46th President of the United States, Joe Biden

[LimSlip]

captain_cynic said:

Meanwhile... The election fraud watch on this thread has said little about the bills various state republicans have introduced in order to suppress voters.

I mean *crickets*...

Which bills are supressing voters?

[rscott]

LimSlip said:

captain_cynic said:

Meanwhile... The election fraud watch on this thread has said little about the bills various state republicans have introduced in order to suppress voters.

I mean *crickets*...

Which bills are supressing voters?

The 108 filed in March - https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-re... , or the 253 which already existed before that?

For example, GA SB202 , which introduces new restrictions on voting in Georgia and allows for unlimited challenges of voters.

Or IA SF413, in Iowa, which allows them to mark voters as inactive if they fail to vote in a single federal election. They've already marked 294,000 young voters as inactive - they were all 17 last election, but have since turned 18 - https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/iowa-mov... . If someone is marked as inactive twice in a row, they're removed from the electoral rolls.

[HM-2]

LimSlip said:

captain_cynic said:

Meanwhile... The election fraud watch on this thread has said little about the bills various state republicans have introduced in order to suppress voters.

I mean *crickets*...

Which bills are supressing voters?

The bills you mistakenly think are designed to deal with voter fraud, which is statistically nonexistent in the US.

Imagine blindly and naively pretending that voter suppression isn't the intended aim of these bills even though several of their authors and sponsors are on the record as saying it is.

Edited by HM-2 on Wednesday 28th April 07:04

[menousername]

dvs_dave said:

Byker28i said:

Meanwhile, remember all of trumps boasts about the stock market

The stock market has seen better returns in President Biden's first 100 days than under any U.S. president since Dwight Eisenhower.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/26/bidens-100-day-sto...

Partly due to a small post-lock-down surge which may be overpriced, and partly due to the - what was it - 1.2tr spending package

[anonymous-user]

HM-2 said:

The bills you mistakenly think are designed to deal with voter fraud, which is statistically nonexistent in the US.

Imagine blindly and naively pretending that voter suppression isn't the intended aim of these bills even though several of their authors and sponsors are on the record as saying it is.

Edited by HM-2 on Wednesday 28th April 07:04

Could Biden legislate against the changes?

[blackrabbit]

Not-The-Messiah said:

HM-2 said:

ACCYSTAN said:

6 weeks ago various CNN hosts and MSNBC anchors repeatedly claimed that Texas would see a rise in cases by fully reopening.
6 weeks later....

For months they have tired to throw mud at Florida governor De Santis for having a practical realistic response to the pandemic while other large democrat states where fully locked down with no tangible benefits or evidence of better outcomes.

The issue is that statements like this are every bit as intentionally misleading as those that you decry. The propensity to cherry pick states that happen to support your argument whilst ignoring those that don't.

North and South Dakota have amongst the highest Covid mortality in the US and they are two of only seven states that didn't issue stay-at-home orders. States like Mississippi and Arizona have exhibited relatively lax restrictions and rank 5th and 6th in mortality respectively. Conversely Washington state has been in full lockdown for ages yet has amongst the lowest mortality rates anywhere in the US.

Even putting aside the fact restrictive measures such as lockdowns are first and foremost reactive rather than proactive (IE designed to address already high rates of transmission and mortality) there's literally zero correlation between mortality rates and whether or not a state locked down. Making categorical statements about whether lockdowns "work" is frankly ridiculous because there are so many other factors in play; it also tends to misrepresent their actual purpose and intent.

Edited by HM-2 on Tuesday 27th April 21:32

So what you are saying it looks like there is little correlation between lockdown and the affect of Covid.

What I bet there will be very clear evidence for is the correlation between lockdowns and economic and social costs and issues now and in the time to come but they don't matter only Covid does.

One thing for sure, house prices in my area going up rapidly due to so many leaving NYC to move south to avoid the stupid lockdowns and resulting tax grab the state will now attempt. Its clear to any small business owner that some states will bankrupt you without a thought to suit their agenda, many will reconsider investment in these states. Covid restrictions have mean't an acceleration of people migrating states, and increasing taxes in these same states will increase the shift. Texas, Florida, Georgia, Tennesee and Carolinas being the economic winners on the East Coast.

[HM-2]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Could Biden legislate against the changes?

Possibly, but his ability to do so is limited. Generally those powers are devolved at a state level and I expect the supreme court would not look kindly on federal interference in respect of states rights.

Frankly I think it's absurd that states can legislate on how federal elections are run, but that's what's in place.

