All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Mister Mets]

Allowing partisan observers and especially law enforcement to monitor voting can easily translate into voter intimidation. Historically this has been a problem. You know this and I shouldn't have to tell you.

I have yet to see data indicating a significant enough number of voters have experienced regret in the few days after casting their vote to warrant shortening the number of days voting is allowed. Representatives in the states where this legislation is being put forward haven't supplied that data because it doesn't exist.
When I said a "non-bullshit reason" I meant it.

Allowing partisan observers to be present at elections and having police officers at precincts is standard operating procedure.

It's the norm in New York state. If the argument is that something that's done in a blue state is voter intimidation, then it really should be made clear that things that are done in jurisdictions run by Democrats are unacceptable, which would make the case for national reform a little less partisan.

I can appreciate there are some tradeoffs, although it's probably worth it. There are clear standards on what the poll watchers can and can't do, and it is limited to people authorized by a campaign, political party or independent organization.

https://vote.nyc/sites/default/files..._11-2-2020.pdf

In general elections, the majority of voters know what party they're going to vote for in every election in November 2024, although this is probably something that shouldn't be codified.

In a race with a strong independent candidate, it gets harder to assess which votes are wasted especially if there's a last minute surge. The difference between candidates is also going to be smaller in primaries, where the typical voter may be comfortable with multiple contenders serving in the office.

That sounds like a highly dubious reason, and also just cover for those (ahem, the GOP, ahem) who want to limit who can vote. You must allow mail in and early voting for many, including disabled and the military, so you just end up deny some people of their constitutional rights.
I also notice how the GOP tries to prevent legitimate registration programs on false grounds. Also because they want to limit who can vote.

The whole history of the Dixiecrats, who now dominate the GOP is the denial of vote to certain people. They haven't changed much. The Voter Rights Act help mitigate this, but the anti-voting rights Roberts Court has done their best to do away with all protection.

There's a distinction between early voting being limited to a small percentage of the population (military, other Americans who will be out of their election district on Election Day, people with disabilities) and the policy changing so that it is the majority of the vote.

Arguments such as this would be a lot more persuasive if they weren't also reducing the number of polling places in areas unfavorable to the GOP and causing voting lines to extend to miles and hours of wait time, leading to confusion and challenges about when polls should close, and attempting to outlaw efforts to bring people to polling places since they are taking the polling places away from the people.

This isn't just a Team Red VS Team Blue thing, since there are wider disagreements about how to handle these kinds of questions.

Some of the discussions about specific locations tend to be about outliers. The pandemic isn't an ordinary election circumstance.

Un-suppressed is being used here sarcastically - it is a false label for untracked and illegal votes akin to ballot stuffing and harvesting votes like they do in third world countries where they buy votes with a free tee shirt and a chicken dinner. Your perceptions vary greatly from mine where Democrats have been running one party crony politics in cities far removed from any of the merits you describe and look an awful like the later dirty cases you point to and only get elected because of a kind of suppression of that isn't talked about. Entrenched incumbency has bred a level of corruption and business as usual that is at home in Blue district as any Red one.

What chance do you give the candidacy of Curtis Sliwa in NYC for an example? Or does it take a billionaire like Bloomberg to overcome the corruption in NYC?

Party domination is legal.

And she actually won 3 million more votes than Trump did.

So? The Electoral College isn't exactly an obscure campaign secret.

[Starter Set]

Like I said I dont mind Counseling. But if you officially call it Deprograming people are going to go nuts

As they should. That sounds extremely kafkian or 1984 to me. Go to your local Deprograming Center people!!

[Tendrin]

As they should. That sounds extremely kafkian or 1984 to me. Go to your local Deprograming Center people!!

I beg you to read another book.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I agree. Not everyone there is going to get 10 15 year prison time. Nor do they deserve it. There were a lot of bad actors that day. But I am sure there are some who got caught up in the mob moment but they didnt really do anything other then take a few pics. I still have an issue with them but I am not mad that the DA is not wasting time on going after the little fish just for pr points.

