Olgratin_Magmatoe @ Olgratin_Magmatoe @slrpnk.net

Posts

0

Comments

392

Joined

7 mo. ago

I don’t think the idea, of making sure your voters are citizens and who they say they are, is unreasonable. I’m a bit surprised it already wasn’t the case.

It is already the case that we verify who people are at the polls. That's what the voter registration card is.

Voter registration card => Free, no travel needed, can be done outside of businesshours, no prerequisites that cost money, just need to know your information

Drivers license => Money, travel, time during business hours

Passport => same as previous

They want to move us off of the system that's already working to verify identity with no barriers to entry, to one that does have barriers to entry.

I also think it kind of pales in comparison when you think about how the entire system after votes are cast works. If you’re a republican in California or a Democrat in Texas, you might as just not vote. After the opposite party “win the state” your vote no longer matters. That shouldn’t be the case. Each and every vote should have equal worth.

I agree, it's fucked up and planely apparent that it's a failure even on paper.

However it is still worth voting in every election, aa there are local positions on the ballot every time, and those have a much better chance of being swayed away from the lunatics in the GOP. And that's especially the case if it's a city.

The whole system we have for elections is fucked, the least we can do is not make it more fucked by putting up more barriers to entry.

Fucking love me some Not Just Bikes & Strong Towns

I don’t see a problem with having people provide ID to vote

I just explained it.

That’s how you make sure they are who they say they are.

No, the current default is voter registration cards.

https://www.usa.gov/voter-id

Basically you go to the election office, or your state's website. Then you fill out everything that proves who you are (current address, SSN, etc), and they give you a registration card to prove you are who you are.

Or you register for a mail in ballot, which is basically the same process, but they just know where you live and therefore where to send your ballot.

This sounds the same, bit the difference is that registration cards are free, and can be done online. Other forms of ID like drivers licenses and passports are not free, require transportation to some office, and take time out of your day during business hours (potentially hours, and potentially requiring time off from work which is an additional barrier).

They are not the same.

Just because other countries do it doesn't make it ok.

Nearly 21 million voting-age U.S. citizens do not have a current (non-expired) driver’s license. Just under 9%, or 20.76 million people, who are U.S. citizens aged 18 or older do not have a non-expired driver’s license. Another 12% (28.6 million) have a non- expired license, but it does not have both their current address and current name. For these individuals, a mismatched address is the largest issue. Ninety-six percent of those with some discrepancy have a license that does not have their current address, 1.5% have their current address but not their current name, and just over 2% do not have their current address or current name on their license. Additionally, just over 1% of adult U.S. citizens do not have any form of government-issued photo identification, which amounts to nearly 2.6 million people.

Millions of Americans across political parties do not have a license. Twenty-three percent of Democrats (23 million people), 16% of Republicans (15.7 million people), and 31% of independents/others (10.5 million people) indicate they do not have a license with their current name and/or address. Nearly 15 million people indicate they do not have a license at all, including 9% of Democrats (8.6 million people), 6% of Republicans (6.2 million people), and 18% of independents/others (5.9 million people).

Black Americans and Hispanic Americans are disproportionately less likely to have a current driver’s license. Over a quarter of Black adult citizens and Hispanic adult citizens do not have a driver’s license with their current name and/or address (28% and 27% respectively), compared to about one out of five adult citizens who identify as Asian/Pacific Islander (21%) or White (18%). Eighteen percent of Black adult citizens, 15% of Hispanic adult citizens, and 13% of Asian/Pacific Islander adult citizens do not have a license at all, compared to just 5% of White adult citizens.

Democrats and independents/others are more likely to face these potential voting difficulties than Republicans. Eighteen percent of Democrats and 17% of those who are independent or not affiliated with one of the two major parties either lack an ID or have a form of ID that may cause voting difficulties, while only 11% of Republicans do.

https://cdce.umd.edu/sites/cdce.umd.edu/files/pubs/Voter%20ID%202023%20survey%20Key%20Results%20Jan%202024%20%281%29.pdf

TL;DR: If you want to swing elections to the GOP, an easy way to do that is to disenfranchise the voters who are more likely to vote democrat, which means disenfranchising younger and POC voters. An easy way to do that is to place additional monetary, logistical, and time barriers to entry to vote.

Pretty fucking much. I've been arguing with her about (I know it's a waste of time but here I am).

Her evidence:

• Some dude from the water company 10 years ago said her bills were high because of immigrants
• Some right wing fuckwad posted a video on rumble interviewing who the fuck knows who, in NYC (we don't live in NYC), saying that the government was paying for them to have hotels and food

Mine:

• 9 fucking audits of the water company's spending
• a report from the auditor general of the state examining the neglect of the water system

But hey, "we each get to have our own conclusion" so fuck me I guess.

My mom's been bitching about how she can't pay for her water bill because of immigrants. Meanwhile the city is just trying to play catch up on infrastructure that's been neglected for decades.

Her bill isn't going to get any cheaper, but hey, at least everyone gets to fear for their lives now.

Ghouls

🎵 Kier, chosen one, Kier.

Kier, brilliant one, Kier.

Brings the bounty to the plain through the torment, through the rains,

Progress, knowledge show no fear,

Kier, chosen one, Kier. 🎵

Let's not sully the planet with him being the first one there. Let's send him to the sun.

It's waaaay more fuel, but worth it.

Fellas is it gay to have sex with women?

Few companies will migrate to the U.S., as it's wholey a disadvantage at this point.

The U.S. is unstable, is actively isolating itself from global markets, requires higher wages, and is run by a psychopath with a cult following.

Everything about it makes it bad for business, so business that can afford to are going to bail and stick with actually sensible countries.

This is an implosion.

if morality were dictated to rational agents through an external source, we could not be sure of its objectivity (i.e., universal and necessary validity). Moreover, the notion of an external source that dictates morality conflicts with our being free moral agents. Hence we must legislate ourselves through our own faculty of reason such that the moral law holds objectively for rational agents such as us.

I agree with everything here until the "must" of the last sentence, as it seems to be based on the implication that said free agents care. There are people who do not care for their own wellbeing, or the wellbeing of others. On a subjective basis, they lack the values that objective reasoning would be built on.

To them that "must" is meaningless. Or worse, they view statements such as that as being dictated to them from an external source.

On top of that, we aren't completely rational, or able to make completely rational conclusions at all times. We can make attempts, sure. But we have biases, we fall into fallacies without realizing, and like I said some of us just don't care.

Morality can't be objective if we can't be objective.

but I’d rather not recapitulate the entire work. If you’re interested, I would read the following entry page on the issue.

I understand not wanting to do that, so all good.

Though. I'm more interested in a discussion than anything else.

Kant thought that the moral law is a duty that is imposed upon the self by reason.

What is the evidence that this thought is true? How do you objectively prove this?

Kant thought that the moral law is a duty that is imposed upon the self by reason.

So how do you evidence that this value is objective?

if everybody lied all the time, then lies would lose their effectiveness.

How does effectiveness of lying have anything to do with the morality of lying?

If I am ineffective at providing for my family (disability/sicknese/other means for which I cannot control), is that immoral?

I've been doing some shady shit with regex lately (parsing .md files for interactive TTRPG sheets), but I'm glad to have not been touching XML

🤮

I do the same, but not because of sales, but because it takes 2-3 years for the high seas to swell with jolly rogers.

10/10 I love this shit

It's sad that something like it can never happen again because of how everything is streamed/torrented now.