Facebook actually lets you use their site to call for and advocate violence now. No, that's not me engaging in hyperbole. No, that's not me making some assumptions about their policy. It's literally verbatim.
After a cursory look at the Facebook information I wrote a post agreeing with you and saying the policy seemed totally bizarre. However, it seemed so bizarre for a supposedly liberal organization to say that threats of death and major violence can be acceptable in principle that I thought I needed to look a little harder before posting.
I now understand what Facebook's intentions were. The wording you provided is the detail below this policy statement (and can normally only be found by clicking on "read more" below that policy statement):
"Policy rationale
We aim to prevent potential offline harm that may be related to content on Facebook. While we understand that people commonly express disdain or disagreement by threatening or calling for violence in non-serious ways, we remove language that incites or facilitates serious violence. We remove content, disable accounts and work with law enforcement when we believe that there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety. We also try to consider the language and context in order to distinguish casual statements from content that constitutes a credible threat to public or personal safety. In determining whether a threat is credible, we may also consider additional information such as a person's public visibility and vulnerability."
The hierarchy in the wording you posted is thus not intended to say that threats of violence are acceptable, but is used by Facebook in evaluating whether threats create a genuine risk of harm.
Although I'm satisfied that Facebook are not saying that violence is justified in principle in any situation, I absolutely agree that the wording of their community standard about violence is extremely poor. I can understand that enforcement is extremely difficult and that a huge amount depends on context - for instance a one-off remark could more easily be defended as a 'joke', not a threat, than the same statement made repeatedly. However, at least the principles of their standard should be clear. The fact that a significant issue like this is so open to interpretation suggests to me there are (or at least were) serious problems within Facebook's governance procedures ...
We aim to prevent potential offline harm that may be related to content on Facebook. While we understand that people commonly express disdain or disagreement by threatening or calling for violence in non-serious ways, we remove language that incites or facilitates serious violence. We remove content, disable accounts and work with law enforcement when we believe that there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety. We also try to consider the language and context in order to distinguish casual statements from content that constitutes a credible threat to public or personal safety. In determining whether a threat is credible, we may also consider additional information such as a person's public visibility and vulnerability."
So why can't that alone be the rule?
Threats:
We understand that people commonly express disdain or disagreement by threatening or calling for violence in non-serious ways; however, if any person takes any threat made towards them or another person, individual or company seriously, Facebook has the right to remove or edit the post and will work with law enforcement if any party believes that there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety.
Doesn't that work nicely? Facebook has the right, but doesn't need to act upon every complaint and if a person does think a threat is genuine, law enforcement can make the call.
I don't think Facebook should be sole the judge if the threat is genuine.
So a three judge panel on the 4th circuit US appeals court ruled on one of the lawsuits over Trump being totally corrupt by profiting from his business interests.
Supposedly Trump is representing the United States while President but business interests and foreign governments are funnelling cash through his hotels and businesses with zero oversight so there's no reason to think he's not doing favors for these globalist interests.
There's been several examples already of lobbyists and foreign governments spending a excessive amounts of money at his hotels followed soon after with getting whatever they want policy-wise from Trump. Normally, that's called pay-to-play and corruption and that's why every other President has divested from their business interests.
But Trump didn't divest and the 4th circuit Court of appeals agreed. In a unanimous ruling, the three judge panel dismissed a lawsuit claiming a group of attorneys general filing suit 'lacked standing' to say the President is violating the Constitution. This comes despite the fact that lower court judges had already approved that the case could move forward. So Trump was able to defy the Constitution and use some corrupt activist judges to dismiss the charges on appeal.
The three judges were installed by Reagan, George W. Bush, and Trump (Niemeyer, Shedd, Quattlebaum Jr).
Jay Sekulow, one of President Trump's lawyers, called the dismissal a "complete victory" and "this latest effort at Presidential harassment has been dismissed with prejudice."
Uh guys, I think America might be way broken.
Anything that could play badly for Trump is called fake news and any oversight stopping his lawless, corrupt ways and our national slide towards dictatorship is called presidential harassment.
And conservativess seem to be cool with that. After all fake news and presidential harassment can be ignored.
This isn't going to end well.
Freedom is being stolen away and a lot of people are cheering it on. How is having a totally corrupt administration answerable to no one appointing crooked referees to further condone their corruption good for the country?
The hierarchy in the wording you posted is thus not intended to say that threats of violence are acceptable, but is used by Facebook in evaluating whether threats create a genuine risk of harm.
Unless i'm reading it wrong, and I don't think I am, I don't think you are correct. The policy rationale you provide is on the top of the page. Below it, it begins to list things you should not post, and explicitly makes exceptions for you to be able to call for violence against those Facebook has labeled Dangerous or whatever, if the media says they committed crimes, etc. Since this is a list of things you shouldn't post, and because they are making exceptions for their preferred targets, by simple logic they *are* saying it is acceptable on their platform. It is something you are allowed to post, by their own words.
So, sure, while they are stating a rationale that doesn't endorse violence, their policy allows it to exist against the right targets. I don't think i'm misunderstanding them here.
The fact that the exceptions are for who they decide are "bad people", and not for something like a non-credible threat in general, says a lot in my honest opinion. If it was about genuine risk of harm, why would the target matter and not the credibility of the threat?
The hierarchy in the wording you posted is thus not intended to say that threats of violence are acceptable, but is used by Facebook in evaluating whether threats create a genuine risk of harm.
Unless i'm reading it wrong, and I don't think I am, I don't think you are correct. The policy rationale you provide is on the top of the page. Below it, it begins to list things you should not post, and explicitly makes exceptions for you to be able to call for violence against those Facebook has labeled Dangerous or whatever, if the media says they committed crimes, etc. Since this is a list of things you shouldn't post, and because they are making exceptions for their preferred targets, by simple logic they *are* saying it is acceptable on their platform. It is something you are allowed to post, by their own words.
So, sure, while they are stating a rationale that doesn't endorse violence, their policy allows it to exist against the right targets. I don't think i'm misunderstanding them here.
The fact that the exceptions are for who they decide are "bad people", and not for something like a non-credible threat in general, says a lot in my honest opinion. If it was about genuine risk of harm, why would the target matter and not the credibility of the threat?
Fair enough. I already said I think the policy is badly written and open to interpretation, so it's reasonable for you to make a different interpretation . I'm satisfied with my interpretation because, quite apart from the potential illegality of a different interpretation:
- the detail you refer to is initially hidden from view and only accessible if you click "read more" below the policy statement. To me that makes it clear the detail is an amplification of the policy statement and not something to be read independently.
- the policy statement says: "In determining whether a threat is credible, we may also consider additional information such as a person's public visibility and vulnerability." The detail below that then covers the issues of public visibility and vulnerability - supporting the view that the detail is referring back to the policy statement and not something independent.
The target matters because it affects the credibility of the threat. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of posts every day that threaten the President, but very few of those will be deemed credible without supporting evidence. However, a threat about a specific private individual would be rare and far more likely to be deemed credible.
How is having a totally corrupt administration answerable to no one appointing crooked referees to further condone their corruption good for the country?
A reminder that the residents of DC have no representation in Congress to stand up for them in this situation. Forget "lost" freedoms, compared to everyone else, they have never really had any:
It's amazing how quickly not paying your bills moved from making you a bum to "smart business" and a core conservative value. Remember kids, only suckers PAY for things.
