Some states only require a piece of mail and checking a box saying you are legally allowed to vote to register. Then when you checkin to vote the workers are not permitted to ask for ID to prove you are the person you claim to be.
At no point during that process is there presentation of proof of citizenship.
Any ballots that are cast under same-day registration are cast as provisional and will go through the full verification process if the election is close enough where those ballots are necessary.
Source: actually ran a fucking election precinct. Non-citizens aren’t casting ballots illegally.
I'm not talking about same day registration. If you are on the rolls and proof of citizenship is not required to register, then how do you as a poll worker know the person on the rolls is a citizen?
You don't, but also you don't have to. Voter rolls are cross referenced with other sources of data to verify citizenship. ID is required to submit a non-provisional ballot even during early voting if you're not in your designated precinct.
Also just generally it's a severe federal crime to vote illegally, so people who are here illegally aren't out en masse publicly tying their identity to federal felonies.
They literally just charged someone in Philadelphia for illegally voting in every federal election since 2008. Non-citizen, ordered deported back in 2000 but still in the country.
There's not been a reliable audit to show the extent to which this happens (probably not enough to affect even local elections), but to say that it isn't happening is just a lie.
If you listen carefully to the "ballot access" side of this argument (actually informed people and politicians, not random on the internet), you will see they don't ever say it does not happen.
What they say is that it does not happen enough to plausibly come close to affecting the outcome. And this is widely supported, including by right-wing organizations (as a sibling comment observes).
As with most issues, there is a trade-off here. As you tighten controls to prevent improper voting, you prevent some people from realistically being able to vote (it's just too hard, time consuming or expensive for them to meet the documentation requirements), and discourage others. This is particularly bad for the 1-2 elections after the rule change, which most people won't know about until they show up to vote. IMO, this is really the point of the changes.
And you have to weigh that negative against the supposed benefit. But that benefit is really hard to find. It's very clear that intentional voter fraud (fraud in registration, or in-person impersonation) is extremely rare, and does not come anywhere close to affecting outcomes. It's already a crime, and we seem to be pretty good at catching it.
The other argument for a benefit is that it improves voter confidence in elections. I reject this, since the only reason the public at large has any real concerns is because of intentional misinformation by the right. You can't lie to people to convince them there is a problem, and then use that to justify your heavy handed solution.
One of voter ID's biggest advocates, the Heritage Foundation, could only find 68 cases of non-citizens voting since 1980. Even if all of them are repeat offenders, that's a few hundred bad ballots out of billions cast. As you said, it is also possible to catch these people. Our election integrity is not threatened by non-citizen voters. It just doesn't happen on the scale that Republicans insist it must be happening, and the fact that they keep repeating it doesn't make it true, it means that they have an agenda that benefits from making you think it's true.
Ok? And yet, they were caught. Dude's a shithead, swung zero elections, and got caught. They catch people all the time voting illegally. I would make a strong guess that they counted zero of his ballots as they were all provisional.
He should go to jail and yet his existence is not proof that there are hoards of African deportees voting in state and federal elections.
That is the documentation they ask for in the application. It's enough for them to understand who you claim to be. They then consult their own records to establish if that identity is eligible to vote. Then finally, on Election Day, you show you are that person.
At that last part, Election Day identification, is not even that important, since the same person can't vote twice. So if you impersonate another person that will be quickly detected. It's not a useful strategy to alter the outcome of an election.
Adding a lot of weigh in the form of buildings causes land to sink. Apparently 1-2 mm/year on average. How much of "New York has been underwater since 2010" is the land sinking and how much is water rising from climate change?
The majority of early explorers and researchers sought philanthropist to support their desire to explore. They sold the dream to pay for their plan. The frontiers are more specialized now. Getting funding to "explore Africa" would be a hard sell.
This was also National Geographic’s modus operandi. They kickstarted exploration. Much of it would have happened eventually but it’d nice to have historical glimpses of what used to be.
SciHub is an amazing resource. I have read so many papers from varied topics out of my personal interest. That would not be possible for me without SciHub. The hold on new papers has stopped me from keeping current. If I were able to also publish papers that others could review that opens "science" to everybody. Then the only benefit of research institutions would be a concentration of big brains. That completely changes the landscape for scientific progress.
SciHub has shown us a new way to spread knowledge to all that are interested. I don't have the rigor for publishing but other individual experimenters might. It would be great if they could contribute to building human knowledge.
I think the only real solution is a distributed federated publishing and review platform. A node would be a library of papers for the host's interests. Just like physical journal collections, bigger institution would host more topics. Anybody can participate in the publication and review process. SciHub nailed storage and retrieval. Review is the hard part. Any rating system can be gamed. It would be very hard to convince people it is trustworthy.
There shouldn't be any prestige in publishing a paper. The prestige comes from being proven correct, from building our knowledge.
We are pretty lucky in that regard. It is by design. Open trade among the states was a primary point of argument in ratification of the US Constitution. States were concerned with a federal government having any power to restrict the engine of their own success.
