Composer

Chatbots can’t “admit” things. They regurgitate text that just happens to be information a lot of the time.

That said, the irony is iron clad.

The dynamics of the game are way different with a Republican Senate and president. I bet they’ll fall in line in a heartbeat if they keep the house.

It’s easy to worry about it, when the change wasn’t even necessary and has no effect if we’re to believe it was written in good faith.

Case in point, this amendment pretended to close a loophole which didn’t even exist. Wisconsin law already prohibited non citizens from voting. It does not pass the smell test, being as haphazardly written as it is now.

https://casetext.com/statute/wisconsin-statutes/elections/chapter-6-the-electors/subchapter-iv-voting-absentee/section-685-absent-elector-definition

In the context of these definitions, I think “qualified elector” just means a voter.

Interesting, if that’s what it means in this context it would be a big relief. But that isn’t what any of the reporting from either side is indicating.

To be clear, I know what we’re told the amendment is meant to do. I’m concerned about an unwanted gap in the choice of language it created.

If the new wording was appended to the statement instead of replacing it, I would agree with you.

But the word “every” is a guaranteed inclusion (while not explicitly excluding anyone), while “only” is a guaranteed exclusion (while not explicitly including anyone).

For a dumb example, my chili recipe says “every type of bean may be used”, I can put black beans and pinto beans in it, and no one can tell me otherwise. But if I change it to “only beans may be used”, that is more open to further restrictions by later stipulations.

“Do not use pinto beans” is in direct contradiction with “every type of bean may be used”.

“Do not use pinto beans” is actually not a contradiction with “only beans may be used”.

What I’m seeing with the new language is that a new law saying something like “Students who continue to live with their parents are not permitted to participate in elections” is actually permissible and not in contradiction with the statement "Only a United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.”

At least according to the constitution. Prior to Nov 5, it would be unconstitutional in WI to pass such a law, that’s no longer the case.

The way I read it, yes they did choose to restrict the vote to themselves, but at the same time they removed the guarantee of the vote to themselves.

The guarantee they enjoyed is no longer expressed in the constitution. Or am I missing something?

I heard Travi are fun guys.

Thanks. The android keyboard ruins my life.

I put a good chunk of my 401k in CDs.

Edit:

It’s less than an 8th of my fund, just because I don’t like where the market is sitting right now, I’m keeping something secure in case something bad happens to me while something bad happens to the world.

My point was to respond to someone who is morally opposed to stocks. There are other ways to go about it (irrespective of good advice).

You can’t possibly know that

A friendship built on a foundation of egocentric manipulation? No thank you.

So the year of the Linux desktop is finally happening

I’ve had 2 multiple day power outages in the Milwaukee area, and 4 or 5 shorter ones over the past few years. It literally never used to happen.

Thank you for doing your part to ensure this gumball machine lives to see at least one more rummage sale.