I don't disagree with your Garland assessment--the Republicans in the Senate at the time should have held a confirmation even if they were going to vote not to confirm. Deliberate refusal to discharge one's duty should never happen. That isn't really a "freedom" but it is a legitimate point of criticism.
Fair elections...I will have to disagree with you there. Elections are still fair at this time--if you show up to your correct polling location, verify that you are who you say you are, and cast your vote then that is completely fair. My wife needs to sign her paperwork to be registered as an election judge for next November; the teenagers will probably also volunteer to work the polling location, as well.
"if you show up to your correct polling location"
how about if the 'correct' polling station is not local to you and no public transport is available - or the polling station is understaffed and under-equipped for the number of voters?
"verify that you are who you say you are"
how about if the required means of verification are deliberately made difficult to get for some voters?
"and cast your vote"
how about if you've been removed from the electoral roll without being informed?
Is that still a fair election?
I think there are enough worrying signs of attempts to make elections unfair to justify spending some time and effort on supporting a fair system (and it's good to hear your family are prepared to do that).
If your polling station is DELIBERATELY understaffed or given less equipment. For instance, there is small podcast I listen to done by a middle-aged couple who live in Illinois, who told a story (just a single example) of what happened at a local college in Springfield, where the "polling station" was put on the third floor of an obscure building on campus in one of those rooms you'd probably have to spend ten minutes to find. All at the behest of the Republican in charge of overseeing it. Every 2 years we hear stories by midday about wholesale breakdowns of machines and power outages in urban voting centers, which then increase the already absurd lines to an all-day affair. We have legislatures that pass ID requirements and then either close or significantly reduce the hours available at the DMV where they are to be obtained. Since vote fraud, statistically, is an insignificant problem, the only reason to make voting HARDER is because you don't believe you can win on an even playing field. They're playing with a corked bat.
Meanwhile, the flat-out wholesale election fraud engaged in by a Republican operative in NC, where he literally sent people door to door to essentially steal or destroy absentee ballots, has disappeared from the headlines. Go figure.
Fair elections...I will have to disagree with you there. Elections are still fair at this time--if you show up to your correct polling location, verify that you are who you say you are, and cast your vote then that is completely fair. My wife needs to sign her paperwork to be registered as an election judge for next November; the teenagers will probably also volunteer to work the polling location, as well.
The Supreme Court just endorsed gerrymandering and they said gerrymandered maps cannot be questioned ever in Federal court.
Republican lawmakers especially can't be trusted with this green light to screw over voters.
This ruling will ensure your vote does does not count. Just like the voters who are currently being treated very badly and their votes not counting in North Carolina and Maryland.
"Fair" elections are a joke this time around. We aren't even counting the votes fairly. We aren't using the same system. We are using two separate voting systems in different areas of the country that have two different end goals. We have the one the entire Union has used since the founding of the country, and the one a handful of Democrat states have decided to switch in order to force their own model down the throats of the country without having to change the Constitution like you are supposed to. There is no agreed upon set of rules, one side is playing by them and one side is changing them at will, hence there is no fairness, no level playing field, no legitimate democratic system. If an opposition party in a third world country started frantically rewriting the election rules after they lost to give themselves a structural advantage in their own districts, we would laugh at the clown show that it obviously was and point out how corrupt it is.
As long as they've decided to arbitrarily change our foundational rules of representation and democracy because they don't like losing sometimes, rejecting the process the founders laid down to make this happen legitimately, any talk of fair elections is just laughable.
States exercising their rights to allocate their electors as they see fit based on parameters they see fit vs. actively trying to prevent people from voting in any way possible. Every vote in the states that have decided to honor the winner of the popular vote with their electors COUNTS towards that total. All of them. Once again, conservatives abandoning "state rights" the moment it's convenient to do so, despite (in your case) openly advocating that those state rights are sacrosanct when it comes to citizens of Wyoming literally having 60x more power than others. State electors aren't bound to vote for the winner of the state total, they aren't actually bound to vote for ANY winner of anything. These states could mandate their electors vote for Bozo the Clown or Ronald McDonald. From the National Archives:
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
It's the byproduct of a Presidential electoral system you yourself have offered unending praise for. The fact that a President who gets less votes can win is the SAME system that allows states to decide how they chose to bind them (even though, when push comes to shove, none of them are bound to anything). You don't get to defend one and dismiss the other. Just more demands for liberals to sit with their hands tied behind their back while someone pisses in their face. In the short term (as in, 2020) it's a moot point anyway, since every state that is doing so is going to have their state popular vote go Democratic ANYWAY, but that is neither here nor there.
Is this a ridiculous and hopelessly antiquated system that has no place in modern society?? Goddamn right. But people like me aren't the ones advocating for it to stick around. People like YOU are. So if we are gonna play by this set of rules written before indoor plumbing and electricity, then let's f*****g play by them. Moral of the story?? Don't order a Ribeye if you don't want to cut around a bunch of fat.
"Fair" elections are a joke this time around. We aren't even counting the votes fairly. We aren't using the same system. We are using two separate voting systems in different areas of the country that have two different end goals. We have the one the entire Union has used since the founding of the country, and the one a handful of Democrat states have decided to switch in order to force their own model down the throats of the country without having to change the Constitution like you are supposed to. There is no agreed upon set of rules, one side is playing by them and one side is changing them at will, hence there is no fairness, no level playing field, no legitimate democratic system. If an opposition party in a third world country started frantically rewriting the election rules after they lost to give themselves a structural advantage in their own districts, we would laugh at the clown show that it obviously was and point out how corrupt it is.
As long as they've decided to arbitrarily change our foundational rules of representation and democracy because they don't like losing sometimes, rejecting the process the founders laid down to make this happen legitimately, any talk of fair elections is just laughable.
Ah yes.
It was famously Democrats Republicans who decided pass lame-duck legislation neutering the governor's branch only after the Republicans won in Wisconsin and Michigan last year.
It was Democrats Republicans who changed rules to prevent PO boxes from being used as a legal address in North Dakota, knowing this would largely disfranchise Native Americans that vote against them.
It was Democrats Republicans that changed Voter ID laws in Alabama, and then vastly reduced the hours of DMVs located in primarily black populated areas.
It was Democrats Republicans who enacted an "Exact name" matching requirement in Georgia, so that people who have hyphenated or difficult to spell names (read: minorities) might be disadvantageously affected.
Ohh - and lets actually talk about the "Foundational" principles of fairness in this country!
Poll Taxes? Democrats.
IQ tests? Democrats.
Literacy requirement? Democrats.
Incidentally. Those actually were mostly in Democrat states. Of course, that is when the Democratic party was the conservative party in US history, and the Republicans were liberal.
Well, Florida has has brought BACK poll taxes for ex-felons as a caveat to a ballot initiative that passed by massive margin, so they've already gotten back in on the action. Literacy tests?? We have versions of those now too:
Georgia has been requiring Puerto Rican natives seeking Georgia driver’s licenses to answer a special set of questions such as “identifying ‘what a meat filled with plantain fritter’ is called; where a specific beach is located; and ‘the name of the frog [that is] native only to PR,'” according to a lawsuit filed this week.
The allegations in the complaint, filed in federal court in Atlanta against two top officials at the state’s Department of Driver Services (DDS), suggest that Georgia is singling out Puerto Ricans for questions that resemble the literacy tests used to deny voter registration to African Americans in the Jim Crow South. Without driver’s licenses, Puerto Ricans moving to Georgia will struggle to find jobs and cast a ballot, where a photo ID is required to vote. A growing number of Puerto Ricans continue to leave the island, which has been devastated in recent years by hurricanes and economic crisis, for better opportunities in states like Georgia.