Well, the names of a fair portion, perhaps a goodly number of those thugs have been made public, meaning their reputations are probably ruined, their personal lives are in the toilet, and, more likely than not, they’ll lose their jobs, hardly an ideal situation to be in these days. I’ll gladly take that pound of flesh from the insurrectionists.

[green_garnish]

This isn't just a Team Red VS Team Blue thing, since there are wider disagreements about how to handle these kinds of questions.

Some of the discussions about specific locations tend to be about outliers. The pandemic isn't an ordinary election circumstance.

I think I'm missing some context in your reply. This nonsense was going on decades before the pandemic, and it certainly is a red vs blue thing. I'm really uncertain about what your reply means.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I think I'm missing some context in your reply. This nonsense was going on decades before the pandemic, and it certainly is a red vs blue thing. I'm really uncertain about what your reply means.

I think that reply can be narrowed down to one particular word....WHATABOUTISM.

[Tami]

Live Updates: Hurricane Ida makes landfall in Louisiana as an "extremely dangerous" Category 4 hurricane

"Extremely dangerous" Category 4 Hurricane Ida made landfall near Port Fourchon, Louisiana, at 12:55 p.m. ET with maximum sustained winds of 150 mph.

As the hurricane made landfall, New Orleans officials warned residents who had stayed to "hunker down." "There's nobody coming right now," said Collin Arnold, New Orleans' top emergency official.

Ida threatened a region already reeling from a resurgence of COVID-19 infections, due to low vaccination rates and the highly contagious delta variant.

If anyone lives in this area, please stay safe.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Live Updates: Hurricane Ida makes landfall in Louisiana as an "extremely dangerous" Category 4 hurricane



If anyone lives in this area, please stay safe.

The weatherguessers are saying Ida is more powerful than Katrina. I hope the rebuilt levee system can handle the storm.

[Kirby101]

So? The Electoral College isn't exactly an obscure campaign secret.

So was the EC created so that one or two Stares could over ride the majority will? Or is it an antiquated system designed for a time when counting the vote was vastly different. Yes, it is the system we are stuck with, and the GOP will never allow it to be changed, not when they can win the Presidency twice in a matter of decades with a candidate who loses the vote. But that Democrats show their displeasure at losing with a candidate the majority of voters want should not be a surprise. You sound very content with this system. Others feel it is a bad system. Including over 60% of all voters.

[Mister Mets]

I think I'm missing some context in your reply. This nonsense was going on decades before the pandemic, and it certainly is a red vs blue thing. I'm really uncertain about what your reply means.

You seem to have blamed someone else for something I wrote.

I was saying that many of the claims about weird situations in elections are outliers. It's not typical to have a situation where lines stretch for hours, so that's not really the point to address. It's often been the case that when someone brings up a weird situation, if you go into that particular disaster in more depth it turns out that it's not quite as bad as critics think.

The focus on the source of the arguments ignores the merit, but it's also worth noting that Democratic-run areas have had their own election problems, and that some have made serious missteps. It would be wrong to blame the entire party for that.

Like I said I dont mind Counseling. But if you officially call it Deprograming people are going to go nuts. The Dems want to brain wash us, going to put us in to camps, blah blah blah. They will dig in their heels and never change. A lawyer will fight that the punishment is really about changing the political views of a defendant and not about punishment for the crime and will challenge it all day. Like I said clog up the courts and maybe even let some people go free.

I have heard from some people they need to call it in public and in court records as deprograming and that is a very bad idea.

Just call it counseling and let the therapist decide how to the the person. Not the Courts.

It's a good point that this would be a situation that would have to be carefully handled.

Counselors would need to tackle sensitive questions, and differentiate between positions they disagree with and positions that are red flags, and more importantly, between beliefs and the actions you're willing to do based on those beliefs. It will be a clusterfuck if someone makes a bad call and penalizes someone for believing something that reasonable people could believe. There are some people here who should not be trusted with that power.

