|
Tiggum posted:Everyone's does, and in sane countries that's fine because no one is ever comparing your signature against a reference to verify your identity (because it's wildly unreliable). As an Australian I've only been finding out about the American electoral process in dribs and drabs over the years and every time I find out some new fact it's always some  coocoo crazy bullshit that I would never have guessed. Like, just the fact that they vote to elect a single candidate (plus VP) and then that person gets to choose their cabinet afterwards is loving insane. E: I mean, not to start a derail about the Electoral College because we all know how loving crazy it is but it's really loving crazy https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1313346398520258560 Slamhound posted:My mother's signature never changed and that was unusual enough that the election poll workers would point it out when she would vote. A while back we discovered that our real estate agent had hosed up our lease and a housemate who'd moved out years ago needed to sign some paperwork to say that he didn't live here anymore but I'd lost contact with him and I decided to just fake his signature because it didn't look that complicated and it was way harder than I expected. Also the idea that any party could collect the signatures of a significant number of registered voters and cast mail-in ballots on their behalf and the scheme wouldn't unravel at any point is just unbelievably dumb Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 12:28 on Oct 6, 2020 |
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 11:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
Tiggum posted:What assurance could they possibly be giving other than "looks genuine to me"? There's just no way to test that. Well, from a purely practical standpoint, their reputation as trustworthy authenticators is what gives the assurance. But, just because a person's signature isn't a nearly perfect clone of every one they've ever written, that doesn't mean that they are all totally unique. Yes, signatures change over time, and as I said in my example above, sometimes an authentic signature will be different enough to stand out like a sore thumb. But, there are usually key elements that stand out, and those don't change much over time. They may evolve, and that evolution can sometimes be used to narrow down when something was signed. But, those are the hallmarks of a signature. And as I understand it, it is those hallmarks that are usually used to authenticate a signature or identify a forgery. I don't think I could do it, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 13:33
|
|
|
It's not like an exclusively American thing to check signatures. England does it in its mail voting system too. I can't find broad worldwide information because the internet really wants to tell me about esignatures instead. The US is also not alone in being increasingly unrepresentative. I think the UK got its least representative parliament in history last year. It's part old systems not really understanding modern populations and part decades of parties ruling by relatively thin margins wherein they'll eventually find any weak point to attack to reinforce their rule regardless of actual popular will. Also the president isn't supposed to just be able to appoint whoever they want to the cabinet; congress is supposed to be able to check and confirm them or remove them, but the current administration has a few times just appointed people without congressional approval, and congress couldn't keep up with the chaos. Procedurally, the US government has been falling apart between the president refusing to pretend to be restricted by law and congressional republicans refusing to pretend that there's any sort of rule of law that could restrict him, and if you've got big chunks of the government just refusing to acknowledge the restrictions of the government, you get a massive breakdown of whatever balance that there was before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 15:14
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:So does this all mean that the dude on Pawn Stars they bring in to "authenticate" celebrity signatures and the like is basically a fraud then? Mark Hamill sometimes verifies stuff on twitter if you send him a picture, but since it's his signature he'd be a pretty good authority on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:As an Australian I've only been finding out about the American electoral process in dribs and drabs over the years and every time I find out some new fact it's always some SlothfulCobra posted:Also I feel like people should be a lot more explicit when talking about the Trump campaign threatening a coup or treason, and much like how it's an obvious crime for a man claiming to be fabulously wealthy to barely pay a dime in taxes, it's definitely a crime to openly attempt to reject the US electoral process. Call it what it is, even though the US's shambling institutions are incapable of actually responding to the obvious crime. Use the freedom of speech while it's still there. Granted only talked to a couple and looked at posts online but it seems like most of America just assumes he misspoke or everyone is misunderstanding him. More posts about "Rapey Joe" than about "Stand back and stand ready" or "we'll just have to see". Reading online is a little frightening as Trump's followers 100% know what he is saying and reading to spring into action. Sounds bad but I was really hoping Covid would take care of the situation but nobody is getting off that lucky
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:As an Australian I've only been finding out about the American electoral process in dribs and drabs over the years and every time I find out some new fact it's always some You can actually do even worse than this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k It is extremely politically implausible just because the leanings of the states in question do not align this perfectly, but you can theoretically win the US presidency with only 22% of the popular vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
Im pretty sure, in theory it could be way more excessive than this. In that maximized scenario the dems would pick the all the biggest states with the smallest relative worth of the vote until they land just below the middle. Those states go 100% to them with everyone voting. So that's like 100 million votes. In each remaining state, only one person bothers to vote and they all pick red. So the democrats win the popular bit by 99,999997%. But they win nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 06:21
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:It is extremely politically implausible just because the leanings of the states in question do not align this perfectly, but you can theoretically win the US presidency with only 22% of the popular vote. The fact that it is theoretically possible should disqualify the entire system in the mind of any reasonable person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 10:45
