The reason to not want postal votes of course, is because Trump is an antidemocratic fuckwad.

In the US it depends on the state. Though some states do not require an excuse, some do.

Another recent case of mail-in voter fraud, posted by the DOJ just today.

Thomas Cooper, a mail carrier in Pendleton County, was charged today in a criminal complaint with attempted election fraud, U.S. Attorney Bill Powell announced.

Cooper, age 47, of Dry Fork, West Virginia, is charged with “Attempt to Defraud the Residents of West Virginia of a Fair Election.” According to the affidavit filed with the complaint, Cooper held a U.S. Postal Service contract to deliver mail in Pendleton County. In April 2020, the Clerk of Pendleton County received “2020 Primary Election COVID-19 Mail-In Absentee Request" forms from eight voters on which the voter's party-ballot request appeared to have been altered.

The clerk reported the finding to the West Virginia Secretary of State’s office, which began an investigation. The investigation found five ballot requests that had been altered from “Democrat” to “Republican.” On three other requests, the party wasn’t changed, but the request had been altered.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndwv/pr/pendleton-county-mail-carrier-charged-attempted-election-fraud

From politifact.com

A review of Newsom’s executive order shows only registered voters would receive vote-by-mail ballots, not "anyone living in the state," as Trump claimed.

"Each county elections officials shall transmit vote-by-mail ballots for the November 3, 2020 General Election to all voters who are, as of the last day on which vote-by-mail ballots may be transmitted to voters in connection with that election, registered to vote in that election. As set forth in this paragraph, every Californian who is eligible to vote in the November 3, 2020 General Election shall receive a vote-by-mail ballot."

The Secretary of State’s website outlines criteria for registering to vote in California.

You must be:

A United States citizen and a resident of California,

18 years old or older on Election Day,

Not currently in state or federal prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony

Not currently found mentally incompetent to vote by a court

Living in Southern Cal., I've voted by mail several times, even though the polling place is a block away.

Cooper admitted to altering some of the requests, saying it was a joke.

Oh, wow, that proves Mail-In ballots are 'nothing less than substantially fraudulent'?

There is that kind of boredom with the facts attitude of experts, that is very prejudical. When that attitude is presented, then I know they are impervious to reason. You cannot change your position, from an emotion of boredom.

When is your book, How I Came to Know Everything About What Other People Are Thinking, Feeling, and Doing, and Why, and How You Can Too if You Follow My Easy Three-step Program for Knowing Everything about Everything, going to be published?

So you can't connect to other people's feelings.

My question isn't what you (think you) know, but how you (think) you know it. Just to be clear, I think you don't.

I should be making an animation video on the difference between fact and opinion, on one of those free animation websites. And fact and opinion covers everything. Got anything else besides facts and opinions?

Intuition. Guesses. Will. Theories. Etc?

I suppose the premise of any does boil down to either a fact or a non-fact. True or false. Accurate or inaccurate, rather. Or in the case of will, beneficial, detrimental, or as an extension less beneficial than could have been.

"Non-fact"? It's fact and opinion.

Guesses, theories, are forms of fact. Intuition, will, seem to be forms of opinion, or otherwise would be split up in either category once you get to the detail of it.

As twitter has proven, some pencil-neck in Silicon Valley can editorialize on the president’s tweets, alter them, and use the bully pulpit to push his agenda. He get’s to remain unaccountable to both the person whose tweets he alters and the public he means to persuade. This is the kind of censorship that would make the CCP proud, but it has been something demanded by Western officials for quite some time.

some pencil-neck in Silicon Valley can editorialize on the president’s tweets, alter them, and use the bully pulpit to push his agenda — NOS4A2

How do you get all that from a misinformation warning?

The president threatens to shut down twitter (apparently, but I'm too lazy to check) because they called BS on one or more of his tweets, and you're saying that twitter are the ones behaving like the CCP?

What's more CCP-like: Fact-checking and applying misinformation warnings, or threatening to shut down a private corporation for not obeying glorious leader?

You know what censorship is right?

Yes censorship is when private companies fact check government officials on their bullshit that it what it is.

Fucking retards lol.

We should in fact fact check all government officials, on all platforms, forever, on anything they write.

Trump being the best place to start. But it should probably be for his entire Twitter accont in general. Like: 'warning: this account is a known source of misinformation and deception'.

I should be making an animation video on the difference between fact and opinion, on one of those free animation websites. And fact and opinion covers everything. Got anything else besides facts and opinions? — Syamsu

Truth.

