Aircraft safety is important. That's why we let political activists and airlines make FAA rules, shout down anyone who suggests they're not completely and absolutely safe already, denigrate anyone investing an alleged "accident" as a conspiracy theorist, and delete paper trails. Thank God we take elections just as seriously. Why think of the harm that could befall our nation if cabals of the wealthy managed to strongly influence our electoral process.
You know, I just wish this social mind cancer that has befallen US society, where everybody is on some "side" against each other, and talks like you in your comment, would die.
I'm specifically not saying you are "worse" than others. It's more that that is the standard of how we treat each other now. And that is fucked up.
(Call me off-topic, but this matters.)
There is no "left". There is no "right". There are only people. With needs. If they all get what they need, the beef gets buried.
Itâ(TM)s pretty hard to reach consensus with people who strait up do not agree with the laws or their implementation. One group wants for example Voter ID. The other group doesnâ(TM)t (presumably because there is an impression illegal votes favor their side?). We canâ(TM)t have consensus.
I have always felt that voters should be assigned a unique ID known only to the state and the voter. The full register of votes should be public. You should be able to see all the IDs and how they voted,
You may have just done that which you said was impossible.
It took me until middle age to really learn this well, but I learned something a few years ago. (I guess I knew it intellectually before, but it really sank in a few years ago). You said:
> One group wants for example Voter ID. The other group doesn't (presumably because there is an impression illegal votes favor their side?). We can't have consensus.
What I realized a few years ago, and my six year old seems to already know, is that voter ID isn't
Most of what you say is reasonable. You can phrase it another way: systems always have two complementary types of error (known as "type I" and "type II" errors). In this case, a Type-I error would be NOT allowing somebody to vote when they SHOULD be allowed to vote, and a type-II error would be ALLOWING somebody to vote when they should NOT be allowed to vote.
For systems in general, methods reduce type-I errors tends to increase type-II errors, and vice versa. For example, if a system is a switch, and a typ
FYI, none of the groups of people you mentioned are required to show photo ID to vote in Texas. I'm referring to when you said:
> Obtaining ID costs money.. Even if ID is offered for free, voters incur costs such as paying for birth certificates to apply for a government-issued ID. And the travel required is often a major burden on people with disabilities, the elderly, and those in rural areas without access to a car or public transportation.
None of those are an issue, because they don't have to show p
FYI, none of the groups of people you mentioned are required to show photo ID to vote in Texas.
... And do you know why that is?
Because the ACLU sued the State of Texas, and the federal appeals court ruled that the restriction in types of ID discriminated against blacks and hispanics... and that it had been intentionally designed to do so. https://www.npr.org/sections/t... [npr.org] https://www.chicagotribune.com... [chicagotribune.com]
So now that you know what the Texas law actually is, you're going to stop going around saying all the stuff you said in your first post, right? You now know it's all false, if you didn't know that before.
I'm sure you wouldn't go around intentionally spreading lies.
No edit function in Slashdot, I'm afraid. Strike "For example, Texas allows (state issued) concealed weapons permits to be used as ID for voting, but does not accept (state issued) student photo-ID cards or even state employee photo IDs. Why is that?"
Substitute "For example, Texas allowed (state issued) concealed weapons permits to be used as ID for voting, but did not accept (state issued) student photo-ID cards or even state employee photo IDs. Why is that?"
That's because US citizenship is a requirement for voting. According to https://txapps.texas.gov/txapp... [texas.gov], you need to be a US citizen to have a Texas concealed weapons permit and not be a criminal. There are no such requirements for obtaining a student ID. Therefore having a valid Texas concealed weapons permit means you are a lawful citizen and therefore eligible to vote. A student ID proves nothing relevant to proving you're eligible to vote. Don't be so obtuse.
I suspect the bigger issue is the one I mentioned - a student ID doesn't have your address on it. Meaning it doesn't indicate which county and school district you're eligible to vote for.
The law is you need something with your address on it, such as a utility bill, W-2, or state ID.
I suspect the bigger issue is the one I mentioned - a student ID doesn't have your address on it. Meaning it doesn't indicate which county and school district you're eligible to vote for.
From Votetexas.gov FAQ:
10. Does the address on my ID (acceptable photo ID, or supporting ID if I qualify) have to match my address on the official list of registered voters at the time of voting in order for it to be acceptable as ID?
Makes sense. It does say specifically any government document of any kind *that has your name and address on it*.
It's disengious, I think, to rather than honestly tell people what the rule is, instead twist to make it sound like there's something nefarious. Yeah a carry license is one example of a document that has your name and address. The rule is - name and address.
Let me repeat this over and over again, since you do not seem to be paying attention.
The federal court ruled that the 2011 Texas voting ID laws had the effect of suppressing minority voting, and this effect was not coincidental, but that the laws had been written by the legislature of Texas with that specific purpose. The court decision is here: https://static.texastribune.or... [texastribune.org]
This was not an attempt to prevent fraud.
Here's the analysis from Veasey v. Abbott (5th Cir. 2016): "In an analysis of Texas voters
Yeah I've noticed you've been spamming that over and over. I have no idea why.
Now that I think about it, it does seem like at any mention of integrity you've spammed that crap yet again. I guess to try to change the subject. Talking about personal integrity makes you uncomfortable?
