Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 186: Such a leap, it should be the Al Capone Vault

(+) Yeah! (+)

Yeah, same for me as well.
---

Mine was complete an arrow.
---

does anyone check your ballot first? or does the machine do it internally and spit it back if you fucked it up?

and is it connected to a network?
---

pxlated posted...

does anyone check your ballot first? or does the machine do it internally and spit it back if you fucked it up?

and is it connected to a network?

No

Yes, you have to wait until the machine says it was accepted and the overall ballot counter on it goes up

I dont know for certain. Maybe they just get a printout of the tallies when the polls close and send them in? That would be my guess.
---

For reference, its a machine about the size of an office printer
---

that's pretty good then! why doesn't everywhere do this
---

How mine works is each office gets its own screen and then at the end it shows your completed ballot and gives you a chance to go back.

In order to actually cast your vote you have to press a button that isn't on the screen, making it difficult to 'accidentally' vote
---

but it's still all electronic?
---

The ballots are not at all

The machine is all electronic yes

Except for the man sitting next to it to tell you not to leave until it indicates your ballot was accepted and not fucked up

EDIT: And that process takes like 5 seconds so I imagine it is actually reading my selections and making a tally and checking for errors
---

i meant to eddv, sorry

i think what you described jakyl is great and hopefully more places (everywhere) adopts that soon
---

Oh sorry, I missed his post
---

like, what gets me is that everyone is freaking out about election interference (which is valid) but i don't see any government officials talking about adopting more secure voting systems or introducing cybersecurity measures.

like, yes, interference is bad and we should pursue who did it and all of that, but we should also make sure that we do everything possible to make elections more secure and it feels like that side of the problem has been generally ignored by the people that can do anything about it

maybe i've just missed it
---

My process sound pretty much completely identical to Jakyl's
---

pxlated posted...

like, what gets me is that everyone is freaking out about election interference (which is valid) but i don't see any government officials talking about adopting more secure voting systems or introducing cybersecurity measures.

like, yes, interference is bad and we should pursue who did it and all of that, but we should also make sure that we do everything possible to make elections more secure and it feels like that side of the problem has been generally ignored by the people that can do anything about it

maybe i've just missed it

Im willing to bet those requests are met with where would we get the money??
---

Like, it is kind of fucked up that we have to ask people who were elected by the current methods to check those methods for errors

Real conflict of interest there
---

pxlated posted...

but it's still all electronic?

There's a paper receipt. But its not given to you.
---

I HAVE to share this Ben Garrison post from the Vlado topic

Vlado posted...

More brilliance from Good Man Ben:

Theres absolutely no reason why the Fed cant be nationalized. Congress again would control money creation and regulation. The process could be transparent. Theres no reason why our money cant be created debt free. Print up money commensurate with production and services. Use it to rebuild roads, bridges, canals and locks, airports and all the other infrastructure thats falling apart in this country. Lincoln did this during the Civil War with his greenbacks. Kennedy also attempted the same. Both were assassinated.

https://grrrgraphics.com/donald-and-goliath/

WHY IS HE GOLFING
---

pxlated posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

In other news, Missouri's "right to work" law was defeated by an almost 2-1 margin

yes, this is good

Can you explain why this is good?
---

yep...

getting out of the mess we are in is such an uphill battle. that's why getting real progressive candidates who don't take corporate money is so important.

like, even when some of their ideas/positions aren't feasible in the current system (like the recent discussion here about single payer), we aren't ever going to move towards a system where those things *are* feasible without electing people that are at least willing to try, who at least care enough to push for change and aren't beholden to forces that want to prevent it.

i'd rather have an unrealistic but passionate and caring idealist free from corporate influence than someone who probably won't ever try to make any waves.
---

The dollar sign nipples are a nice touch
---

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

In other news, Missouri's "right to work" law was defeated by an almost 2-1 margin

yes, this is good

Can you explain why this is good?

not to you, no
---

pxlated posted...

