US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5888

On November 03 2016 22:43 Nevuk wrote:

I'm enjoying this concern trolling. It still doesn't change the fact that Trump tied a 13 year old down, anally raped her, and told her he would kill her if she talked.

When Bill McAnulty, an elections board chairman in a mostly white North Carolina county, agreed in July to open a Sunday voting site where black church members could cast ballots after services, the reaction was swift: he was labeled a traitor by his fellow Republicans.

"I became a villain, quite frankly," recalled McAnulty at a state board of elections meeting in September that had been called to resolve disputes over early voting plans. "I got accused of being a traitor and everything else by the Republican Party," McAnulty said.

Following the blowback from Republicans, McAnulty later withdrew his support for the Sunday site.

In an interview with Reuters, he said he ultimately ruled against opening the Sunday voting site in Randolph County because he had "made a mistake in reading the wishes of the voters." He declined to discuss the episode further.

This year's highly charged presidential contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump has stoked accusations by both parties of political meddling in the scheduling of early voting hours in North Carolina, a coveted battleground state with a history of tight elections.

In emails, state and county Republican officials lobbied members of at least 17 county election boards to keep early-voting sites open for shorter hours on weekends and in evenings – times that usually see disproportionately high turnout by Democratic voters. Reuters obtained the emails through a public records request.

The officials also urged county election boards to open fewer sites for residents to cast ballots during early voting that began on Oct. 20 and ends on Saturday.

Civil rights advocates and Democrats launched their own campaigns for expanded early voting hours.

The tug-of-war yielded mixed results.

The state did ultimately add nearly 5,900 more hours and 78 more sites to vote early than in 2012. But several counties opened only one polling site during the first week of early voting, slightly denting turnout across the state. Voter turnout dropped by 20 percent in the counties that had multiple polling sites during the first week of early voting in 2012 but just one site during the first week in 2016.“We currently have more early voting locations and hours open than ever were open under Democrat control,” said North Carolina Republican Party executive director Dallas Woodhouse, denying his party was trying to suppress the Democratic vote.

Counties that Democratic President Barack Obama won in 2012 increased their Sunday hours this year by 16 percent, while counties that voted for his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, decreased them by nearly a quarter, the records show.

State Republican officials say keeping polls open during evenings and weekends, or "off-hour" times, drains county resources.

On November 03 2016 22:46 Laurens wrote:


Indeed it doesn't, who made that claim lmao. Don't put words in my mouth pls.

On November 03 2016 22:57 JinDesu wrote:
As much as I don't like Donald Trump, the accusation of him raping the 13yo girl is unproven (yet). Writing it as though it is a proven statement, even if it's to rile up his supporters, is not the right way to bring him down. I really don't like the antic of stooping to the levels of some of his supporters just because you are against him.

On November 03 2016 06:02 IgnE wrote:


please spare me the "coercion is not coercion" nitwit. i only occupy higher intellectual ground because you prefer walking in a ditch





User was warned for this post

On November 03 2016 22:38 Laurens wrote:


How does her working for the democrats excuse the treatment of Sanders in the primaries?
In case you didn't know, the debate in question is Clinton v Sanders, not Clinton v Trump.

Wikileaks has exposed corruption in the past 3 weeks. Idk why you're being so pedantic about it, it's a fact.



Well I'm glad we established that. It doesn't make NettleS' post wrong, however.

On November 03 2016 22:32 IgnE wrote:


you don't think that the apartment scenario i gave is coercion? you are aware that "compel" in english actually has stronnger connotations right?

give me an example of coercion then and tell me whats different about your case

edit: whether its "good" or bad "bad" is a matter of context and perspective

On November 03 2016 22:51 Acrofales wrote:


It's subtle, but your simple switches aren't as trivial as you make them out to be. Strategic voting is not a case of coercion. And what is actually happening is a far smaller effect:

If you vote for Hillary, you reduce the chance that Trump gets the power to throw muslims in jail by <complicated percentage depending on where you live, and the relative importance of your state in the electoral college>. So to estimate that, lets go with 0.001%, which is probably still a couple of orders of magnitude larger than the effect your actual vote has.

We then have: if you don't move flats, there is a 0.001% chance I will throw people in jail, whereas if you do, there is a 0% chance I will throw people in jail. Or if you don't like absolutes, lets go with 33.101% and 33.1% respectively, which is the value from 538. Would you still say you are being coerced to move flats?

On November 03 2016 22:10 IgnE wrote:


you might think about it this way:

if we ran the election 100 times we would expect the same results because the initial conditions are the same every time. in other words everyone is going to vote for who they are going to vote for when they vote and that wont change no matter how many times we run it.

in alternate universes with different initial conditions some voters may vote differently based on whatever differences there are between this world and that one

bayesian probability belief is a belief about which universe we are in based upon a probability distribution of universes that all share a set of commonalities. it takes account of the fact that the model doesnt know what every single voter is actially going to do (ie the initial state is not completely specified as all real phenomena cannot be) even if we are fairly certain about the general outlines.

On November 03 2016 23:22 IgnE wrote:


so what you are doing here is lessening the coercion by diluting the moral gravity of a vote. if you think votes are probabilistically meaningless, fine, thats a tenable position to hold, but then why are you in the politics thread?

in other words the hypothetical originally went back to my statement that a vote that makes you feel bad is a coerced vote. you are arguing against that by saying, oh well voting doesnt really matter, stop feeling bad over nothing

to which i might reply to a man being coerced to move from his flat: get over it, moving isnt that bad anyway