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The fact that it is theoretically possible should disqualify the entire system in the mind of any reasonable person. In any election it's theoretically possible that only one person votes and so their pick automatically wins. A reasonable person can tell the difference between what's technically possible and what's actually plausible or likely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 11:26
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 11:50
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The US is also not alone in being increasingly unrepresentative. "Increasingly" is right, just look at this fucker go: https://twitter.com/SenMikeLee/status/1314009246305079296 https://twitter.com/SenMikeLee/status/1314009467311271938 https://twitter.com/SenMikeLee/status/1314012494227296258 https://twitter.com/SenMikeLee/status/1314089207875371008
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 11:40
|
|
|
When you vote you are exercising political power. You're using force! And force, my friends, is violence: the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:When you vote you are exercising political power. You're using force! And force, my friends, is violence: the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived. You. What is the difference, if any, between a citizen, and a civilian?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:You. What is the difference, if any, between a citizen, and a civilian? A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety the body politic, defending it with his life, a civilian does not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety the body politic, defending it with his life, a civilian does not. https://getshirtz.com/products/service-guarantees-citizenship T-shirts in a variety of colours. Also you can get a hoodie! Buy today for freedom!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety the body politic, defending it with his life, a civilian does not. The exact words of the text. But do you understand it? Do you believe it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
I dont know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:I dont know. Of course you don’t. I doubt anyone here would recognize civic virtue if it reached up and bit you on the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 21:01
|
|
TheCenturion posted:Of course you don’t. I doubt anyone here would recognize civic virtue if it reached up and bit you on the rear end. 
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:Of course you don’t. I doubt anyone here would recognize civic virtue if it reached up and bit you on the rear end.  Hi-Fiving with swords?!? I can do that! Whose got some swords?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
The enemy cannot high-five with swords if you disable his hand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 21:41
|
|
|
Baraka would like a word
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
I’d expect any one of you to do the same for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:I’d expect any one of you to do the same for me.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 22:33
|
|
|
 They did it! https://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Much-needed-laugh-Danbury-officially-names-15632527.php
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 03:59
|
|
|
What were the four things that Limbaugh was railing against that the
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2020 15:27
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:What were the four things that Limbaugh was railing against that the  The segment starts about 5:30 here
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 12:31
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:In any election it's theoretically possible that only one person votes and so their pick automatically wins. A reasonable person can tell the difference between what's technically possible and what's actually plausible or likely. No see the difference is that your theoretical possibility is entirely democratic, whereas the reality of the idiotic US system very much is not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 13:39
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:No see the difference is that your theoretical possibility is entirely democratic, whereas the reality of the idiotic US system very much is not. Actually that dumb scenario already has contingencies in US law with quorum laws and the Electoral College so their point is actually pointless. So, the scenario where Trump wins the election after losing by 25M votes or whatever is possible, while the "one person votes and their guy wins" is functionally and legally impossible at the federal level. The reason these scenarios are relevant (and perhaps likely) is because foreign interference in the last election targeted the specific scenarios where Trump could win the election while losing the popular vote. With outside help, the Trump campaign was able to drill down to specific swing districts, to the single-home level, and come up with maps that allowed them to win the presidency while "losing" the election. Facebook helped a lot with this.  Technically Trump lost by 3 million votes, but he won the ~right~ (white) 40,000 votes in the specific 12 counties in the specific 4 swing states that allowed him to steal the office. And none of those counties were the ones pundits traditionally looked at. Putin Moneyballed the DNC.Come up with better Strawmans. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 16:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1315628555611627520?s=19
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
I'm glad John got his poop processing plant. He deserves it. In other news, I'd completely forgotten that Trump was planning to ghost the WHO because this loving hell 2020 has been a million years long.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 10:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/WTOV9/status/1320527075502153729
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
RIP in piss https://youtu.be/c5W06xR8EYk
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 02:36
|
|
Eat poo poo In Hell Bob! says he'll be the end of intro reference with like Eatus Shitus or whatever
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 02:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LastWeekTonight/status/1320440031400595456?s=19
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 02:50
|
|
|
Watermelon Daiquiri posted:Eat poo poo In Hell Bob!
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 03:07
|
|
|
Came to the thread to celebrate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 03:14
|
|
|
Eat poo poo, Bob.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
You people are monsters. Monsters. A man has died. I, for one, will proudly offer whoever out there loved this guy, and also his immortal soul, the most precious, meaningful thing I can spare. Thoughts and prayers, Bob Murray--or, as I like to think of him, BM.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
Eat poo poo, Bob.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 10:12
|
|