Because in the end, acting like that is going to get people to wake up. Maybe not many, but some, because when it happens to you personally it changes you. And someone who would have voted for Trump, picks Biden instead.

    I'm not naive, some may run away. But we've seen enough protests, we've seen enough of people standing up, to know that intimidation like that only works so long as someone doesn't say no. Say no and everyone else may follow.
    Last edited by ChangingStation; 10-25-2020 at 02:31 PM.

  4. #13954
    Silver Sentinel BeastieRunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    10,641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I just voted.

    New York City has a series of locations open from this weekend until this weekend for early voting. It took me about 20 minutes total. The lines were mainly outside. They printed a ballot with my local races, I filled it out and scanned it. It seemed reasonably active, although it is one location substituting for dozens of polling places that will also be open on Tuesday.

    I did officially vote for the Biden/ Harris ticket.

    Obviously New York won't be close, but I did see a potential problem with how the state handles certain things. New York doesn't ask for Voter ID, but they do ask for signature matches, except they're using electronic devices to record signatures, so you may easily have people signing in a way that doesn't match how they sign with a pen or pencil. If that policy is done elsewhere, that can cause complications.
    Verified signatures are a lot better than they were even 3 years ago. A lot function like a real pen now.
    "Always listen to the crazy scientist with a weird van or armful of blueprints and diagrams." -- Vibranium

  5. #13955
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulBullion View Post
    It's a completely illogical idea that, under an increasingly fascist regime, it's the fascism-sympathizers who are shy about voicing their opinions.
    I'd imagine the pundits concerned about shy Trump voters don't think we're under a fascist regime. Alternatively, they're considering the opinions of voters who aren't under the impression we're in a fascist regime.

    One problem is that pundits tend to work in cities and professional spaces (academia, mainstream media) where support for Trump is very unpopular, and believe that translates to the majority of the population.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  6. #13956
    Amazing Member Adam Allen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    Academic Fredrik deBoer has written The Cult of Smart, about the problems with the way modern American society prizes intellect. It's an interesting argument, which he discusses in an interview with Business Insider.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/cult...8KgCdVXreQsFXk

    Liberals want to preserve a sort of naive vision of human equality. Of course, I believe in human equality, but I believe in equality of dignity, equality of rights, and political equality. But I don't believe that everyone is equally good at all things. And it's important to say that part of what people are trying to preserve is an economy where what is valued at what time is a somewhat arbitrary distinction.

    He notes how there's a touchiness about innate intellect that doesn't really apply in other fields.



    He likely underrates the significance of practice and helping in helping people achieve their potential, but it does get to an important and rarely discussed question: What should society do for people who aren't bright enough to succeed in modern in-demand jobs?
    I don't feel like anybody, liberal or no, really believe everybody is equally good at everything. The same as with his examples about musical or athletic ability, it's not like we can't all see that some people struggle to make passing grades, while others get bored at the lack of challenge if they remain in classes with the majority students. I mean, there's gifted and remedial classes. Nobody is pretending we don't need them, so I'm not sure what your author here is on about.

    I will say, though -- when we think about economics and society and doing something to "earn a living", I feel like it should be obvious that we are going to get to a point where there just isn't anything useful for a lot of people to do. You know, modern farms can produce more today with fewer people actually working the land, building houses or whatever else can be done quicker and with fewer people; basically, with both the progress of technology and the increasing number of people ... we will get to a point where plenty of people can't "earn a living", not necessarily because they are lacking in ability, but just because there's just not that much work that really needs to get done.

    We really should be thinking ahead about how we're going to handle that particular crossroad, imo.
    Be kind to me, or treat me mean
    I'll make the most of it, I'm an extraordinary machine

  7. #13957
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    241

    Default

    I got interested in Voter supression, and it turns out that the Republicans used it in 2016 as part of a sick experiment. So, all those polls? They may have had another element.

    And in related news. The sheer blatant attempts at Voter Suppression this year has energised Voters instead of turned them away.
    Last edited by ChangingStation; 10-25-2020 at 03:35 PM.

  8. #13958
    Horrific Experiment JCAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChangingStation View Post
    I got interested in Voter supression, and it turns out that the Republicans used it in 2016 as part of a sick experiment. So, all those polls? They may have had another element.