As a result the US system was designed to prohibit restricting trade between states and encourage restricting trade at the national border through tariffs. The goal was to encourage internal trade and production that builds national wealth and skills. The government was to make profit off of international trade through tariffs. That structure encouraged government to protect the economic engine domestically to continue profiting from international trade.
I really wish that companies would just sell their products instead of doing the business relationship 2-step. It is an unnecessary waste of time to sell product.
It looks like these sensors have just enough range to be effective for lidar terrain scanning. I would have bought a Movia S right now just to try it out.
Drones over 250 grams or for any drone operated commercially under part 107 registration is required. But, its easy to just build your own or desolder the id chip if you dont want it.
It’s easy to build your own, but it’s impossible to build one to be as stable as a DJI one, or as cheaply. E.g. with an FPV drone hitting the lens would be much harder (but you could use spray instead of a stick to make it easier). Removing remote id ‘chip’ is plain impossible since it’s implemented by the same radio that does video link.
It includes what most would call quarries and it doesn't include anywhere near all of them (there are basically infinite invisible quarries everywhere to make concrete because it doesn't transport well).
The more you ask around the more you will find the real divide in the US is the same as it always has been. There are those that believe a more powerful government will solve all the problems and those that just want the government to leave them alone to solve their own problems.
Thomas Sowell's Conflict of Visions describes the difference well.
You make a really good point I think, if the government just leaves us alone then we can solve all of our own problems with the friendly assistance of ma bell/standard oil/google/facebook.
The way to fix that is to stop debasing the currency.
I stopped buying stocks a few years ago. The moment there is a contraction of credit or circulating currency we will see a 1929 style crash. Not worth the risk anymore.
I think in the short to medium term, they will continue expanding the availability of credit and expanding the money supply when crashes happen in order to keep asset prices high. At some point there will be a breaking point, but I think 2009-style "Quantitative Easing" and 2020-style fiscal spending can and will happen again. So I'm still in, but this game won't last forever.
What incentive do any of the few actors with the ability to effect that change have to actually pull that lever? I imagine that you have spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I would like to understand your position.
That is the problem. Reigning in debasement is what needs to happen or the dollar is dead. But, reigning in debasement means spending less. Spending less means people can't be reelected for "bringing federal money home". So, there is no incentive for Congress to cut anything. But, the piece that makes me pretty sure that debasement is the goal, is that by debasing the currency it makes it possible to pay off dollar denominated debt. I can't be the only one that sees it. Nations have been divesting of US Bonds for years now.
I'll say it another way. The government can pay off its debt by making your money worthless.
I changed my investment habits as soon as I recognized it. I am already happy I did.
So, if I got it right, your argument is that the US government has issued so much debt that in order to pay for its interest in the future it will find itself forced to devalue the USD, and that will lead to the stock market to underperform.
Did I get the gist of it?
> I can't be the only one that sees it
Correct. It is a pretty common argument.
A common counterargument is that the US government has two advantages when it comes to issuing debt.
First, the USD remains the primary reserve currency around the world, and for good reasons, too. As long as global trade relies so heavily on the USD and, more generally, on exports to the US, foreign exchange rates will continue to prop up the value of the USD and USD-denominated debt.
Can this global economic system change in the future? Sure. But it has a lot of mass and momentum behind it. It can't stop overnight, any more than a tornado can.
Second is that the US government issues debt in USD and it has its own central bank, which allows them to pull levers both on the fiscal policy side and the monetary policy side. This allows them to issue pretty much as much or as little debt as they want, pay for it as much or as little as they want (let's not forget forget QE), and adjust inflation up or down with an enviable degree of freedom.
Can this destabilize? Of course, it is possible to mismanage it badly enough, in theory. But given its position as the world's reserve currency, they can get away with murder compared to other less privileged countries and currencies.
Lastly, understanding something is not enough to make money out of it. You need to have privileged knowledge that other people lack. Is that what is happening here?
Unless something changes the government will be forced to continue devaluing the USD. They have been doing it since 1913. This is late stage debasement, not the start. Unless there is a drastic change in spending or growth there is no stopping this train even for a reserve currency. Being the reserve just allows us to spread out the damage. This points back to countries selling their US debt. They see default as more likely and want to get rid of it before they get caught holding the bag. It doesn't help that we have been abusing reserve currency privilege by using USD as a weapon. Who wants to be friends when our friendship is conditional on compliance?
The stock market will continue to go up as long as inflation happens. The dollar losing value is now the dominant market force. That makes the stock market increasing dependent on cheap credit. It is too risky for me to have money in the stock market. That value can evaporate faster than I can realize it on a decision as common as a FedFunds rate increase.
The last stage of a currency collapse is the country selling assets priced in dollars to pay dollar denominated debt.
That's the core question. I would like to see the parent poster's answer as well, because I don't see it happening as long as the US can price debt in its own currency, and the only way that stops happening is after a catastrophe that isn't worth planning for because there's no way to survive financially.
At no point during that process is there presentation of proof of citizenship.
reply