.........................
According to the lawsuit, Caban Gonzalez’s experience was not a one-off occurrence. A DDS directive his attorneys obtained in a public records request shows that DDS has singled out Puerto Ricans for additional requirements to obtain a license, even though they are US citizens. Under this directive, Puerto Rican driver’s licenses do not qualify for the reciprocity that licenses from other states and the District of Columbia receive. Instead, Puerto Ricans must present more documents and pass exams that people from other states are not subjected to; Puerto Rican birth certificates issued before 2010 are not considered proof of identity; and Puerto Rican documents must be retained and reviewed for signs of fraud. And then, of course, there are the bizarre trick questions about the island that Puerto Ricans must answer.
Just heinous bullshit on top of more heinous bullshit. There are citizens of this country being systematically disenfranchised to the point where they can't even partake in the most basic elements of society without jumping through these hoops. Don't think we've changed. This country has always been built on the same fundamental principle. We will always seek to systematically oppress a minority group. If it happens to be people the current Administration abandoned after a catastrophic hurricane, well shit, that is just the cherry on top of the sundae.
I don't know what the rules are governing states accepting out-of-state licenses. What I DO know is that as US citizens, if Puerto Ricans are being asked these type of specific questions, and Minnesotans matriculating to Georgia aren't being asked similar questions about Paul Bunyan and lutefisk, then that is a straight-up civil rights violation. Of course, we all damn well KNOW there aren't 49 other similar tests for former residents of the other 49 states. Indeed, I would bet any amount of money the idea has never even been considered. So why Puerto Rico?? Simple, they don't believe they are "real Americans".
Well, Florida has has brought BACK poll taxes for ex-felons as a caveat to a ballot initiative that passed by massive margin, so they've already gotten back in on the action. Literacy tests?? We have versions of those now too:
Georgia has been requiring Puerto Rican natives seeking Georgia driver’s licenses to answer a special set of questions such as “identifying ‘what a meat filled with plantain fritter’ is called; where a specific beach is located; and ‘the name of the frog [that is] native only to PR,'” according to a lawsuit filed this week.
The allegations in the complaint, filed in federal court in Atlanta against two top officials at the state’s Department of Driver Services (DDS), suggest that Georgia is singling out Puerto Ricans for questions that resemble the literacy tests used to deny voter registration to African Americans in the Jim Crow South. Without driver’s licenses, Puerto Ricans moving to Georgia will struggle to find jobs and cast a ballot, where a photo ID is required to vote. A growing number of Puerto Ricans continue to leave the island, which has been devastated in recent years by hurricanes and economic crisis, for better opportunities in states like Georgia.
.........................
According to the lawsuit, Caban Gonzalez’s experience was not a one-off occurrence. A DDS directive his attorneys obtained in a public records request shows that DDS has singled out Puerto Ricans for additional requirements to obtain a license, even though they are US citizens. Under this directive, Puerto Rican driver’s licenses do not qualify for the reciprocity that licenses from other states and the District of Columbia receive. Instead, Puerto Ricans must present more documents and pass exams that people from other states are not subjected to; Puerto Rican birth certificates issued before 2010 are not considered proof of identity; and Puerto Rican documents must be retained and reviewed for signs of fraud. And then, of course, there are the bizarre trick questions about the island that Puerto Ricans must answer.
Just heinous bullshit on top of more heinous bullshit. There are citizens of this country being systematically disenfranchised to the point where they can't even partake in the most basic elements of society without jumping through these hoops. Don't think we've changed. This country has always been built on the same fundamental principle. We will always seek to systematically oppress a minority group. If it happens to be people the current Administration abandoned after a catastrophic hurricane, well shit, that is just the cherry on top of the sundae.
I don't know what the rules are governing states accepting out-of-state licenses. What I DO know is that as US citizens, if Puerto Ricans are being asked these type of specific questions, and Minnesotans matriculating to Georgia aren't being asked similar questions about Paul Bunyan and lutefisk, then that is a straight-up civil rights violation. Of course, we all damn well KNOW there aren't 49 other similar tests for former residents of the other 49 states. Indeed, I would bet any amount of money the idea has never even been considered. So why Puerto Rico?? Simple, they don't believe they are "real Americans".
I know Paul Bunyan lives in Brainerd and have actually eaten lutefisk. Don't know much about Puerto Rican frogs though...
Well, Florida has has brought BACK poll taxes for ex-felons as a caveat to a ballot initiative that passed by massive margin, so they've already gotten back in on the action. Literacy tests?? We have versions of those now too:
Georgia has been requiring Puerto Rican natives seeking Georgia driver’s licenses to answer a special set of questions such as “identifying ‘what a meat filled with plantain fritter’ is called; where a specific beach is located; and ‘the name of the frog [that is] native only to PR,'” according to a lawsuit filed this week.
The allegations in the complaint, filed in federal court in Atlanta against two top officials at the state’s Department of Driver Services (DDS), suggest that Georgia is singling out Puerto Ricans for questions that resemble the literacy tests used to deny voter registration to African Americans in the Jim Crow South. Without driver’s licenses, Puerto Ricans moving to Georgia will struggle to find jobs and cast a ballot, where a photo ID is required to vote. A growing number of Puerto Ricans continue to leave the island, which has been devastated in recent years by hurricanes and economic crisis, for better opportunities in states like Georgia.
.........................
According to the lawsuit, Caban Gonzalez’s experience was not a one-off occurrence. A DDS directive his attorneys obtained in a public records request shows that DDS has singled out Puerto Ricans for additional requirements to obtain a license, even though they are US citizens. Under this directive, Puerto Rican driver’s licenses do not qualify for the reciprocity that licenses from other states and the District of Columbia receive. Instead, Puerto Ricans must present more documents and pass exams that people from other states are not subjected to; Puerto Rican birth certificates issued before 2010 are not considered proof of identity; and Puerto Rican documents must be retained and reviewed for signs of fraud. And then, of course, there are the bizarre trick questions about the island that Puerto Ricans must answer.
Just heinous bullshit on top of more heinous bullshit. There are citizens of this country being systematically disenfranchised to the point where they can't even partake in the most basic elements of society without jumping through these hoops. Don't think we've changed. This country has always been built on the same fundamental principle. We will always seek to systematically oppress a minority group. If it happens to be people the current Administration abandoned after a catastrophic hurricane, well shit, that is just the cherry on top of the sundae.
I don't know what the rules are governing states accepting out-of-state licenses. What I DO know is that as US citizens, if Puerto Ricans are being asked these type of specific questions, and Minnesotans matriculating to Georgia aren't being asked similar questions about Paul Bunyan and lutefisk, then that is a straight-up civil rights violation. Of course, we all damn well KNOW there aren't 49 other similar tests for former residents of the other 49 states. Indeed, I would bet any amount of money the idea has never even been considered. So why Puerto Rico?? Simple, they don't believe they are "real Americans".
I know Paul Bunyan lives in Brainerd and have actually eaten lutefisk. Don't know much about Puerto Rican frogs though...
