Elon Musk giving away $1 million a day to sign his petition in favor of the 1st and 2nd amendments.

[Bomb#20]

You said "No one is against voter ID laws, as long as people can have reasonable access to ID.", and I challenged your assertion. Why you would think I challenged it because I had no idea what you were talking about, rather than because you offered no evidence, is a mystery. The claim is implausible on its face, and even if it's against all odds true, it's not clear how you could possibly know it's true.

Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge

Not clear what your point is. JH didn't make a claim about who has reasonable access to ID; he made a claim about the minds of the sixty-odd million Americans currently against voter ID laws. He's de facto claiming they'd all stop objecting if the reasonable access problem were taken care of. That's an extraordinary claim; it requires extraordinary evidence. There isn't that level of uniformity of opinion about anything. If the reasonable access problem were taken care of, some percentage of that sixty million would change their minds and some percentage wouldn't, same as with any other issue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://petition.theamericapac.org/

I wish I lived in a swing state, considering I very much agree with both 1st and 2nd Amendments. But Musk's biggest fear is 1 party rule if puppet Harris and her party permanently rig our elections.

The problem is voter ID laws are being used to disenfranchise the poor. They very well might have gotten us The Felon in 2016 because the number of people turned away at the polls for lack of adequate ID exceeded the margin in some close states.

Or look at the crap they tried to push through Congress about proving citizenship to vote. Oops, the majority of married women can't meet the standard.

Or look at my wife. A mistake was made on her naturalization certificate, it had a hyphen that didn't belong. Social Security apparently noticed it but nobody else did. ID, passport etc all in her name as it was supposed to be. Even when it came to light nobody had a problem understanding that both referred to the same person. Then came the Real ID obsession--oops, that errant hyphen would have been an issue. Social Security adamantly refused to fix it without a legal name change. That cost us a few hundred dollars. A nuisance for us, a major roadblock for the poor.

Or look at a former poster on here. ALS. DMV yanked his driver's license (why in the world does the system not simply automatically replace it with non-driver's ID??) and he had no ID. And he couldn't sign the form to get a birth certificate to get an ID.

The reality is that you're not going to be able to register to vote if you're not already in the system. And if you try to vote fraudulently you're likely enough to be detected that there is no meaningful level of fraud.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Musk doesn't care about that sort of thing. He cares about information that disagrees with his position.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You said "No one is against voter ID laws, as long as people can have reasonable access to ID.", and I challenged your assertion. Why you would think I challenged it because I had no idea what you were talking about, rather than because you offered no evidence, is a mystery. The claim is implausible on its face, and even if it's against all odds true, it's not clear how you could possibly know it's true.

Implausible?? Note the conditional--reasonable access to ID. It's not met, thus the fact that people oppose such laws proves nothing.

The thing to keep in mind is that where the Constitution prohibited the government from doing something, it's rarely because of some stupid ignorant theory of good government; it's generally because Madison et al. were quite familiar with the British government doing that thing. In this case they knew all about James II and his "select militias" -- he tried to arm the segments of the population he thought were politically reliable and disarm the segments that weren't, and Madison et al. wanted to make sure nothing like that happened again. Such concerns are antiquated now, but it was probably a good idea in the 1700s.

Half agree--we still have issues with arming the "right" people in places that aren't shall-issue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You said "No one is against voter ID laws, as long as people can have reasonable access to ID.", and I challenged your assertion. Why you would think I challenged it because I had no idea what you were talking about, rather than because you offered no evidence, is a mystery. The claim is implausible on its face, and even if it's against all odds true, it's not clear how you could possibly know it's true.

Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge

Yikes! I didn't realize how bad the problem is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You said "No one is against voter ID laws, as long as people can have reasonable access to ID.", and I challenged your assertion. Why you would think I challenged it because I had no idea what you were talking about, rather than because you offered no evidence, is a mystery. The claim is implausible on its face, and even if it's against all odds true, it's not clear how you could possibly know it's true.

Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge

Not clear what your point is. JH didn't make a claim about who has reasonable access to ID; he made a claim about the minds of the sixty-odd million Americans currently against voter ID laws. He's de facto claiming they'd all stop objecting if the reasonable access problem were taken care of. That's an extraordinary claim; it requires extraordinary evidence. There isn't that level of uniformity of opinion about anything. If the reasonable access problem were taken care of, some percentage of that sixty million would change their minds and some percentage wouldn't, same as with any other issue.

