Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Jeff Buchanan]

How many states have laws like Pennsylvania's? It seems to me that if you have dumb laws like this it just plays into the hands of election deniers. Am I missing something here? I don't get how those responsible for making sure every vote is counted in a state, including the Governor who, in the case of Pennsylvania, signed that dumb law into existence could possibly argue this is a good way to conduct elections where there are mail-in ballots of any kind. What are the arguments in favor of what Pennsylvania does?

[Dr. Strangelove]

How many states have laws like Pennsylvania's? It seems to me that if you have dumb laws like this it just plays into the hands of election deniers. Am I missing something here? I don't get how those responsible for making sure every vote is counted in a state, including the Governor who, in the case of Pennsylvania, signed that dumb law into existence could possibly argue this is a good way to conduct elections where there are mail-in ballots of any kind. What are the arguments in favor of what Pennsylvania does?

One valid argument is being worried someone leaks the results before Election Day to influence in-person voting on Election Day itself. But no one would know any other county but their own and just a handful of people within each county.

I'm not sure the PA law was set up to fail when it was written but it's now being used as a justification to scrap mail voting entirely. Wisconsin is the same way, btw.

[Tom W]

LMAO the New York Post got hacked.

Like really bad

I wouldn't classify any of that as "bad".

[Jeff Buchanan]

This is just too good an article (paywalled) not to break the rules and cut and paste it here. The gist of it resonates with my hammering of just about everything else this administration has done beyond completely fucking up the US economy. The Economist article says that while the goals of the Biden administration's Buy American sloganism are praiseworthy, the entire package taken as whole is so protectionist that none of Biden's goals and objectives are attainable.

America’s midterm elections are less than a fortnight away. When voters go to the polls on November 8th, surging prices will be uppermost in their minds. Annual inflation is running at just over 8%, nearly a 40-year high and the hottest in many voters’ lifetimes. For decades, inflation was quiescent enough that most Americans could ignore it. Now the cost of the weekly shop is dominating voters’ daily lives—and fuelling their ire.

Joe Biden’s colossal economic stimulus in early 2021 first set inflation on its feverish trajectory, before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent prices spiralling further. Voters may soon punish him for it, among other perceived excesses. According to the Pew Research Centre, a polling firm, four-fifths of Americans say the economy will be “very important” to their voting decisions; three-quarters are “very concerned” about the price of food and consumer goods.

Yet the consequences of nearly two years of Bidenomics go well beyond stoking inflation. Bidenomics takes on two of the biggest long-term threats facing America: the rise of an increasingly autocratic China, and the looming dangers of climate change. In the past year Mr Biden has signed three landmark bills, on infrastructure, semiconductors and the environment, which together contain plans to spend $1.7trn. With his executive actions, these amount to full-blown industrial policy. The result is unlike anything seen since Congress threw its weight behind America’s car- and chipmakers in the 1980s. The government will dole out $180bn in subsidies and tax credits to local firms over the next five years. At 0.7% of gdp, that is more than supposedly dirigiste France.

This phase of Bidenomics is praiseworthy in its aims. But its protectionism makes America less likely to achieve them. It is as if, having correctly identified his destination, Mr Biden has tied his legs together before setting off. The costs of this hobbled approach will be borne both by America and its allies.

America rightly wants to maintain its technological lead in advanced chipmaking over China. Semiconductors are growing in military significance, and could become crucial as artificial intelligence reshapes warfare. Another sensible worry relates to America’s dependence on China for crucial green-energy kit such as batteries. This could one day give Xi Jinping a hold over America’s economy, rather as Europe’s reliance on Russian natural gas strengthened the hand of Vladimir Putin. At home Mr Biden wants to spruce up rusting infrastructure and reduce carbon emissions. He has pursued these goals with subsidies and “Buy America” rules, and Democrats might hope that boasting of their support for domestic manufacturing and middle-class jobs will pick up votes on the campaign trail.

The trouble is that protectionism is a poison pill that weakens the whole enterprise. It hurts friend and foe alike, sapping America’s alliances of good faith and encouraging others to respond in kind. The European Union and South Korea complain that buyers of their electric vehicles will not benefit from America’s new subsidies, which will favour cars assembled in North America, and which may breach the World Trade Organisation’s rules. The eu is readying its own chip subsidies, which will compete wastefully with America’s. America’s attempts to woo Asian countries away from China’s sphere of influence, for example through the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, its latest trade initiative in the region, have been undermined by its inward turn. Western protectionism lends credibility to Mr Xi’s claims that democracies argue for global economic rules only when they are not the ones breaking them.