Paul actually moved just outside of Brainerd on the road you take to go to Mille Lacs years ago when the main location shut down to make room for (this still depresses me to no end) a Kohl's Department store. Every summer of my childhood was filled with at least one visit to the original location. The talking statue and MOST of the old rides and attractions made the journey, but the flat-out best haunted house in history, which was called "Haunted Fort Sherman" was forever lost to time. My sister and I knew the route through it so well we eventually had my dad outside with a stop-watch timing us to see how fast we could get through it, though is was always dependent on how many neophytes were in the way in front of you. Thousands of kids and their parents went through this place over the years, yet there is, despite my best efforts to find one, not a SINGLE mention or photograph of the outside or inside on the internet anywhere. It's completely been erased. If I was to dig one up out of one of my photo containers and upload it somewhere, it would be the only one.
Well, Florida has has brought BACK poll taxes for ex-felons as a caveat to a ballot initiative that passed by massive margin, so they've already gotten back in on the action. Literacy tests?? We have versions of those now too:
Georgia has been requiring Puerto Rican natives seeking Georgia driver’s licenses to answer a special set of questions such as “identifying ‘what a meat filled with plantain fritter’ is called; where a specific beach is located; and ‘the name of the frog [that is] native only to PR,'” according to a lawsuit filed this week.
The allegations in the complaint, filed in federal court in Atlanta against two top officials at the state’s Department of Driver Services (DDS), suggest that Georgia is singling out Puerto Ricans for questions that resemble the literacy tests used to deny voter registration to African Americans in the Jim Crow South. Without driver’s licenses, Puerto Ricans moving to Georgia will struggle to find jobs and cast a ballot, where a photo ID is required to vote. A growing number of Puerto Ricans continue to leave the island, which has been devastated in recent years by hurricanes and economic crisis, for better opportunities in states like Georgia.
.........................
According to the lawsuit, Caban Gonzalez’s experience was not a one-off occurrence. A DDS directive his attorneys obtained in a public records request shows that DDS has singled out Puerto Ricans for additional requirements to obtain a license, even though they are US citizens. Under this directive, Puerto Rican driver’s licenses do not qualify for the reciprocity that licenses from other states and the District of Columbia receive. Instead, Puerto Ricans must present more documents and pass exams that people from other states are not subjected to; Puerto Rican birth certificates issued before 2010 are not considered proof of identity; and Puerto Rican documents must be retained and reviewed for signs of fraud. And then, of course, there are the bizarre trick questions about the island that Puerto Ricans must answer.
Just heinous bullshit on top of more heinous bullshit. There are citizens of this country being systematically disenfranchised to the point where they can't even partake in the most basic elements of society without jumping through these hoops. Don't think we've changed. This country has always been built on the same fundamental principle. We will always seek to systematically oppress a minority group. If it happens to be people the current Administration abandoned after a catastrophic hurricane, well shit, that is just the cherry on top of the sundae.
I don't know what the rules are governing states accepting out-of-state licenses. What I DO know is that as US citizens, if Puerto Ricans are being asked these type of specific questions, and Minnesotans matriculating to Georgia aren't being asked similar questions about Paul Bunyan and lutefisk, then that is a straight-up civil rights violation. Of course, we all damn well KNOW there aren't 49 other similar tests for former residents of the other 49 states. Indeed, I would bet any amount of money the idea has never even been considered. So why Puerto Rico?? Simple, they don't believe they are "real Americans".
I know Paul Bunyan lives in Brainerd and have actually eaten lutefisk. Don't know much about Puerto Rican frogs though...
Paul actually moved just outside of Brainerd on the road you take to go to Mille Lacs years ago when the main location shut down to make room for (this still depresses me to no end) a Kohl's Department store. Every summer of my childhood was filled with at least one visit to the original location. The talking statue and MOST of the old rides and attractions made the journey, but the flat-out best haunted house in history, which was called "Haunted Fort Sherman" was forever lost to time. My sister and I knew the route through it so well we eventually had my dad outside with a stop-watch timing us to see how fast we could get through it, though is was always dependent on how many neophytes were in the way in front of you. Thousands of kids and their parents went through this place over the years, yet there is, despite my best efforts to find one, not a SINGLE mention or photograph of the outside or inside on the internet anywhere. It's completely been erased. If I was to dig one up out of one of my photo containers and upload it somewhere, it would be the only one.
When I was a kid we used to drive through Brainerd to get from my dad's family in Duluth to my mom's in Detroit Lakes. I've seen Paul Bunyan's statue there more than a few times. I've been to DL last summer and just got back from a trip there a week ago. We drive through Park Rapids now though so I haven't seen Brainerd in probably 40 years...
Well, Florida has has brought BACK poll taxes for ex-felons as a caveat to a ballot initiative that passed by massive margin, so they've already gotten back in on the action. Literacy tests?? We have versions of those now too:
Georgia has been requiring Puerto Rican natives seeking Georgia driver’s licenses to answer a special set of questions such as “identifying ‘what a meat filled with plantain fritter’ is called; where a specific beach is located; and ‘the name of the frog [that is] native only to PR,'” according to a lawsuit filed this week.
The allegations in the complaint, filed in federal court in Atlanta against two top officials at the state’s Department of Driver Services (DDS), suggest that Georgia is singling out Puerto Ricans for questions that resemble the literacy tests used to deny voter registration to African Americans in the Jim Crow South. Without driver’s licenses, Puerto Ricans moving to Georgia will struggle to find jobs and cast a ballot, where a photo ID is required to vote. A growing number of Puerto Ricans continue to leave the island, which has been devastated in recent years by hurricanes and economic crisis, for better opportunities in states like Georgia.
.........................
According to the lawsuit, Caban Gonzalez’s experience was not a one-off occurrence. A DDS directive his attorneys obtained in a public records request shows that DDS has singled out Puerto Ricans for additional requirements to obtain a license, even though they are US citizens. Under this directive, Puerto Rican driver’s licenses do not qualify for the reciprocity that licenses from other states and the District of Columbia receive. Instead, Puerto Ricans must present more documents and pass exams that people from other states are not subjected to; Puerto Rican birth certificates issued before 2010 are not considered proof of identity; and Puerto Rican documents must be retained and reviewed for signs of fraud. And then, of course, there are the bizarre trick questions about the island that Puerto Ricans must answer.
Just heinous bullshit on top of more heinous bullshit. There are citizens of this country being systematically disenfranchised to the point where they can't even partake in the most basic elements of society without jumping through these hoops. Don't think we've changed. This country has always been built on the same fundamental principle. We will always seek to systematically oppress a minority group. If it happens to be people the current Administration abandoned after a catastrophic hurricane, well shit, that is just the cherry on top of the sundae.
I don't know what the rules are governing states accepting out-of-state licenses. What I DO know is that as US citizens, if Puerto Ricans are being asked these type of specific questions, and Minnesotans matriculating to Georgia aren't being asked similar questions about Paul Bunyan and lutefisk, then that is a straight-up civil rights violation. Of course, we all damn well KNOW there aren't 49 other similar tests for former residents of the other 49 states. Indeed, I would bet any amount of money the idea has never even been considered. So why Puerto Rico?? Simple, they don't believe they are "real Americans".
I know Paul Bunyan lives in Brainerd and have actually eaten lutefisk. Don't know much about Puerto Rican frogs though...
Paul actually moved just outside of Brainerd on the road you take to go to Mille Lacs years ago when the main location shut down to make room for (this still depresses me to no end) a Kohl's Department store. Every summer of my childhood was filled with at least one visit to the original location. The talking statue and MOST of the old rides and attractions made the journey, but the flat-out best haunted house in history, which was called "Haunted Fort Sherman" was forever lost to time. My sister and I knew the route through it so well we eventually had my dad outside with a stop-watch timing us to see how fast we could get through it, though is was always dependent on how many neophytes were in the way in front of you. Thousands of kids and their parents went through this place over the years, yet there is, despite my best efforts to find one, not a SINGLE mention or photograph of the outside or inside on the internet anywhere. It's completely been erased. If I was to dig one up out of one of my photo containers and upload it somewhere, it would be the only one.
