Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Riiiight, ok. Is this why the Houston Chronicle said queueing was much longer in 2020, over an hour in some spots, in Latino neighbourhoods?
I'll remind you that the vast majority of closures were in minority neighbourhoods, despite those areas growing in population by the greatest rates. While non-minority neighbourhoods had fewer than half as many closures, despite the population growing by significantly less.
So in this scenario, it would only be beneficial if 1) the voters were going from work instead, and 2) that station happened to be closer to work than their previous was closer to their home.
And... for all the voters to which this specific circumstance doesn't apply? They just have to travel longer? And with fewer than half as many, is it really likely that the stations will be so close to the workplace that they're closer than their previous one was to their home?
I brought up the extension of the non-early voting period in California being extended from 1 to 4 days, because that was part of the changes introduced alongside the closures. It was directly tied to it to compensate.
You then started talking about the early voting period, which existed long before the closures in either state were brought in, and was in place independently of those changes.
Don't jump into an argument if you don't understand what the argument is about. Silvanus posted that article, I pasted the link up here for your benefit.
The travel time isn't the primary issue. The time you can vote is the issue. You end up with lines when everyone goes to vote at 7am before work or 6 pm after work. Letting people vote wherever they happen to be at other times in the day allows people to vote at different times.
What? No I didn't.
I also love the "shamelessly left-leaning, infamously unfactual" description. Sorry, why should being left-wing be "shameful"? And the Guardian has a host of issues, but almost every single other fucking news-media source in the UK is worse. It's not "infamous". It beats almost every other source, including every right-wing newspaper in this country, and certainly most of those McNews outlets they have in the States.
Travel time is obviously an issue, since significant travel distance makes voting harder, and that's what this discussion has been fundamentally about from the start. But let's put that aside.
You end up with lines if a huge population is split over a very small number of spots. Observers from the 2020 election specifically noted that queueing time had increased after the changes.
Letting people vote "wherever they happen to be"... you're only realistically talking about people at work that day, intending to vote on their break. So, not universal at all; everyone else is still subject to the same bottlenecking pressures as before, only vastly worse, since they're not split over fewer than half as many spots. And even those voting on their break will be bottlenecked, since break times are on average around the same time of the day. And when they do go on break... they end up split over fewer than half as many spots, too.
Doom is not recommended. Not sober, at least.
Well, I'd settle for just enforcing higher regulation, but as this evolves anything would be better than the nothing that is currently being done.
Last edited:
Yes you can win a nuclear war - you just need to make sure the other country's missiles don't land - or even better, it doesn't have any in the first place.
Or have some suitable flexibility about what "win" really means.
He's most definitely playing a character. The Republican base seems to demand an extremely dumb candidate and Ted has the lack of scruples needed to debase himself in order to deliver.
That said some mistakes like Cancun do seem genuinely idiotic and can't be so easily explained as him wanting to appeal to anti intellectuals.
For me, winning a nuclear war is where you destroy a country's second-strike capability, their cities, and their ability to rebuild.
Since I am generally against doing it to a non-nuclear power unless they invade which you could argue is bad or good. I am going to narrowly define it as winning a nuclear war against a nuclear-armed great power since the soft power reduction is too large to call nuking a non-nuclear armed state a win.
To destroy a great power, and "win". you
The only reason I said earlier we need a nuclear defense shield is not so the US can go around nuking countries they don't like. It's so we can
1. Get rid of nuclear weapons, and switch to kinetic space-based weapons or conventional warfare
2. Freedom of action to respond to an international crisis for an ally against a nuclear-armed power
3. Safeguard the US mainland against a nuclear strike
If we were to get away with just nuking a country even a nuclear-armed one with a nuclear defensive shield. (Think of anti-submarine global strike weapon, a capability to detect all aspects of the nuclear triad with say space based assets, a way to detect small nuclear devices(hard), and a way to destroy simultaneously all ballistic missiles, and aerial platforms capable of using nuclear weapons, which I know is a stretch, but maybe done in the future) We would take the same soft power hit as nuking a non-nuclear country.
In sum nuking a country that can't fight back makes you look bad.
Nuking a country with 100+ nukes causes nuclear winter.
Nuking a country partially first could cause a global war, and make you look bad.
Jesus, I just felt myself age about seventeen years xD
The latter might be necessary.
I could imagine third party countries being involved if a belligerent country is quickly proven to be telling lies. Eg. If China knocked out the US' capability somehow and then blasted the country, I can't imagine there wouldnt be retaliation from India
A lot of people in the '50s and '60s had the mindset that "having more survivors than the Ruskies" would be a "win condition".
Hey @Dwarvenhobble, find me one, JUST ONE, Democrat that takes their anti vax shit to this level, and I'll believe that they're as anti vax/anti mask as Republicans. Not only that, I'll request a ban from this forum and you'll never hear from me again.
Seattle police faked radio chatter about Proud Boys at key moment in 2020 protests, investigation finds
At a crucial moment during 2020’s racial justice protests, Seattle police exchanged a detailed series of fake radio transmissions about a nonexistent group of menacing right-wing extremists.
www.seattletimes.com
Seattle Police did a psyop
Yesterday marked the 100 year anniversary of signing the treaty (creating an apartheid state in the North and leading to decades of civil war but sure, let's say it was a win) and, to mark the occasion, the Tanaiste's speech took a turn to an out of nowhere, bizarre rant about Sinn Fein.
Bearing in mind that this is a man who is currently under police investigation for leaking state secrets to a friend and who has himself personally, along with his party and coalition partners over and over again been caught flouting lockdown rules and guidelines since the start of the pandemic. The deputy head of his party is currently in the midst of his second scandal for being at a party since last summer. It's also a man who fought tooth and nail against marriage equality and abortion rights right up until the writing on the wall was that the vast majority of Irish people supported them.
Leo varadkar "I have principles, and if you don't like them I have others."