3 ms·

No. I'm advocating a civil discourse in which people evaluate the pros and cons of different approaches without resorting to racial attacks. I'm advocating that

No. I'm advocating a civil discourse in which people evaluate the pros and cons of different approaches without resorting to racial attacks. I'm advocating that people should be encouraged to ask questions, like why does it take so long for the US to count ballots without getting into partisan bullshit.

rayiner 4y ago
America has degenerated into sectarian politics, and in such a system you can’t have a civil discourse about anything without “resorting to racial attacks.” I went to go see the candidates in Iowa for the 2020 Dem primary I was amazed by their talent (Elizabeth Warren particularly) for injecting race into literally every issue.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  Wedge politics. As old as time. Find an emotional issue to carve out a group of people. Then craft a statement that appeals to that group. It makes your campaign feel more personal to them. When you get elected, fail to implement anything you promised, and blame it on the other party.
hedora 4y ago
You brought race into the discussion, not me. There's nothing in the SAFE act that can be considered partisan, unless you assume that one of the parties is against allowing people to vote. The Republicans in the senate blocked it for two reasons: - It is impossible to print legible ballots on recycled paper. (The recycled paper requirement in the bill could have been removed in reconciliation, even if this argument is nonsense.) - Establishing federal standards for election machines and paper ballots would discourage states from establishing redundant standards. (Note that the opponents of the bill didn't make the stronger claim that it would prevent states from establishing stronger standards.) The bill would provide funding for standardizing best practices around paper ballot counting. That would speed up the count and reduce election fraud. The bill doesn't touch voter disenfranchisement, except that it includes a small amount of research funding to allow people with disabilities to vote on paper ballots without trusting a computer or divulging their vote to another person (this is currently an open problem). It was repeatedly proposed by Democrats + fillibustered by Senate Republicans. I don't see how any honest conversation about voting counting issues in the US can't point out that there are low-tech solutions to the exact issues you're complaining about, that the bill has been written, and that exactly one party has been blocking / fillibustering it for 3+ years (without publicly providing any legitimate complaints about the contents of the bill).
- rickbutton 4y ago
  hint: they aren't being honest

rayiner 4y ago

America has degenerated into sectarian politics, and in such a system you can’t have a civil discourse about anything without “resorting to racial attacks.” I went to go see the candidates in Iowa for the 2020 Dem primary I was amazed by their talent (Elizabeth Warren particularly) for injecting race into literally every issue.

SoftTalker 4y ago
Wedge politics. As old as time. Find an emotional issue to carve out a group of people. Then craft a statement that appeals to that group. It makes your campaign feel more personal to them. When you get elected, fail to implement anything you promised, and blame it on the other party.

hedora 4y ago

You brought race into the discussion, not me. There's nothing in the SAFE act that can be considered partisan, unless you assume that one of the parties is against allowing people to vote. The Republicans in the senate blocked it for two reasons: - It is impossible to print legible ballots on recycled paper. (The recycled paper requirement in the bill could have been removed in reconciliation, even if this argument is nonsense.) - Establishing federal standards for election machines and paper ballots would discourage states from establishing redundant standards. (Note that the opponents of the bill didn't make the stronger claim that it would prevent states from establishing stronger standards.) The bill would provide funding for standardizing best practices around paper ballot counting. That would speed up the count and reduce election fraud. The bill doesn't touch voter disenfranchisement, except that it includes a small amount of research funding to allow people with disabilities to vote on paper ballots without trusting a computer or divulging their vote to another person (this is currently an open problem). It was repeatedly proposed by Democrats + fillibustered by Senate Republicans. I don't see how any honest conversation about voting counting issues in the US can't point out that there are low-tech solutions to the exact issues you're complaining about, that the bill has been written, and that exactly one party has been blocking / fillibustering it for 3+ years (without publicly providing any legitimate complaints about the contents of the bill).

rickbutton 4y ago
hint: they aren't being honest