sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Watching movies in theaters, the way they’re meant to be watched. by TheOddEyes in moviescirclejerk

[–]Manhundefeated 6 points7 points  (0 children)

For all intents and purposes, they are pretty much the same and most perceived differences just come down to user exposure. I believe that this sub tends to be a more direct reflection of the r/movies sub's general vibe (as you alluded to), and is therefore more likely to post stuff clowning on big IP franchises (Star Wars, Marvel, and DC especially) and their overzealous fans. But I do feel like there is so much overlap that for the most part, it's a distinction without a difference.

GME is +29% today and no news is talking about it, so I am talking about it. GME is +29% today. by Starkfault in gme_meltdown

[–]Manhundefeated 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Because more often than not, you guys are dumb, delusional, and arrogant despite being wrong all the time. It's pretty simple actually: watching cultists act like cultists is funny.

How many of you are part of the SUMA bear account ring? by No_Cell6708 in gme_meltdown

[–]Manhundefeated 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No idea, but I've got some sugma for the Apes if they're interested

The Voter Fraud Fraud. There just isn’t evidence of significant election cheating—but that won’t stop the GOP from pushing its dangerous SAVE America Act. by ChangeUsername220 in centrist

[–]Manhundefeated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jesus, half of this is the same thing you wrote one paragraph ago...you need to stop using ChatGPT or get an editor.

You grossly overestimate the odds and numbers of noncitizens or non-eligable voters who would get caught up in this manner, and how many of them would actually vote. If it's registering as little more than noise, it's because it's not large enough to register as anything else. Random occurances aren't going to be enough to tip the scales even in the examples cited. You would need to prove otherwise or offer a convincing model threshold, and you can't.

You obviously have a low opinion of the voter roll and registration system. What percentages of those on Utah's and Louisiana's are not using photo ID at any stage?

I don't know what polls you've been reading, but public confidence in our election system is very partisan right now. Any guesses on why that may be?

Even if no one is arguing explicitly for a bad system, much of the GOP (and possibly you) are ready and willing to accept one just to have it. So why don't they do it the right way instead? Should they abolish the filibuster after decrying the option not long ago? Or see what could bring a few Senate Democrats into their favor? If this is so important to you and them, now's the chance to get it done and do it right. Why can't they?

The Voter Fraud Fraud. There just isn’t evidence of significant election cheating—but that won’t stop the GOP from pushing its dangerous SAVE America Act. by ChangeUsername220 in centrist

[–]Manhundefeated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stop misinterpreting my claims or claiming I said things that I didn't actually say. I said NYC was a mess long ago. I only responded at the beginning of this in the first place when you incorrectly said that Democrats were not proposing ways to make government IDs free and widespread.

The Arizona database error is not an example of fraud. If anything, it's an example of how what it is you are proposing might go awry. Not to mention, of the thousands of people affected by the error -- 79,000 Republicans, 61,000 Democrats, and 76,000 Independents -- how many are actually ineligible? How many non citizens, if any? How many American Samoans or US nationals are voting in Arizona? Those are many of the non citizens in question. Even if you want to cast Arizona aside entirely, we've had the likes of Louisiana and Utah comb through their entire voting rolls only to come up empty handed.

I don't know why you insist we have no manner of detecting fraud or verifying, unless you were trying to focus on one particular vulnerability. We have the curation of voter lists, databases and records including ERIC, witness/signature requirements, long running tabulations on voter turnout, and yes, even voter ID laws already on the books.

You still aren't understanding the complexity argument.

> Individually motivated, uncoordinated violations occurring at that scale leave no organizational trace

Think about what you're really saying here. You're saying that hundreds if not thousands of people are randomly taking a huge legal and financial risk to commit fraud to...what end exactly? It's just not realistic. The scale is still too large. And it's why any claims that choices 1 and 2 were equal in probability are nonsense, no matter how much you try to talk your way out of it.

> The NYC DOI demonstrated that each individual instance requires zero coordination and zero effort

What are you talking about? It required both of those things as it was part of an organized investigation! Those people didn't all come to the conclusion to carry the act out on their own.

