Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

If this election follows previous ones then 10m more women will vote than men – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,361
    edited October 2020
    Nigelb said:

    .

    TimT said:

    rcs1000 said:

    https://thehill.com/regulation/522496-pennsylvanias-top-court-deals-blow-to-gop-by-tossing-signature-matching-rule

    Now not only will postals after election day count, the signatures don't even have to match. Pennsylvania is clown country.

    The "postals afterwards" still requires the ballot to have been postmarked on or before election day. That doesn't seem unreasonable given how insanely slow (and inconsistent) the US Postal Service is.
    The main reason my wife is not postal voting but opting for in-person is because she is worried that she can't do two signatures alike enough for the most persnickety of returns officers.
    Yes, any rule which allows invalidation only on the basis of mismatching signatures is absurd.
    And it should be noted that such a rule does not actually exists in PA election law, which is part of the reason the court ruled the way it did.
    Isn’t it the same in the Uk? The signature on the slip enclosed with the ballot paper is compared with the signature on the application form. It’s just we are a lot more relaxed about the differences you would naturally expect. But if it’s clearly a different person, the vote is invalidated. The number of not accepted postal votes is usually not zero.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,361
    edited October 2020
    alex_ said:

    Wales: what I don’t get about the nonsense going on in Wales is that the Welsh govt are not attempting to justify the extreme restrictions (re:non essential goods) on public health grounds. If they said supermarkets couldn’t sell “non essential” goods because they are trying to prevent people leaving the house as much as possible then fair enough. I don’t agree with it, but one can (just about) construct a public health argument around it (on the basis that people might do it outside of a “standard” food shop).

    But they are going beyond that and trying to say it is about “fairness” to those businesses forced to close. Which seems to me designed to test the limits of public support. And if the suggestions about restrictions on what supermarkets can sell on line are true - well I just can’t for the life of me work out how that can be legal. And what the justification is. Are they saying a specialist computer retailer can sell a computer online, but a supermarket can’t? A clothes retailer can sell a tea shirt but a supermarket can’t? Or are the computer and clothes retailers banned as well? Fundamentally it’s got nothing to do with public health. Covid is sh*t for a lot of businesses. Especially small ones without an online presence. But the best you can do with those is compensate them as much as possible. But trying to distort the natural market instead will do little for them but just cause further economic damage and hardship for everyone. For no obvious public health purpose.

    It is also potentially counter to health, since a lot of people will rely on DIY or gardening or craft or reading or board games or whatever to get them through the isolation of lockdown.

    All that is left is drink.

    Really, that is the biggest mistake of all.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,361
    NEW THREAD
  • Options
    Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    HYUFD said:
    Go on, I'll bite. What's the thrust of the story? The headline looks faintly idiotic, but I've learned not to jump to judgements on that alone.
    China is making a lot of money selling PPE. China has bought up and bought off many poorer countries. China is persecuting minority groups. Something should be done (what and by whom are unclear).
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/23/chinas-evil-regime-successfully-using-covid-accelerate-bid-global/
    I agree China's persecution of minorities is evil, but regrettably started long before coronavirus.
    Other than that, the charges are that they seek power and treasure on the international stage? Dastardly!
  • Options
    welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    alex_ said:

    Wales: what I don’t get about the nonsense going on in Wales is that the Welsh govt are not attempting to justify the extreme restrictions (re:non essential goods) on public health grounds. If they said supermarkets couldn’t sell “non essential” goods because they are trying to prevent people leaving the house as much as possible then fair enough. I don’t agree with it, but one can (just about) construct a public health argument around it (on the basis that people might do it outside of a “standard” food shop).

    But they are going beyond that and trying to say it is about “fairness” to those businesses forced to close. Which seems to me designed to test the limits of public support. And if the suggestions about restrictions on what supermarkets can sell on line are true - well I just can’t for the life of me work out how that can be legal. And what the justification is. Are they saying a specialist computer retailer can sell a computer online, but a supermarket can’t? A clothes retailer can sell a tea shirt but a supermarket can’t? Or are the computer and clothes retailers banned as well? Fundamentally it’s got nothing to do with public health. Covid is sh*t for a lot of businesses. Especially small ones without an online presence. But the best you can do with those is compensate them as much as possible. But trying to distort the natural market instead will do little for them but just cause further economic damage and hardship for everyone. For no obvious public health purpose.

    Currently I can buy a tin but not a tin opener.

    It’s probably easier to buy a 20 quid heroin wrap in Cardiff than a duvet. Both are illegal.

    This is what lunatic govt looks like.

    We won’t forget.
This discussion has been closed.