When I was a kid we used to drive through Brainerd to get from my dad's family in Duluth to my mom's in Detroit Lakes. I've seen Paul Bunyan's statue there more than a few times. I've been to DL last summer and just got back from a trip there a week ago. We drive through Park Rapids now though so I haven't seen Brainerd in probably 40 years...
The whole trip I took for my entire childhood was ruined for me when I finally realized it was quicker to go through Moorhead, Detroit Lakes and Wadena rather than running all the way to Fergus Falls and taking 210. Though Google maps is telling me the difference is only 15 minutes, which doesn't seem like it can possibly be true, even though I've found that Google Maps is ASTONISHINGLY accurate time-frame wise on long trips if you drive at the speed limit or just above it. Every time I use one for a long trip it is never more than 3 or 4 minutes off.
Who was who at Trump’s so called social media summit?
Because he cares soooo much about free speech he invited ONLY conservatives and far-right provocateurs to complain about media bias. So he was jobbing the refs. Here's some of the deplorables that attended:
- James O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas (should probably be in prison)
- Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) who Trump credited with persuading him to pardon Scooter Libby, the former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.
- Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)
- Charlie Kirk and Benny Johnson of Turning Point USA
- Right-wing conspiracy theorist Tim Pool
- Diamond and Silk who lied to Congress and are paid by the Trump campaign
- Conspiracy Website Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft
- Bill Mitchell of
- Representatives from far right-leaning misinformation spreader PragerU and Blaze Media were observed at the event as were Ed Molchany and Christian Robey of the conservative Media Research Center.
- Zac Moffatt, chief executive of Targeted Victory, a Republican-leaning digital strategy and marketing firm, who was digital director for Republican Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign.
- Jessica Anderson — vice president of Heritage Action for America, which is part of the conservative propaganda think tank Heritage Foundation
Not invited: Twitter, Facebook, Google, Democrats and legitimate people who aren't complete sellouts bought off by Conservative billionaires.
Too extreme to invite: Ben Garrison, cartoonist who has a fetish for drawing sweaty muscular Trump cartoons was invited but saw his invite rescinded for anti-semitic racist cartoons.
Let's get a few things straight here. First of all, teachers do NOT have 3 months off. They are, at a BARE minimum, in the classroom getting things ready 2 weeks before school starts and two weeks after it ends. So, chop that down to two right there. Teachers also do not hop in and out when the bell rings. I don't think I remember a SINGLE week growing up where my dad wasn't grading papers 3 nights a week for HOURS at home. I have never seen a teacher take vacation time during the year. Those long winter and spring breaks your kids get?? Teachers get about half of those days, as some of them (especially in the spring) are set aside for mandatory conferences they have to attend. A large majority of them are involved in leading at least one extracurricular activity that keeps them away from home at least two nights a week, AFTER a full day of teaching.
Wanna talk about money?? Does YOUR job require you to buy supplies for everyone you work with?? Because teachers do this ALL the time. My dad spent HUNDREDS of dollars a year on supplies for his students out of his own pocket. If you can't afford something your kid needs, chances are your kid's teacher is providing it anyway, and they aren't being reimbursed. All in all, this idea that teachers are some how living the high life and laying outside getting a tan 25% of the year is among the biggest crocks of shit that a significant portion of people actually believe is true. And while there are certainly bad teachers, and some are better than others, the next time you decide to berate one about what is or isn't happening with your child, ask yourself how many times in your life you've even sat down and read a f*****g book with them instead of watching Monday Night Football or playing in your dart league. 2019 and they're still dealing with this completely false stigma.
how about if the 'correct' polling station is not local to you and no public transport is available - or the polling station is understaffed and under-equipped for the number of voters?
how about if the required means of verification are deliberately made difficult to get for some voters?
how about if you've been removed from the electoral roll without being informed?
Is that still a fair election?
Can people without reliable transportation still get to the grocery store? If so, then they have the means with which to get to a polling location. Early voting often runs for 2 weeks--they can get a ride with someone during that time.
There are many forms of identification which are either free or cost maybe $1 per month (on average). Anyone who cannot obtain any of those forms simply isn't trying.
The last one is tricky, but anyone with an Internet connection can verify their eligibility to vote in only a few minutes by visiting their State government's website. You can also call the election registrar's office, but you might be hold for 20 minutes or more before you speak with someone.
Anyone who is in a position where they cannot get a ride with anyone at all and cannot walk to a polling location during early voting, cannot afford $1 per month for even something as simple as a photo id card from the DMV, has no Internet connectivity, and cannot call the election registrar's office has more important concerns on their plate than "voting".
Just like instances of voter fraud are rare, the instances of "unfair" elections are also rare and news stories of such are often blown out of proportion. Most of the instances of fraud or unfair elections which do occur happen at the city or county level--some of those elections really can be decided by one person's vote and the typical turnout for such elections hovers around 10% of registered voters.
*************
re: teachers...they often get the short end of the stick both from parents *and* school administrators. I taught at university once but never even considered trying to teach math or computer science at a public school--I am not a masochist.
The thing about being removed from voter rolls without being notified is that there's no reason to double-check your registration once you've already registered. How many people actually double-check their registration? I never have. Why should I have to, when the government already has the resources to notify me? Purging people without even notifying them is guaranteed to result in some people not being able to vote in time, and I think it's a problem that anyone loses their right to vote.
The grocery store is usually within walking distance, and nearly always within driving distance or accessible via bus or subway. Polling stations are not nearly as common, and they're not always so easy to reach. The GOP has closed down polling stations in minority areas, and some folks have had to actually travel outside their county just to exercise their right to vote.
I wouldn't count on early voting giving people extra time to vote, either. The GOP has also been trying to cut down on early voting time. No points for guessing why.
Folks have been forced to wait in line for multiple hours just to vote, and the fact is, plenty of people are going to give up--and it's a problem for American democracy when any voter is discouraged from voting.
Personally, all I had to do to vote in the midterms was take a 5-minute drive and wait in line for a half hour or so. Why shouldn't everyone be able to do that? Why should other people have to work five times as hard just to exercise the same rights as I do?
The moment we start tolerating voter suppression is the moment we stop standing up for democracy. We're not a true democracy unless everyone who is eligible to vote is able to vote without powerful politicians knowingly trying to thwart them.
I agree wholeheartedly about comparing what I have to go through to vote in person (though I now vote by mail) compared to what I see elsewhere. A less than 5 minute walk to a church, with NO waiting time in an off-year and MAYBE ten minutes in a Presidential one. Some people have to skip a whole day of work, which for some people is simply not financially feasible. It could mean no medicine or diapers for the week. Moreover, though businesses are strictly required to ALLOW people time to vote, I have ZERO confidence certain American business owners wouldn't hesitate to fire their employees for doing so anyway, if not directly because of it, then by making up another excuse that can't be challenged. The fact that Columbus Day is a holiday and Election Day isn't is one of the most ass-backwards situations imaginable. I still can't believe the extra $150 I get for working on Columbus Day. It's absurd. Of course, Mitch McConnell framed making Election Day a holiday as another day of "free pay" for lazy government workers, because Mitch McConnell is an evil bastard.
