Funny events in anti-woke world

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
7,271
2,864
118
Country
United Kingdom
Because there is more than enough time for everyone to vote quickly, this issue is that you have lines first thing in the morning and last thing in the evening because people work during the day. By allowing people to vote in different places than precisely where they live, they can vote during a break at work and not be involved in the last minute bottleneck. Additionally, precincts are not set at one specific rate of processing people. Reallocating volunteers and voting machines to facilities that can accommodate more people could actually increase the pace.
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.

More people live further from their closest polling place in that instance, but the polling place where they live is not necessarily the most convenient. I, personally, have never been in the position where I didn't have to go out of my way to vote, because the place geographically closest to my residence is just not the most convenient for me.
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?

You brought up duration of voting periods, not me.
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.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,484
695
118
Country
USA
IT'S YOUR ARTICLE, WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?!
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.
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?
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.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
7,271
2,864
118
Country
United Kingdom
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.
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.

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.
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.
 

XsjadoBlayde

Intersectional Multidimensional Pansexual Alliance
Apr 29, 2020
2,213
2,114
118
Britannialand
Huh. So that's what doom feels like
Doom is not recommended. Not sober, at least.


I wish all the cancer in the world upon these worms.
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:

XsjadoBlayde

Intersectional Multidimensional Pansexual Alliance
Apr 29, 2020
2,213
2,114
118
Britannialand

And it's yikes and yeesh, the exact same rhetoric as the ppl in UK and US word for word. You got your George Soros funding everything and your mind-control nanomachines, son!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Silvanus

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,065
5,441
118

Well no shit. Finally, our world leaders get that we only have one planet. Now do climate change.
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.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
35,253
2,004
118
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.
Well at the very least I understand the definition of context.
 

Hades

Elite Member
May 7, 2020
1,489
830
118
Country
The Netherlands
Ted Cruz is an... interesting character though. He seems to be completely off his rocker now, but he once clerked for Chief Justice Rhenquist. That is not a position you reach while being a buffoon, to say nothing of graduating Harvard Law magna cum laude. He's certainly not someone who should be dismissed for appearing like a clown, if the past quarter century hasn't severely atrophied that academic muscle he clearly once had. This one could be a helluva lot more dangerous than Trump ever was.
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.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,912
533
118
Country
United States
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.
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 ould wouldneed at least 100 nuclear weapons. That could cause a nuclear winter, and no one wins in a nuclear winter.
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.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,238
2,042
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
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.
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
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
13,182
3,647
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
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.
A lot of people in the '50s and '60s had the mindset that "having more survivors than the Ruskies" would be a "win condition".
 

AnxietyProne

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2021
510
370
68
Country
United States
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.

 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,046
1,402
118
Country
Ireland

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."