There’s still the open version of fact checking: community notes
What are the facts about this? That it doesn’t happen…that often?
There’s no real time enforcement for it to mean anything. The votes are tallied in real time, and a winner is announced, then months to years later people (who are caught) are prosecuted?
Can someone point out why mail in voting with no ID is a good thing? I’m genuinely curious
Because we’ve all seen how fraudulent people can be right?
This is minor, but take a video game for example - even with nothing to gain, lots of systems have to be put in place because people go out of their way to game the systems and cheat.
Why would something with actual consequences be any different? Why wouldn’t you have even the simplest system in the way of that?
Please present evidence of this fraud. You should be able to easily show it happening in Oregon. You have over 25 years’ worth of elections to find evidence for.
“It’s worked without any problems for 25 years” is not good enough? Why? How many more years does it need to work without any fraud for you to accept that it is not an issue? 40 years? 80 years? 150 years?
So there’s no evidence of fraud, there’s no indication of fraud, there’s no mechanism for fraud because of the way it is done, but you want it to be scrapped because maybe possibly fraud?
Maybe you don’t understand how voting by mail works in Oregon.
The person registers to vote. They give their specific name and address. During the election, the ballot is sent to that specific person at that specific address. The person votes, signs the back, and mails it back.
Where in that scenario do you envision the fraud to be able to occur? Specifically.
Your example doesn’t make any sense. You’ve never been in an accident but accidents happen all the time to people. That’s why you put on a seat belt. People die everyday.
Now point out election frauds happening because of mail voting. Hard evidence
You've never been in a car accident, but car accidents do happen, and frequently enough that there's still a very good chance it will one day effect you.
but we can still point at people who have been in car accidents, people who have been injured or died from car accidents.
If no one (or almoast no one) had ever died been in a car accident, including death, injury, or just a fender bender, then carrying insurance or wearing a seatbelt wouldnt be needed.
If we had evidence of evidence of rampant/widespread voter fraud via mail in ballots, then overhauling or getting rid of the system would be needed.
“here’s a road, there have been no accidents on it for 25 years. I’m saying, without proof, that its icy and we need to rip the road out. not to rebuild it, not fix it by spreading sand or salt, just tear it out.”
Along with Flying Squid’s request, can you show examples of voter fraud that would have changed an outcome? Or maybe what impact each case has? One person trying to vote twice in the same election at best might affect a local small race.
The numbers are actually pretty small, and ironically the group claiming there are voting issues (republicans) are the ones primarily getting caught doing it.
You're arguing based on a scenario that has historically never happened on a level where it has had an effect on any election, past present or even recent.
To be fair, I don't think there's harm in there being a voter ID, but there's no evidence of there being an issue for it not being there either. The biggest issue would likely be it would take time, and the world has to keep moving.
If you’re still “genuinely curious” about the voter ID issue that has been discussed to death for nearly five years, please do yourself a favor and stay away from any political discussions.
I mean, I understand that they’re not being made to be eaten, but they’re made from sweet potato starch or cornstarch.
Sure, they’re not being prepped for consumption, so there might be dangerous chemical preservatives or something not listed, but the reason people are eating them is because they’re made of food.
Sport for biological girls and women should be protected as a category. Before you say “it’s such a small number, it doesn’t matter”… Check out SheWon.org.
You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
Conservative positions are always the same, “I want X to be true, therefore…” vs the natural, “Okay so starting from a blank slate… let’s be curious…”
I truly don’t understand the end-game for transgender folks. People are going to continue to be born with both sex organs. People are going to continue to transition between genders naturally (due to how gender works at a biological level). The line between male and female has and always will be blurry, and in many cases, nonexistant.
The natural outcome of this will be a default genderless society where people express the gender they want to be, which seems harmless to me, but from a conservative PoV people being happy in a way they don’t understand is the end of the world? It’s so unusual because their entire world view is, “Just let me do what I want” while simultaneously, “No, YOU can’t live how you want, JUST ME.” Its inherently conflicting. But once again, to see that one would have to have a world view based in reason. And as any reason-driven person has realized, conservative positions dissolve under scrutiny of reason (why Jon Stewart is so popular, his entire sctick was comedically applying reason to conservative behavior).
Revisiting the original statement. All the evidence in the world won’t change a conservative’s mind, because they prefer not to use their mind. Anger anger anger. Fear fear fear. Conformity conformity conformity. Those seem to be the only thoughts they are willing to let cross their mind.
A conservative, “It’s not normal!” The idea that “normal” is a social construct is not a thought they will allow to be processed. (Note they cannot use “natural” here because it is quite natural in many species to change gender.) Humans just happen to also share that trait, an idea they cannot seem to grasp.
I ramble, should have edited this a bit, but despite the poor writing I got a few ideas I wanted to get across. Apologies for the disjointed nature of this reply.
Poor kid, she should have been into a mental institution instead of a normal high school. This it’s the kind of shit what happens when you try to normalize mental illness… the same for people who grab a gun and start shooting random people at Walmart, they need mental hospitals not to be into normal people places.
Edit: idk but in some places that shit of normalizing mental illness it’s going hard, politicians wanna rob mentally ill people too, not just privatizing health-care but letting literally insane people on the streets and then they wonder why some crazy MFs start shooting down random brown people at Walmart…
They just want to normalize mentally illness to grab the money and let the society pay the costs. They are not good with all what they already got they want the mentally ill money too they don’t give a fuck about mentally ill people they just want a little bit more of money to pay for the fake boobs of their wives with it.
I doubt many people here would disagree that we've greatly failed (at least in the US) at all things mental health.
That doesn't however give carte blanche to anybody who wants to spread misinformation, or hate. You keep referring to mental illness when the topic being discussed is mental disability; not the same topic and I'm pretty sure you know that.
You're paranoid, referring to a mysterious, unmentionable "they" looking over us all with puppet master's strings in hand, by definition the only person exhibiting mental illness in this comment section is you.
You then go on to refer to women as though they're some comical object to prove your point anout men. Maybe that is a reach, maybe only I perceived it that way, but it came off gross and I think you should know.
Your view of the world is dark, misinformed, and surprisingly hateful.
A sample size of 1,659 out of a population size of 334,914,895, with a population proportion of 50% and confidence level of 95% gives an error margin of 2.41%.
If there's anything I would not fault somebody about, it's misunderstanding sampling in a statistical sense. Just about the biggest case of "plug into formula and pray" of all of my classes I took. I'm looking back and it's just Greek letters to me now...
Oh yes, it's not meant as a slight. It's just something that humans need to be aware of. Just like how we need a forklift to move a one-ton object, we need to run calculations and trust the math when doing statistics.
1500-2000 is fine. They use random sampling and weighting. A larger sample size would decrease the margin of error but wouldn’t significantly alter the results. A margin of error of +/-3.1% is fine for this kind of snapshot of public opinion.
These bills are ridiculous on their face, and I believe that is on purpose. The people proposing these bills know they haven’t got a snowball’s chance in Hell of passing, but that’s not the point. The point is to gum up the works.
Will I have to also read several paragraphs about the fact that this notice is written in plain English thanks to an initiative sponsored by so and so before I can actually read the notice?
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.