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

In other news, Missouri's "right to work" law was defeated by an almost 2-1 margin

yes, this is good

Can you explain why this is good?

not to you, no

Okay. I figured you didn't have good reasoning behind it.
---

I figured for Corrik, the people overwhelmingly choosing the laws they want to follow and what ones to reject, in a proper democratic referendum, would be good by default.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

WHY IS HE GOLFING

ben garrison was a liberal plant all along
---

I also cant help by comment that nationalizing the fed is the exact opposite of what Jackson wanted!
---

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

In other news, Missouri's "right to work" law was defeated by an almost 2-1 margin

yes, this is good

Can you explain why this is good?

not to you, no

Okay. I figured you didn't have good reasoning behind it.

nah you just straight up ignore things you don't want to see.

want to explain to me how selling saudi arabia hundreds of millions, if not a billion, dollars worth of military equipment and providing them strategic information isn't de facto sanctioning their actions in yemen?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I figured for Corrik, the people overwhelmingly choosing the laws they want to follow and what ones to reject, in a proper democratic referendum, would be good by default.

No idea why answering the question is so hard. Dancing around it doesn't make a difference.

Right to Work helps the individual worker and companies.
Non- right to work helps the collective worker and unions.

All I asked is why you felt that it was good from your perspective, since I suspect it is simply a D vs R issue.
---

pxlated posted...

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

In other news, Missouri's "right to work" law was defeated by an almost 2-1 margin

yes, this is good

Can you explain why this is good?

not to you, no

Okay. I figured you didn't have good reasoning behind it.

nah you just straight up ignore things you don't want to see.

want to explain to me how selling saudi arabia hundreds of millions, if not a billion, dollars worth of military equipment and providing them strategic information isn't de facto sanctioning their actions in yemen?

Under your philosophy we sanction every single act by every single ally of ours no matter what.

It doesn't make sense.
---

I mean, if I'm giving a friend of mine money, and he starts to use that money to buy stupid cowboy hats, and I keep giving him money, then I'm sanctioning him buying stupid cowboy hats, yes.

Seems pretty simple
---

Ds value unions. Leftists feel they are better for the people than individual competition for wages. We do not inherently believe in the idea that your value is reflected in your paycheck, or that a system that purports as such can be ethical.
---

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

In other news, Missouri's "right to work" law was defeated by an almost 2-1 margin

yes, this is good

Can you explain why this is good?

not to you, no

Okay. I figured you didn't have good reasoning behind it.

nah you just straight up ignore things you don't want to see.

want to explain to me how selling saudi arabia hundreds of millions, if not a billion, dollars worth of military equipment and providing them strategic information isn't de facto sanctioning their actions in yemen?

Under your philosophy we sanction every single act by every single ally of ours no matter what.

It doesn't make sense.

see? you just proved my point.

yes, my first post responding to that discussion was dumb, i admit that. but you just keep ignoring the stuff that wasn't.
---

Right to work means no union shops means lower wages. For everyone not just for union members.

-Wages in RTW states are 3.1 percent lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic factors as well as state macroeconomic indicators. This translates into RTW being associated with $1,558 lower annual wages for a typical full-time, full-year worker.

-The relationship between RTW status and wages remains economically and statistically significant under alternative specifications of our econometric model

https://www.epi.org/publication/right-to-work-states-have-lower-wages/

So yea, good for Missouri.
---

Though I will say that your hardline stance against action in Yemen against hardline-Irani trained and armed Houthis by Saudi Arabia is very weird.
---

now you're putting words in my mouth!

see, this is why people don't like engaging with you. and why i'm going to stop.
---

Corrik posted...

Though I will say that your hardline stance against action in Yemen against hardline-Irani trained and armed Houthis by Saudi Arabia is very weird.

So you are in favor of American Intervention in Saudi Arabia?

Jesus christ was that so hard
---

Also I doubt its strictly an issue along political lines since Missouri has been going to the GOP at a state level, even during Obamas blue wave.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Ds value unions. Leftists feel they are better for the people than individual competition for wages. We do not inherently believe in the idea that your value is reflected in your paycheck, or that a system that purports as such can be ethical.