[5 In a Row]

blackrabbit said:

One thing for sure, house prices in my area going up rapidly due to so many leaving NYC to move south to avoid the stupid lockdowns and resulting tax grab the state will now attempt. Its clear to any small business owner that some states will bankrupt you without a thought to suit their agenda, many will reconsider investment in these states. Covid restrictions have mean't an acceleration of people migrating states, and increasing taxes in these same states will increase the shift. Texas, Florida, Georgia, Tennesee and Carolinas being the economic winners on the East Coast.

Same is happening in parts of the UK but it's driven by people now realising they can work from home and don't actually need to live in a big, dirty, expensive city and thus looking to move somewhere much nicer.
It has nothing (in the UK) to do with taxation.

[thewarlock]

blackrabbit said:

One thing for sure, house prices in my area going up rapidly due to so many leaving NYC to move south to avoid the stupid lockdowns and resulting tax grab the state will now attempt. Its clear to any small business owner that some states will bankrupt you without a thought to suit their agenda, many will reconsider investment in these states. Covid restrictions have mean't an acceleration of people migrating states, and increasing taxes in these same states will increase the shift. Texas, Florida, Georgia, Tennesee and Carolinas being the economic winners on the East Coast.

People are moving from New York to avoid lockdowns?

Any evidence of this? I'd be very interested to see it.

[paulguitar]

thewarlock said:

People are moving from New York to avoid lockdowns?

Any evidence of this? I'd be very interested to see it.

Mrs. Guitar is in NYC and is working as normal and not planning any moves. (Unless she has not told me!).

[valiant]

thewarlock said:

blackrabbit said:

One thing for sure, house prices in my area going up rapidly due to so many leaving NYC to move south to avoid the stupid lockdowns and resulting tax grab the state will now attempt. Its clear to any small business owner that some states will bankrupt you without a thought to suit their agenda, many will reconsider investment in these states. Covid restrictions have mean't an acceleration of people migrating states, and increasing taxes in these same states will increase the shift. Texas, Florida, Georgia, Tennesee and Carolinas being the economic winners on the East Coast.

People are moving from New York to avoid lockdowns?

Any evidence of this? I'd be very interested to see it.

Isn’t it more to do with the shift to WFH and, like London, the exorbitant price of property in New York and seeing what size property for similar money will get you elsewhere?

London has lost something like 700k workers since the pandemic began.

[thewarlock]

valiant said:

Isn’t it more to do with the shift to WFH and, like London, the exorbitant price of property in New York and seeing what size property for similar money will get you elsewhere?

London has lost something like 700k workers since the pandemic began.

I would imagine so, but that's not what's being claimed. Interested to see any real numbers/stats.

According to my mortgage lender, the value of my property has gone up 15% in the last year as a result of the sort of thing you're talking about. Lots of people needing bigger houses to work from home effectively.

[blackrabbit]

valiant said:

thewarlock said:

blackrabbit said:

One thing for sure, house prices in my area going up rapidly due to so many leaving NYC to move south to avoid the stupid lockdowns and resulting tax grab the state will now attempt. Its clear to any small business owner that some states will bankrupt you without a thought to suit their agenda, many will reconsider investment in these states. Covid restrictions have mean't an acceleration of people migrating states, and increasing taxes in these same states will increase the shift. Texas, Florida, Georgia, Tennesee and Carolinas being the economic winners on the East Coast.

People are moving from New York to avoid lockdowns?

Any evidence of this? I'd be very interested to see it.

Isn’t it more to do with the shift to WFH and, like London, the exorbitant price of property in New York and seeing what size property for similar money will get you elsewhere?

London has lost something like 700k workers since the pandemic began.

Its different in the US as each state has different personal income tax rates and some cities. You can literally pay 10%-12% plus less in some states than others on income. Miami compared to NYC for example. Covid has accelerated this movement from what I am seeing annecdotally. Combination of WFH, lockdowns and some states attempting to raise taxes. Two new local small resturants are both from NJ as they moved during the shutdowns. I put in a CNN link rather than NYP or similar

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/01/success/new-yor...

Edited by blackrabbit on Wednesday 28th April 13:13

[LimSlip]

rscott said:

LimSlip said:

captain_cynic said:

Meanwhile... The election fraud watch on this thread has said little about the bills various state republicans have introduced in order to suppress voters.

I mean *crickets*...

Which bills are supressing voters?

The 108 filed in March - https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-re... , or the 253 which already existed before that?

For example, GA SB202 , which introduces new restrictions on voting in Georgia and allows for unlimited challenges of voters.