But you have no indication of the percentage that would change their mind. There's always going to be a few opposed to anything, the question is whether large numbers would. As it stands there is a very big issue with access so we don't know how people would feel if that were solved.

 

[ZiprHead]

Elon Musk claims student visa permitted him to work in U.S.

Elon Musk denied in a late-night post having worked illegally in the United States, following a Washington Post report that said Musk lacked the legal status to build the start-up that made him a millionaire in the 1990s.

“I was in fact allowed to work in the US,” Musk wrote on X, the platform he bought in 2022, in a post at 12:40 a.m. Eastern time Sunday.

The Post’s report, based on interviews with former business associates, court records and company documents, said Musk worked illegally after ditching a graduate program in California to launch a start-up that later sold for more than $300 million. A board member of the company, who later became its CEO, said Musk’s status “was not what it should be” in order “to be legally employed running a company in the U.S.”

Upon learning that Musk lacked the legal status he needed, investors scrambled to help him secure a visa over concerns that the matter would have to be disclosed in a securities filing if the company were to go public.

“We don’t want our founder being deported,” said Derek Proudian, the Zip2 board member, who later became chief executive.

Could Musk's citizenship be revoked and he be deported?

 

[Bomb#20]

You said "No one is against voter ID laws, as long as people can have reasonable access to ID.", and I challenged your assertion. Why you would think I challenged it because I had no idea what you were talking about, rather than because you offered no evidence, is a mystery. The claim is implausible on its face, and even if it's against all odds true, it's not clear how you could possibly know it's true.

Implausible?? Note the conditional--reasonable access to ID. It's not met, thus the fact that people oppose such laws proves nothing.

I noted the conditional. Did you note who was making an assertion and who was asking for evidence? You're reversing burden-of-proof.

Not clear what your point is. JH didn't make a claim about who has reasonable access to ID; he made a claim about the minds of the sixty-odd million Americans currently against voter ID laws. He's de facto claiming they'd all stop objecting if the reasonable access problem were taken care of. That's an extraordinary claim; it requires extraordinary evidence. There isn't that level of uniformity of opinion about anything. If the reasonable access problem were taken care of, some percentage of that sixty million would change their minds and some percentage wouldn't, same as with any other issue.

But you have no indication of the percentage that would change their mind. There's always going to be a few opposed to anything, the question is whether large numbers would. As it stands there is a very big issue with access so we don't know how people would feel if that were solved.

No, it's JH who has no indication. All he can know is he wouldn't object if reasonable access were taken care of. I have two indications of the percentage.

First, in politics, as I said, there isn't that level of uniformity of opinion about anything. Whatever is the most lopsided distribution of political opinion you can find on any issue, that's pretty much going to be a lower bound on the percentage that will continue to disagree with the majority -- why the heck would this be the least controversial topic in politics? So if for definiteness's sake we take JH's hyperbolic "No one" as meaning, say, at least 90% of the opposition would melt away, that would require 98% of the public to agree with voter ID and no more than 2% to continue to oppose it. Show me any political issue with a 98%-2% opinion split.

And second, lack of reasonable access to photo ID is a big problem, not just for voting but for all manner of interactions in ordinary life. A few weeks ago I couldn't get a medical test done without showing my driver's license. If twenty million Americans can't prove who they are, that's something we really ought to do something about! That being the case, it's kind of anomalous that in voter ID debates, the anti- side almost always treats the whole lack of reasonable access issue as background data, as though it were a law of nature or the result of nefarious forces beyond our control. Their arguments hardly ever contain proposals to do anything about lack of reasonable access. Except not require photo ID. For voting. Apparently it's okay with them to keep requiring it for medical tests. That anomaly in the arguments is an indication that for an awful lot of them, the whole lack of reasonable access issue is probably a rationalization for a political position they hold for other reasons. If we fixed the access issue I'd be surprised if even half the current opponents of voter ID stopped objecting to it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Elon Musk claims student visa permitted him to work in U.S.

Elon Musk denied in a late-night post having worked illegally in the United States, following a Washington Post report that said Musk lacked the legal status to build the start-up that made him a millionaire in the 1990s.

