351–360 of 484 posts
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
If you have been paying attention to the rampant censorship by the tech oligopolies on behalf of the government requests you'd know that wasn't true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should still record anyway. Use it in the court of public opinion.
https://youtu.be/lSM-9RBk3HQ Or just make a deepfake of anyone you want saying anything you want and try them in the court of public opinion. Mob justice is a poor form of investigation.
This is a separate issue that will need to be addressed. It will soon be possible to claim any video or audio evidence is faked. I don't know what happens then, but building off of what happens now, each piece of evidence is just weighting the scales one direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would this work in deeply red or blue states? If you redraw the districts in California to put all the red voters together, that district will be competitive, but you have gerrymandered all the other districts to be blue forever. I think districts should represent sections of the geographic population. Its fine for a district to be uncompetetive if the general population in that region have a strong lean one way…
In practice, it means establishing non-partisan redistricting commissions, taking that power away from the legislature or the political parties: https://www.nonprofitvote.org/nonpartisan-redistricting-citi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> UF is saying that professors cannot both receive compensation for your testimony and testify as a member of the university No, you left out the only important part here - that the testimony is considered “adverse to the university’s interests.” > in other words, they can testify for free No, they were denied permission to testify. They are not allowed to accept the job pro bono, where did you get that idea?
https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/education/campus/2021... "Hessy Fernandez, UF director of issues management and crisis communications, told the Gainesville Sun in a text message Sunday the university views the professors' request to do outside work for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit as harmful to the university's interests. "However, to be clear," she stated, "if the professors wish to do so pro bono on their o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gerrrymandering indeed has a long history, and it's a bit like nukes - if the other side is already using them, it's hard to hold off on your side. In 2018, North Carolina saw 50% of the vote go to Republicans, but they received 77% of the Congressional seats. A couple rounds of that is a recipe for a permanent minority for the other party.
The ability of the partisan brain to consistently be outraged by the perceived foul play of the other side, while never bothering to check how one's own side is measuring up, is a fascinating phenomenon. This is really easy to sanity check. For example CA, the best known blue state in the nation. 2020 elections, 79% of the Congressional delegation is D, while only (edit) 66% of the popular vote went for (edit) Ds. Bu…
California passed non-partisan redistricting back in 2005. This took re-drawing the districts out of the hands of the legislature. It was proposed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and passed as a ballot proposition by the electorate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's his mother's fault for losing the documentation of his name change. Am I prepared? Yes. I have all my important identity documents locked in a fire safe. If something should happen to them, I'm willing to pay the $250, etc. amount to fix the problem.
That's not what I asked. I asked if you'd accept "you don't get Constitutional right X because you're an edge case" if it were your edge case and not someone else's. ($250 is, to many on HN, an insignificant amount. To some in the world, it's the sort of expense that'd mean eviction or having to skip your diabetes meds for the week. No one should have to pick between necessary expenses and their right to vote like th…
Yes. I live in California and own guns, so I've already seen my state make many compromises on the most liberal (not as in 'left') interpretation of my 2nd Amendment rights. Some of the laws even result in extra fees. And no, I don't "get" my 2nd Amendment right in the same sense that people "get" that right in Texas.
Anyway, I'm not sure we're going to get through talking past each other on this topic. Voter id is clearly intended to ensure and enforce an implicit voting right that my-vote-counts-the-same-as-yours (disregarding any complaints about the Electoral College). If people cannot acknowledge that and want to pretend voting is identical to, say, speech, I'm not sure how to even continue the conversation from there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congressional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Re...
Thanks for the link. The congress vote went 66-34. The congressional delegation, 79-21. There is a noticeable gap there. Perhaps this is a moment to step back, and at the very least analyze the full data set? How much being in charge of the State Legislature gives room for gerrymandering promoting candidates from the same party? Is it really a one side issue, or both parties engage in it with abandon whenever they ge…
The point is, barring consequences for doing it, or a Constitutional amendment banning it, once the other side is doing it, you're fighting with one hand tied behind your back if you don't reciprocate.
It's bad, but it's largely unavoidable in the current legal setup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MLive is considered a relatively unbiased production. To call what they've presented as "narrative" reveals your own bias. Perhaps you'd prefer a source closer to your own proclivities [1] which states: > Last week, the lawyer for one defendant filed a motion that included texts from an FBI agent to a key informant, the Iraq War veteran, directing him to draw specific people into the conspiracy — potential evidence o…
I'm familiar with MLive, but even good organizations are capable of making mistakes. As for "evidence presented to the court" that is not what this is. It is a motion to compel discovery in hopes of uncovering such evidence. Such motions can be quite legitimate and well founded, but they can also be desperate fishing expeditions. Either way, they are not evidence in and of themselves. For MLive to report these claims…
You can see it in their reply to you: they skip over the argument to focus in on the part they think will discredit you. The fact that he thinks he’s successfully categorized you as “antifa” means that they can safely dismiss your idea. Your argument didn’t reference MLive at all, but they needed to fixate in that part as the logic in your answer wasn’t debatable.
You’re not going to reason with them, for the simple fact that reason has nothing to do with this. They’ll just cherry pick one part of your argument and throw in more unsubstantiated allegations and then use the fact you want proof as more evidence that you’re against them.
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.
This is what I don't understand. Why can't legislators be proactive when it comes to protecting voting rights? We don't need to see any evidence of fraud to ensure the safety of voting rights.
For example, Florida passed Amendment 4 in 2018 which returned the voting rights of most felons after they'd served their sentences.
This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the Salem witch trials were "democracy in action"?
Yep. Democracy isn’t perfect it’s just one compromise among many.