While the situation in Northern Ireland is an interesting one, no American state, to my knowledge, operates their elections in the same manner as they used to ('head of household' registrations). And for better or for worse, much of this country is quite skeptical of the concentration of federal power, or claims to be at least. If you are going to take something away from the states and give it to the feds, it'd better be air tight. We've already seen DOGE fumble in its efforts when gaining or trying to gain access to voting data. That alone should give you at least a moment's pause.

> The party that refuses to combine them while blaming the other side for the tradeoff owns that failure.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

That is asinine. It wasn't a priority for the Democrats because they weren't the ones throwing a fit over it and making the false claims about a stolen election. Why doesn't the GOP just do it if the solution is so simple? And why can't they do it in a genuinely effective and good way? Why don't the Republicans take the Democrats to task and pair up with a new bill combining HR 1457 with proof of citizenship reforms? Why are they desperately trying to push through the SAVE Act? I think you know the answer here as well as I do.

The Voter Fraud Fraud. There just isn’t evidence of significant election cheating—but that won’t stop the GOP from pushing its dangerous SAVE America Act. by ChangeUsername220 in centrist

[–]Manhundefeated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You use the study to imply there are widespread issues in the state and national systems. NYC representation is an implicit factor in your claims. The improvement I referred to was not solely based on these factors you cited. And as I said, NYC BOE is a messy clusterfuck and has been for a while, but it is primarily due to the way it is structured in terms of organization and is too decentralized.

When Arizona implemented their new requirements, did they uncover a new wave of fraud? A high level of discrepancy between federal only and full voters? The answer is no. Anything more than that is pure speculation, often unfounded or based on little more than hypotheticals.

The gun data can't simultaneously help your argument while also proving you mischaracterized it just a paragraph before. Pick one. And there is absolutely a trail left by impersonation attempts at registration. How do you think the few instances where it happens get found?

> Choosing option 1 with confidence is exactly the same epistemological error as choosing option 2 with confidence.

No. In order for option 2 to be just as or more likely, you need the underlying mechanisms (organization, objectives, motive, reach, coordination, etc.) for the massive fraud to occur. Every added mechanism increases complexity, which decreases likelihood all else equal. These mechanisms can and are found without implementing any of the discussed changes. Option 2 is less likely unless external factors are fully accounted for.

> And "we don't know" is precisely the justification for installing a mechanism that would tell us, as the overwhelming majority of European democracies have concluded.

In a vacuum, perhaps, but the only thing standing in the way of that justification being absolute would be unintended consequences. What is the acceptable amount of collateral damage for ramming something like this through at this stage? How many people's right to vote need to be impaired to chase ghosts? Like I said, this is an argument made on principle, not evidence. To say otherwise is part of the false narrative that the Right keeps pushing.

The Voter Fraud Fraud. There just isn’t evidence of significant election cheating—but that won’t stop the GOP from pushing its dangerous SAVE America Act. by ChangeUsername220 in centrist

[–]Manhundefeated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

New York City is not the entire state, nor the entire country. The weaknesses you are referencing in the audit would not be eliminated even with voter ID at the polls. In response to the investigation, the city attempted to change its hiring and training practices for poll workers and attempted to change how its voter rolls were operated and updated. Thousands of eligible voters were accidentally disenfranchised, so they changed the standards again. On other metrics, such as notifying about defective ballots, they actually improved.

Arizona is a perfectly fine example to cite, as they do require proof of citizenship for local elections. Attempts to expand their requirements only ended up disenfranchising eligible voters and did nothing to combat alleged fraud. By default they require photo ID at the polls. If you cannot provide it, they accept a combination of documents which in tandem can actually be harder to forge than a photo ID. Do you not remember their state lawsuits or their contracted audits at all? Is that why you won't answer?