Or IA SF413, in Iowa, which allows them to mark voters as inactive if they fail to vote in a single federal election. They've already marked 294,000 young voters as inactive - they were all 17 last election, but have since turned 18 - https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/iowa-mov... . If someone is marked as inactive twice in a row, they're removed from the electoral rolls.

I don't see the issue. The rules apply to all voters, why do you think this is unfair?

[LimSlip]

HM-2 said:

The bills you mistakenly think are designed to deal with voter fraud, which is statistically nonexistent in the US.

You say it's statistically insignificant, but it seems the left are the ones foaming at the mouth over these bills. Why is that?

[GCH]

paulguitar said:

thewarlock said:

People are moving from New York to avoid lockdowns?

Any evidence of this? I'd be very interested to see it.

Mrs. Guitar is in NYC and is working as normal and not planning any moves. (Unless she has not told me!).

It is certainly true to a point, although many have left because they simply can't afford to be here (even with the rent/eviction moratorium in place) and have left for family, or for cheaper places to WFH. Others are travelling around for, say, a month at a time in different locations using it as an opportunity to WFH and returning at a later date. Some have used the opportunity to buy elsewhere.

There is certainly still a huge surplus of empty apartments here, and landlords/realtors struggling to fill them, and I am regularly seeing things like fee free for the renter (previously not common at all) and three months free as an incentive. Places that would have gone in hours before are taking months to rent.

[HM-2]

LimSlip said:

HM-2 said:

The bills you mistakenly think are designed to deal with voter fraud, which is statistically nonexistent in the US.

You say it's statistically insignificant, but it seems the left are the ones foaming at the mouth over these bills. Why is that?

You either misread, misunderstand, or intentionally misrepresent my point. Legislation to "reduce voter fraud" is unnecessary, becasue voter fraud is, statistically speaking, nonexistent.

30 years of research by MIT has estimated the rate of voter fraud in the US to be 0.00006%. Given that the turnout of 2020 Presidential election was 159,690,457, that means that, nationally, one could expect approximately 96 fraudulent votes to have been cast. Ninety six. Less than two votes per state.

It's abundantly clear to quite literally everyone other than a small pool of pathological denialists that the legislation introduced in various Republican controlled states would not be proportionate with the actual level of fraud even if it actually contained measures that reduced the changes of fraud, but significant proportions of what's proposed doesn't actually comprise measures that evidence shows reduce fraud rates.

Measures that make absentee voting harder don't reduce fraud rates, they prevent eligible voters from voting.
Placing limitations on the numbers of polling stations per X square miles, regardless of population size, don't reduce fraud rates, they prevent eligible voters from voting.
Preventing nonpartisan organisations giving water to people already queueing to vote doesn't reduce fraud rates, it prevents eligible voters from voting.
Arbitrarily deleting voters from the registry if they don't vote in 2 consecutive federal elections doesn't reduce fraud rates, it prevents eligible voters from voting.

LimSlip said:

I don't see the issue. The rules apply to all voters, why do you think this is unfair?

The laws are designed specifically to impact primarily democrat-supporting demographics. The same laws may apply to Republican voters in principal, but they're far less relevant to them in reality.

Edited by HM-2 on Wednesday 28th April 15:36

[AmyRichardson]

LimSlip said:

HM-2 said:

The bills you mistakenly think are designed to deal with voter fraud, which is statistically nonexistent in the US.

You say it's statistically insignificant, but it seems the left are the ones foaming at the mouth over these bills. Why is that?

Voter suppression (the legislative motive) >>> “foam”

Electoral fraud (the canard) >>> no “foam” (because the fraud is insignificant.)

[LimSlip]

HM-2 said:

The laws are designed specifically to impact primarily democrat-supporting demographics. The same laws may apply to Republican voters in principal, but they're far less relevant to them in reality.

Edited by HM-2 on Wednesday 28th April 15:36

How do they do this? How can democrat voters be incapable of following a simple procedure to ensure they are enrolled but republican voters can?

[anonymous-user]

HM-2 said:

You either misread, misunderstand, or intentionally misrepresent my point. Legislation to "reduce voter fraud" is unnecessary, becasue voter fraud is, statistically speaking, nonexistent.

Ok, so think strategically. If there's little or no fraud now, the changes are unlikely to make much difference. Next time around, the Republicans will have 1 less way to allege the election was fraudulent, because they have introduced their measures. It will point out to them they're unpopular because they're unpopular, not because of a few regulations that never made much difference.