Look at Hillary in 2008, before she went into super-flipping mode and changed from centrist to "progressive". He knows she is lying about her new positions, that he has found another popular warmonger to support.
Oh no... which is why she is against a carbon tax, widely accepted by ecologists and analysts as the only effective economic tool for de-carbonizing consumption patterns... She flipped on KeystoneXL.... She flipped last minute again on TPP. It goes on and on. AND she has a record of telling bigwigs she'll flip back again once in office!
She's just a female version of GW Bush who is also willing to lie endlessly to her base. I do, however, believe her about equal pay for women - even though the Clinton Foundation pretend charity pays its female staff less like everyone else.
There seems to be a concerted effort to talk about David Brock and his machinations. There was a clip on the David Pakman show where they basically said he wasn't *really* liberal - which is pretty funny considering all of the Democractic PACs he runs.
Anyways, this smells an awful lot like a Sanders-backed astroturfing campaign focusing on Brock's own astroturfing campaigns.// Not a Hillary fan at all// Nor Sanders, but he, at least, seems like a decent guy
One should never mistake party affiliation with a world view. They often overlap, but the elites in both parties are very much anti-populist and want to protect the financial sector and its established business models (e.g. turning every aspect of life into a ripoff scheme). With Independents growing in the electorate, that overlap is shrinking.
The monolithic dependency trees that package managers require at the moment just don't scale and never provided a good way for third party apps to plug into them (just adding random third party repos is inherently fragile and insecure).
Exactly. And it resembles a whole host of other maladies brought on by what amounts to a sick subculture. Seriously, this is a class of system developers who cannot whip up one shred of empathy for application developers.
The best thing you can do for app developers is to nail down all your core APIs (a rich set of them) and define everything else as "option" or "3rd party". That way the app dev can at least start out writing apps that check for the OS version. Yes, for most apps the dependency check should stop at the OS version!!! Its so basic to the experience of personal computing, yet insistently rejected by 'repo culture'. No, we must have interchangeable-everything to the point where interesting new hardware features almost never get a chance to be expressed in the GUI (which is another aspect that discourages app developers).
Who gives a shit about an extra 3-5 MB of libraries per app when traditional repos are compiling apps against library revisions that the authors never tested with? This has added a lot of unpredictability to running Linux systems (especially desktops).
OS X is a model of successful packaging and distribution and its about time some Linux distros were taking inspiration from it.
OTOH, even not considering library revisions, Linux packaging never was "proper" for applications beyond the server space or lab. It is a recipe for driving real app developers away from your platform, in part because you can't really define where your platform ends and where the apps begin. Though not necessarily "Linux" itself, the typical Linux distro is its own little hell when it comes to independently distributing applications to users.
Its not just freedom to use "either" toilet: Its freedom to use ANY restroom without being challenged for ID for people who do not look either masculine or feminine "enough". Being suspected of having the wrong gender because of how your features are interpreted is not terribly unlike being suspected of being gay/lesbian in an office or school or military that bans them... Plenty of straight people also wind up being harassed and discriminated against.
I think it's more likely about a good distraction. Get that conversation riled up to draw attention away from anything scandalous that would prevent her from getting elected.
I gotta agree. The 1990s want their belief crazes (and stupid TV show and acid wash jeans) back.
There's no hypocrisy in Win8/10... MS waited more than a decade to make structural changes to the UI. And even then, they were doing it out of fright in reaction to Google and Apple's success in mobile devices.
OTOH, Apple is being choosy about which mobile UI features to pull into OS X. Canonical is trying to follow Apple's examples and doing a pretty good job.
I think most of you miss the essential points of personal computing entirely when debating this issue. Apple and MS represent the defacto standards that define that market, but those companies aren't going to spell out for FOSS hobbyists a laundry list of what draws non-technical users to a platform.
People who have paid attention to PCs over the decades realize that:
1. Users will ignore complexity they don't need, as long as the UI is _consistent_ and recognizable. Even OS X UI can be fairly complex, and Apple configures it in a way that complexity is tucked away under 'Advanced' buttons or ingeniously in the filesystem (think: plist editor).
As for consistency -- look at how Windows users are willing to rebel against MS upgrade paths if the changes are too severe. It can be argued that MS waits a very long time before springing unfamiliar paradigms on its users who may still reject the changes.
2. Real platforms are a comfort zone for both users and app developers, because the platform must bring those two groups together. Lack of defined reference hardware and OEM partnerships hurt. Lack of feature stability is very painful. In the PC desktop space, Linux is an _unstable_ platform, which is not the kind of place a developer uses to court potential customers.
2a. Real PC platforms aim to _convert_ their users into developers. They offer standard IDEs that are both rich and easy to get started in. They treat the issue of tool choice as one for more advanced developers, instead of burdening beginners with a whirlwind of confusion. There is always a preferred high level language on offer, as well.
Beginners will also go elsewhere when they realize that their first efforts at useful programming don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of running on another person's "Linux" machine without a lot of extra pain. Not being able to easily share/show their work to teachers, classmates, friends, family, bosses, etc. is a dealbreaker (more accurately, it breaks the _spirit_ and ambition of pursuing ideas on that quasi-platform).
2c. Real platforms draw sharp distinctions between app developers and system developers. Saddling app devs with the expectations of system devs leads to a pecking order where the concerns of focused app devs aren't taken seriously.
3. People will not get excited for your OS if most of your announced plans revolve around making things more (and more) _modular_ so that more and more projects can plug their own implementations of whatever component you can imagine into the system. This is sacrificing vertical integration of concrete hardware (or even software) features in favor of horizontal integration which demands unachievably perfect abstraction and usually results in slipshod appearance and performance. Desktop Environments should not be the disembodied, interchangeable "heads" of PC; the OS vendor needs to "own it".
TL;DR, when you're missing any outward appearance of recognizability and feature stability, and most of the features and developer efforts are for the benefit of fourth-party system devs wanting to plug in or replace commonly used features, and no one knows quite the right way to install independently-produced software nor how to get started writing it, and there isn't even a logo-licensing program for compatible hardware, and no one even knows what the minimum hardware feature set should be nor where they can look at a reference implementation.... I'll just leave it there.
Is there any hope? I think Canonical has some of the right ideas. (So does Google, except their offerings are really mainframe terminals not PCs.)
So that stack of patents they are using to collect from Android -- but won't acknowledge to the public -- Is that part of the "rethink"?
How about all the open formats that Windows ignores? And my favorite... being told I need to reformat an external drive "in order to use it", when it already has EXT4 (and data!) on it. Apparently it would just kill MS to tell users the device contains a Linux format that can't be mounted. HOW FRIENDLY!
In the web space, they are desperate for Azure to compete with FOSS, so they will support FOSS middleware; MS views the hypervisor as the new OS and getting hardware to support your proprietary "OS" as defacto-standard is the first step to locking-out alternatives.
At the personal tech. level, however, not even the pretense of being FOSS-friendly is there.
Its amazing how many MS shills there are on/. modding stuff like this down...
Descartes would not recognize many scientists' thinking today, particularly in the biosciences and chemistry which are dominated by vested corporate interests. They tend to suffer from positivism about the development of industrial products, making their disposition closer to that of engineers. That which is not known in their fields is given short shrift.
I should have also mentioned that Hyper-V is the Azure hypervisor, which is competing with Xen used by AWS. Both hypervisors are the "bare metal" type.
So that stack of patents they are using to collect from Android -- but won't acknowledge to the public -- Is that part of the "rethink"?
How about all the open formats that Windows ignores? And my favorite... being told I need to reformat an external drive "in order to use it", when it already has EXT4 (and data!) on it. Apparently it would just kill MS to tell users the device contains a Linux format that can't be mounted. HOW FRIENDLY!
In the web space, they are desperate for Azure to compete with FOSS, so they will support FOSS middleware; MS views the hypervisor as the new OS and getting hardware to support your proprietary "OS" as defacto-standard is the first step to locking-out alternatives.
At the personal tech. level, however, not even the pretense of being FOSS-friendly is there.
Right. It's just like the other content that reads, no one will accept 1/120 of the value. Seem/. Users aren't that smart, don't understand economics, and fail to see what happens when governments declare bitcoin illegal.
Can't spend it? Can't use it. What good is it too accept a currency you can't spend in real life.
Um, you think bans are the conduit for making bitcoin corrupt? The real threat is and always was the formation of cartels. And as far as I can tell, bitcoin is 98% there.
Seriously, all financial institutions have to do to control bitcoin is to swamp its matrix with processing power. And finance specializes in processing power. Idiots!
Some people want to find discrimination or outrage everywhere...
Yeah, the plight of the all-American worker having his government and economic prospects ruined by imaginary illegal voting. Its right up there with the back-breaking work required to keep the South's gerrymandering in a league of its own. Breaks my heart...
The dallasnews story is based on allegations made way back in 2007. How did those pan out?
People are looking for any opportunity to remove people with Latin- or black-sounding names from the voter rolls. Florida has experienced a rash of this form of disenfranchisement. The state of Florida claims there are many thousands of people illegally registered as voters, and yet they consistently do this based on misspelled names and such... as if their computers couldn't tell the difference. Its a pattern of intentional voter suppression. Just the number of citizens reporting disenfranchisement totally swamps the confirmed cases of voter fraud.
You may think voter IDs could solve these issues, but in reality it would just move the nature of the allegations to ID fraud. It would pit xenophobes against the ability of many citizens to even hold an ID....and it would. As a gay person, I see the issue through the Right's burning desire to exclude. There are always new tactics -- like the War On Drugs or "religious freedom of for-profit businesses" -- to try and preserve for the standard-bearers the luxury of choice: to pretend different people don't exist, or else intimidate and abuse them with impunity.
Since you're so dismissive about the studies on this subject, I'll leave it there.
(The assertion about close races was in the GP you seemed to allude to.)
The voters in the first article may be interested to learn the discrimination has an Anglo-Saxon cultural basis, but I doubt they would find solace in that in any case.
If you ignore the history of voting fraud in places like Chicago, or the organized (frequently through illicit means and threat of force or violence) control of marginalized peoples by Tamany hall, then you're ignoring a lot of important history.
Once again, the subject is not ballot-box stuffing or similar attempts at mass fraud. Voter fraud is when someone impersonates another person at the poll or tricks authorities when registering to vote; That is salient to the subject of voter IDs and immigrants.
Here is a link about written tests in US voting history. Also, more recently poll taxes. As with Tamany Hall, this is grade school history.
That judicialwatch link is an opinion piece from nine years ago that doesn't even give a rough idea of scale beyond weasel words like "many". It has one broken link to a newspaper, and several other links that are activist groups (just as judicialwatch is, itself, a conservative activist group). IOW, they don't feel confident enough to link directly to research and they conveniently left statistics out. You took accepted their opinion as true on their authority. The other articles you think you saw were probably about accusations that didn't pan out -- see the studies I referenced via washingtonpost.
That article contains many independent studies - scholarly works. Perhaps you could read the synopsis at least.
That's interesting about Mexico, though it would be ironic to hold them up as a good example when their people are fleeing. As for "pot-kettle", false equivalence canards got old in the 90s. They don't hold water in most places. Not only have I looked at your sources more closely than you have looked at mine, I have backed-up my concerns; you haven't.
So you think there are Mexicans plotting to walk into polling stations so they can impersonate Americans? Or that there are enough of these people willing to risk arrest and deportation to make a significant difference?
If that were true, there would be enough registered-but-seldom-voting Americans who do return to the polls in order to make that phenomenon stand out as a statistic. I mean, there have to be more than a couple foreigners who tried this and arrived at the polls *after* their mark, right? Where are the cases??
Next they'll be issuing written tests to screen voters, and jacking up the fees and conditions for holding an ID. And of course, it not like any of this has anything to do with the darker periods of electoral history. Just like racism itself, that old stuff happened on another planet and people suggesting its a real problem are 'bonkers' and there is just no way to discuss the issue with data so ridicule will do instead. LOL
BTW, I lurrrrve the assertion that elections are too neck-and-neck to allow even one foreigner to besmirch our lovely democracy... because the rights holders in this debate ARE US citizens and the flippant "anti-populist" sentiments about "oh some long lines, polls closed on them, so what boohoo losers -- lets move on" are whats completely insane by comparison. When conservative douchebags want to turn over a new leaf on this issue then maybe they'll warrant more respect.
and with 60-70% of the electorate NOT voting, how easy is it to find someone who hasn't voted in 20 years and request absentee ballot / vote in person / etc. Plus there's registering people who are not eligible to vote, absentee fraud, etc.
That would still result in a significant number of incidents of detected voter fraud (not to be confused with fraudulent handling of ballot boxes, computers, etc)... and that doesn't appear to be the case. Think about it: What individuals want to risk arrest in order to change one or two more votes? Its like saying illegal immigrants entertain voter fraud even remotely -- Its a paranoid fantasy of the privileged who cannot realistically imagine themselves in the shoes of others.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, they could contract it out to Solar City and get a discount on their electricity rate without having to buy anything.
Look at Hillary in 2008, before she went into super-flipping mode and changed from centrist to "progressive". He knows she is lying about her new positions, that he has found another popular warmonger to support.
This is what public "debate" on behalf of a wealthy elite looks like... a preference for loose characterizations and throwing attitude.
But always remember, Hillary is NOT influenced by wealthy corporate donors! So her anti-Citizens United rhetoric is for everyone else.
Oh no... which is why she is against a carbon tax, widely accepted by ecologists and analysts as the only effective economic tool for de-carbonizing consumption patterns... She flipped on KeystoneXL.... She flipped last minute again on TPP. It goes on and on. AND she has a record of telling bigwigs she'll flip back again once in office!
She's just a female version of GW Bush who is also willing to lie endlessly to her base. I do, however, believe her about equal pay for women - even though the Clinton Foundation pretend charity pays its female staff less like everyone else.
There seems to be a concerted effort to talk about David Brock and his machinations. There was a clip on the David Pakman show where they basically said he wasn't *really* liberal - which is pretty funny considering all of the Democractic PACs he runs.
Anyways, this smells an awful lot like a Sanders-backed astroturfing campaign focusing on Brock's own astroturfing campaigns. // Not a Hillary fan at all // Nor Sanders, but he, at least, seems like a decent guy
One should never mistake party affiliation with a world view. They often overlap, but the elites in both parties are very much anti-populist and want to protect the financial sector and its established business models (e.g. turning every aspect of life into a ripoff scheme). With Independents growing in the electorate, that overlap is shrinking.
The monolithic dependency trees that package managers require at the moment just don't scale and never provided a good way for third party apps to plug into them (just adding random third party repos is inherently fragile and insecure).
Exactly. And it resembles a whole host of other maladies brought on by what amounts to a sick subculture. Seriously, this is a class of system developers who cannot whip up one shred of empathy for application developers.
The best thing you can do for app developers is to nail down all your core APIs (a rich set of them) and define everything else as "option" or "3rd party". That way the app dev can at least start out writing apps that check for the OS version. Yes, for most apps the dependency check should stop at the OS version!!! Its so basic to the experience of personal computing, yet insistently rejected by 'repo culture'. No, we must have interchangeable-everything to the point where interesting new hardware features almost never get a chance to be expressed in the GUI (which is another aspect that discourages app developers).
Who gives a shit about an extra 3-5 MB of libraries per app when traditional repos are compiling apps against library revisions that the authors never tested with? This has added a lot of unpredictability to running Linux systems (especially desktops).
OS X is a model of successful packaging and distribution and its about time some Linux distros were taking inspiration from it.
OTOH, even not considering library revisions, Linux packaging never was "proper" for applications beyond the server space or lab. It is a recipe for driving real app developers away from your platform, in part because you can't really define where your platform ends and where the apps begin. Though not necessarily "Linux" itself, the typical Linux distro is its own little hell when it comes to independently distributing applications to users.
Its not just freedom to use "either" toilet: Its freedom to use ANY restroom without being challenged for ID for people who do not look either masculine or feminine "enough". Being suspected of having the wrong gender because of how your features are interpreted is not terribly unlike being suspected of being gay/lesbian in an office or school or military that bans them... Plenty of straight people also wind up being harassed and discriminated against.
I think the Supreme Court would beg to differ. And that's just one of many examples.
Hey, remember when Obama was first elected and the RNC immediately found a black politician and made him head of the party? Those were fun days...
I think it's more likely about a good distraction. Get that conversation riled up to draw attention away from anything scandalous that would prevent her from getting elected.
I gotta agree. The 1990s want their belief crazes (and stupid TV show and acid wash jeans) back.
There's no hypocrisy in Win8/10... MS waited more than a decade to make structural changes to the UI. And even then, they were doing it out of fright in reaction to Google and Apple's success in mobile devices.
OTOH, Apple is being choosy about which mobile UI features to pull into OS X. Canonical is trying to follow Apple's examples and doing a pretty good job.
I think most of you miss the essential points of personal computing entirely when debating this issue. Apple and MS represent the defacto standards that define that market, but those companies aren't going to spell out for FOSS hobbyists a laundry list of what draws non-technical users to a platform.
People who have paid attention to PCs over the decades realize that:
1. Users will ignore complexity they don't need, as long as the UI is _consistent_ and recognizable. Even OS X UI can be fairly complex, and Apple configures it in a way that complexity is tucked away under 'Advanced' buttons or ingeniously in the filesystem (think: plist editor).
As for consistency -- look at how Windows users are willing to rebel against MS upgrade paths if the changes are too severe. It can be argued that MS waits a very long time before springing unfamiliar paradigms on its users who may still reject the changes.
2. Real platforms are a comfort zone for both users and app developers, because the platform must bring those two groups together. Lack of defined reference hardware and OEM partnerships hurt. Lack of feature stability is very painful. In the PC desktop space, Linux is an _unstable_ platform, which is not the kind of place a developer uses to court potential customers.
2a. Real PC platforms aim to _convert_ their users into developers. They offer standard IDEs that are both rich and easy to get started in. They treat the issue of tool choice as one for more advanced developers, instead of burdening beginners with a whirlwind of confusion. There is always a preferred high level language on offer, as well.
Beginners will also go elsewhere when they realize that their first efforts at useful programming don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of running on another person's "Linux" machine without a lot of extra pain. Not being able to easily share/show their work to teachers, classmates, friends, family, bosses, etc. is a dealbreaker (more accurately, it breaks the _spirit_ and ambition of pursuing ideas on that quasi-platform).
2c. Real platforms draw sharp distinctions between app developers and system developers. Saddling app devs with the expectations of system devs leads to a pecking order where the concerns of focused app devs aren't taken seriously.
3. People will not get excited for your OS if most of your announced plans revolve around making things more (and more) _modular_ so that more and more projects can plug their own implementations of whatever component you can imagine into the system. This is sacrificing vertical integration of concrete hardware (or even software) features in favor of horizontal integration which demands unachievably perfect abstraction and usually results in slipshod appearance and performance. Desktop Environments should not be the disembodied, interchangeable "heads" of PC; the OS vendor needs to "own it".
TL;DR, when you're missing any outward appearance of recognizability and feature stability, and most of the features and developer efforts are for the benefit of fourth-party system devs wanting to plug in or replace commonly used features, and no one knows quite the right way to install independently-produced software nor how to get started writing it, and there isn't even a logo-licensing program for compatible hardware, and no one even knows what the minimum hardware feature set should be nor where they can look at a reference implementation.... I'll just leave it there.
Is there any hope? I think Canonical has some of the right ideas. (So does Google, except their offerings are really mainframe terminals not PCs.)
So that stack of patents they are using to collect from Android -- but won't acknowledge to the public -- Is that part of the "rethink"?
How about all the open formats that Windows ignores? And my favorite... being told I need to reformat an external drive "in order to use it", when it already has EXT4 (and data!) on it. Apparently it would just kill MS to tell users the device contains a Linux format that can't be mounted. HOW FRIENDLY!
In the web space, they are desperate for Azure to compete with FOSS, so they will support FOSS middleware; MS views the hypervisor as the new OS and getting hardware to support your proprietary "OS" as defacto-standard is the first step to locking-out alternatives.
At the personal tech. level, however, not even the pretense of being FOSS-friendly is there.
Its amazing how many MS shills there are on /. modding stuff like this down...
Descartes would not recognize many scientists' thinking today, particularly in the biosciences and chemistry which are dominated by vested corporate interests. They tend to suffer from positivism about the development of industrial products, making their disposition closer to that of engineers. That which is not known in their fields is given short shrift.
I should have also mentioned that Hyper-V is the Azure hypervisor, which is competing with Xen used by AWS. Both hypervisors are the "bare metal" type.
So that stack of patents they are using to collect from Android -- but won't acknowledge to the public -- Is that part of the "rethink"?
How about all the open formats that Windows ignores? And my favorite... being told I need to reformat an external drive "in order to use it", when it already has EXT4 (and data!) on it. Apparently it would just kill MS to tell users the device contains a Linux format that can't be mounted. HOW FRIENDLY!
In the web space, they are desperate for Azure to compete with FOSS, so they will support FOSS middleware; MS views the hypervisor as the new OS and getting hardware to support your proprietary "OS" as defacto-standard is the first step to locking-out alternatives.
At the personal tech. level, however, not even the pretense of being FOSS-friendly is there.
Yeah, special hashing chips that only grow between the unwashed toes of bitcoin bros. LOL
Uh, like Skype and WhatsApp users did...... You could just say "I'm on Signal" or whichever app you choose.
Signal - OStel - Ring - Retroshare also.
No. Ethanol at least reduces smog (it is a replacement for MTBE). Bitcoin produces smog and greenhouse gases and little else.
Right. It's just like the other content that reads, no one will accept 1/120 of the value. Seem /. Users aren't that smart, don't understand economics, and fail to see what happens when governments declare bitcoin illegal.
Can't spend it? Can't use it. What good is it too accept a currency you can't spend in real life.
Um, you think bans are the conduit for making bitcoin corrupt? The real threat is and always was the formation of cartels. And as far as I can tell, bitcoin is 98% there.
Seriously, all financial institutions have to do to control bitcoin is to swamp its matrix with processing power. And finance specializes in processing power. Idiots!
Some people want to find discrimination or outrage everywhere...
Yeah, the plight of the all-American worker having his government and economic prospects ruined by imaginary illegal voting. Its right up there with the back-breaking work required to keep the South's gerrymandering in a league of its own. Breaks my heart...
The dallasnews story is based on allegations made way back in 2007. How did those pan out?
People are looking for any opportunity to remove people with Latin- or black-sounding names from the voter rolls. Florida has experienced a rash of this form of disenfranchisement. The state of Florida claims there are many thousands of people illegally registered as voters, and yet they consistently do this based on misspelled names and such... as if their computers couldn't tell the difference. Its a pattern of intentional voter suppression. Just the number of citizens reporting disenfranchisement totally swamps the confirmed cases of voter fraud.
