Thanks!Originally Posted by Alistair
Thanks!
nevar forget
Yes, How long and vigorously republicans have been trying to kill our (very good actually) public broadcasting is another topic we could discuss at lengthTV isn't the problem. It's private TV.Unfortunately, 40 years of media spotlight as "the successful real estate developer", etc in the American psyche, has cemented him with the trogs who vote for him, as a "Very successful, plain talking, now apparently pious business man".Yepp. I put him and Clinton on the same level.
But is the GOP different? Was there a charismatic GOP candidate after Reagan. And no, Trump is not "charismatic". He's a show man, a celebrity. he knows how to sell himself ... but that doesn't make someone automatically "charismatic"
We can see it's bullshit, but they've watched too much TV.
They warned us TV would be the downfall of civilization, and here we see it playing out plainly, before our eyes...
In Germany a lot of people bitch about the GEZ and the mandatory fee one has to pay. This is what finances our public broadcast system.
And while I'm all for arguing about how that money is spent (hint: soccer broadcasting rights) and about the qulaity of certain programs, I'll fight tooth and nails with everyone who wants to get rid off it alltogether.
As long as I've been here, it pops up as a topic every now and then.
meh
Capitalist fails to understand why people vote to keep cheap transportation option becasue no viable mass transit option exists.
meh
BUT WHAT COULD IT POSSIBLY MEANCapitalist fails to understand why people vote to keep cheap transportation option becasue no viable mass transit option exists.
And because Uber and Lyft burned $200 million advertising for it. 200 million US dollars, in a single state, for a single proposition.Capitalist fails to understand why people vote to keep cheap transportation option becasue no viable mass transit option exists.
Here is my biggest takeaway from the last two elections:
Polling methodology is clearly outdated and no longer as accurate as it once was in an older, less tech-driven, environment.
Polling needs a complete modernization and overhaul of it's methods, because it frankly sucks at what it's supposed to be doing.
If the word "telephone" is anywhere in polling methodology, start over. That time is long gone.
Not just them. All the food delivery apps too.And because Uber and Lyft burned $200 million advertising for it. 200 million US dollars, in a single state, for a single proposition.Capitalist fails to understand why people vote to keep cheap transportation option becasue no viable mass transit option exists.
Give me convenience or give me death, as DK so aptly said...
meh
Glad to see your wonderful liberal stronghold of California shows how it actually doesn't give a fuck about people in one simple result though. Really on brand.Not just them. All the food delivery apps too.And because Uber and Lyft burned $200 million advertising for it. 200 million US dollars, in a single state, for a single proposition.Capitalist fails to understand why people vote to keep cheap transportation option becasue no viable mass transit option exists.
Hey. I guess the opposition declined to give people a viable alternative.Glad to see your wonderful liberal stronghold of California shows how it actually doesn't give a fuck about people in one simple result though. Really on brand.Not just them. All the food delivery apps too.And because Uber and Lyft burned $200 million advertising for it. 200 million US dollars, in a single state, for a single proposition.Capitalist fails to understand why people vote to keep cheap transportation option becasue no viable mass transit option exists.
meh
Sweet lord why the fuck did anyone think it was a good idea to leave labour laws to a plebiscite?!Not just them. All the food delivery apps too.And because Uber and Lyft burned $200 million advertising for it. 200 million US dollars, in a single state, for a single proposition.Capitalist fails to understand why people vote to keep cheap transportation option becasue no viable mass transit option exists.
Give me convenience or give me death, as DK so aptly said...
THey didn’t. They wrote a badly written, overreaching, poorly thought out bill called AB5 last year, and this is a reaction to that.Sweet lord why the fuck did anyone think it was a good idea to leave labour laws to a plebiscite?!Not just them. All the food delivery apps too.And because Uber and Lyft burned $200 million advertising for it. 200 million US dollars, in a single state, for a single proposition.Capitalist fails to understand why people vote to keep cheap transportation option becasue no viable mass transit option exists.
Give me convenience or give me death, as DK so aptly said...
meh
All the votes the USPS throws away via that system by simply not delivering them and shrugging when ordered to by law? OH wait that already happened!I'll answer your question with a question:How many voters will that disenfranchise? Just for the sake of speedy results?
How long do we have to allow advance voting to be "reasonable", and at what point is any deadline a cause of disenfranchisement?
Should we allow Pre-Voting for six months before hand? A Year? Four Years? Will THAT stop this supposed "disenfranchisement" fear?
How long after Election Day do we have to keep taking in new votes? A Day? A Week? Three Months?
It's a process, it needs to have clear rules.
If we allow early voting for say, two months before the election, no one should be "disenfranchised" by there being a deadline of "get to them by election day", same as no one is purely disenfranchised by the current "get it in a few days after election day, depending on the State" rules.
And if they do feel that way, there is an easy solution, show up on election day and vote in person.
I'd answer your question with "not one single voter would be disenfranchised compared to today by this change". The only thing that would change would be timing, not "access" to vote.
