6 ms·

He donated 400m to funding election infrastructure. How is that donating to Democrats?

by PierceJoy 2y ago

mullingitover 2y ago
[flagged]
- wellbehaved 2y ago
  [flagged]
- throw10920 2y ago
  This is an extremely disingenuous and intellectually dishonest strawman of the views that people of the political party that you're attacking actually hold. This shouldn't be on HN: > Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - throw10920 2y ago
      > Reducing voter turnout under the fig leaves of 'protecting the vote' or 'fighting rampant voter fraud' You describing these justification as "fig leaves" proves rather conclusively that you are making partisan, as opposed to factual, statements. > is a long-term party strategy ...and your goalpost-moving from describing individuals on HN ("You can tell someone's political party merely by asking whether they support a high voter participation rate. You can also offend members of the other party by pointing out this fact.") to the strategy of political organizations further undermines the idea that you're making this comment in good faith. If you're making this comment in good faith, then you don't understand how biased you are. You are, factually, not approaching this from a neutral standpoint.
      - mullingitover 2y ago
        > You describing these justification as "fig leaves" proves rather conclusively that you are making partisan, as opposed to factual, statements. This is just electioneering 101: The party leadership can’t explicitly say “voter participation hurts us,” they have to instead pound on the table with unfounded claims of widespread fraud as an explanation to the party rank and file for the voter suppression they’re engaging in. I’m not saying I don’t have opinions, but I don’t need to lean on them when the facts make the case for me. The fact is that the low information voting bloc of the party is indoctrinated with the rampant fraud myth, and they support policies that suppress participation as a result. The high information leadership encourages this false belief because they know they lose elections when voters participate at high rates. It gives me no pleasure to report these facts. They are what they are.
        archagon 2y ago
        Didn’t some Republicans literally say equivalent of “voter participation hurts us” recently? I can’t find the quote right now but I remember seeing it float by in my news feed.
        carlmr 2y ago
        What I'd like to see from the Democrat camp is making mail voter registration easier, making government IDs mandatory, and also improving voter identification. Maybe also moving all voting to Sundays, so most people have time. Better voter identification IMHO is a reasonable ask from Republicans that's always shot down by Democrats. They say it excludes people that don't have ID. To me it seems reasonable to make having ID mandatory. And also making your ID mandatory for voting, like in every other developed nation I know. Make it free to get a state ID in the same legislation. This would take away the main argument Republicans have for saying there's potential fraud. Having ID is also good for people, because it eases interaction with the state in other things.
        mkj 2y ago
        Australia doesn't have ID for voting. Seems to manage fine here.
  - somewhat_drunk 2y ago
    Is it? Currently: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/arizona-republicans-sue-governor-over-pro-voting-executive-orders/ https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/arizona-republic... Recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_efforts_to_restrict_voting_following_the_2020_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_efforts_to_restrict...
amy-petrik-214 2y ago
the party that controls election infrastructure is the kingmaker thusly, if one observes the king that was made, one knows the party who decided see: GW Bush victory in FL see: Biden victory in >100% vote cities
- PierceJoy 2y ago
  Then how did Biden win in places where Republicans controlled the election infrastructure?
  - warkdarrior 2y ago
    That's where the Jewish lasers from space come in..
nostromo 2y ago
There are concerns that they paid for infrastructure in deeply democratic areas and ignored areas that were republican-leaning, in effect making it a Democratic get out the vote initiative. The media doesn't seem too interested in figuring out the actual impact, so I don't think any of us really know if it was balanced or not. But this doesn't strike me as the type of thing we want billionaires doing regardless.
- PierceJoy 2y ago
  > There are concerns that they paid for infrastructure in deeply democratic areas and ignored areas that were republican-leaning Concerns without evidence are nothing. Is there any evidence at all this occurred? Why aren't Republicans attacking Musk donating 10's of millions of dollars to directly help Trump? I mean, we know why they aren't attacking him. Because they're complete hypocrites.
- archagon 2y ago
  Where are you sourcing this from? Personally, I’ve only heard of the opposite happening. (For example, polling places getting shut down in some majority black areas in Georgia.)
- somewhat_drunk 2y ago
  "There are concerns" Can you link to something describing the basis for these concerns?