There are many unscrupulous employers who will find ways to punish employees for daring to take time off to vote. Of course, early voting periods usually last 2 weeks and the polling locations are open on weekends, so if you work for one of those dirty underhanded employers you can still vote without taking any time off. I have advocated for making turning Election Day into Election Weekend--there is no reason to keep the official day on a Tuesday any more, but the early voting period should be sufficient.
There are many unscrupulous employers who will find ways to punish employees for daring to take time off to vote. Of course, early voting periods usually last 2 weeks and the polling locations are open on weekends, so if you work for one of those dirty underhanded employers you can still vote without taking any time off. I have advocated for making turning Election Day into Election Weekend--there is no reason to keep the official day on a Tuesday any more, but the early voting period should be sufficient.
Plenty of people have to work two or more jobs. Not everyone is going to have a weekend - and if they do have time off, there's no guarantee that it will be on the days they can vote early.
People shouldn't have to hope that their work-life schedule balances out to let them vote. They shouldn't have to work any harder than the majority of Americans need to in order to vote.
- and that isn't considering the most dastardly voter suppression attempts (Exact name match, purges, and PO box schnanigsns).
The majority of people aren't voter suppressed - but even 2% makes an enormous difference in tight elections held through out the country.
There are many unscrupulous employers who will find ways to punish employees for daring to take time off to vote. Of course, early voting periods usually last 2 weeks and the polling locations are open on weekends, so if you work for one of those dirty underhanded employers you can still vote without taking any time off. I have advocated for making turning Election Day into Election Weekend--there is no reason to keep the official day on a Tuesday any more, but the early voting period should be sufficient.
Plenty of people have to work two or more jobs. Not everyone is going to have a weekend - and if they do have time off, there's no guarantee that it will be on the days they can vote early.
People shouldn't have to hope that their work-life schedule balances out to let them vote. They shouldn't have to work any harder than the majority of Americans need to in order to vote.
- and that isn't considering the most dastardly voter suppression attempts (Exact name match, purges, and PO box schnanigsns).
The majority of people aren't voter suppressed - but even 2% makes an enormous difference in tight elections held through out the country.
The majority of people in most elections can't even be bothered to vote at all. That's even with extraordinary efforts to 'get the vote out' on both sides. It seems to me that there's roughly 20-25% on the right and left that rarely miss a vote and about 10-20% of people who only give a shit during a presidential election and about 40% who don't give two flying hoots about voting at all...
The majority of people in most elections can't even be bothered to vote at all. That's even with extraordinary efforts to 'get the vote out' on both sides. It seems to me that there's roughly 20-25% on the right and left that rarely miss a vote and about 10-20% of people who only give a shit during a presidential election and about 40% who don't give two flying hoots about voting at all...
I'm not sure I know what you're trying to argue here, but US turnout in elections hasn't been below 50% since 1996.
I pulled 2% out of my butt, but even if only 50% of that community had wanted to vote but didn't (for all the various reasons mentioned above) - you'd have 1%. If 1% more voters in Florida had voted, we might very likely be looking at Gore instead of Bush as president.
Even if we don't look at the outcome possibilities - there is *no* justifiable reason to disenfranchise any voters in a fair and free democracy. None whatsoever.
Incidentally - want to guess who was governor in Florida in the 2000 election? Jeb!
If there was any kind of voter suppression in Florida in 2000, I wonder which side it would have been aimed at...
Comments
After a cursory look at the Facebook information I wrote a post agreeing with you and saying the policy seemed totally bizarre. However, it seemed so bizarre for a supposedly liberal organization to say that threats of death and major violence can be acceptable in principle that I thought I needed to look a little harder before posting.
I now understand what Facebook's intentions were. The wording you provided is the detail below this policy statement (and can normally only be found by clicking on "read more" below that policy statement):
"Policy rationale
We aim to prevent potential offline harm that may be related to content on Facebook. While we understand that people commonly express disdain or disagreement by threatening or calling for violence in non-serious ways, we remove language that incites or facilitates serious violence. We remove content, disable accounts and work with law enforcement when we believe that there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety. We also try to consider the language and context in order to distinguish casual statements from content that constitutes a credible threat to public or personal safety. In determining whether a threat is credible, we may also consider additional information such as a person's public visibility and vulnerability."
The hierarchy in the wording you posted is thus not intended to say that threats of violence are acceptable, but is used by Facebook in evaluating whether threats create a genuine risk of harm.
Although I'm satisfied that Facebook are not saying that violence is justified in principle in any situation, I absolutely agree that the wording of their community standard about violence is extremely poor. I can understand that enforcement is extremely difficult and that a huge amount depends on context - for instance a one-off remark could more easily be defended as a 'joke', not a threat, than the same statement made repeatedly. However, at least the principles of their standard should be clear. The fact that a significant issue like this is so open to interpretation suggests to me there are (or at least were) serious problems within Facebook's governance procedures ...
So why can't that alone be the rule?
Threats:
We understand that people commonly express disdain or disagreement by threatening or calling for violence in non-serious ways; however, if any person takes any threat made towards them or another person, individual or company seriously, Facebook has the right to remove or edit the post and will work with law enforcement if any party believes that there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety.
Doesn't that work nicely? Facebook has the right, but doesn't need to act upon every complaint and if a person does think a threat is genuine, law enforcement can make the call.
I don't think Facebook should be sole the judge if the threat is genuine.
Supposedly Trump is representing the United States while President but business interests and foreign governments are funnelling cash through his hotels and businesses with zero oversight so there's no reason to think he's not doing favors for these globalist interests.
There's been several examples already of lobbyists and foreign governments spending a excessive amounts of money at his hotels followed soon after with getting whatever they want policy-wise from Trump. Normally, that's called pay-to-play and corruption and that's why every other President has divested from their business interests.
But Trump didn't divest and the 4th circuit Court of appeals agreed. In a unanimous ruling, the three judge panel dismissed a lawsuit claiming a group of attorneys general filing suit 'lacked standing' to say the President is violating the Constitution. This comes despite the fact that lower court judges had already approved that the case could move forward. So Trump was able to defy the Constitution and use some corrupt activist judges to dismiss the charges on appeal.
The three judges were installed by Reagan, George W. Bush, and Trump (Niemeyer, Shedd, Quattlebaum Jr).
Jay Sekulow, one of President Trump's lawyers, called the dismissal a "complete victory" and "this latest effort at Presidential harassment has been dismissed with prejudice."
Uh guys, I think America might be way broken.
Anything that could play badly for Trump is called fake news and any oversight stopping his lawless, corrupt ways and our national slide towards dictatorship is called presidential harassment.
And conservativess seem to be cool with that. After all fake news and presidential harassment can be ignored.
This isn't going to end well.
Freedom is being stolen away and a lot of people are cheering it on. How is having a totally corrupt administration answerable to no one appointing crooked referees to further condone their corruption good for the country?
Unless i'm reading it wrong, and I don't think I am, I don't think you are correct. The policy rationale you provide is on the top of the page. Below it, it begins to list things you should not post, and explicitly makes exceptions for you to be able to call for violence against those Facebook has labeled Dangerous or whatever, if the media says they committed crimes, etc. Since this is a list of things you shouldn't post, and because they are making exceptions for their preferred targets, by simple logic they *are* saying it is acceptable on their platform. It is something you are allowed to post, by their own words.
So, sure, while they are stating a rationale that doesn't endorse violence, their policy allows it to exist against the right targets. I don't think i'm misunderstanding them here.
