Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Spudlyman
7.1K posts
Spudlyman
@Spudlyman
(he/him) Mostly I tweet about anime trash. I speedrun Spyro sometimes. Love Live is important. µ'sic forever
Katılım Ocak 2013
238 Takip Edilen551 Takipçiler
I was on the fence about going, but I’m glad I went to the Kiara / Ina duo live.
On Day 2 I finally started to feel the gravity of the event, and how much it meant to both of them. It really was such a special live show. I’m so grateful I didn’t miss it!
#TakoTori1stConcert
English
@JustSurreal_ So this is a DLC with generic classroom history lessons about things that you and I also learned about in history classes like 20 years ago. That this optional DLC is “shoving politics down people’s throats” by just featuring extremely basic civil rights history is absurd imo
English
@JustSurreal_ The only thing that’s new is they added it as a free and optional DLC on non-education Minecraft. Kids will very likely not be rushing to play it because it’s built to be a class lesson supplement, so it’s probably pretty boring lol
English
This is legitimately slandering and misrepresenting their own employee.
You can't get tired enough of this bullshit. People are tired of politics invading EVERYTHING. They just want spaces where they can live life and a fucking Lego adjacent video game should be one of them
Phase Connect Official@PhaseConnect
An important notice regarding recent events. Thank you for understanding!
English
@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ It'll be a No True Scotsman situation. No system is good enough to disprove fraud (since you can't prove something doesn't exist) so they'll just find a new place to point and say "the invisible fraud that we can't see is *there* now!" and they'll reject the next election results
English
@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ every single state could implement massive voter ID restrictions and it would change nothing.
The goal isn't actually Fixing Voting. The goal is Increasing Distrust in Elections. So the goalposts would just move, and they'd find another direction to manufacture distrust.
English
While the %'s of points 1-3 are a little exaggerated, the overall points are logical. Considering voting is a defining characteristic and virtue of democracy, you'd think Democrats would be the first in line to ensure that all votes are official and legitimate. Alas...
Cynical Publius@CynicalPublius
RE: The 2020 Election I have some commentary and a question that I believe all of us should be asking every Democrat we know. It goes like this: COMMENTARY: 1.Roughly 50% of all adult Americans have no faith that the 2020 Presidential election was fair and that the votes were counted accurately. 2.Those ~50% believe this because (i) universal mail-in ballots, (ii) ballot harvesting, (iii) voting weeks before election day and (iv) lack of voter ID are all policies that not only promote fraud, but also make it impossible to detect fraud after the fact. 3.100% of all Americans would have faith in our electoral process if future elections did not include extensive mail-in ballots, ballot harvesting, extensive early voting and votes without ID. 4.Every time Republicans submit legislation to remove these fraud-encouraging voter laws, Democrats kill the legislation. 5.A country where half its voters do not believe voting is fair is a country doomed to near term implosion. QUESTION: Given the above facts, why do you oppose legislation that would restore voter confidence and eliminate the future possibility of candidates complaining about a stolen election?
English
@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ Yeah, I also think it's sorta meaningless for another reason. I don't think any push for stricter voter ID is *actually* a push for voter ID. It's just a deliberately planted preemptive seed of doubt on the election process to legitimize future rejections of election results.
English
@Spudlyman @ZehalZ By that I mean, I don't think dems would vote in favor of voter ID even if they got easier ID laws first, because it could still cost them votes, even if a much smaller amount than before. It's to their benefit not to. And then we're back to previous points, etc
English
@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ The *only* reason to do voter ID first,then "we promise the next step is make IDs easier" is to weaken democrats in the next election.
You said voter ID first would be good because it would provide an incentive. imo it would be a republican incentive to never implement easy ID.
English
@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ If the goal is actually strengthening democracy, the answer is extremely simple. Make it so all citizens can easily acquire a photo ID that's not tied to driving. *Then* require voter ID. Easy.
It will not happen that way because the goal isn't strengthening democracy.
English
@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ The reason I think easier IDs needs to come first is because then it doesn't really change the status quo (except for this boogeyman "fraud prevention") at any point in the system. Voter ID first incentivizes the party that is *in power* to stop easier IDs from ever happening lol
English
@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ I don't believe that's true. Starting with voter IDs places a strong incentive for *dems* to push for easier IDs, and for the other party to push for more difficult IDs.
It creates a status quo where one party is benefitting and the other party has to fight to get out of it.
English
@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ IMO If the push for strict ID laws in specific states was in Good Faith the conversation would *start* w/ easier IDs. Do that first, and voter ID second, and you have zero time where one party is disproportionately impacted. There's no reason to start w/ stricter ID requirements.
English
@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ So when the boogeyman is "voter fraud" but it is invisible despite the fact that it should be easy to spot, and the fix would hurt one side in the short term but later we can "discuss making IDs easier to get to fix it, we promise" you understand why that seems suspicious, right?
English
@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ There were multiple court cases with massive claims of fraud and ample opportunity to find evidence. Every vote is attached to a name and a signature and usually an address. Large scale fraud would show up as massive deviations from census data / population records, etc
English
@Spudlyman @ZehalZ I guess it depends on whether it really is easy to spot. I think we underestimate how lazy a lot of government work is. Considering ID policies can be done on a state level, those swing states can just as easily pass ID acquisition laws and be trusted/held accountable.
English
@JustSurreal_ @ZehalZ yeah and this is sorta the problem because no Republican politicians are going to argue for easily/cheaply obtainable IDs because their Actual Goal (imo) isn't fraud prevention it's Left Votes prevention.
English
@ZehalZ @Spudlyman I have absolutely no qualms about ID being easy to obtain, granted the verification of citizenship is solid (which as far as I'm aware it already is for current IDs handed out)
English
@JustSurreal_ The actual trade-off as I see it is "System that (actually) makes it more difficult for some people" vs "System that (some people feel as if it) makes large scale fraud possible".
That latter is both unproven & directly benefits the party pushing it should be treated w/ wariness
English
@JustSurreal_ I mean sure if there was any actual evidence of voter fraud at any degree of scale that could be a reasonable argument. But despite multiple large scale searches for fraud, the only real things that have turned up are false positives like someone sharing a name w/ a dead person.
English