Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member


Hoyt's Journal
Hoyt's Journal
November 23, 2020

Back in the 80s I worked at a hospital that had the tube system and this big chain system that would

send supply carts flying all over the hospital.

When I went to interview there, they showed me that system, it was super impressive like going to a carnival. Came to find out, that they only turned it on for "dignitaries" (which I was not one, just a graduate student looking for a job), the media, donors, etc., because it just didn't work very well. Cracked me up, but taught me not to believe anyone putting on a show.

I think the kept the tube system, though.

November 23, 2020

Here's the relevant section of Ga Law that has been in place for years.

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-217

(b) In determining a voter's qualification to register and vote, the registrars to whom such application is made shall consider, in addition to the applicant's expressed intent, any relevant circumstances determining the applicant's residence. The registrars taking such registration may consider the applicant's financial independence, business pursuits, employment, income sources, residence for income tax purposes, age, marital status, residence of parents, spouse, and children, if any, leaseholds, sites of personal and real property owned by the applicant, motor vehicle and other personal property registration, and other such factors that the registrars may reasonably deem necessary to determine the qualification of an applicant to vote in a primary or election. The decision of the registrars to whom such application is made shall be presumptive evidence of a person's residence for voting purposes.

And even if they are denied above, which likely won't happen unless someone moves to the state just to vote, as some GOPers and people right here have suggested, the article in this thread also says that-- "If the registrar cannot determine whether the applicant properly resides in Georgia, the rule directs them to process the application but mark it as “challenged,” and to initiate a hearing."
November 6, 2020

I was on that one too. The formatting was really bad. In any event, since I could not tell what was

going on, so I canceled.

For one reason, I seldom block posts unless the alerted post threaten someone or is a vile message. Just about anything else can be handled by rebuffing or rebutting the original poster if one doesn't agree with it.

Similarly, I seldom block posts that someone alerts saying the post is "pushing right wing talking points." Just because one says they don't support say mandatory Medicare-for-All, it is not a "right wing talking point." That "right wing talking point" is overused here and is usually just someone who doesn't like someone's opinion. We should welcome most opinions even if we strongly disagree. As above, if you don't agree with them, say so in a rebuttal post.

Another thing, it used to be that one could go back to the original thread before voting so that a jury member can determine the entire context of the alerted post. Since we can no longer do that, I seldom vote to block a post. As above, if you don't agree with the post, say so. Also, under the old system, you could actually write a comment about why you decided to hide or allow. And the alerted poster got to see those (but not the juror's name). I really liked that.

I'm a little more strict on thread titles because a lot of people just read those and not the thread. Thread titles should be accurate and fair.

In any event, you don't get disciplined for canceling out of a jury.

Oh, I have only alerted on one post in 15 some years here. It was one of mine that I thought better of later.

November 5, 2020

I'm sure no one wants to hear this, but I'm not sure those 300K ballots exist.

Philadelphia Inquirer:

“But it’s likely that these statistics seem worse than they actually are, the officials said. To quickly get ballots to election officials this week, the service bypassed its processing center in Southwest Philadelphia. Instead, employees in local post offices manually sorted and postmarked the ballot envelopes, then immediately delivered them to boards of elections the same day, according to postal officials.

However, this meant those ballots were likely scanned in, but never scanned out, since they bypassed the rest of the system. Or as the service put it, the “local turnaround” "expedites delivery, but is not captured in service performance data.”

“Additionally, given the extraordinary measures the Postal Service instituted this week to ensure the timely return of ballots, the stark drop-off from last week to Tuesday doesn’t appear to add up. Employees at the Southwest Philadelphia said that Postal Inspectors had monitored daily ballot returns for the last week. . . . . .”


No one has found any proof of these 300K ballots not being delivered. If someone has a citation, would love to see it. Also, if they exist(ed) that means local postal employees did it. DeJoy is as ignorant as trump, but he wasn’t at all these post offices to hide ballots.

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Jan 20, 2005, 08:46 PM
Number of posts: 54,770

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»Hoyt's Journal