The fact that the exceptions are for who they decide are "bad people", and not for something like a non-credible threat in general, says a lot in my honest opinion. If it was about genuine risk of harm, why would the target matter and not the credibility of the threat?
Fair enough. I already said I think the policy is badly written and open to interpretation, so it's reasonable for you to make a different interpretation
- the detail you refer to is initially hidden from view and only accessible if you click "read more" below the policy statement. To me that makes it clear the detail is an amplification of the policy statement and not something to be read independently.
- the policy statement says: "In determining whether a threat is credible, we may also consider additional information such as a person's public visibility and vulnerability." The detail below that then covers the issues of public visibility and vulnerability - supporting the view that the detail is referring back to the policy statement and not something independent.
The target matters because it affects the credibility of the threat. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of posts every day that threaten the President, but very few of those will be deemed credible without supporting evidence. However, a threat about a specific private individual would be rare and far more likely to be deemed credible.
Please name a freedom which has been "stolen away" in the last 2 years.
Here's two:
-Supreme Court Justice Merrick Garland.
- The right to fair elections
Now I'd love to hear an answer the rest of the paragraph:
It's amazing how quickly not paying your bills moved from making you a bum to "smart business" and a core conservative value. Remember kids, only suckers PAY for things.
Fair elections...I will have to disagree with you there. Elections are still fair at this time--if you show up to your correct polling location, verify that you are who you say you are, and cast your vote then that is completely fair. My wife needs to sign her paperwork to be registered as an election judge for next November; the teenagers will probably also volunteer to work the polling location, as well.
Elections are still fair at this time:
"if you show up to your correct polling location"
how about if the 'correct' polling station is not local to you and no public transport is available - or the polling station is understaffed and under-equipped for the number of voters?
"verify that you are who you say you are"
how about if the required means of verification are deliberately made difficult to get for some voters?
"and cast your vote"
how about if you've been removed from the electoral roll without being informed?
Is that still a fair election?
I think there are enough worrying signs of attempts to make elections unfair to justify spending some time and effort on supporting a fair system (and it's good to hear your family are prepared to do that).
Meanwhile, the flat-out wholesale election fraud engaged in by a Republican operative in NC, where he literally sent people door to door to essentially steal or destroy absentee ballots, has disappeared from the headlines. Go figure.
Republican lawmakers especially can't be trusted with this green light to screw over voters.
This ruling will ensure your vote does does not count. Just like the voters who are currently being treated very badly and their votes not counting in North Carolina and Maryland.
As long as they've decided to arbitrarily change our foundational rules of representation and democracy because they don't like losing sometimes, rejecting the process the founders laid down to make this happen legitimately, any talk of fair elections is just laughable.
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
It's the byproduct of a Presidential electoral system you yourself have offered unending praise for. The fact that a President who gets less votes can win is the SAME system that allows states to decide how they chose to bind them (even though, when push comes to shove, none of them are bound to anything). You don't get to defend one and dismiss the other. Just more demands for liberals to sit with their hands tied behind their back while someone pisses in their face. In the short term (as in, 2020) it's a moot point anyway, since every state that is doing so is going to have their state popular vote go Democratic ANYWAY, but that is neither here nor there.
Is this a ridiculous and hopelessly antiquated system that has no place in modern society?? Goddamn right. But people like me aren't the ones advocating for it to stick around. People like YOU are. So if we are gonna play by this set of rules written before indoor plumbing and electricity, then let's f*****g play by them. Moral of the story?? Don't order a Ribeye if you don't want to cut around a bunch of fat.
Ah yes.
It was famously Democrats Republicans who decided pass lame-duck legislation neutering the governor's branch only after the Republicans won in Wisconsin and Michigan last year.
It was Democrats Republicans who changed rules to prevent PO boxes from being used as a legal address in North Dakota, knowing this would largely disfranchise Native Americans that vote against them.
It was Democrats Republicans that changed Voter ID laws in Alabama, and then vastly reduced the hours of DMVs located in primarily black populated areas.
It was Democrats Republicans who enacted an "Exact name" matching requirement in Georgia, so that people who have hyphenated or difficult to spell names (read: minorities) might be disadvantageously affected.
Ohh - and lets actually talk about the "Foundational" principles of fairness in this country!
Poll Taxes? Democrats.
IQ tests? Democrats.
Literacy requirement? Democrats.
Incidentally. Those actually were mostly in Democrat states. Of course, that is when the Democratic party was the conservative party in US history, and the Republicans were liberal.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/07/puerto-ricans-seeking-georgia-drivers-licenses-face-specials-questions-about-frogs-and-plantains-lawsuit-alleges/
Georgia has been requiring Puerto Rican natives seeking Georgia driver’s licenses to answer a special set of questions such as “identifying ‘what a meat filled with plantain fritter’ is called; where a specific beach is located; and ‘the name of the frog [that is] native only to PR,'” according to a lawsuit filed this week.
The allegations in the complaint, filed in federal court in Atlanta against two top officials at the state’s Department of Driver Services (DDS), suggest that Georgia is singling out Puerto Ricans for questions that resemble the literacy tests used to deny voter registration to African Americans in the Jim Crow South. Without driver’s licenses, Puerto Ricans moving to Georgia will struggle to find jobs and cast a ballot, where a photo ID is required to vote. A growing number of Puerto Ricans continue to leave the island, which has been devastated in recent years by hurricanes and economic crisis, for better opportunities in states like Georgia.
.........................
According to the lawsuit, Caban Gonzalez’s experience was not a one-off occurrence. A DDS directive his attorneys obtained in a public records request shows that DDS has singled out Puerto Ricans for additional requirements to obtain a license, even though they are US citizens. Under this directive, Puerto Rican driver’s licenses do not qualify for the reciprocity that licenses from other states and the District of Columbia receive. Instead, Puerto Ricans must present more documents and pass exams that people from other states are not subjected to; Puerto Rican birth certificates issued before 2010 are not considered proof of identity; and Puerto Rican documents must be retained and reviewed for signs of fraud. And then, of course, there are the bizarre trick questions about the island that Puerto Ricans must answer.
Just heinous bullshit on top of more heinous bullshit. There are citizens of this country being systematically disenfranchised to the point where they can't even partake in the most basic elements of society without jumping through these hoops. Don't think we've changed. This country has always been built on the same fundamental principle. We will always seek to systematically oppress a minority group. If it happens to be people the current Administration abandoned after a catastrophic hurricane, well shit, that is just the cherry on top of the sundae.
I don't know what the rules are governing states accepting out-of-state licenses. What I DO know is that as US citizens, if Puerto Ricans are being asked these type of specific questions, and Minnesotans matriculating to Georgia aren't being asked similar questions about Paul Bunyan and lutefisk, then that is a straight-up civil rights violation. Of course, we all damn well KNOW there aren't 49 other similar tests for former residents of the other 49 states. Indeed, I would bet any amount of money the idea has never even been considered. So why Puerto Rico?? Simple, they don't believe they are "real Americans".
I know Paul Bunyan lives in Brainerd and have actually eaten lutefisk. Don't know much about Puerto Rican frogs though...
Paul actually moved just outside of Brainerd on the road you take to go to Mille Lacs years ago when the main location shut down to make room for (this still depresses me to no end) a Kohl's Department store. Every summer of my childhood was filled with at least one visit to the original location. The talking statue and MOST of the old rides and attractions made the journey, but the flat-out best haunted house in history, which was called "Haunted Fort Sherman" was forever lost to time. My sister and I knew the route through it so well we eventually had my dad outside with a stop-watch timing us to see how fast we could get through it, though is was always dependent on how many neophytes were in the way in front of you. Thousands of kids and their parents went through this place over the years, yet there is, despite my best efforts to find one, not a SINGLE mention or photograph of the outside or inside on the internet anywhere. It's completely been erased. If I was to dig one up out of one of my photo containers and upload it somewhere, it would be the only one.