You don't have to talk about it. Like I said, it's up to you whether you want to do the "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" thing and be as misleading as possible, or if you want
When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers.
-- The Wall Street Journal
Aircraft safety is important (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Aircraft safety is important (Score:2, Offtopic)
You know, I just wish this social mind cancer that has befallen US society, where everybody is on some "side" against each other, and talks like you in your comment, would die.
I'm specifically not saying you are "worse" than others. It's more that that is the standard of how we treat each other now. And that is fucked up.
(Call me off-topic, but this matters.)
There is no "left". There is no "right".
There are only people. With needs.
If they all get what they need, the beef gets buried.
So, can I make a proposa
Re: Aircraft safety is important (Score:1)
I have always felt that voters should be assigned a unique ID known only to the state and the voter. The full register of votes should be public. You should be able to see all the IDs and how they voted,
Maybe you did the impossible (not what they want) (Score:5, Insightful)
You may have just done that which you said was impossible.
It took me until middle age to really learn this well, but I learned something a few years ago. (I guess I knew it intellectually before, but it really sank in a few years ago). You said:
> One group wants for example Voter ID. The other group doesn't (presumably because there is an impression illegal votes favor their side?). We can't have consensus.
What I realized a few years ago, and my six year old seems to already know, is that voter ID isn't
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of what you say is reasonable. You can phrase it another way: systems always have two complementary types of error (known as "type I" and "type II" errors). In this case, a Type-I error would be NOT allowing somebody to vote when they SHOULD be allowed to vote, and a type-II error would be ALLOWING somebody to vote when they should NOT be allowed to vote.
For systems in general, methods reduce type-I errors tends to increase type-II errors, and vice versa. For example, if a system is a switch, and a typ
Re: (Score:1)
FYI, none of the groups of people you mentioned are required to show photo ID to vote in Texas. I'm referring to when you said:
> Obtaining ID costs money.. Even if ID is offered for free, voters incur costs such as paying for birth certificates to apply for a government-issued ID. And the travel required is often a major burden on people with disabilities, the elderly, and those in rural areas without access to a car or public transportation.
None of those are an issue, because they don't have to show p
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
FYI, none of the groups of people you mentioned are required to show photo ID to vote in Texas.
... And do you know why that is?
Because the ACLU sued the State of Texas, and the federal appeals court ruled that the restriction in types of ID discriminated against blacks and hispanics... and that it had been intentionally designed to do so.
https://www.npr.org/sections/t... [npr.org]
https://www.chicagotribune.com... [chicagotribune.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So now that you know what the Texas law actually is, you're going to stop going around saying all the stuff you said in your first post, right? You now know it's all false, if you didn't know that before.
I'm sure you wouldn't go around intentionally spreading lies.
Re: (Score:2)
No edit function in Slashdot, I'm afraid.
Strike "For example, Texas allows (state issued) concealed weapons permits to be used as ID for voting, but does not accept (state issued) student photo-ID cards or even state employee photo IDs. Why is that?"
Substitute "For example, Texas allowed (state issued) concealed weapons permits to be used as ID for voting, but did not accept (state issued) student photo-ID cards or even state employee photo IDs. Why is that?"
And add: "according to a federal judge, this was
Re:Maybe you did the impossible (not what they wan (Score:2)
That's because US citizenship is a requirement for voting. According to https://txapps.texas.gov/txapp... [texas.gov], you need to be a US citizen to have a Texas concealed weapons permit and not be a criminal. There are no such requirements for obtaining a student ID. Therefore having a valid Texas concealed weapons permit means you are a lawful citizen and therefore eligible to vote. A student ID proves nothing relevant to proving you're eligible to vote. Don't be so obtuse.
And no address (Score:2)
I suspect the bigger issue is the one I mentioned - a student ID doesn't have your address on it. Meaning it doesn't indicate which county and school district you're eligible to vote for.
The law is you need something with your address on it, such as a utility bill, W-2, or state ID.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the bigger issue is the one I mentioned - a student ID doesn't have your address on it. Meaning it doesn't indicate which county and school district you're eligible to vote for.
From Votetexas.gov FAQ:
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense. It does say specifically any government document of any kind *that has your name and address on it*.
It's disengious, I think, to rather than honestly tell people what the rule is, instead twist to make it sound like there's something nefarious. Yeah a carry license is one example of a document that has your name and address. The rule is - name and address.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me repeat this over and over again, since you do not seem to be paying attention.
The federal court ruled that the 2011 Texas voting ID laws had the effect of suppressing minority voting, and this effect was not coincidental, but that the laws had been written by the legislature of Texas with that specific purpose. The court decision is here: https://static.texastribune.or... [texastribune.org]
This was not an attempt to prevent fraud.
Here's the analysis from Veasey v. Abbott (5th Cir. 2016):
"In an analysis of Texas voters
Re: (Score:2)
> Let me repeat this over and over again
Yeah I've noticed you've been spamming that over and over.
I have no idea why.
Now that I think about it, it does seem like at any mention of integrity you've spammed that crap yet again. I guess to try to change the subject. Talking about personal integrity makes you uncomfortable?
You don't have to talk about it. Like I said, it's up to you whether you want to do the "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" thing and be as misleading as possible, or if you want