Shoresy

"He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches."

-Shaw

Maybe federal action is required to franchise working voters on voting day?

And also, I state a fact that a state-wide holiday helps facilitate working voters more than unemployed voters, and you imply that this qualifies as a "conspiracy theory" seems to indicate that you are a type of person who ignores incentives and consequences and would actively obscure facts to avoid both.

That's definitely not going to move the needle on this discussion.

Clearly, neither party has done this in 200 years in any state.... not sure why you want to jump to partisan propaganda on this, it doesn't move the needle.

The legislation you posted isn't remotely as accommodating as a statewide holiday. They technically give access, but in practice, they’re nothing like a real state-wide holiday off.

First, you’re squeezed into a narrow window. like maybe 1–3 hours, often at the employer’s convenience. You're basically being asked to fit a civic duty into a lunch break. A holiday gives you control of the entire day, which means you can avoid lines, go when you want, and not rush. And this is the big reason of my OP, voting should take at least an entire day to think about the importance of something that could last a decade or more.

The legislation is highly conditional when employers can say you already have enough time before or after your shift, so you don’t qualify. A statewide holiday removes that gatekeeping. You may have to request time, give notice, or even take it unpaid. Every extra step drops participation. A holiday has zero friction, you just go vote. So yeah, those laws keep the system legally covered, but they’re nowhere near the same as accommodating as an actual state-wide holiday....

I was wondering, why don't any US states have Election Day off as a holiday? I know some States let government workers off that day, knowing for the most part where that demographic is going to vote regarding the status quo.

But why not all the non-government workers as well? Why suppress the private sector working-class vote?

You're not supposed to take that seriously!

Emotional intelligence is an oxymoron.

You can be intelligent, or you can be emotional.

Trump Tacos. Amirite?

Obama gave them less than 2 billion

2 billion for a year of pretending to comply on the surface with limited declared sites for inspectors, while keeping all the centrifuges and bunkers for later, after the payoffs stopped, what a bargain. It's too bad those optics didn't transfer over to the 2016 election because now you have a madman who won't allow undeclared sites.

2020-2024, Iran kicked all the inspectors out, and US just shrugged and said: "whatever, then the next guy can deal with it."

Blue Maga.

You've mentioned Hillary more often than I have.

Self-tells.

Probably the same way that Trump mind controls people into waking up thinking about El Trumpo every day instead of the ground in front of their feet.

Some people walk into a theme park and scream from sunup to sundown about how scary and unsafe it is to their date.

Others just sit back and enjoy the rides since they already paid for it all.

All good, as long as you can keep your guilt tied to what you actually did and not your skin color.

And don't signal to other racists that you are into ritualistic skin shaming to gain fake respect.

It makes no sense to me, it makes me feel ashamed to be an old white guy.

Maybe you should consider being less racist against white people.

That's why I brought up infrastructure and how paving asphalt over dirt pales in comparison to the types of projects required in urban areas.

 Feel free to die on that hill defending this garbage, but in the end, it's your hill, and people can choose to leave it. That's the consequence of living in a country that has alternative states with fewer regal governors and mayors living the high life, and confiscating the 1% of the nobility in the states Blue Maga lives in. It really isn't a stretch to say Blue Maga absolutely supports and trusts the 4th branch of US government. You yourself have made many posts singing high praises for the 4th branch cottage industry.

This is a really dumb talking point. Has prices are higher in "blue" states for a number of reasons, including higher gas taxes and stricter environmental regulations.

Turns out that when you have more cars on the roads, you need more money to keep them maintenanced and the quality of the air you breath suffers so you might want higher standards for fuel burning. I know, shocker.

I mean, feel free to die on that hill defending this garbage, but in the end, it's your hill, and people can choose to leave it. That's the consequence of living in a country that has alternative states with fewer regal governors and mayors living the high life, and confiscating the 1% of the nobility in the states Blue Maga lives in. It really isn't a stretch to say Blue Maga absolutely supports and trusts the 4th branch of US government. You yourself have made may posts singing high praises for the 4th branch cottage industry.

This is the problem with trying to have a conversation with you, everything to you is conspiracies and caricatures.

This is your self-tell,

Your caricature was:

Or if you're MAGA; "dUh blue states must like higher gas prices"

And I clearly said:

If you're blue maga, you say "oh! Gas is expensive for altruistic reasons."

