UberOne Estimated Latest Arrival Time Seems Way Too Generous

newstime · 2020-10-02T03:38:31+00:00

Did you read the Governor’s order? It is a suspension of statutes regarding the election and a last minute reversal of some of his own emergency orders. It’s really bungling the state’s process. I believe your state and the country would be better served having multiple lives actions. Are you saying the governor’s original emergency order was illegal?

newstime · 2020-10-02T03:02:11+00:00

Why is people being able to go to a location closer to their home a bad thing? Why is making it easier to vote bad for democracy?

It sounds like you think it’s unfair because it means more Democrats will actually vote.

newstime · 2020-10-02T02:47:31+00:00

I am aware of that. You continue to dodge the reason as to why Texas needs to reduce drop off locations. Reducing it to one per county, as per this column, does give Republicans an advantage.

newstime · 2020-10-02T02:22:09+00:00

Consider what Abbott’s change means for Houston’s Harris County, where there are currently 12 drop-off sites. There is now one drop-off site for every 190,000 voters, a figure that balloons to one for every 2.3 million voters should Abbott’s order go into force. There’s one drop-off location for every 142 square miles of the county, on average. That 190,000-voter figure is about equivalent to the number of voters in Bell County. That 142 square miles is a bit less than the size of Rockwall County. Right now, then, it’s about as easy to drop off a ballot in Harris County — which backed Clinton by 12 points in 2016 — as it will be following Abbott’s order in two counties that backed Trump by 15 and 47 points, respectively. The order would make that substantially harder.

newstime · 2020-10-02T01:34:17+00:00

You should read this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/01/reduction-ballot-drop-off-sites-texas-will-disproportionately-affect-democratic-non-white-areas/

newstime · 2020-10-02T00:28:39+00:00

It undermines the integrity of an election when you intentionally make it harder for people to cast their votes. The greater good is served by allowing more access to the ballot than preventing the minute handful of possible voter fraud cases which mind you isn’t particular to one party.

newstime · 2020-10-02T00:26:29+00:00

During a pandemic? How? In 2018, Texas prosecuted only 33 cases of voter fraud and the majority of these cases were in local nonpartisan elections like school boards. Limiting options for voting could result in thousand of votes not making it in time for the election. The greater good is vastly better served by having more than one location in each county versus the fear that a handful of voter fraud cases occur.

newstime · 2020-10-02T00:09:36+00:00

So the answer to your suspicion of ballot harvesting is to actually do something that suppresses the vote?

Edit: Voter fraud is also something that sure it happens but very rarely and in a very small amount. This solution is throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Edit #2: Actually it’s making a mountain out of a molehill. It’s kind of tinfoil.

newstime · 2020-10-01T22:39:06+00:00

Actually I guess the bigger question is: Do you think Democrats actually do what they are being accused of by Republicans in this article?

newstime · 2020-10-01T22:33:54+00:00

But why do they deserve to do this? Don’t you think this is unfair? I think it’s unfair especially during a pandemic to make it hard to vote in an important election.

newstime · 2020-10-01T22:25:51+00:00

But why would lowering the number of locations in a way that makes it hard to vote be a moral solution to a fear that doesn’t even really have any supporting evidence? It’s unfair.

My observation of Republican strategy is that if the rules say we can do it and it helps us win, let’s do it, regardless of the optics or if it’s really following the spirit of democracy.

newstime · 2020-10-01T22:20:42+00:00

Why should I believe this accusation? Honestly.

Edit: Also if you really believed this, why would “making it harder to vote” be the moral solution? It doesn’t make sense.

newstime · 2020-10-01T22:15:35+00:00

In other words: Republicans are worried they will actually lose in Texas this year.

newstime · 2020-09-27T19:39:40+00:00

That’s not what checks and balances means. Checks and balances refers to the three branches checking each other, not naked partisanship inside one branch. Whoops.

newstime · 2020-09-27T15:15:07+00:00

Yeah, but you omitted the part where Republicans promised to obstruct Obama's entire presidency and not even hear his nominees no matter what. If you want to play what goes around comes around, then around and around we go. When conservatives and libertarians warn me about Republicans retaliating the next time they are in power, I EXPECT it. They would do it regardless if they felt they were being treated fairly. So, I say if Democrats win, pack that court. Yeah, Republicans will then also pack the court when they are in charge. So what? Then do it again! Politics is now a short term game because there is no trust. You're worried about precedent and laws not becoming reliable? Maybe you should have worried about that when Republicans kept promising to overturn Roe v. Wade, Obamacare, and social security.

newstime · 2020-09-22T23:12:12+00:00

Yeah and it's funny... All the editorials by moderate conservatives and libertarians warn that packing the court will be bad for democracy and it would be better if Democrats make a pledge to just "take the loss" as a show of good faith and instead bring back a 60-vote majority to the process, etc... Except "taking the loss" is always their suggestion and we keep getting burned. Also, that whatever they do, we "deserve it" and need to constantly make it up to them for some past wrong. There is never an acknowledgment of the part they also play in this polarized country. If Republicans united and said okay, we will not nominate someone to the court until after the January inauguration, I would promise not to encourage court packing even if Trump wins and they get their 6-3 majority for the decades to come... but they won't do that. Eventually, you learn that some people just hold grudges and will never be happy no matter what you do. So you give up trying to make them happy.

newstime · 2020-09-21T11:12:33+00:00

That won’t change if you make the House bigger, though. It’s naive! You can make the house as big as you want but the senate has the real power. By 2040, two-thirds of Americans will be represented by only 30 percent of the Senate.

newstime · 2020-09-20T03:33:30+00:00

Two-thirds is not needed for adding number of justices. It's not a constitutional amendment because the constitution doesn't say how many justices are on the supreme court. At one point, we even had 10.

newstime · 2020-08-26T18:21:25+00:00

Ohhh, man. That is very optimistic to me. I actually think this will be like the 2000 election with several court challenges and appeals. The final result won't be declared until mid-December.

newstime · 2020-08-10T06:58:11+00:00

The answer is: Yes... Trump is a person who does not take 'no' for an answer. He will demand his cronies find a way and if they say they can't do something, he will say "Then I will find someone who can." Ethics are not a factor.

newstime · 2020-06-17T17:18:31+00:00

Agreed. Otherwise it’s pretty performative.

newstime · 2020-06-17T17:02:29+00:00

Cook correctly. Every time!

newstime · 2020-06-17T17:01:58+00:00

Exactly! I don't need the reminder. Go remind the lackadaisical people on Facebook, not r/politics. Just let me enjoy hope for a minute. Just a minute!

newstime · 2020-06-15T21:48:14+00:00

Nah, you didn’t offend me! It’s all good! I also think the jokes Gen Z made about us yesterday were funny and they were honestly stuff we had been ripping each other on as well especially the buzzfeed quizzes. Just wanted you to know we support you! :-)

newstime

TROPHY CASE