    And in related news. The sheer blatant attempts at Voter Suppression this year has energised Voters instead of turned them away.
    I'm really hoping if the Dems take the Senate we can get some real voting reform passed. We shouldn't have horror stories about 10 hour long lines, thousands of polling locations and drop off boxes removed, fake ballot drop boxes, and countless others I'm sure we'll surely be hearing about for the rest of the year. This nonsense has got to stop.

  9. #13959
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Where The Food Is.
    Posts
    942

    Default

    "I love mankind...it's people I can't stand!!"

    - Charles Schultz.

  10. #13960
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    22,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCAll View Post
    I'm really hoping if the Dems take the Senate we can get some real voting reform passed. We shouldn't have horror stories about 10 hour long lines, thousands of polling locations and drop off boxes removed, fake ballot drop boxes, and countless others I'm sure we'll surely be hearing about for the rest of the year. This nonsense has got to stop.
    Agreed. And while we’re at, a law needs to be put in place where Election Day is declared a national holiday so people can vote without having to take time off from work.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  11. #13961
    Extraordinary Member Malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Freeville, NY
    Posts
    9,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPhillyPunisher View Post
    Agreed. And while we’re at, a law needs to be put in place where Election Day is declared a national holiday so people can vote without having to take time off from work.
    I think early voting solves that problem. Besides, most states have laws that mandate employers having to offer time off to vote.
    Watching television is not an activity.

  12. #13962
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Allen View Post
    I don't feel like anybody, liberal or no, really believe everybody is equally good at everything. The same as with his examples about musical or athletic ability, it's not like we can't all see that some people struggle to make passing grades, while others get bored at the lack of challenge if they remain in classes with the majority students. I mean, there's gifted and remedial classes. Nobody is pretending we don't need them, so I'm not sure what your author here is on about.

    I will say, though -- when we think about economics and society and doing something to "earn a living", I feel like it should be obvious that we are going to get to a point where there just isn't anything useful for a lot of people to do. You know, modern farms can produce more today with fewer people actually working the land, building houses or whatever else can be done quicker and with fewer people; basically, with both the progress of technology and the increasing number of people ... we will get to a point where plenty of people can't "earn a living", not necessarily because they are lacking in ability, but just because there's just not that much work that really needs to get done.

    We really should be thinking ahead about how we're going to handle that particular crossroad, imo.
    It's an interesting question in the future of what we'll do when there isn't much to be done.

    I'm curious if we'll reach that point, or if we'll need people to do something. One potential solution is much shorter workweeks.

    I do think there is a discomfort in the idea that much of the population is not capable of handling the courseload in a four year college.

    There was a lot of pushback years ago when Kellyanne Conway said that not everyone is college material.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...le-pushing-for

    The Atlantic had a piece on the problem with the idea that everyone should go to college.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...people/485618/

    Quote Originally Posted by ChangingStation View Post
    I got interested in Voter supression, and it turns out that the Republicans used it in 2016 as part of a sick experiment. So, all those polls? They may have had another element.

    And in related news. The sheer blatant attempts at Voter Suppression this year has energised Voters instead of turned them away.
    Voter suppression has been much discussed in these threads.

    There is a question about whether efforts to make it harder to vote backfire by motivating voters more. For example, in 2012 there was an argument that Republican Governors in key swing states were making it tougher for African Americans to vote, but African-American voter turnout ended up being higher than white voter turnout.

    The slight decline in turnout in 2016 might not have been the result of any new policies (one of the four states Trump won by less than a point ended up getting a Democratic Governor) but Hillary Clinton being a less exciting candidate than Barack Obama.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCAll View Post
    I'm really hoping if the Dems take the Senate we can get some real voting reform passed. We shouldn't have horror stories about 10 hour long lines, thousands of polling locations and drop off boxes removed, fake ballot drop boxes, and countless others I'm sure we'll surely be hearing about for the rest of the year. This nonsense has got to stop.
    What policies would you like to see?
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  13. #13963
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPhillyPunisher View Post
    Agreed. And while we’re at, a law needs to be put in place where Election Day is declared a national holiday so people can vote without having to take time off from work.
    My top concern with this is that most elections are not decided in November, but in the primaries, which can have varying dates (some states will have one primary; others may have multiple rounds.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Malvolio View Post
    I think early voting solves that problem. Besides, most states have laws that mandate employers having to offer time off to vote.
    The early voting offered during COVID does fix some of the problems, and it could be worth making it stay.

