It doesn't seem like he's trying to say "the Obama administration actively encouraged the Washington Post to trip over its own shoelaces and perform an epic, journalistic face-plant" in this particular case, but rather that because of the Obama administration pushing the "Russian hacking" narrative so hard, with so little evidence, they created the climate where the Washington Post had a strong incentive to want to put out a story like this. And in that, he's absolutely right.
Sing it with me, folks: correlation is not causation. After all, the number of works of visual art copyrighted in the US similarly has an inverse correlation to the number of females in NY who slipped or tripped to their death (really!). It doesn't mean it's a causal relationship where more of one means less of the other.
In this particular case, though, there absolutely is a causal relationship. Technology companies are out-competing them by having a better product, and are ending up eating their lunch.
Thing is, that's exactly how the system is supposed to work. Sucks to be the guys who failed to compete, but that's their problem. They have no right to make it Google's problem.
These guys have been blatantly disregarding any and every law they find inconvenient from the very beginning, and now they're running red lights, making hook turns through bike lanes, and completely disregarding requirements for proper registration of their autonomous vehicles.
I really hope this case gives some agency an excuse to shut them down completely, because this just raised the stakes. Before, their lawless attitude only screwed people out of money and dignity. Now, they could kill someone.
Yet, Susan has focused not just on understanding what kind of speech precedes violence, but also what works in counteracting that -- and she argues (and we agree!) that censorship is rarely does.
Yet, Susan has focused not just on understanding what kind of speech precedes violence, but also on what works in counteracting that -- and she argues (and we agree!) that censorship -->is rarely does.
No, I specifically and quite clearly meant "the Republican party and not simply the Republican presidential candidate." Please look over what I wrote again, with a bit more reading comprehension this time, as I was clearly referring to all the elections rather than simply the one that you're focusing on.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
Better question to be asking: why do these MILLIONS of people not have valid ID? (Or, to put it another way, if 90-99% of Americans can do it, what's stopping these guys?)
It's not difficult to get a state ID or driver's license. (If anything, it's *far too easy* to get a driver's license, as it theoretically requires demonstrating you're capable of driving, but I think everyone here would agree that experience shows we hand those out *far* too easily. But that's a debate for a different time.) It's not some arduous task that a reasonable person would conclude acts as a credible barrier to enfranchisement.
If you do not comply with basic, simple prerequisites, you're unable to perform actions that depend on those prerequisites. Why should voting be a special case? If it's really that important--and I agree that it is--isn't it really that important to put into place simple, common-sense measures that any legitimate citizen who cares enough can easily comply with, in order to ensure its integrity?
Generally, the fewer people that vote the more favorable it is to Republican candidates.
This would seem to not hold up against the facts: the 2016 election had the highest voter turnout in recent memory, and across the board--not just in the Presidential vote--the Republican party won in a landslide.
As I've said before on here, it was pretty much inevitable, as it's the Republicans' turn to screw things up now. It's a clear pattern that's been going on for decades in American politics: we didn't like Bush Sr. raising taxes after saying "read my lips, no new taxes," so we threw him and his party out and elected Clinton, who was even worse. We got sick of his endless scandals, so we threw him and his party out and elected W, who was even worse. We got sick of his moronic antics and endless wars, so we threw him and his party out and elected Obama, who was even worse. (Are you seeing a pattern yet?) Then we got sick of him and his party causing trouble for us with health care, race relations, civil rights, and oh-by-the-way not doing anything to put an end to the endless wars he campaigned on opposing, so we threw him and his party out and elected Trump, who is almost guaranteed to be even worse.
Anyone who was surprised by Trump's victory is simply not paying attention.
Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
Making it easier for people to vote is a good thing. You disagree?
I disagree. Unless you were to replace the word "people" with "legitimate citizens," in which case I agree wholeheartedly.
Voter fraud is inconsequential
This is an example of what they call "lying with statistics." The camp pushing that narrative loves to point out how few people get prosecuted for voter fraud each election. And they're right; it is a really small number of people. However, in doing so they conveniently ignore all the reports of cases like the districts with more votes cast than registered voters that make it clear that there is massive fraud going on.
Put in that context, the statistics about such a tiny number of people being prosecuted take on a horrifying new implication: there is massive fraud going on and in the vast majority of cases, we have no clue at all who it is!
But the "documents" to prove eligibility of voters is ... designed to stop certain groups from voting.
Yes, exactly. No one disputes this. The question is, who is it designed to stop from voting? The people actually trying to put these laws in place say it's to stop people who don't have the right to vote from voting, whereas critics like to push the racism-ist narrative that it's to stop underprivileged minorities who do have a legitimate right to vote from voting.
I'm more inclined to side with the first group, for three reasons. First, as noted above, there is widespread fraud going on and we have no idea who's doing it. Why not take simple, common-sense measures to weed some of it out?
Second, because the racism-ists have cried wolf so many times, and done so much harm to ordinary, decent people in the ensuing witch-hunts, that it's worth taking anything they say anymore with a rather sizeable grain of salt.
Third, because one thing that's a legitimate voter ID everywhere is a driver's license/state ID card, and I've actually gone through the process of one, many times and in many places due to moving around for different jobs, and the process in no way fits the racism-ists' narrative of some massive, arduous ordeal that acts as a barrier to enfranchisement.
Think back to the last time you did it. You go to the DMV, which is a few miles away from your house. Close enough that you could probably walk if you didn't have a car, or (depending on where you live) take the bus. Then you sit around for a long time waiting (and waiting and waiting...) for them to get around to you, and you pay the fee (about $20,) fill out the paperwork, and they send you your new ID card/driver's license in a few days. It's good for quite a while--how long depends on where you live, but generally between 3 and 10 years.
The racism-ists' entire narrative falls apart when you think about it critically instead of simply accepting their wild accusations at face value. Stop to consider, for a moment, just how arduous it really is to, in the worst-case scenario, have to visit the DMV for a few hours and pay $20 once every 3 years. It's difficult to conceive of any scenario in which that presents an actual barrier to any legitimate American citizen, no matter how disadvantaged.
So can we please drop the "voter suppression" conspiracy nonsense already? It doesn't even pass the laugh test.