You may think voter IDs could solve these issues, but in reality it would just move the nature of the allegations to ID fraud. It would pit xenophobes against the ability of many citizens to even hold an ID. ...and it would. As a gay person, I see the issue through the Right's burning desire to exclude. There are always new tactics -- like the War On Drugs or "religious freedom of for-profit businesses" -- to try and preserve for the standard-bearers the luxury of choice: to pretend different people don't exist, or else intimidate and abuse them with impunity.
Since you're so dismissive about the studies on this subject, I'll leave it there.
(The assertion about close races was in the GP you seemed to allude to.)
The voters in the first article may be interested to learn the discrimination has an Anglo-Saxon cultural basis, but I doubt they would find solace in that in any case.
If you ignore the history of voting fraud in places like Chicago, or the organized (frequently through illicit means and threat of force or violence) control of marginalized peoples by Tamany hall, then you're ignoring a lot of important history.
Once again, the subject is not ballot-box stuffing or similar attempts at mass fraud. Voter fraud is when someone impersonates another person at the poll or tricks authorities when registering to vote; That is salient to the subject of voter IDs and immigrants.
Here is a link about written tests in US voting history. Also, more recently poll taxes. As with Tamany Hall, this is grade school history.
That judicialwatch link is an opinion piece from nine years ago that doesn't even give a rough idea of scale beyond weasel words like "many". It has one broken link to a newspaper, and several other links that are activist groups (just as judicialwatch is, itself, a conservative activist group). IOW, they don't feel confident enough to link directly to research and they conveniently left statistics out. You took accepted their opinion as true on their authority. The other articles you think you saw were probably about accusations that didn't pan out -- see the studies I referenced via washingtonpost.
That article contains many independent studies - scholarly works. Perhaps you could read the synopsis at least.
That's interesting about Mexico, though it would be ironic to hold them up as a good example when their people are fleeing. As for "pot-kettle", false equivalence canards got old in the 90s. They don't hold water in most places. Not only have I looked at your sources more closely than you have looked at mine, I have backed-up my concerns; you haven't.
So you think there are Mexicans plotting to walk into polling stations so they can impersonate Americans? Or that there are enough of these people willing to risk arrest and deportation to make a significant difference?
If that were true, there would be enough registered-but-seldom-voting Americans who do return to the polls in order to make that phenomenon stand out as a statistic. I mean, there have to be more than a couple foreigners who tried this and arrived at the polls *after* their mark, right? Where are the cases??
Speaking of poll paranoia, its usually racist: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/0...
Next they'll be issuing written tests to screen voters, and jacking up the fees and conditions for holding an ID. And of course, it not like any of this has anything to do with the darker periods of electoral history. Just like racism itself, that old stuff happened on another planet and people suggesting its a real problem are 'bonkers' and there is just no way to discuss the issue with data so ridicule will do instead. LOL
BTW, I lurrrrve the assertion that elections are too neck-and-neck to allow even one foreigner to besmirch our lovely democracy... because the rights holders in this debate ARE US citizens and the flippant "anti-populist" sentiments about "oh some long lines, polls closed on them, so what boohoo losers -- lets move on" are whats completely insane by comparison. When conservative douchebags want to turn over a new leaf on this issue then maybe they'll warrant more respect.
and with 60-70% of the electorate NOT voting, how easy is it to find someone who hasn't voted in 20 years and request absentee ballot / vote in person / etc. Plus there's registering people who are not eligible to vote, absentee fraud, etc.
That would still result in a significant number of incidents of detected voter fraud (not to be confused with fraudulent handling of ballot boxes, computers, etc)... and that doesn't appear to be the case. Think about it: What individuals want to risk arrest in order to change one or two more votes? Its like saying illegal immigrants entertain voter fraud even remotely -- Its a paranoid fantasy of the privileged who cannot realistically imagine themselves in the shoes of others.
Or any computer with a radio attached: They will start requiring ID for the purchase of computers. Such a bill cannot but 'go there' eventually.
That is FUCKED.