    It's likely better for the election workers to offer a ten day job than having them work from an hour before the polling site opens until after it's all shut down.

    The policies I've seen in New York City today might not work in a state with much lower.

    There is a potential problem in early voting that voters on different days will have different levels of information (If Joe Biden has a senior moment tomorrow, I'm not going to be able to change my vote because I went today.) Most voters have made up their mind before the election, although I wonder to what extent early voting might codify partisanship.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  14. #13964
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    My top concern with this is that most elections are not decided in November, but in the primaries, which can have varying dates (some states will have one primary; others may have multiple rounds.)

    The early voting offered during COVID does fix some of the problems, and it could be worth making it stay.

    It's likely better for the election workers to offer a ten day job than having them work from an hour before the polling site opens until after it's all shut down.

    The policies I've seen in New York City today might not work in a state with much lower.

    There is a potential problem in early voting that voters on different days will have different levels of information (If Joe Biden has a senior moment tomorrow, I'm not going to be able to change my vote because I went today.) Most voters have made up their mind before the election, although I wonder to what extent early voting might codify partisanship.
    Perhaps instead, a voting pass, allowing you to take work off to vote on any day the primaries are set as well as the main election? It's more flexible after all?

  15. #13965
    Sans Pants ChadH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Incertisque loci...incerto tempore
    Posts
    2,756

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    You're going after me personally, and you're wrong on the facts.

    In an argument about one aspect of immigration policy (how should the United States handle migrant families due to the combination of an increase in family arrivals, higher workload for immigration judges, and the Flores settlement that limits the amount of time children should be detained), whether there have been clearly articulated alternatives, and whether that matters, you suggested that I've failed to take into account the evidence you presented. This seems to be a reference to the post in which you said "An alternative bipartisan plan was submitted to Trump back in 2016. He rejected it in favor of this ongoing national disgrace we've had for the last four years."

    https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post5201264

    I asked about the bipartisan immigration plan. You posted two links, although these are to the same exact article posted in the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune, written by David Nakamura and Mike DeBonis.

    https://community.cbr.com/showthread...62#post5202662

    The proposed bill, as described, doesn't address the question of what to do with family arrivals in the future. I'm not acting in bad faith to point that out.

    It doesn't address my question about clearly articulated alternatives.

    The questions are high-stakes, dealing with sensitive issues and the possibility that the United States is harming thousands of children, and some complicating factors (Have parents made decisions that make it harder for the US government to get in touch with them?) And there may be differences in frames of reference, where one unstated argument seems to be that the situation is so terrible that anything is better, and where I'm concerned (and I've said this part many times) that a well-meaning solution can cause greater harm by incentivizing putting children at risk.
    After another look, I see that I did post a wrong link. My mistake and I own it in full.

    The first link I'd intended to post describing the bill is below.
    https://kilmer.house.gov/news/press-...nment-shutdown

    From that article:
    The bill provides funding for two other immigration-related priorities. The first is funding for more immigration judges and staff to reduce backlogs in immigration court, so people caught up in the court system aren’t stuck in limbo indefinitely. The other priority is an aid package for Central American countries which includes funding for a US Coordinator for Engagement in Central America, targeted assistance plans for countries from which large numbers of children have emigrated, and grants from the Millennium Challenge Corporation.
    You can see that the bill wasn't just about DACA and border security. Though it included those important aspects it also intended increased funding for more immigration judges, which you'd specifically mentioned as well as other programs intended to reduce the incentive for families to emigrate to the U.S. in the first place.

    My original point still stands. The Trump admin had alternatives placed before them and chose a brutal and unsympathetic route to purposely worsen the situation. They in fact took it one step further by separating the children from their parents effectively increasing the total number of individuals needing both care and legal representation.
    Last edited by ChadH; 10-25-2020 at 07:00 PM.
    The Cover Contest Weekly Winners Thread So much winning!!

    "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
    "Being politically incorrect shouldn't be a matter of pride. It's the last gasp of the wrong side of history." - Unknown
    "By all means, compare these s**t-heads to Nazis." - Mike Godwin referring to the protesters in Charlottesville.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •