US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8000

On July 05 2017 13:04 Plansix wrote:

People 100% believe that. If the President retweets a quote from a white supremacist, they see it as a code that the president is one of them. He might deny it and say he just liked the tweet, but disagrees with everything else. But that doesn't matter, the racists will already "know"the President is just doing that because the media forces them too. That is how people work. There are consequences for speech at all times and whom you decide to quote.

On July 05 2017 12:20 LegalLord wrote:
I think a lot of us would also be less willing to share opinions if it were to be tied to our real life personalities. There are things you can say anonymously, and things you can say on the record.

On July 05 2017 13:09 Plansix wrote:


In other news, saw this coming. As the digital space becomes less secure at state actors get more aggressive, I except quite a few industries to move back to physical records. And as someone still demands physical invoices all services I purchase, I'm ok with that.

On July 05 2017 14:00 Nyxisto wrote:


they've always been terrible and insecure by design. The risk from digitizing votes and the manipulation that can come with it isn't worth the trade off. Elections really don't happen that often that you need to change security for convenience. I seriously never understood the hype about electronical voting.

On July 05 2017 14:00 Nyxisto wrote:


they've always been terrible and insecure by design. The risk from digitizing votes and the manipulation that can come with it isn't worth the trade off. Elections really don't happen that often that you need to change security for convenience. I seriously never understood the hype about electronical voting.

On July 05 2017 12:57 Buckyman wrote:


The idea that agreeing with one thing a guy said means being held responsible for everything that guy said seems facially absurd. What am I missing?

On July 05 2017 12:57 Buckyman wrote:


The idea that agreeing with one thing a guy said means being held responsible for everything that guy said seems facially absurd. What am I missing?

On July 05 2017 14:00 Nyxisto wrote:


they've always been terrible and insecure by design. The risk from digitizing votes and the manipulation that can come with it isn't worth the trade off. Elections really don't happen that often that you need to change security for convenience. I seriously never understood the hype about electronical voting.

On July 05 2017 14:00 Nyxisto wrote:


they've always been terrible and insecure by design. The risk from digitizing votes and the manipulation that can come with it isn't worth the trade off. Elections really don't happen that often that you need to change security for convenience. I seriously never understood the hype about electronical voting.

On July 05 2017 15:50 Simberto wrote:


I am not even sure that the main problem is "real" insecurity. It is enough if people are not sure that they are secure. If you vote on a machine, i think that for a lot of people there is less of a connect of that process to the result of the vote. No matter what anyone tells them about security, it is still perceived as very possible that the machines just give back any result they want.

With paper voting, you drop your vote in a box, and then real people count the votes in the box multiple times. Sure, you can manipulate that, too. But the security against that is something that people understand. While the security of a voting machine is just a complete mystery that might or might not work, but you have no way to see if it is manipulated or not.

The city of Williamstown plans to reject a request from the Ark Encounter claiming exemption from a recently implemented safety assessment tax on the grounds that it is a religious entity, the Grant County News reports.

The tax collects a 50-cent charge on tickets in admission-based businesses within the city of Williamstown, and currently affects only three businesses: the Ark Encounter, Williamstown Family Fun Park and Main Street Gardens.

In April, the proprietors of a gigantic wooden Noah’s Ark in Williamstown said they were “blindsided” by the tax and said they might consider raising ticket prices.

The tax does not apply to non-profit, religious, and charitable events and organizations.

The city plans to use revenue collected from the fee to fund upgraded emergency response equipment to better serve Williamstown’s needs as a growing tourist destination.

The city’s budget estimates $715,000 in revenue from the safety assessment fee, which begins collecting from the three businesses on a monthly basis beginning July 1. The park opened last July, promising a surge of economic development. But nearby residents and businesses say that flood of customers hasn’t materialized. Ken Ham, CEO and president of Answers in Genesis/Ark Encounter, disputed those claims.

About $700,000 of the projected revenue is from the Ark Encounter, based on the projected 1.4 million in attendance at the tourist attraction. Representatives from the Ark Encounter initially said they would request an exemption from the fee if the city intended to collect more than $350,000 from the business, according to Williamstown Mayor Rick Skinner.