At home, too, protectionism makes the aims of Bidenomics harder to achieve. Subsidising electric cars assembled in North America will make them more expensive and lower-quality, dulling the incentive to go green. The new laws often require projects to pay government-mandated “prevailing wages”, or to use American iron and steel. The Department of Commerce’s plan for doling out chip subsidies pledges to take on an array of social problems, from giving jobs to the poor to helping businesses owned by women. The red tape will raise costs to consumers and taxpayers still further.

Rather than putting up barriers, America should reap the benefits of openness. More high-skilled immigration would boost both its green-tech and chipmaking industries. Easing permitting rules might do more than subsidies to encourage the building of green infrastructure. Tax deductions can favour investment. Free trade in crucial technologies with allies would make it cheaper for the democratic world both to decarbonise and to avoid excessive dependence on autocracies. And if the intent is to hinder Chinese chipmaking, America can do so without bungs to industry, as its recent ban on selling advanced chip technology to China shows.

Mr Biden might reply that he has to work within the boundaries of the politically possible. At least his protectionist instincts are being channelled towards some productive ends: Democrats got nowhere trying to impose a federal cap and trade system to curb carbon emissions more efficiently. And both the infrastructure and semiconductor bills have attracted bipartisan support. Promising a manufacturing renaissance might help Democrats win seats that once looked hopeless.

Such thinking is flawed. In the short term, gains in the Democrats’ popularity are likely to be small compared with the damage from voters’ fear about inflation. Rebuilding an industrial base and encouraging manufacturing jobs may be popular, but will heap costs on Americans. Bidenomics may help America deal with climate change and China, but less than it ought, because of its costly and inefficient design. Much of its appeal comes from the mistaken idea that America must concoct its own industrial policy to counter China’s steroidal version. In fact, China’s ailing economy and crashing stockmarket show the flaws of centralisation. The West’s advantage lies in its understanding of the strategic and economic benefits of openness. If America casts that aside, it risks losing the technological race.

[Hannibal]

I wouldn't classify any of that as "bad".

I suspect that the AOC assassination joke is illegal. Or at the very least the perpetrator will get a visit from the FBI.

[Tom W]

Illegal? and in bad taste? Of course it is.

And the double-standard legal system will certainly punish the perpetrators accordingly.

Still, the prospect, even fictional, of a world without AOC is delightful.

[THE_WIZARD_]

To paraphrase Judge Smails in Caddyshack..."...the world needs bartenders too..."

[CGVT]

And purveyors of ketchup laden wings...

[THE_WIZARD_]

I never put ketchup on anything. But I have a special sauce for you buddy...

[Hannibal]

Liberals -- "High five! We 'transed' Elon Musk's daughter LOL"

Also Liberals -- "Grooming is a myth"

01a2bbc562c85c5d.png

[Mike]

One valid argument is being worried someone leaks the results before Election Day to influence in-person voting on Election Day itself. But no one would know any other county but their own and just a handful of people within each county.

I'm not sure the PA law was set up to fail when it was written but it's now being used as a justification to scrap mail voting entirely. Wisconsin is the same way, btw.

Maybe we should just vote on Election Day. I’m in favor of making it a national holiday so everyone has the day off. But this 3 weeks of early voting and mail-in ballots will only feed the fire for election deniers - from whoever loses, regardless of party.

[Hannibal]

The PA debate got all of the attention, but America's Governor also had a great night.

He did fumble when given the opportunity to promise that he wouldn't run for President in 2024. But if your biggest weakness is that you might be popular enough to carry your governing model to the rest of the country, I'd say that you're in pretty good shape.

This guy stays issue-focused and he knows what his constituents want. He's prickly and not very pleasant to listen to, but this guy can definitely beat Donald Trump. And he's smart enough to do it in a way that if he loses to Trump, he won't alienate the base in the process.

[Hannibal]

Maybe we should just vote on Election Day. I’m in favor of making it a national holiday so everyone has the day off. But this 3 weeks of early voting and mail-in ballots will only feed the fire for election deniers - from whoever loses, regardless of party.

"election deniers". It's a dumb label. Not all claims of election fraud are created equal.

Crooked elections have happened before and no country is immune. Questioning the results of an election in and of itself is not immoral, nor is it inherently unreasonable if you have a mountain of video, eyewitness accounts, and statistical evidence to back it up.

[THE_WIZARD_]

They are insurrectionists on the right...and loyal Patriots defending democracy on the left.

[Hannibal]

Maybe we should just vote on Election Day. I’m in favor of making it a national holiday so everyone has the day off. But this 3 weeks of early voting and mail-in ballots will only feed the fire for election deniers - from whoever loses, regardless of party.

I'm fine with early voting, but mail-ins should be restricted to the military and other rare exceptions, and you should have to show your ID to vote.

And FFS there is no excuse to not know the winner of an election by 3 AM that morning, barring an extremely rare race that's within .2%.