|
zoux posted:So does that mean that Voter ID laws don't decrease turnout and I was getting mad for years for nothing This made me curious what the academic literature was on voter IDs and their effects, which led to this interesting article by 538. It's an older article, but at least as of 2012 the consensus was that it suppressed the vote by a small but statistically significant amount. This website linked in the article has a list of studies themselves if you want to read them.
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
zoux posted:My sense has always been that Voter ID laws weren't going to suppress turnout nearly as much as Democrats feared or Republicans hoped. Generally because people who didn't have IDs probably weren't voting in the first place. My opposition to it was always on principle and also that it was clearly motivated by a GOP desire to suppress turnout and that they were blatantly lying about it. Nate Silver arrives at something like ~2% change in voter turnout, with every percent change in voter turnout corresponding with ~.5% swing in the direction of republicans. This Cambridge polisci article agrees with the sentiment that it's just racist partisan poo poo as well. Basically the more minorities and poor people vote, the more likely Republicans will propose voter ID laws so yeah, it's super loving transparent what they're really worried about. On the upside, just talking about elections can sometimes get people to vote. I haven't read Joementum's article, but I'd guess that is its conclusion. If you mention a thing it stays fresh in people's minds and they're more likely to do the thing than they were before.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Wait, WHAT? Do you have a source for this? According to this article, the claim that he deserted comes from currently unconfirmed emails and interviews published by Rolling Stone. Nothing about him wanting to join the Taliban though, just that he might have been disillusioned with the war. It seems that the belief he wanted to join the Taliban comes from an anonymous source who claims to have served with him. I'm not Fried Chicken though, so maybe there's another source I'm missing? edit: My personal feeling is that it's super suspicious that this is only coming out now. If this was legit I imagine they would have talked about it before now, since the push to free Bergdahl is hardly new. Here's an article with the tweets from the source so you can read the account yourself. TGLT fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Hastings was the original source that broke it, yeah. Given the quality of his reporting I see no reason to doubt it. CBS has an anonymous DoD official saying it is every indication he did desert here No no, I'm not suspicious about the desertion part. It's unconfirmed, but Rolling Stone is a credible source. The part I was talking about was that he was specifically looking to join the Taliban. That seems to be completely new, and right now the source is a twitter account. It's very suspicious that an unverified source just started spouting off on twitter just now instead of going to a journalist, say much earlier. At the moment I don't know that anyone has even confirmed that the person who owns the account served with Bergdahl. It also kind of contradicts some info from Wikileaks where communication, supposedly from people who kidnapped him, say that they did it while "he was sitting taking expletive he had no gun." That might be in line with desertion, sure, but not with "I'm here to join you guys."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:So that minimum wage increase to 15$ in SeaTac is working out well. Of course there was really no way to know what might happen. It's kind of strange that the only hard information those articles have is a receipt and a handful of stories of lost benefits. It also contradicts other, admittedly earlier reports fairly tame living wage surcharges. Although even recent reports are indicating stuff like MasterPark's 50 cent per day surcharge, instead of that receipt's 7 dollars. The only places I can find echoing this story are places like Townhall or investors.com, and Washington Policy Center itself has ties to ALEC. It's already a questionable story with few hard facts, and I can't find sources with clear biases repeating it. edit: Okay, checking out MasterPark's prices confirms a .99 cent living wage surcharge. It still doesn't really address that it's just word of mouth right now claiming lost benefits, and I can't find out if the living wage surcharge is actually due to the minimum wage increase or if it's just a business upping prices where it can for whatever reason it can invent. TGLT fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Evidence is irrelevant. Pfft, it's like you've never even heard of the archbrilliant theory of Praxeology. Maybe so, but out of curiosity I went to compare MasterPark's rates with other SeaTac parking services. They look to be particularly expensive when compared to other options. They also seem to be the only service that includes a divided out "living wage surcharge" so it really seems like they're just trying to at once make a political statement while upping their rates higher still. I may be wrong though, and they just may be the only businesses affected by the SeaTac minimum wage increase?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
vulturesrow posted:First off, no matter how either side of the debate wants to paint the picture, there is plenty of evidence on each side favorable to their arguments. And again you show your willingness to slay strawmen, since I made it abundantly clear in that thread that I don't subscribe to Austrian economics. There is plenty of evidence on each side, for example here's one business that already charges more than its competitors also now charging a dollar more while being the only business to explicitly call it a "living wage surcharge" and here's a few nebulous figures talking about unnamed businesses cutting benefits. Which is most certainly because of a minimum wage increase, and not because businesses have been doing that. Your posted an article that cites this article as a source that includes the quote "The wait staff said the hotel across the street is unionized. Therefore, management is not required to pay the $15 wage." Now, maybe I misunderstand unions, but I don't think that's how minimum wage laws work.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 04:13
|
|