151–160 of 484 posts
The GOPs tactics seem increasingly like something you would see from a "banana republic"...
both parties do this -- specifically, the one and only green party assembly member in California 1990s was doxxed and infiltrated, while getting congratulatory letters from GOP reps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GOP has the majority of state governors. GOP has the majority of state legislatures. Both of the above are currently drawing Congressional districts based on the latest census data. Both of the above are currently rolling out voting rules that are nominally about preventing fraud (of which there is zero evidence of anything widespread) but will impact the ability of people to vote.
Of course there is zero evidence of Voter fraud. States don’t even check for dead voters or voters who moved out of state. Diebold designs black box systems that aren’t audited by hackers. Saying there is no evidence of voter fraud is like refusing to get an MRI and saying there is no evidence of cancer.
Not on a large scale, but still voter fraud.
It just happened to be from the party that complains about voter fraud non-stop, ironically projection, and gets zero media coverage.
In the event it does get media coverage, it's typically presented in skewed or twisted way.
For example, an Arizona audit found 99 non-counted votes for the current president, and 261 falsified votes for the challenger.
Instead of stating this outright, the number one cable news channel in the United States briefly mentioned it as "360 votes found for the current president" - no mention of the falsified votes of the loser.
A bit dirty, dont you think?
edit: revised numbers I'd incorrectly remembered
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can believe anything you like, and it's a little silly to read "we" in my comment as "without even a single individual exception". We, society , currently elect representatives who see fit to continue funding a public educational system of schools and universities, which can be inferred to be a general acceptance of their value.
And we, the society, are outraged at the blatant abuse of power we are witnessing in this article. We are shocked by how our current system may have critical vulnerabilities that compromise it's ability to deliver the education it promised, and are ready to discuss which aspect of the status quo may need to be improved upon.
I'm not sure how you get from "this university did a bad thing" to "we should get rid of public universities", though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember that testimony is given in an adversarial setting, and answers are framed by the attorneys questioning. So the idea is that either yes, they will give unbiased testimony, or the attorneys will be able to make it plain to the jury that the testimony is biased.
Or option 3, the plaintiff counsel successfully convinces some or all members of the jury that a biased testimony is unbiased. These are "experts", after all. They're already starting from a position of credibility, and I don't think the defense lawyer is necessarily equipped to deconstruct whatever the "experts" spend their professional lives working on, regardless of the objectivity of their teatimony.
This is blatantly unconstitutional and any professors disciplined under this would be in line for a fat settlement from the university. Or rather, they would be if our justice system actually worked. Rule of law in the US is on life support and the prognosis is not good.
If they were disciplined, yes, the "clever" part (read immoral but not unlawful) would be the University deciding that another Professor will get that senior position instead of you. You could fight it but it would be pretty easy in most situations to "prove" that the other candidate was better. I guess any academic needs to measure their conscience against their career as others in Politics or Religion also might ha…
The GOPs tactics seem increasingly like something you would see from a "banana republic"...
both parties do this -- specifically, the one and only green party assembly member in California 1990s was doxxed and infiltrated, while getting congratulatory letters from GOP reps.
> best example is a significantly different event from 30 years ago
Most countries, including EU nations, ban mail-in voting minus exceptions like living abroad, these laws being passed because of discovered fraud in elections. Election integrity is the difference between democracy and a one-party state. Every citizen should be bending over backwards to make sure our elections dont have sources of fraud.
Need a citation on that. UK has universal mail-in-voting for any reason. Some US states also have universal mail-in-voting, and have done for some time. The counterpoint to "make sure elections don't have sources of fraud" is that you need to strike a balance - the right to vote is sacrosanct (and in some cases was hard won) so any laws that pretend to be about election integrity, but are in fact a way to suppress vo…
There isn't really a debate here. Anyone complaining about voter fraud is uninformed or purposefully making a bad faith argument in order to justify voter disenfranchisement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the UK we did discover some postal voting fraud in a 2014 local election in an area of London called Tower Hamlets. We did not ban postal voting as a result. We have, however, imported a voter ID law from the US which was recently passed by the Johnson government, despite no voter impersonation occurring in Tower Hamlets (or anywhere else really). Previously, no ID was required.
I think the majority of "postal voting fraud" in the UK consists of very patriarchal families in which the father directs family members as to how to vote, and submits the votes himself. Arguably, this isn't much different from persuading people to change their voting intentions, which is entirely legitimate. Postal voting used to be restricted to people who could show that they were unable to vote in-person, e.g. be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, I have needed ID to vote for 30 years. I don't understand the objection to making some effort to verify that the person presenting himself as J. Random Voter is actually who he says he is.
Why make voting harder and more expensive then it already is?
I'm interested in your experiences on the topic, as I've personally not had a voting experience that was hard or expensive. For what it's worth, I'm considered a minority in the U.S.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need a "voting rights professor" to tell you what they're doing in Florida is undemocratic, un-American and 100% politically motivated.
As a curious non-Floridian, what about the bill is objectionable? I think I found the text here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/90/BillText/er/HT... I personally find issue with the idea of convicts being unilaterally disbarred from voting while I also feel that verifying the identification of the voter is pretty crucial to a believable vote. But I didn't read the whole thing. There might be more objectio…
Plenty of people saw no problem with poll taxes and reading tests. This just the latest swirl.