Yes, I understand that. I was asking if she had a reason it really was good or if she just knows it is a democratic sided issue so she supported it for that reason alone.
---

Eddv posted...

Corrik posted...

Though I will say that your hardline stance against action in Yemen against hardline-Irani trained and armed Houthis by Saudi Arabia is very weird.

So you are in favor of American Intervention in Saudi Arabia?

Jesus christ was that so hard

Am I in favor of American intervention in Saudi Arabia??? Um, no? For what?
---

yes, not wanting to engage with someone who has a history of ignoring things i say means i have no actual reasoning and am just a party line shill

i have never shown any kind of nuance ever
---

pxlated posted...

yes, not wanting to engage with someone who has a history of ignoring things i say means i have no actual reasoning and am just a party line shill

i have never shown any kind of nuance ever

You spent more time "not engaging" me than answering the question. I'd venture ur buying time to Google it. I worked in unions the past ten years. I was curious to your reasoning.
---

anyway, this is only politics adjacent but i found the recent vice news "This Is What The Life Of An Incel Looks Like" segment to be fascinating.

i would link the youtube video but it shows some nsfw drawings and i don't wanna get modded. it's worth a watch though, only about 6 minutes long and is more than just "incels are awful!!!!"

i'd really like to see more in depth statistics on the rates of suicide amongst self-identified incels and overall mental health stuff.
---

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

yes, not wanting to engage with someone who has a history of ignoring things i say means i have no actual reasoning and am just a party line shill

i have never shown any kind of nuance ever

You spent more time "not engaging" me than answering the question. I'd venture ur buying time to Google it. I worked in unions the past ten years. I was curious to your reasoning.

i don't claim to be smart about how i spend my time.

i just have no interest in discussing policy with you. calling you out? sure, i'll spend a few minutes doing that. that said, you're right! this has been more than enough

bye felicia
---

How different are their lives from what you would naturally suspect?
---

it's not so much that it was different than i expected. the suicide rates were just kind of alarming. and as an overly empathetic person i feel compelled to try to understand how they got to the sorry state they're in.

the video doesn't cover any big statistics, it's all anecdotal, but the guy they interviewed had like 4 people from his relatively small chatroom commit suicide in a relatively short span of time.
---

Thats probably our cultures fault for basing such a high level of praise on people who achieve sexual intercourse (men especially)

The things we claim to be natural about sex attitudes in our culture are totally not
---

i mean that's certainly a part of it. there's definitely a lot more going on than just that though.

it's just fascinating to me.

this must be such a great time to be a psychology student. so many great thesis opportunities.
---

pxlated posted...

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

yes, not wanting to engage with someone who has a history of ignoring things i say means i have no actual reasoning and am just a party line shill

i have never shown any kind of nuance ever

You spent more time "not engaging" me than answering the question. I'd venture ur buying time to Google it. I worked in unions the past ten years. I was curious to your reasoning.

i don't claim to be smart about how i spend my time.

i just have no interest in discussing policy with you. calling you out? sure, i'll spend a few minutes doing that. that said, you're right! this has been more than enough

bye felicia

If that is what you feel you did, more power to ya. You just came off as blindly supporting stances without having a reasoning why. Congrats.


---

Jakyl25 posted...

pxlated posted...

maybe a scantron-like machine to count them would work,

This is literally how my polling station works

Fill in the ovals by the names of your choice, then feed your ballot into a machine.

How it worked when I was in iowa as well.
---

Maniac64 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

pxlated posted...

maybe a scantron-like machine to count them would work,

This is literally how my polling station works

Fill in the ovals by the names of your choice, then feed your ballot into a machine.

How it worked when I was in iowa as well.

Everywhere is different. We used to do it that way. Now we do it by hitting buttons on a touchscreen.
---

Corrik posted...

Am I in favor of American intervention in Saudi Arabia??? Um, no? For what?

If Saudi Arabian action in Yemen is justified and they're our ally then why wouldnt you?

I mean we DO actively intervene in Yemen and you've defended it in a round about way I was just surprised you seemed to drop the pretense.

Too much to hope for I guess.
---