Imagine if I edited your post, applied my warning to it, and hijacked it in order to link to contrary information.

The one time trump mentions regulation people immediately turn libertarian. Personally I’m not for regulation, but if a social media company wants to act like a publisher, it should be treated as one.

I know what censorship is.

Imagine if I edited your post, applied my warning to it, and hijacked it in order to link to contrary information.

The one time trump mentions regulation people immediately turn libertarian. Personally I’m not for regulation, but if a social media company wants to act like a publisher, it should be treated as one.

I know what censorship is. — NOS4A2

If you left my original text intact and merely added editorialized trimmings of your own, then I wouldn't much mind actually...

Even if you decorated it above and below with shit-emojis, I would still expect my statements to stand or fall on their own merits...

So answer me this: What if you made a post that was factually incorrect (what was the tweet in question even about? I still haven't cared enough to check...), and let's assume that it is something relevant to "politics". Would you feel so-violated if someone merely added a disclaimer stating that it is factually inaccurate?

:snicker:

#fakenews

Also "libertarians" stand for nothing - except maybe pedophilia - so of course that dogshit ideology can be used for whichever way the wind blows.

The one time trump mentions regulation people immediately turn libertarian. — NOS4A2

No, we just pile it onto the mountain of hypocrisies and stand in wonder of how so many can stand by someone who stands for nothing (besides power, wealth, and perhaps above all, attention).

The same way a 'libertarian' can so staunchly slobber all over a head of state - because it's all trash.

pencil-neck — NOS4A2

Haven't heard that one since preschool.

editorialize on the president’s tweets — NOS4A2

Read: Fact-check the president's barrage of lies.


Editorialize: that's good for a laugh.

Happily, there are facts.

If you left my original text intact and merely added editorialized trimmings of your own, then I wouldn't much mind actually...

Even if you decorated it above and below with shit-emojis, I would still expect my statements to stand or fall on their own merits...

So answer me this: What if you made a post that was factually incorrect (what was the tweet in question even about? I still haven't cared enough to check...), and let's assume that it is something relevant to "politics". Would you feel so-violated if someone merely added a disclaimer stating that it is factually inaccurate?

I would, yes. Like you said, we expect our statements to stand and fall on their own merits. Others can use their own mind and expression to dispute it. I fear for and pity those who need their information to be curated.

I fear for and pity those who need their information to be curated. — NOS4A2

I think it's more the fact that it is the President of the United States saying these things. Such people with powerful public positions should be more responsible with their speech. Where are people like William Bennett on Trump? He was moralistic, stone-throwing crusader when he perceived Clinton had an affair as president. Yet, where is his ilk when Trump says and does the shameful, deceitful, outright stupid, uninformed, ignorant comments that he has been doing just about every day of his presidency? This is just tribalism at its worst :vomit:. Somehow decency and virtue only matters if liberals and Democrats are in office :roll:. Moral majority my ass.

It’s just speech. You could scan the annals of medicine and find not a single person injured by words. If you don’t believe in free speech for everyone, you don’t believe in free speech.

Of course as a private company Twitter is free to ornament Trumps bullshit with whatever they please, including, of course, pointing out that it is utter tripe.

This is really so delicious. These Trumpian crybabies like NOS have no fucking clue what free speech is, and they have to twist themselves in knots to even provide a semblance of consistency. Not that these intellectual degenerates ever give a shit.

It’s just speech. You could scan the annals of medicine and find not a single person injured by words. If you don’t believe in free speech for everyone, you don’t believe in free speech. — NOS4A2

This is misrepresenting the argument. The President can say what he wants. The sentiment is that at what point does the person in power have a responsibility to the public with how he uses his speech? Perhaps we can agree that "social media" can be a free-form Wild West forum. However, the sentiment is, should a president be engaging in this manner? What responsibility does the person in office have to not spout whatever information comes to his head? And the other sentiment is, where is the outrage on the right? Yeah for this ONE time some newspapers that support him have said this was bad, but it is only now that they see the light? I call intellectual dishonesty here. These same right-wing pundits would not so much as let Obama wear a tan suit without screaming bloody murder and how unpatriotic he was. The right has shown its faux-moralism in spades during Trump's presidency. It's not like the faux-moralism wasn't apparent before this, but it is now so abundantly out in the open, it has nowhere to go. It has become a morally relativistic caricature of itself, the very morally relativistic caricature so often hurled at the left and dirty "liberals".

That would make every article critical of the President censorship.