2·
12 days agoThe proposition is time-limited, and will revert back to independent redistricting organization after 2030.
- 5 Posts
- 49 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: July 21st, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
I saw it somewhere else on here, but I liked the suggestion of Democrats adding demands for popular changes as the shutdown continues on (e.g., Medicare for All, Medicaid expansion, no hungry kids, etc.), and I love it.
The only reason I made the request is I received a mod report from people who didn’t realize it, and at the time, the votes on your comment were in the negative, so I was concerned it might continue to be misinterpreted. I thought simply adding a “/s” to the end of your comment would be an a win-win for everyone: you wouldn’t continue to be downvoted, and people that didn’t pick up on the facetiousness of your comment, would then be able to appreciate your comment.
Please add a sarcasm or facetious tag.
You’re using different words to repeat yourself without actually addressing the flaw in your argument: it misses the larger picture.
You’re right on the technical points, but you’re completely missing the larger reality, which is corporate and media consolidation. There are a lot of business interests that include some subsidiaries that are subject to the FCC’s regulation, and other subsidiaries that are not. The point is, members of this administration are exerting extortionate pressures that don’t happen in a vacuum.
Often called “zombie bills”… Georgia Republicans do it all the time.
I locked this it’s post because it’s a duplicate submission and so that comments and replies can be consolidated in a single thread. (This submission had less activity than the other post.)
Appreciate the effort!
I saw someone reported this post for changing the title of the article. Nevertheless, in this case, the post title that was used appears to be more objective, more informative, less of a clickbait title than the original, and the author of the post was upfront about this modification from the outset, so I’m going to let it stand.
(Go to 4:28.)
I just updated my comment, to reflect another conversation about that Substack, and the short of it is: that Substack post is misinformation.
I know it probably wasn’t your intent, but In the future though, please don’t use a “shell” article to post other content.
NOTE: This article is from more than 7 months ago.
Edit: I’m on my phone, so forgive any formatting snafus, but I just recently responded to a question about why that Substack post was removed for, and I think it is applicable here.
I’m a mod on c/politics. I don’t speak for any of the other mods, and while I don’t recall interacting with your specific post, I’ll give you two reasons today that would likely be sufficient to me, for why I would have removed that post. (1) It’s an article to a Substack post, which isn’t necessarily dispositive, but the author is unknown (at least to me), which is a ding against its credibility. (2) I don’t know enough about the author’s intent to know whether to characterize the article as mis- or dis-information, but I’ve been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect. Specifically, the author demonstrates ignorance of the technology and logistics involved in the administration of elections, along with different methods of verification.
And just to be clear, the 2024 election was not perfect and there was institutionalized voter suppression; however, that Substack post is not rooted in fact.
The response I got from that post was (the other person quoting me):
I’ve been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect.
This seems to be stating that we must accept what you say at face value without evidence. (End of the other person’s quote.)
To which I responded, and I would say is just as applicable here:
Okay, well here are some facts that you can confirm with anyone else who has been involved in election administration that support my point:
- The individual or group of individuals involved in administering elections, varies from state to state, and sometimes even more, within a state, so extrapolating from a single case and assuming you could apply that to explain a nationwide election demonstrates a lack of familiarity with election administration.
- The technology involved in administering elections, varies from state to state, and sometimes even more, within a state, so extrapolating from a single case and assuming you could apply that to explain a nationwide election demonstrates a lack of familiarity with election administration.
- The article completely skips over addressing how any of these changes wouldn’t be caught during count verification steps.
Those are three things undermining the article’s credibility that you can confirm for yourself. It’s spewing the same kind of bullshit theories that I heard about the 2020 election, and spent the years since, fighting. I didn’t like the outcome of the 2024 election either, but I know what I’m talking about.
71·4 months agoOkay, well here are some facts that you can confirm with anyone else who has been involved in election administration that support my point:
- The individual or group of individuals involved in administering elections, varies from state to state, and sometimes even more, within a state, so extrapolating from a single case and assuming you could apply that to explain a nationwide election demonstrates a lack of familiarity with election administration.
- The technology involved in administering elections, varies from state to state, and sometimes even more, within a state, so extrapolating from a single case and assuming you could apply that to explain a nationwide election demonstrates a lack of familiarity with election administration.
- The article completely skips over addressing how any of these changes wouldn’t be caught during count verification steps.
Those are three things undermining the article’s credibility that you can confirm for yourself. It’s spewing the same kind of bullshit theories that I heard about the 2020 election, and spent the years since, fighting. I didn’t like the outcome of the 2024 election either, but I know what I’m talking about.
@[email protected] I’m a mod on c/politics. I don’t speak for any of the other mods, and while I don’t recall interacting with your specific post, I’ll give you two reasons today that would likely be sufficient to me, for why I would have removed that post. (1) It’s an article to a Substack post, which isn’t necessarily dispositive, but the author is unknown (at least to me), which is a ding against its credibility. (2) I don’t know enough about the author’s intent to know whether to characterize the article as mis- or dis-information, but I’ve been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect. Specifically, the author demonstrates ignorance of the technology and logistics involved in the administration of elections, along with different methods of verification.
And just to be clear, the 2024 election was not perfect and there was institutionalized voter suppression; however, that Substack post is not rooted in fact.
Good point and totally agree!
Trump’s total disregard for the Impoundment Control Act, which basically requires the President to spend money that Congress has appropriated — and the acquiescence of Congressional Republicans to that executive overreach — is ample reason why Democrats have little reason to trust Republicans will do what they say.