He donated 400m to funding election infrastructure. How is that donating to Democrats?

mullingitover 2y ago

[flagged]

wellbehaved 2y ago
[flagged]
throw10920 2y ago
This is an extremely disingenuous and intellectually dishonest strawman of the views that people of the political party that you're attacking actually hold. This shouldn't be on HN: > Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mullingitover 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - throw10920 2y ago
    > Reducing voter turnout under the fig leaves of 'protecting the vote' or 'fighting rampant voter fraud' You describing these justification as "fig leaves" proves rather conclusively that you are making partisan, as opposed to factual, statements. > is a long-term party strategy ...and your goalpost-moving from describing individuals on HN ("You can tell someone's political party merely by asking whether they support a high voter participation rate. You can also offend members of the other party by pointing out this fact.") to the strategy of political organizations further undermines the idea that you're making this comment in good faith. If you're making this comment in good faith, then you don't understand how biased you are. You are, factually, not approaching this from a neutral standpoint.
    - mullingitover 2y ago
      > You describing these justification as "fig leaves" proves rather conclusively that you are making partisan, as opposed to factual, statements. This is just electioneering 101: The party leadership can’t explicitly say “voter participation hurts us,” they have to instead pound on the table with unfounded claims of widespread fraud as an explanation to the party rank and file for the voter suppression they’re engaging in. I’m not saying I don’t have opinions, but I don’t need to lean on them when the facts make the case for me. The fact is that the low information voting bloc of the party is indoctrinated with the rampant fraud myth, and they support policies that suppress participation as a result. The high information leadership encourages this false belief because they know they lose elections when voters participate at high rates. It gives me no pleasure to report these facts. They are what they are.
      - archagon 2y ago
        Didn’t some Republicans literally say equivalent of “voter participation hurts us” recently? I can’t find the quote right now but I remember seeing it float by in my news feed.
      - carlmr 2y ago
        What I'd like to see from the Democrat camp is making mail voter registration easier, making government IDs mandatory, and also improving voter identification. Maybe also moving all voting to Sundays, so most people have time. Better voter identification IMHO is a reasonable ask from Republicans that's always shot down by Democrats. They say it excludes people that don't have ID. To me it seems reasonable to make having ID mandatory. And also making your ID mandatory for voting, like in every other developed nation I know. Make it free to get a state ID in the same legislation. This would take away the main argument Republicans have for saying there's potential fraud. Having ID is also good for people, because it eases interaction with the state in other things.
        mkj 2y ago
        Australia doesn't have ID for voting. Seems to manage fine here.
- somewhat_drunk 2y ago
  Is it? Currently: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/arizona-republicans-sue-governor-over-pro-voting-executive-orders/ https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/arizona-republic... Recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_efforts_to_restrict_voting_following_the_2020_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_efforts_to_restrict...

amy-petrik-214 2y ago

the party that controls election infrastructure is the kingmaker thusly, if one observes the king that was made, one knows the party who decided see: GW Bush victory in FL see: Biden victory in >100% vote cities

PierceJoy 2y ago
Then how did Biden win in places where Republicans controlled the election infrastructure?
- warkdarrior 2y ago
  That's where the Jewish lasers from space come in..

nostromo 2y ago

There are concerns that they paid for infrastructure in deeply democratic areas and ignored areas that were republican-leaning, in effect making it a Democratic get out the vote initiative. The media doesn't seem too interested in figuring out the actual impact, so I don't think any of us really know if it was balanced or not. But this doesn't strike me as the type of thing we want billionaires doing regardless.

PierceJoy 2y ago
> There are concerns that they paid for infrastructure in deeply democratic areas and ignored areas that were republican-leaning Concerns without evidence are nothing. Is there any evidence at all this occurred? Why aren't Republicans attacking Musk donating 10's of millions of dollars to directly help Trump? I mean, we know why they aren't attacking him. Because they're complete hypocrites.
archagon 2y ago
Where are you sourcing this from? Personally, I’ve only heard of the opposite happening. (For example, polling places getting shut down in some majority black areas in Georgia.)
somewhat_drunk 2y ago
"There are concerns" Can you link to something describing the basis for these concerns?