According to the letter sent by John E. Pence, secretary general for Answers in Genesis, the Ark Encounter was organized exclusively for religious purposes, and is solely owned and operated by Crosswater Canyon, a Kentucky non-profit corporation which is recognized as a tax-exempt religious organization and public charity under Section 501(c)(3) religious organizations and public charity.

“Both Ark Encounter and Crosswater Canyon are clearly religious organizations,” the letter reads. “The Ark Encounter project was designed to factually present the biblical and historical truths of the Bible, including the biblical accounts of Noah and the Ark, the message of salvation through Jesus Christ, and other biblical truths revealed in Scripture, through the Ark’s exhibits and guest experiences. Crosswater Canyon was organized exclusively to support the religious mission and purposes of Answers in Genesis, and to own and manage the Ark Encounter for Answers in Genesis.”

Answers in Genesis co-founder and chief communications officer Mark Looy said that visitors to the Ark Encounter clearly recognize it as a religiously run attraction with a religious purpose, and that the organization filed the appeal because they feel the business should be exempt.

“We simply applied for the exemption that is allowed under the specific wording of the safety assessment fee ordinance as it was adopted, as you would expect other exempted organizations to do,” Looy said.

Skinner and the other Williamstown City Council members voiced their disagreement with the exemption request; with councilman Kim Crupper noting that the Ark Encounter operates on a for-profit status. City Attorney Jeff Shipp said the organization’s corporate filings in Missouri indicate that they are a for-profit corporation. Shipp said he would craft a formal response to the appeal sometime in the coming week.

“We’ve done our research … and everything that we have found is that they are a for-profit company,” Skinner said.

Looy confirmed that the Ark Encounter is a for-profit entity, but reiterated that it is wholly owned by Crosswater Canyon, a non-profit organization. Looy said that even though the Ark Encounter is established as a for-profit subsidiary of Crosswater Canyon, the Ark Encounter is a religious organization, and therefore qualifies for the exemption.

When asked what the organization planned to do should their exemption request be denied, Looy said: “We are still considering our options.”

Answers in Genesis Co-Founder Mike Zovath met with Skinner on June 27 to discuss solutions to the issue, but no agreement was reached.

The Ark Encounter is situated in a Tax Increment Financing zone, an area designated by local governments intended to attract developers.

Skinner said the council plans to discuss the issue at their July 10 meeting, and added that representatives from the Ark Encounter will likely attend to present their case.

On July 05 2017 22:02 Plansix wrote:
How terrible that his actions have consequences. And CNN is so evil since they decided to withhold his real name and personal information after he apologized. Which is nice of them considering the amount of racist poop he posted all over reddit. We all should hope to be lucky enough to get a second chance after screwing up as bad as this kid.

On July 05 2017 22:09 JinDesu wrote:


If they didn't say they might release his info pending his future actions, then it might have been ok. But for CNN to put in print - "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change." - is completely wrong in my opinion. That is not the right way, and CNN should have never gone to that extent.

On July 05 2017 22:22 Plansix wrote:

CNN is under no obligation to protect him from his own writings on reddit. They stated that they did not intent to release his information, but reserved the right to do so in the future. I don’t feel bad for him at all. It is easy to forget that less than a month ago someone tried to murder a bunch of congress members. So I do not blame CNN for making it clear they didn’t see that meme as a joke.

On July 05 2017 22:22 Plansix wrote:

CNN is under no obligation to protect him from his own writings on reddit. They stated that they did not intent to release his information, but reserved the right to do so in the future. I don’t feel bad for him at all. It is easy to forget that less than a month ago someone tried to murder a bunch of congress members. So I do not blame CNN for making it clear they didn’t see that meme as a joke.

On July 05 2017 14:00 Nyxisto wrote:


they've always been terrible and insecure by design. The risk from digitizing votes and the manipulation that can come with it isn't worth the trade off. Elections really don't happen that often that you need to change security for convenience. I seriously never understood the hype about electronical voting.