And what happens if someone is criticized for a position that seems conspiratorial but turns out to be correct (IE- the Cuomo administration undercounted Covid deaths)?

New Jersey
2020
May 2020 Third Ward Paterson City…
Judicial Finding
Fraudulent Use Of Absentee Ballots
New Jersey
2020
William Rojas
Criminal Conviction
Buying Votes, Fraudulent Use Of Absentee Ballots

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/n...ing-fraud.html

Paterson wasn't an isolated incident. In 2015, a Perth Amboy council election turned on 10 votes. The court ordered a new election when it was determined that 13 illegal mail-in ballots had been tallied. Does NJ.com want to explain to voters in Paterson or Perth Amboy how election fraud is a completely invented non-issue?

Doesn't the Paterson story show that the system worked?

Ballots that were improperly submitted during a chaotic time were identified and dismissed.

[numberthirty]

So was the EC created so that one or two Stares could over ride the majority will? Or is it an antiquated system designed for a time when counting the vote was vastly different. Yes, it is the system we are stuck with, and the GOP will never allow it to be changed, not when they can win the Presidency twice in a matter of decades with a candidate who loses the vote. But that Democrats show their displeasure at losing with a candidate the majority of voters want should not be a surprise. You sound very content with this system. Others feel it is a bad system. Including over 60% of all voters.

Here's the incredibly obvious problem with this bit...

If it is indeed the case?

No one was saying jack about that in the run up to the election when they were talking about how Trump needed to respect the results and be willing to accept a loss.

[Kirby101]

Here's the incredibly obvious problem with this bit...

If it is indeed the case?

No one was saying jack about that in the run up to the election when they were talking about how Trump needed to respect the results and be willing to accept a loss.

I am not sure what you are saying? Who said what if Trump lost? Are you saying people weren't saying the EC was a bad thing before the election?

I think many Dems would find it delightfully ironic if Trump lost the EC but won the vote, BUT they would still want to change the EC to a majority wins the election.

[Tami]

You seem to have blamed someone else for something I wrote.

I was saying that many of the claims about weird situations in elections are outliers. It's not typical to have a situation where lines stretch for hours, so that's not really the point to address. If you go into the particular situation in more depth it often turns out that it's not quite as bad as critics think.

The focus on the source of the arguments ignores the merit, but it's also worth noting that Democratic-run areas have had their own election problems, and that some have made serious missteps. It would be wrong to blame the entire party for that.

It's a good point that this would be a situation that would have to be carefully handled.

Counselors would need to tackle sensitive questions, and differentiate between positions they disagree with and positions that are red flags, and more importantly, between beliefs and the actions you're willing to do based on those beliefs. It will be a clusterfuck if someone makes a bad call and penalizes someone for believing something that reasonable people could believe. There are some people here who should not be trusted with that power.

Doesn't the Paterson story show that the system worked?

Ballots that were improperly submitted during a chaotic time where identified and dismissed.

Yeah, that is the important part. Sure, it can happen, but 99% of the time the person is caught. It's really hard to get away with messing around with the election, unless Office Holders start messing around with the election rules and laws.

[worstblogever]

So? The Electoral College isn't exactly an obscure campaign secret.

So getting Russian interference to assist one to lose by 3 million votes and "win" via an archaic model of democracy set in as a concession to slave-owners sounds a tad more "stolen" than whatever your party are flailing around about like a bunch of wankers.

[numberthirty]

I am not sure what you are saying? Who said what if Trump lost? Are you saying people weren't saying the EC was a bad thing before the election?

I think many Dems would find it delightfully ironic if Trump lost the EC but won the vote, BUT they would still want to change the EC to a majority wins the election.

Go back, and watch almost any news coverage from the weeks before the election.

Everyone and their brother was talking about that Trump needed to respect the process and the results if he lost the election.

No "Here are the flaws with the Electoral College..."

That it was fundamentally sound, and that Trump needed to respect the outcome.

Once Trump did not actually lose?

Whole other can of worms.