None of that statement implies that Blue Maga LOVES high gas prices. It clearly states they believe in altruistic reasons, and I specifically omitted practical reasons and then gave you a page to read why. Emotional appeals are the fuel for maintaining impractical policies, and your daily posts here support that idea.

It is perfectly reasonable to question the costs vs benefits of environmental regulations given advances in technology and refining methods, what's not reasonable is to suggest there's no problem at all to solve and what's outright stupid is to use that false presumption as a basis to claim democrats are doing it because they love high gas prices.

So why isn't it also reasonable to question the practicality of regulations written in the 1990's? Two dollars price difference over the national average is nothing to flip your nose at, and it's a highly emotionally charged assumption to imply the rest of the nation just doesn't care about the environment or has little understanding of the economies of road maintenance. Most of the wear and tear on roads is from the weather btw, as water seeping in starts the destabilization of the roads regardless of traffic. Rural areas have a far harder time securing funding for maintaining roads than urban areas.

I'll wait.

I wonder if you think it's not obvious when you're using AI to write your arguments.

I double-check facts because I know that you don't, and that is also obvious.

Men with the backbone makeup of an amoeba's probably didn't have many surviving descendants.

No, these politicians are smart and will retire before the assassins show up to persuade them.

They were smart and surrendered before assassins were sent to take them out.

and the quality of the air you breath suffers so you might want higher standards for fuel burning. I know, shocker.

In California, smog-era fuel regulations were built for a long-ago time when ancient cars had clunky carburetors, unreliable fuel delivery, and minimal exhaust scrubbing. That world is gone. Modern engines use precise electronic fuel injection, real-time ECU control, and optimized combustion timing to burn fuel far more completely than older systems ever could. On top of that, advanced catalytic converters remove the vast majority of smog-forming emissions after combustion. In other words, the problem these fuel rules were designed to solve has largely been engineered out of the vehicle itself. Fuel is no longer the primary lever for smog reduction; the engine and exhaust technology are. Fuel composition today has little to no effect on the emissions of a 2026 engineered car.

At the same time, 2026 refining technology has evolved significantly. Modern 2026 refineries already produce cleaner base fuels through improved processes like hydrotreating and reforming, reducing sulfur and impurities without needing hyper-specific, legacy formulations. The system today is effectively a closed loop: efficient combustion inside the engine and highly effective emissions cleanup afterward. Forcing rigid, boutique fuel blends from archaic legislation on top of that just creates added cost and supply constraints without delivering any substantial environmental gains. It’s a classic case of diminishing returns. The system continuing to optimize the fuel for a problem that modern engineering has already largely solved elsewhere.

.

Ethanol fits into this outdated framework as well. The party of "science" claims it as a clean additive, but it has a lower energy density, meaning more fuel must be burned to travel the same distance, literally increasing the density of emissions. Useless ethanol rules undercut fuel efficiency while adding complexity to fuel production and distribution. Combined with modern engine and refinery advances, it looks less like a necessary solution and more like a legacy policy holdover to indirectly subsidize corn farmers. The overall picture is pretty straightforward: combustion technology improved, refining got way cleaner, but the regulatory structure kept treating fuel as the main problem, long after it stopped being a factor. That's the regression of Blue Maga and the worship of the 4th branch ministries of inefficiency and waste.

Or if you're MAGA; "dUh blue states must like higher gas prices"

If you're blue maga, you say "oh! gas is expensive for altruistic reasons."

More cars don't justify higher tax rates, since you get more income with more cars with the standard rates, but fraud does.

-

 for a number of reasons

all of them bad.

So no, you have no answer.

None that you can debunk for sure.

Kings have historically been the only ones to seize the property of the nobility. Today it's Mayors, Congress, and in some cases, the President de jour.

What an asshole.

I haven't eaten a fish in 40 years, many others thrive fine on a fishless diet. You are being hyperbolic.

You could also point to migration pulls as a metric for a country's greatness. Since the USA currently has a net exodus, you could argue that America has gotten worse.

I also love how Blue Maga media cries about 4-dollar-a-gallon gasoline (petrol) nationally when Blue Maga states rarely ever see gas priced that low, usually being a dollar or much more over the national average.

So do you have any answer to my question?

I did. It's the Kings that historically confiscated the lands of the nobles. Let's see how that regression in New York pans out.

Modern “tax the rich” rhetoric put in practice looks a lot less like bottom-up populism and more like top-down consolidation, but with the focus-group-tested skin suit of "compassion."

Prolly a nuke.