Most Cuomo criticisms are just but I like this policy. Make the absolute morons pay a stupidity tax. Hopefully it’s earmarked for the fight against the virus but I won’t hold my breath.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
We should stop and frisk any new yorker who is on the streets for non-essential business.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Sorry, but what do you expect him to do? Just open up the gates and say, "cya boys"... ffs
For an alleged technical violation of parole? Yes, absolutely.
Harbinger (correct usage) for November. Watch Biden in the spirit of bipartisanship refuse to challenge results after the Supreme Court throws out ballots in Michigan and Arizona
Give the homeless a hefty fine, that will teach them to stay at home or not to lose their home in the first place. Break and disperse the shelters.
They must have provided a valid reason, what was it?
Trump also discussing mail-in yesterday - saying no way, you go and do it in a booth (note he voted by mail in NY state, which allows it). This is the GOP's wet dream: reduced turnout in November.
To paraphrase a known-GOP operative: if you make it easier to vote the GOP will never win another election in this country. Just last week too.
They're a disgrace. I'm really saddened by the SC ruling. This feels like the kind of thing that is constitutional, which they usually don't mess with for party reasons.
Reminder: the GOP are a minority-rule party. They currently exist only because they've manipulated the system in their favour using laws to ensure that the party getting the most votes does NOT rule the country. They could win the Senate with only 18% of the votes, and haven't won a majority in the Presidential election for more than 20 years, despite having a GOP president for the majority of that time.
To paraphrase a known-GOP operative: if you make it easier to vote the GOP will never win another election in this country. Just last week too.
They're a disgrace. I'm really saddened by the SC ruling. This feels like the kind of thing that is constitutional, which they usually don't mess with for party reasons.
Reminder: the GOP are a minority-rule party. They currently exist only because they've manipulated the system in their favour using laws to ensure that the party getting the most votes does NOT rule the country. They could win the Senate with only 18% of the votes, and haven't won a majority in the Presidential election for more than 20 years, despite having a GOP president for the majority of that time.
Lines from Wisconsin yesterday:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
self-defence airstrke has to be a phrase from strangelove.
Self defence air strike nearly 9000 miles from their home border.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Can someone explain me the widespread support for mail-only voting?
I get the point of it as a measurement against the virus, but mandatory masks+gloves will do just as good a job and it doesn't create a precedent case. There is a reason why multiple countries have mail-votings forbidden altogether. It is just too easily abusable. Even if the current government will not, eventually one will come along who will do.
In the realm of this, why are Americans so against voter-IDs? It's normal and easily obtainable in so many countries, yet there is quite the opposition to this simple thing that can easily reduce voterfraud
I get the point of it as a measurement against the virus, but mandatory masks+gloves will do just as good a job and it doesn't create a precedent case. There is a reason why multiple countries have mail-votings forbidden altogether. It is just too easily abusable. Even if the current government will not, eventually one will come along who will do.
In the realm of this, why are Americans so against voter-IDs? It's normal and easily obtainable in so many countries, yet there is quite the opposition to this simple thing that can easily reduce voterfraud
See this:
It's a zero sum game though.
The number of people who actually commit election fraud is tiny compared to the amount of people who would be disenfranchised by an ID requirement.
2017 statistics:
Now compare that to the estimated 3.5 million people in the UK who don't have photo IDs.
Despite what people might suggest, an Election has the singular objective of providing a figure which accurately represents the wishes of the nation. Not "who also have a photo ID" or "who might also be close to their voting station during University term time". So in terms of pure quality of data, you get a much better results with the very low risk of voter fraud than you do with the very high risk of voter suppression. Especially when you consider that voter fraud is a risk to all parties indiscriminate of their demographics whereas methods of voter suppression are inherently discriminate against certain groups (usually poor/students/immigrants) and as such are a much greater risk to the integrity of an election as it's likely to skew the results considerably.
It isn't easily obtianable in the US.
So if it is a zero sum game now - what if a government ever goes rogue? Which was my entire point that you seemingly missed.
So then the argument should be to make it easier obtainable and not against voter-IDs per se.
The mail voting system is no more vulnerable to attack from a rogue government as in person voting systems. Voter ID would only serve as a tool in this sort of attack.
Its generally Republicans who are for voter ID, since they know various older poor people, particularly in rural areas don't have them, they are expired, and aren't likely to get them renewed. In a way, a form of suppressing the vote of the other side.
They intentionally make it difficult because voter disenfranchisement is the end goal.
I don't know about the US system, but here on Germany that is definitely untrue. Especially since citizens have the right to oversee the entire booth-voting process.
Aren't elder people as well as people on rural areas usually voting further to the right, though? So if anything it would be harmful not have them vote for the Republican party? Anyhow, that doesn't exactly speak against voter-IDs, but is an argument to make it more easily obtainable first to lay the groundwork.
That might or might not be true. I don't know the system enough in the US. But that again doesn't speak against voter-IDs per se. It just speaks for making these IDs more easily obtainable first to lay that groundwork. Or am I missing something?
The states are responsible for ID laws not Congress. A state that wants to disenfranchise poor blacks for example can make it very expensive to acquire an ID.
McConnell falls behind in the money race as small donors flock to McGrath
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Trump won't be tweeting this one.
Liberal judge Jill Karofsky defeats conservative justice Daniel Kelly in closely watched Wisconsin Supreme Court race
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...ill-karofsky-conservative-liberal/2986880001/
Liberal judge Jill Karofsky defeats conservative justice Daniel Kelly in closely watched Wisconsin Supreme Court race
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...ill-karofsky-conservative-liberal/2986880001/
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You might be tempted to blame Florida for electing a clown until you remember that the opponent was recently found passed out high on meth.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
this is the leader of the party that claims to fight for working people, during a depression
Didn't she also make good bucks on the stock market before the lockdown laws got into place and she sold and bought affected stock? Or was it another politician? Think it was her, though.
I don't think it was her. There were 4 senators I think (3 Republicans and Feinstein) who were briefed about the effects of coronavirus, and then sold some/all of their stocks (or in the case of one of them sold airplane/hotel stocks and bought zoom stocks).
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It "wasn't" her, but her husband. So pretty much the same.
"It’s not just lawmakers themselves; their spouses have been active in stock trading. In the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic, the House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband spent $3.3m buying up tech stocks that would probably surge during a coronavirus pandemic: Alphabet, Microsoft and Slack, according to Barron’s."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...coronavirus-briefings-to-make-stock-decisions
Most of those stocks are down anyway. People who bought stocks are ok, people buy stocks all the time. Those who sold stocks on the other hand while pretending that everything is fine (after being briefed about corona) on the other hand.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Bare faced lie.
There was a video going around recently of an economist debating a news reporter on some US show about how bailouts are a waste of time etc, anyone know the one I’m talking about and could post?
that’s the one. Cheers!