But I'm open minded, if you have a hypothetical voter who would be disenfranchised, by all means lay out that scenario and we'll evaluate it's reasonableness.
THey didnt. They wrote a badly written, overreaching, poorly thought out bill called AB5 last year, and this is a reaction to that.Sweet lord why the fuck did anyone think it was a good idea to leave labour laws to a plebiscite?!Not just them. All the food delivery apps too.And because Uber and Lyft burned $200 million advertising for it. 200 million US dollars, in a single state, for a single proposition.Capitalist fails to understand why people vote to keep cheap transportation option becasue no viable mass transit option exists.
Give me convenience or give me death, as DK so aptly said...
Your state literally went fuck the workers for our convenience and nothing else. You defending the tech companies is the least surprising thing ever.
That is a failure of the Postal Service. Not a failure of the deadline proposal above.All the votes the USPS throws away via that system by simply not delivering them and shrugging when ordered to by law? OH wait that already happened!I'll answer your question with a question:How many voters will that disenfranchise? Just for the sake of speedy results?
How long do we have to allow advance voting to be "reasonable", and at what point is any deadline a cause of disenfranchisement?
Should we allow Pre-Voting for six months before hand? A Year? Four Years? Will THAT stop this supposed "disenfranchisement" fear?
How long after Election Day do we have to keep taking in new votes? A Day? A Week? Three Months?
It's a process, it needs to have clear rules.
If we allow early voting for say, two months before the election, no one should be "disenfranchised" by there being a deadline of "get to them by election day", same as no one is purely disenfranchised by the current "get it in a few days after election day, depending on the State" rules.
And if they do feel that way, there is an easy solution, show up on election day and vote in person.
I'd answer your question with "not one single voter would be disenfranchised compared to today by this change". The only thing that would change would be timing, not "access" to vote.
But I'm open minded, if you have a hypothetical voter who would be disenfranchised, by all means lay out that scenario and we'll evaluate it's reasonableness.
In such a case, the Postal Service disenfranchised them, not the deadline. Same as is true literally right now.
A different problem, with a different set of possible solutions.
I'd hate to be one of Trump's aides or advisors now. He's clearly a boss from hell at the best of times. But they've allowed him to believe that late counting and mail in are fraudulent and he will be so pissed off that they can't stop them being counted.
It's also a failure we can point to the root cause of.That is a failure of the Postal Service. Not a failure of the deadline proposal above.All the votes the USPS throws away via that system by simply not delivering them and shrugging when ordered to by law? OH wait that already happened!I'll answer your question with a question:How many voters will that disenfranchise? Just for the sake of speedy results?
How long do we have to allow advance voting to be "reasonable", and at what point is any deadline a cause of disenfranchisement?
Should we allow Pre-Voting for six months before hand? A Year? Four Years? Will THAT stop this supposed "disenfranchisement" fear?
How long after Election Day do we have to keep taking in new votes? A Day? A Week? Three Months?
It's a process, it needs to have clear rules.
If we allow early voting for say, two months before the election, no one should be "disenfranchised" by there being a deadline of "get to them by election day", same as no one is purely disenfranchised by the current "get it in a few days after election day, depending on the State" rules.
And if they do feel that way, there is an easy solution, show up on election day and vote in person.
I'd answer your question with "not one single voter would be disenfranchised compared to today by this change". The only thing that would change would be timing, not "access" to vote.
But I'm open minded, if you have a hypothetical voter who would be disenfranchised, by all means lay out that scenario and we'll evaluate it's reasonableness.
In such a case, the Postal Service disenfranchised them, not the deadline. Same as is true literally right now.
A different problem, with a different set of possible solutions.
meh
I'm not defending the tech companies. I voted against them. I'm pointing out why it was so easy for them to win.THey didn’t. They wrote a badly written, overreaching, poorly thought out bill called AB5 last year, and this is a reaction to that.Sweet lord why the fuck did anyone think it was a good idea to leave labour laws to a plebiscite?!Not just them. All the food delivery apps too.And because Uber and Lyft burned $200 million advertising for it. 200 million US dollars, in a single state, for a single proposition.Capitalist fails to understand why people vote to keep cheap transportation option becasue no viable mass transit option exists.
Give me convenience or give me death, as DK so aptly said...
Your state literally went fuck the workers for our convenience and nothing else. You defending the tech companies is the least surprising thing ever.
meh
CNN reporting Biden has won Wisconsin w/ 99% reporting.
CNN also reporting Biden remains up ~40K votes in Michigan w/ 94% reporting.
Nevada too close to call, Biden up 8k votes at only 86%.
Arizona looking better, Biden up almost 100k votes at 86%.
Quite possible Biden still wins it. I refuse to let hope die just yet.
Its looking good for team Biden.
Spoiler:
If he takes Michigan and Nevada, he doesn't need PA, and I think he's close there too, if you analyze where the outstanding votes are.
meh
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks