michaelmrose

Do you have any contrary evidence that is non proprietary all I could find were proprietary reports and reporting on them that agreed with me. On the other side of the coin is you yelling angrily which is... not an argument

Washington votes entirely by mail with the postal system handling out going and drop boxes and postal system handling incoming. The county generally knows how many adults live there and can just figure most adults are eligible voters.

You can register separately or when you get your id. If you are indigent the same place that gives you food stamps and medical insurance whether you have an address or not gives you a coupon for a $5 state ID.

No idea why it's $5 rather than zero under the circumstances and others may have challenges as far as coming in from out of state or needing multiple documents to establish identity especially married and divorced women who changed their name but generally people are pretty well served

But I thought we should all move out of expensive states to live in cheap states if we can't afford to live in the good areas!

https://www.occrp.org/en/project/corruptistan-azerbaijan/how-to-build-yourself-a-stealth-lobbyist-azerbaijani-style

What lawmakers listening to Shaffer didn’t know was that the Caspian Studies Program she headed at Harvard was set up in 1999 through a $1 million grant from the US Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce and a consortium of oil and gas companies led by Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron, all of which had commercial interests in the region. The chamber of commerce is a pro-Azerbaijan pressure group whose Board of Directors includes a vice president of SOCAR, the Azerbaijan state-owned energy company, and top lobbyists for BP and Chevron.

Supported by an overseas regime and an assorted network of overt and undercover lobbyists, she used oil money to build her academic credentials, then in turn used those credentials to promote Azerbaijan’s agendas through Congressional testimony, dozens of newspaper op-eds and media appearances, countless think tank events, and even scholarly publications.

She’s still doing it. Brenda Shaffer

Shaffer first walked into Congress in 2001 to testify before the House of Representatives’ Committee on International Relations.

She was introduced as “the director of the Caspian Studies Program and a post-doctoral fellow in the international security program at the Belfort [Belfer] Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government”.

Addressing lawmakers, she asked them to repeal a section of the Freedom Support Act that barred direct US aid to the Azerbaijani government. “They have extended their hand to the US. They have huge expectations that the policy of this country is based on some sort of morality and high ideals,” she told them, and reinforced this in written testimony she also submitted.

Challenged about Azerbaijan’s democratic record, she replied: “There is a lot of room for improvement in terms of democratization. However, every six months, every year, things are getting better and better.”

What lawmakers listening to Shaffer didn’t know was that the Caspian Studies Program she headed at Harvard was set up in 1999 through a $1 million grant from the US Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce and a consortium of oil and gas companies led by Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron, all of which had commercial interests in the region. The chamber of commerce is a pro-Azerbaijan pressure group whose Board of Directors includes a vice president of SOCAR, the Azerbaijan state-owned energy company, and top lobbyists for BP and Chevron.

Fossil fuel is incredibly well financed profitable well explored. The tiny modicum of public and private money that went into renewables didn't stop any otherwise profitable exploration or expansion of fossil fuels.

Iran had leverage since its resources began to be exploited. We could have spent a lot more on renewables decades ago that would in fact have blunted that stick. Instead we worked to make fossil fuels more valuable and thus hand them more leverage then we swung a stick at their head.

So what do people actually like about trucks? According to Edwards, the answer is counterintuitive. Truck drivers use their trucks very much like other car owners: for commuting to and from work, presumably alone.

Alexander Edwards president of automotive research and consulting firm Strategic Vision, which conducts an in-depth, annual, 250,000-person, psychographic new vehicle owners’ survey. “

https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume

The study itself is sadly proprietary but it is in line with what you can see all around you on your commute and in your works parking lot. Commuters commuting in their truck.

it is literally evident by looking at people all around you my mom who never hauled anything had one come on its painful.

https://www.powernationtv.com/post/most-pickup-truck-owners-use-them

6. It doesn't scale. Where the problematic economic demographic is 50%+ percent of the pop and 70% live in cities no substantial portion effected could go live in all the Guthries in the nation. People are concentrated for reasons as old as civilization.
7. It often wouldn't help. Outside of shelter and taxes most goods don't vary much or all by market and wages do.

One could find yourself spending an overlarge portion of your money on rent in an urban market move for cheaper rent and find the difference in wages makes up the difference in rent and now you need to afford everything else on less total wages.

8. Cheaper markets have worse services and safety nets. Those who already rely on good medial benefits in urban centers in blue states would find little savings in moving into the boondocks in their own states and would lose more in health care alone than they gain in rent moving to bumfuck

How can the same folks who can't afford to live afford to emigrate again?

I'm not a nationalist I'm a realist. This is why I voted for Harris and support armed forces to enforce a truce in Gaza and no further military aid to Israel.

You can feel however you like about the choices you have in front of you are still morally obliged to pick the least bad even if you aren't happy with either but extremely simple principals.

We fight their ability to seize ballots they don't think should be counted in the courts before one ballot gets misdirected and get orders forcing them not to do this. If they do it we fight to get those ballots back in play before the election is considered closed. If they succeed in fixing the election by seizing ballots we refuse to accept the results.

Many places use a combination of both drop boxes and the mail with the latter option being dominant outside cities where your mailbox is across the street and the drop box is much further.

Hurting people's ability to mail their ballot would undoubtedly disenfranchise some voters.