“I was in fact allowed to work in the US,” Musk wrote on X, the platform he bought in 2022, in a post at 12:40 a.m. Eastern time Sunday.

The Post’s report, based on interviews with former business associates, court records and company documents, said Musk worked illegally after ditching a graduate program in California to launch a start-up that later sold for more than $300 million. A board member of the company, who later became its CEO, said Musk’s status “was not what it should be” in order “to be legally employed running a company in the U.S.”

Upon learning that Musk lacked the legal status he needed, investors scrambled to help him secure a visa over concerns that the matter would have to be disclosed in a securities filing if the company were to go public.

“We don’t want our founder being deported,” said Derek Proudian, the Zip2 board member, who later became chief executive.

Could Musk's citizenship be revoked and he be deported?

My understanding of such matters is that he was not permitted to do what he did. However, that has no bearing on his getting citizenship. It's pretty hard to take citizenship other than for fraud on the application. Thus he won't be yeeted.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And second, lack of reasonable access to photo ID is a big problem, not just for voting but for all manner of interactions in ordinary life. A few weeks ago I couldn't get a medical test done without showing my driver's license. If twenty million Americans can't prove who they are, that's something we really ought to do something about! That being the case, it's kind of anomalous that in voter ID debates, the anti- side almost always treats the whole lack of reasonable access issue as background data, as though it were a law of nature or the result of nefarious forces beyond our control. Their arguments hardly ever contain proposals to do anything about lack of reasonable access. Except not require photo ID. For voting. Apparently it's okay with them to keep requiring it for medical tests. That anomaly in the arguments is an indication that for an awful lot of them, the whole lack of reasonable access issue is probably a rationalization for a political position they hold for other reasons. If we fixed the access issue I'd be surprised if even half the current opponents of voter ID stopped objecting to it.

Observation: My wife let her ID expire during the Covid mess. It was expired for years, there was one time that would have mattered and for that one time she brought her passport along. Everybody else was fine with her expired ID.

Those twenty million do not have current ID with a current address--doesn't mean they don't have a piece of plastic with their name and picture.

But there are also those whose ID got stolen (pickpockets, purse snatchers etc--not after the ID but the other stuff that's typically with it) and get caught in the catch-22 of not having ID to get replacement ID.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Elon Musk claims student visa permitted him to work in U.S.

Elon Musk denied in a late-night post having worked illegally in the United States, following a Washington Post report that said Musk lacked the legal status to build the start-up that made him a millionaire in the 1990s.

“I was in fact allowed to work in the US,” Musk wrote on X, the platform he bought in 2022, in a post at 12:40 a.m. Eastern time Sunday.

The Post’s report, based on interviews with former business associates, court records and company documents, said Musk worked illegally after ditching a graduate program in California to launch a start-up that later sold for more than $300 million. A board member of the company, who later became its CEO, said Musk’s status “was not what it should be” in order “to be legally employed running a company in the U.S.”

Upon learning that Musk lacked the legal status he needed, investors scrambled to help him secure a visa over concerns that the matter would have to be disclosed in a securities filing if the company were to go public.

“We don’t want our founder being deported,” said Derek Proudian, the Zip2 board member, who later became chief executive.

Could Musk's citizenship be revoked and he be deported?

My understanding of such matters is that he was not permitted to do what he did. However, that has no bearing on his getting citizenship. It's pretty hard to take citizenship other than for fraud on the application. Thus he won't be yeeted.

And he isn't brown or dark brown, so he doesn't need to be caught in the net and sent out regardless his legal status.

 

[Patooka]

I was confused.

I was confused for two reasons.

The first reason was that RVonse didn't start a thread with a youtube clip from some stupid fuckwit I shouldn't give a shit about with zero context.

Then I wondered if what Musk was doing was illegal.

Short version is yes and there is a youtube video explaining why it is illegal



So here is the second confusing part...

The second confusing part is that RVonse claims to be against the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. This is what he claims. And of course there is the usual, "but what about George Soros" horseshit that overlooks the uncomfortable fact for every Soros there's about twenty Kochs. But apparently RVonse supposedly gives a fuck about the Citizens United ruling. In fact, you can find those fake opinions here

Yeah I'm calling you out on your bullshit, mate.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The second confusing part is that RVonse claims to be against the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. This is what he claims. And of course there is the usual, "but what about George Soros" horseshit that overlooks the uncomfortable fact for every Soros there's about twenty Kochs. But apparently RVonse supposedly gives a fuck about the Citizens United ruling. In fact, you can find those fake opinions here

Yeah I'm calling you out on your bullshit, mate.