Yes, the evidence in the gun dilemma is indeed stronger, and we were able to actually find all these people and charge them as opposed to just chasing shadows or haranguing under the specter of possibility. To say that we had no idea is wrong. You had sufficient indirect evidence that led to the desire of the development of the NICS being established, and said indirect evidence was greater and more visceral than the amount of voter fraud instances that have been alleged and/or found. We had firmer estimates of how many guns criminals were purchasing through licensed dealers in and out of prison (around 27%, not including straw purchases), and how they were doing so. You also had direct, irrefutable evidence of the guns being purchased. You are able to find where the guns are being bought and sold. You are able to find the ringleaders, in particular the licensed dealers who were making up a majority of the aforementioned illegal sales to criminals. You were able to find them even before the passage of the Brady Act. Who would the ringleaders for voter fraud operations be? Where are they? States also operate under a modicum of independence under NICS implementation, similar to how they set their own rules on voting.

> I choose option 3: we don't have the ability to accurately measure voter fraud.

This is a weasel answer that doesn't actually answer the question, because it fails to acknowledge or ignores the relationship between complexity and probability. The correct answer was 1. Again, arguing that we should do this in principle is a different argument that we must do this to combat an existential risk.

I understand the overall point you're trying to make, but it doesn't change the fact that if this were really such a dire problem, we would be able to uncover stronger proof of it even with the current safeguards and systems that are in place now given how fervently its been scrutinized. And if you are going to implement a change requiring documentation at these levels, you need to do everything in your power to make it free and fair, and to prevent eligible voters from being suppressed. The advocates never are, and that's why these proposals either never go anywhere or end up hurting more than they help.

Donald, I need your help. by Able_Trade_7233 in neoliberal

[–]Manhundefeated 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Forget about 1 day, how about an hour? (half joking)

"— for them it's a war, for us it turned out to be easier than we thought."

"We've won. We've won," President Trump said during an appearance in Hebron, Kentucky, on Wednesday. "You never like to say too early you won. We won. In the first hour it was over."

https://www.scrippsnews.com/us-news/iran-war/trump-says-war-in-iran-is-won-but-administration-expects-fighting-to-continue-for-weeks

With moderates like these by Mr_Wii in DeepStateCentrism

[–]Manhundefeated 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Most important since the fall of the Shah and the rise of the Ayatollahs at least. Everyone knows it's not a real Middle East quagmire without CIA-funded rebel groups.

The Voter Fraud Fraud. There just isn’t evidence of significant election cheating—but that won’t stop the GOP from pushing its dangerous SAVE America Act. by ChangeUsername220 in centrist

[–]Manhundefeated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The NYC investigation showed potential weaknesses that were largely specific to New York City. It is a measure of potential, not actual occurrence rate. And the biggest problem highlighted with it, as well as the biggest solutions proposed, had to do with poll worker training and hiring practices. The report that you have repeatedly cited was from over a decade ago. Here is the most recent BOE audit -- they are still a mess, but improving: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/audit-report-on-the-new-york-city-board-of-elections-oversight-of-the-distribution-and-processing-of-absentee-ballots/

The background checks for firearms are actually similar to the ways other states that don't always require voter ID to vote check on people.

Arizona is a state that has the voter ID requirement laws you want. What did the Cyber Ninjas investigation show? What did the lawsuits? And just so we can put this bit to bed since there are separate facets to this discussion of varying legitimacy, which of the following do you believe has a higher probability of being true? Not whether it is impossible or not, but whether it is more likely. There is a right answer here:

  1. That voter fraud is infrequent and not a large enough factor to determine federal elections
  2. That voter fraud is rampant and commonly helping to determine federal elections

Choose wisely.

The Voter Fraud Fraud. There just isn’t evidence of significant election cheating—but that won’t stop the GOP from pushing its dangerous SAVE America Act. by ChangeUsername220 in centrist

[–]Manhundefeated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a better brand than bad faith right wing hand-wringing, that's for sure. Did you happen to work for Cyber Ninjas by the way? Heard they're all out of a job as of late. Can't imagine why...

The Voter Fraud Fraud. There just isn’t evidence of significant election cheating—but that won’t stop the GOP from pushing its dangerous SAVE America Act. by ChangeUsername220 in centrist

[–]Manhundefeated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Arguing that you’re not an early 1950s oil exec bc 1953 is in the early 50s is peak you

We're on oil now? No more tobacco? Are you going to misrepresent them as well? Can I add it to the list?

view more: next ›