Presumably cables go into and out of the exchange and could be disrupted at a number of easier to access points. Others say they want to install surveillance hardware but if the Chinese government had that kind of hardware lying around wouldn't they have installed it before the protests?
Exactly this. There was a video released yesterday on the HK subreddit showing what seemed to be a special unit of "police" who bore no badges or any identification past riot shields emblazoned with "police" at the university. These dudes looked huge compared to everyone else there.
China uses the same "Ministry of Interior Armed Forces" system as Soviet Union did. They are kept separate from PLA so that they can be the thugs without contaminating real army, and the popular opinion follows on this.
Nope, 'vast' means more than very large and its closest synonyms are 'immense' or 'boundless'. I would consider a vast majority to require at LEAST an order of magnitude difference, so 90%+ as a bare minimum and I would probably not use it myself until more like 95% and I would still consider that rather hyperbolic up until 99%. You could call 66% a strong majority or a clear majority, but 'vast' is far too strong in my opinion.
That is patently false.. By definition criminals do not follow the letter of the law, a good example being that murder is already illegal. Strangely enough though, it still happens. Weird right? So would it also make sense that even if guns are illegal that maybe some bad actors would still have and use them in an illegal manner? Disarming law abiding citizens is all you're doing. Full stop.
Hunt, catch, and disarm the criminals too, like murderers. Then when we catch the criminals with them, we take the guns and destroy them. Illegal things happen but over time with proper enforcement they happen less. Such effort requires sustained unified community effort and political commitment without playing games for votes and lobby dollars, which is the most unrealistic and impossible thing of this whole scenario.
If we can keep nuclear weapons out of criminal's hands we can keep anything out of criminal's hands, it's just a matter of doing it correctly.
> Most voter fraud allegations turn out to be something other than fraud. A review of news stories
over a recent two year period found that reports of voter fraud were most often limited to
local races and individual acts and fell into three categories: unsubstantiated or false claims by
the loser of a close race, mischief and administrative or voter error.
Tellingly, the first hit in your search is for an article where the loser of a close race is making unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud.
4: An article about voter roll irregularities in Florida; the most interesting bits being some incorrect registrations (which do not necessarily indicate "fraud" as we'd commonly call it, though it may be illegal), and a few hundred cases of people who do seem to have cast multiple or irregular ballots (some from an unmentioned time period, and some from recent elections): https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-ne-palm-vot...
One side says we don't need change. One side says we do. If you can't convince the other side that voter fraud is rare, then a step that prevents it while at the same time not discriminating between voters seems like it might be mutually agreeable.
The side that says we do has repeatedly been found to be making that case in bad faith, with the underlying goal of reducing voter turnout. Do you think it's that important to humor a group whose ultimate goal is mass disenfranchisement?
"Judicial Watch was founded in 1994 by the anti-Clinton conspiracy theorist and prolific litigator Larry Klayman and during the 2016 election, it regularly pushed misinformation about Hillary Clinton. The organization and its president, Tom Fitton, have become shills of President Trump since he took office, and Fitton regularly appears on Fox to defend Trump."
Sure, but those rules should be changed first. When people move to change the voting requirements without taking the steps to make sure everyone has reasonable access to ID, it sure looks like they're hoping for a specific partisan outcome and I have no problem with people assuming bad faith.
Yes, but let's make sure IDs are easily attainable and that every eligible voter already has one, and then let's make them required to vote. Doing the last step without the prerequisites isn't going to increase democracy, it will only suppress already marginalized groups of voters.
It is required for almost every other conceivable activity that an adult might want to do. However when applied to voting it suddenly becomes some sort of suppression tactic.. Mind boggling