When I was a kid we used to drive through Brainerd to get from my dad's family in Duluth to my mom's in Detroit Lakes. I've seen Paul Bunyan's statue there more than a few times. I've been to DL last summer and just got back from a trip there a week ago. We drive through Park Rapids now though so I haven't seen Brainerd in probably 40 years...
The whole trip I took for my entire childhood was ruined for me when I finally realized it was quicker to go through Moorhead, Detroit Lakes and Wadena rather than running all the way to Fergus Falls and taking 210. Though Google maps is telling me the difference is only 15 minutes, which doesn't seem like it can possibly be true, even though I've found that Google Maps is ASTONISHINGLY accurate time-frame wise on long trips if you drive at the speed limit or just above it. Every time I use one for a long trip it is never more than 3 or 4 minutes off.
Because he cares soooo much about free speech he invited ONLY conservatives and far-right provocateurs to complain about media bias. So he was jobbing the refs. Here's some of the deplorables that attended:
- James O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas (should probably be in prison)
- Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) who Trump credited with persuading him to pardon Scooter Libby, the former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.
- Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)
- Charlie Kirk and Benny Johnson of Turning Point USA
- Right-wing conspiracy theorist Tim Pool
- Diamond and Silk who lied to Congress and are paid by the Trump campaign
- Conspiracy Website Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft
- Bill Mitchell of
- Representatives from far right-leaning misinformation spreader PragerU and Blaze Media were observed at the event as were Ed Molchany and Christian Robey of the conservative Media Research Center.
- Zac Moffatt, chief executive of Targeted Victory, a Republican-leaning digital strategy and marketing firm, who was digital director for Republican Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign.
- Jessica Anderson — vice president of Heritage Action for America, which is part of the conservative propaganda think tank Heritage Foundation
Not invited: Twitter, Facebook, Google, Democrats and legitimate people who aren't complete sellouts bought off by Conservative billionaires.
Too extreme to invite: Ben Garrison, cartoonist who has a fetish for drawing sweaty muscular Trump cartoons was invited but saw his invite rescinded for anti-semitic racist cartoons.
Let's get a few things straight here. First of all, teachers do NOT have 3 months off. They are, at a BARE minimum, in the classroom getting things ready 2 weeks before school starts and two weeks after it ends. So, chop that down to two right there. Teachers also do not hop in and out when the bell rings. I don't think I remember a SINGLE week growing up where my dad wasn't grading papers 3 nights a week for HOURS at home. I have never seen a teacher take vacation time during the year. Those long winter and spring breaks your kids get?? Teachers get about half of those days, as some of them (especially in the spring) are set aside for mandatory conferences they have to attend. A large majority of them are involved in leading at least one extracurricular activity that keeps them away from home at least two nights a week, AFTER a full day of teaching.
Wanna talk about money?? Does YOUR job require you to buy supplies for everyone you work with?? Because teachers do this ALL the time. My dad spent HUNDREDS of dollars a year on supplies for his students out of his own pocket. If you can't afford something your kid needs, chances are your kid's teacher is providing it anyway, and they aren't being reimbursed. All in all, this idea that teachers are some how living the high life and laying outside getting a tan 25% of the year is among the biggest crocks of shit that a significant portion of people actually believe is true. And while there are certainly bad teachers, and some are better than others, the next time you decide to berate one about what is or isn't happening with your child, ask yourself how many times in your life you've even sat down and read a f*****g book with them instead of watching Monday Night Football or playing in your dart league. 2019 and they're still dealing with this completely false stigma.
Can people without reliable transportation still get to the grocery store? If so, then they have the means with which to get to a polling location. Early voting often runs for 2 weeks--they can get a ride with someone during that time.
There are many forms of identification which are either free or cost maybe $1 per month (on average). Anyone who cannot obtain any of those forms simply isn't trying.
The last one is tricky, but anyone with an Internet connection can verify their eligibility to vote in only a few minutes by visiting their State government's website. You can also call the election registrar's office, but you might be hold for 20 minutes or more before you speak with someone.
Anyone who is in a position where they cannot get a ride with anyone at all and cannot walk to a polling location during early voting, cannot afford $1 per month for even something as simple as a photo id card from the DMV, has no Internet connectivity, and cannot call the election registrar's office has more important concerns on their plate than "voting".
Just like instances of voter fraud are rare, the instances of "unfair" elections are also rare and news stories of such are often blown out of proportion. Most of the instances of fraud or unfair elections which do occur happen at the city or county level--some of those elections really can be decided by one person's vote and the typical turnout for such elections hovers around 10% of registered voters.
*************
re: teachers...they often get the short end of the stick both from parents *and* school administrators. I taught at university once but never even considered trying to teach math or computer science at a public school--I am not a masochist.
The grocery store is usually within walking distance, and nearly always within driving distance or accessible via bus or subway. Polling stations are not nearly as common, and they're not always so easy to reach. The GOP has closed down polling stations in minority areas, and some folks have had to actually travel outside their county just to exercise their right to vote.
I wouldn't count on early voting giving people extra time to vote, either. The GOP has also been trying to cut down on early voting time. No points for guessing why.
Folks have been forced to wait in line for multiple hours just to vote, and the fact is, plenty of people are going to give up--and it's a problem for American democracy when any voter is discouraged from voting.
Personally, all I had to do to vote in the midterms was take a 5-minute drive and wait in line for a half hour or so. Why shouldn't everyone be able to do that? Why should other people have to work five times as hard just to exercise the same rights as I do?
The moment we start tolerating voter suppression is the moment we stop standing up for democracy. We're not a true democracy unless everyone who is eligible to vote is able to vote without powerful politicians knowingly trying to thwart them.
Plenty of people have to work two or more jobs. Not everyone is going to have a weekend - and if they do have time off, there's no guarantee that it will be on the days they can vote early.
People shouldn't have to hope that their work-life schedule balances out to let them vote. They shouldn't have to work any harder than the majority of Americans need to in order to vote.
- and that isn't considering the most dastardly voter suppression attempts (Exact name match, purges, and PO box schnanigsns).
The majority of people aren't voter suppressed - but even 2% makes an enormous difference in tight elections held through out the country.
The majority of people in most elections can't even be bothered to vote at all. That's even with extraordinary efforts to 'get the vote out' on both sides. It seems to me that there's roughly 20-25% on the right and left that rarely miss a vote and about 10-20% of people who only give a shit during a presidential election and about 40% who don't give two flying hoots about voting at all...
I'm not sure I know what you're trying to argue here, but US turnout in elections hasn't been below 50% since 1996.
I pulled 2% out of my butt, but even if only 50% of that community had wanted to vote but didn't (for all the various reasons mentioned above) - you'd have 1%. If 1% more voters in Florida had voted, we might very likely be looking at Gore instead of Bush as president.
Even if we don't look at the outcome possibilities - there is *no* justifiable reason to disenfranchise any voters in a fair and free democracy. None whatsoever.
Incidentally - want to guess who was governor in Florida in the 2000 election? Jeb!
If there was any kind of voter suppression in Florida in 2000, I wonder which side it would have been aimed at...