Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

> Before being named U.S. attorney, Martin appeared on Russia-backed media networks more than 150 times, The Washington Post reported last week. In one appearance on RT in 2022, he said there was no evidence of military buildup on Ukraine’s boarders only nine days before Russia invaded the country. He further criticized U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia security concerns.

This is getting ridiculous. Is there anyone associated with this administration who does not have a record of promoting Russia's positions?

We voted for this! This is “democracy” at work

Less than 30% of voter age Americans voted for this

The majority that did vote, voted for this. The participation rate has always been low in rich western countries. Given the standards of media literacy and civics education, there's no evidence that a higher participation rate would have changed the outcome.

There’s also no evidence that increased turnout would have had the same result.

What seems to be overlooked in these conversations is the skill with which American voters have been disenfranchised by partisan forces.

It’s easy to blame people for not voting if you ignore the real difficulties in actually casting a vote for many Americans.

<< It’s easy to blame people for not voting if you ignore the real difficulties in actually casting a vote for many Americans.

I hesitated while reading this part, because I wholly agreed with the first 2 sentences. Do you mean physically difficult in terms of barriers to voting or making a less direct comment about the usefulness of that vote? If the former, I think I disagree compared to other countries ( and the levels of paperwork needed ). If the latter, I would be interested to hear some specifics.

Physically more difficult. Purging voter rolls. Moving polling locations. Voter ID requirements. Restrictions on mail in ballots. Etc.

I willing to give you moving polling locations, but with that minor concession.

Can you explain to me like I am 5 why those are bad things? For a simple person like myself, one would think, data accuracy, voting system integrity, and verifiability would be of use and value to everyone.

Voter ID laws disproportionately affect a very specific subset of the population, one that reliably skews in one direction on the political spectrum.

However, there is no evidence that voter ID laws reduce fraud, nor is there evidence that the absence of such laws introduces fraud.

Something like 90% of voter fraud is people making mistakes on their ballot, or not realizing they were not allowed to vote. Also, voter fraud is rare and elections are already very secure.

Introducing laws that don't affect the (already low) level of fraud, while making it harder for one party's voter base to vote, is not of use and value to everyone -- it is of use and value to the side that benefits from a reduction in the other side's votes.

<< not realizing they were not allowed to vote << Introducing laws that don't affect the (already low) level of fraud << voter fraud is rare

Hmm. Just the perception of fraud among the population is enough to undermine the system. We can argue whether Republicans in this case are simply playing to their base by drumming up doubt in the voting system or rigging the system for their benefit or both, but if you are going to admit that a) people who are not supposed to vote do vote b) argue that laws to penalize such votes don't work, you sound about as partisan as they do ( and merely arguing for 'your' side ). Just sayin'.

<< Voter ID laws disproportionately affect a very specific subset of the population,

Why is that important to you?

> if you are going to admit that a) people who are not supposed to vote do vote

They do. And the system already functions: their votes are caught and discarded.

> b) argue that laws to penalize such votes don't work

I didn't argue that. I argued against voter ID laws, which are not "laws that penalize such voters". Those laws already exist, catch fraud, and penalize those who commit fraud intentionally. Those who do so accidentally have their votes discarded. There's no evidence the existing laws are insufficient. The available evidence shows that incidences of voter fraud are rare in the USA.

> you sound about as partisan as they do ( and merely arguing for 'your' side ). Just sayin

What? I haven't argued for a side. I have spoken what I understand based on the research I have done. I have cited sources in other posts. I don't like being accused of being partisan when I'm basically just repeating the conclusions of those who have studied this. Knowledge isn't partisan.

>> There's no evidence the existing laws are insufficient. << b) argue that laws to penalize such votes don't work >> I didn't argue that.

Ok, maybe it is just too early. What did you argue?