491–500 of 682 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hanoi? Are you refering to pulling out of Vietnam made the US seem like a joke? Or that the locals are wrong to celebrate that?
What exactly are you confused about? It seems pretty clearly spelled out.
Like, the Vietnam War. I don't even know where to begin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You get to feed the ballot into the (literal) black box yourself, it beeps and tells you your vote has been recorded. What did it record? Who knows?
> What did it record? Who knows? How is it any different than traditional voting, where you drop your ballot into a black box and trust the poll workers would count it correctly? You can do random spot checks select boxes to make sure the machine is tabulating correctly. If they're all correct, you can be reasonably sure the others are correct as well, unless your adversary has incredible luck.
It's completely different from a machine count. Humans have human failure modes, which are easily accounted for. Machines have random failure modes, and complex ways of being attacked. And all of the machines can be wrong in one direction at the same time, which is impossible for human counters.
Even random spot checks don't work for machines if the machine has some way of detecting it is being checked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly are you confused about? It seems pretty clearly spelled out.
It just seemed so absurd wanting American diplomats to be salty about the Vietnam War. Like, the Vietnam War . I don't even know where to begin.
Why would I be ‘salty’ about anything anyone does in Hanoi?
It seems clear that many people in Hanoi are benefitting enormously, which is pretty much a total positive, except for some possibility of inducing corruption elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am going to take a guess as to what the GP was referring to: In 2020, Pennsylvania was one of the states that made many changes to how their elections work under the guise of the pandemic. But they changed their rules at the last minute once more in a way that may have altered Pennsylvania’s outcomes. Existing state law meant ballots had to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day in order to be counted. The Democrati…
Are you referring to Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar over the 3 day extension of the received date? Those ballots were collected separately but there were less than 10k of them so even if they’d been 100% Biden voters they wouldn’t have affected the outcome of a race which Biden won by 80k votes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bezos? What the hell would a tech/business guy have to say about elections and why would anyone listen? He has a newspaper to speak for him, why is he saying this stuff under his own name? Edit: i was out of the loop but apparently bezos decided to throw his chips out the window for little benefit to himself (or anyone). Just goes to show the wealthy are just as capable of being morons as the rest of us
There's a corollary to the fallacy of appeal to authority, which is that it's also a fallacy of rejecting an idea outright on the grounds it doesn't come from an authority. It's an insightful observation whether or not you like Bezos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess for me personally I don't deny that Joe Biden won the contest as performed. I just question the contest themselves. After all, if made up my own election law and ran an election, and declared my candidate the winner, no one would listen to me, but that's what happened here, which we know based on scotus's interpretation of whether secretaries of state can change rules the way they did in Pennsylvania.
>After all, if made up my own election law and ran an election, and declared my candidate the winner, no one would listen to me, but that's what happened here, which we know based on scotus's interpretation of whether secretaries of state can change rules the way they did in Pennsylvania. 1. what happened in Pennsylvania? 2. why did a SCOTUS with 6-3 majority of republicans decide to side with Biden, of all people? 3…
As I've said elsewhere, it's as if I put a ballot box outside my house, got enough votes based on my own rules, and then declared whomever got enough votes in my contest the winner. That's great, but for it to be a legitimate election, the law has to be followed.
Again I'm hardly alone in this. Polling shows widespread bipartisan belief that the election was irregular. I'm honestly shocked at how different the mainstream media views are from the everyday person you talk to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am happy to say, I've never been on the side of a Cheney. Go me!
I find that unlikely. They are very publicly voting D this round. So that implies you are voting R, but that means you likely voted R with Bush. Did you vote against Bush but for Trump?
There are a lot of us. I don't really relate to the Bush GOP at all, and am not even sure what they have in common with the modern one other than some vague tax cuts (democrats do that too every once in a while though, so this is hardly some great conservative idea). I'm happy to see the Bush GOP completely gone. Today's GOP feels much more like the democrat party of the 2000s, which is what I grew up in. Much more working class. More 'rough' around the edges. Anti-corporate, etc (most fortune 500 companies and workers support the democrats, based on donation numbers)
For me the big national issue has always been a refusal to fight unnecessary wars. I admire that Trump started no new wars or engagements (he continued the existing ones, including some escalations, but I'm not a radical pacifist). For me, that alone seals the deal. I just don't believe in fighting stupid wars. I don't care about threats and I don't care about targeted military intervention. I'm not fighting forever wars, where they send boys my age to die (most of whom happen to lean conservative anyway). What a grift. If the Cheneys in the world want to fight wars, I recommend they grab their guns and go!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our credibility has been suddenly made synonymous with how willing we are to go to war on behalf of other countries . We are not But I think any attack on an American force will get you a quick lesson on our credibility, which, as an American, is all I really care about. Similarly economically, good luck not participating in the American markets.
I really don’t want to burst your bubble… but do you not realize this is seen as a joke abroad? e.g. In Hanoi, American officials, diplomats, and executives are rushing to wine and dine people who literally celebrate the defeat of ‘American force’ in public, on the record, every year. They treat even a random third secretary for some party committee 100km from Hanoi much much better than the 90th percentile upper mid…
The Cold War ended almost 30 years ago. I don't live in the past. I look forward to a glorious future, where we can even work with dirty commies. If the people of Vietnam don't like their government, they should feel free to overthrow it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Colorado does signature matching and ballot tracking. My signature has changed since I registered to vote here and I was notified in one election about it not matching and had to cure my ballot. If someone voted under my name, I would be notified of the processing of my ballot and could object to it. Ease of voting/security is still an important balance. I could easily create a 100% secure election and it would disen…
Signature matching is a notoriously weak verification, especially when the risk is within-family disenfranchisement. You almost certainly know your spouse's and parents' and children's signatures, you likely have signed in their name in various occasions before, so signing with their signature in a convincing enough way to fool a ballot counter who gets to spend probably ~10s at most on every mail-in ballot is extrem…
You can always still go vote in person at a polling center, even with all-mail voting they always keep a few open just in case someone loses or spoils their ballot.
They'll record the vote provisionally just to make sure you're not trying to vote twice, and once it's clear no mailed-in ballot arrived it gets counted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>After all, if made up my own election law and ran an election, and declared my candidate the winner, no one would listen to me, but that's what happened here, which we know based on scotus's interpretation of whether secretaries of state can change rules the way they did in Pennsylvania. 1. what happened in Pennsylvania? 2. why did a SCOTUS with 6-3 majority of republicans decide to side with Biden, of all people? 3…
Honestly, your line of questioning is a non-sequitur, because I don't question the election results. I question the election itself. There is no doubt in my mind that Joe Biden had enough votes in the contest as run. I just think the contest is not a legal election since they didn't follow the law. As I've said elsewhere, it's as if I put a ballot box outside my house, got enough votes based on my own rules, and then…
>Again I'm hardly alone in this. Polling shows widespread bipartisan belief that the election was irregular.
The implication here seems to be that because the election was "irregular", that it wasn't legitimate. But what does "irregular" mean, and should the irregularities be the basis for overturning/ignoring the results of the election? For instance, the election happened in a pandemic. That's arguably pretty "irregular", and probably had a material impact on the results. Should the results be tossed on the basis of that alone? In other comments you mentioned other objections, like counting votes that turned up late, but it's not clear that tossing out those votes would make the election more legitimate. What's more irregular, sticking to the letter of the law exactly, and letting all the pandemic disruptions affect campaigning/turnout, or adding accommodations?