I thought past statements don’t matter to right wingers. Just ask JD Vance, Lindsay Graham, Ted Cruz, etc.

 

[Gospel]

But there are also those whose ID got stolen (pickpockets, purse snatchers etc--not after the ID but the other stuff that's typically with it) and get caught in the catch-22 of not having ID to get replacement ID.

My ID was stolen while I was homeless in New York, which, unfortunately, isn’t uncommon. The catch-22 came when the State of New York arrested me under my own name, essentially confirming my identity. Yet, I couldn’t use that arrest record as proof of identification at the Social Security office or DMV. While it’s understandable that the DMV and Social Security office have different standards for verifying identity, the inconsistency still doesn’t make sense. The same state that confirmed my identity through its judicial system refused to recognize that confirmation within its own administrative system. At least my case was dismissed due to racial profiling & delayed arraignment. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

By "confirming my identity," I mean they had my fingerprints and my original ID—my Social Security card, State ID, and Permanent Resident card—on record from that incident. They weren’t using placeholder information; they literally knew who I was. I obtained that information directly from the police department after submitting a request (with help from the arresting officer)-desperate to escape the catch-22 situation and move away from working off the books at some of the most undesirable places imaginable.

Ultimately, I hopped on a bus to Florida, where they were able to use everything I had to help me get back on track. The representative at the Florida immigration office found it baffling with how much information I had that the same agency in New York hadn’t been able to use it.

Edit: For the record, the immigration office was the first place I went. They told me they needed my physical Social Security card & State ID. The Social Security office, however, required a State ID or proof of address—like bills in my name—which I didn’t have. Meanwhile, the DMV required my Social Security card and permanent resident card, which could only be obtained from the immigration & SS office.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But there are also those whose ID got stolen (pickpockets, purse snatchers etc--not after the ID but the other stuff that's typically with it) and get caught in the catch-22 of not having ID to get replacement ID.

My ID was stolen while I was homeless in New York, which, unfortunately, isn’t uncommon. The catch-22 came when the State of New York arrested me under my own name, essentially confirming my identity. Yet, I couldn’t use that arrest record as proof of identification at the Social Security office or DMV. While it’s understandable that the DMV and Social Security office have different standards for verifying identity, the inconsistency still doesn’t make sense. The same state that confirmed my identity through its judicial system refused to recognize that confirmation within its own administrative system. At least my case was dismissed due to racial profiling & delayed arraignment. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

By "confirming my identity," I mean they had my fingerprints and my original ID—my Social Security card, State ID, and Permanent Resident card—on record from that incident. They weren’t using placeholder information; they literally knew who I was. I obtained that information directly from the police department after submitting a request (with help from the arresting officer)-desperate to escape the catch-22 situation and move away from working off the books at some of the most undesirable places imaginable.

Ultimately, I hopped on a bus to Florida, where they were able to use everything I had to help me get back on track. The representative at the Florida immigration office found it baffling with how much information I had that the same agency in New York hadn’t been able to use it.

Edit: For the record, the immigration office was the first place I went. They told me they needed my physical Social Security card & State ID. The Social Security office, however, required a State ID or proof of address—like bills in my name—which I didn’t have. Meanwhile, the DMV required my Social Security card and permanent resident card, which could only be obtained from the immigration & SS office.

View attachment 48300

Some blue states are very non-cooperative with the federal authorities about databases because they have done the sensible thing and not gone after illegals that come into contact with law enforcement for things which have nothing to do with their immigration status or often any wrongdoing at all. (Say, being the victim of a crime.) Some Republicans have tried to use such data to persecute illegals, some states have responded by not sharing.

But you're describing exactly the problem I'm talking about--if all your documents are gone the system is very poor at providing a means of replacing. It's meant to combat identity theft but it's rather a catch-22.

BTW: Safety precaution if you have adequate money: get a passport. Leave it locked up somewhere.

And they really need to quit this obsession over proving address. People move. Some people are itinerant and don't have a home. (Not just the homeless.) Identification documents don't have to have an address to be useful. What's the gold standard of identity documents? Passport. What is the verification of your address on a passport? Nonexistent--passports don't have addresses.

You are you is a very different issue than you are there.

 

[bilby]

get a passport

I am constantly astonished by the American habit of not having a passport.

It certainly explains the parochial attitude so many Americans display, as exemplified by the usual response from Americans to this astonishment, that "America is so large and diverse that it's not necessary to travel overseas in order to properly experience other cultures", which is the kind of utter drivel you would only hear from a parochial hick who never bothered to find out just how large, and how diverse, the world actually is.

Over here, it would be rather surprising to discover that an adult acquaintance did not have a passport.

 

[Shadowy Man]

BTW: Safety precaution if you have adequate money: get a passport. Leave it locked up somewhere.

According to travel.state.gov, a passport card can be gotten for $65. And after 10 years, it's $30 to renew.

This doesn't seem to be much money, and even if you're poor it seems like a good investment, if just as an insurance policy against losing an ID. In California, at least, this is cheaper than getting a driver license.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

get a passport

I am constantly astonished by the American habit of not having a passport.

It certainly explains the parochial attitude so many Americans display, as exemplified by the usual response from Americans to this astonishment, that "America is so large and diverse that it's not necessary to travel overseas in order to properly experience other cultures", which is the kind of utter drivel you would only hear from a parochial hick who never bothered to find out just how large, and how diverse, the world actually is.

Over here, it would be rather surprising to discover that an adult acquaintance did not have a passport.

Remember, the US is much, much bigger (population wise--you have a lot of empty land but people don't go there) than most countries. You can easily experience quite a variety of things without ever leaving the country.

It's a very long day's drive from here to the closest border--and that's a border I would not be willing to cross for safety reasons. It's multiple days to the other border.

 

[bilby]

get a passport

I am constantly astonished by the American habit of not having a passport.

It certainly explains the parochial attitude so many Americans display, as exemplified by the usual response from Americans to this astonishment, that "America is so large and diverse that it's not necessary to travel overseas in order to properly experience other cultures", which is the kind of utter drivel you would only hear from a parochial hick who never bothered to find out just how large, and how diverse, the world actually is.

Over here, it would be rather surprising to discover that an adult acquaintance did not have a passport.

Remember, the US is much, much bigger (population wise--you have a lot of empty land but people don't go there) than most countries. You can easily experience quite a variety of things without ever leaving the country.

Yeah, lots of Americans say that.

It remains untrue - all of that variety is of the "big fish, small pond" type, that you can get in any country. And this belief that America provides sufficient variety to understand the other 95% of humanity without visiting their homes is not only false, but dangerous, given that the USA is global hegemon.

It's a very long day's drive from here to the closest border--and that's a border I would not be willing to cross for safety reasons. It's multiple days to the other border.

It's a great deal further from almost anywhere in Australia, to almost anywhere outside Australia. We don't even have a border you can drive to. But an overseas trip is nevertheless a rite of passage for young Australians, and an Australian adult who has never owned a passport is incredibly rare.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

get a passport

I am constantly astonished by the American habit of not having a passport.

It certainly explains the parochial attitude so many Americans display, as exemplified by the usual response from Americans to this astonishment, that "America is so large and diverse that it's not necessary to travel overseas in order to properly experience other cultures", which is the kind of utter drivel you would only hear from a parochial hick who never bothered to find out just how large, and how diverse, the world actually is.

Over here, it would be rather surprising to discover that an adult acquaintance did not have a passport.

Remember, the US is much, much bigger (population wise--you have a lot of empty land but people don't go there) than most countries. You can easily experience quite a variety of things without ever leaving the country.

Yeah, lots of Americans say that.

It remains untrue - all of that variety is of the "big fish, small pond" type, that you can get in any country. And this belief that America provides sufficient variety to understand the other 95% of humanity without visiting their homes is not only false, but dangerous, given that the USA is global hegemon.

It's a very long day's drive from here to the closest border--and that's a border I would not be willing to cross for safety reasons. It's multiple days to the other border.

It's a great deal further from almost anywhere in Australia, to almost anywhere outside Australia. We don't even have a border you can drive to. But an overseas trip is nevertheless a rite of passage for young Australians, and an Australian adult who has never owned a passport is incredibly rare.

You can go abroad a lot cheaper than we can (other than those in the north going to Canada--and that's not much of a change.)