By Fenderputty Go To PostI contest his book would have sold more had he cooperated with a subpoena. I personally think he wants a shot in another potential GOP admin and knows to tow party line
Plausible. He'll get his war with Iran yet.
By Laboured Go To PostPlausible. He'll get his war with Iran yet.
I would Have bought his book had he testified. So many Dems would have. It’s not out of fear of trump or fear of executive privilege either. He clearly doesn’t fear either. So why else would you not testify?
By Fenderputty Go To PostI would Have bought his book had he testified. So many Dems would have. It’s not out of fear of trump or fear of executive privilege either. He clearly doesn’t fear either. So why else would you not testify?
I think he's somewhat a man of principle (such that his actions aren't purely driven by self interest), it's just his principles are very fucked up.
By Pac-12 Go To PostI hate this administration so damn much.
By Kibner Go To PostBecause not everyone can actually read. And that doesn't mean they are dumb, either. According to this site, 14% of American adults can't read.
Sooo...if they can't read (14% sounds highly unlikely), how do they know who they're voting for and how are they registering to vote? That doesn't sound right at all.
The definition of being able to read that they are using is whether you are able to read a newspaper or a job application. The literacy rate for reading basic text is 99%.
By AlphaSnacks Go To PostSooo…if they can't read (14% sounds highly unlikely), how do they know who they're voting for and how are they registering to vote? That doesn't sound right at all.IIRC, you can ask an attendant or have someone with you to read you the selections.
When I had a summer job in construction, there were a few laborers that couldn't read or write anything more than their names. Good guys and not mentally efficient, but just never learned to read. It happens, especially for the poorest of families where kids need to provide early and often for their family.
By AlphaSnacks Go To PostSooo…if they can't read (14% sounds highly unlikely), how do they know who they're voting for and how are they registering to vote? That doesn't sound right at all.People can recognize names just fine and tick a box.
By AlphaSnacks Go To PostSooo…if they can't read (14% sounds highly unlikely), how do they know who they're voting for and how are they registering to vote? That doesn't sound right at all.straight out of the voter suppression handbook
Instead of educating people let's cut them off from voting. You need to take a step back and re-evaluate alpha. I'm trying to be nice here.
Having an educational requirement to voting would only further incentivise states to scrimp on school spending in certain districts
By FortuneFaded Go To PostThe definition of being able to read that they are using is whether you are able to read a newspaper or a job application. The literacy rate for reading basic text is 99%.
That's what I'd imagine too.
By blackace Go To Poststraight out of the voter suppression handbook
A question that asks how are people voting if they can't read is out of the voter suppression book? The fuck? It's a legit question, because that 14% metric didn't sound right, and Fortune added some clarity to that.
By blackace Go To Postwhen you so woke you become racist
That better not be aimed at me.
It is out of the voter suppression handbook. Keep people poor and uneducated then have poll taxes and literacy tests.
Do I need to link the wikipedia pages again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test
I'll even quote it this time.
Do I need to link the wikipedia pages again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test
I'll even quote it this time.
From the 1890s to the 1960s, many state governments in the United States administered literacy tests to prospective voters purportedly to test their literacy in order to vote. In practice, these tests were intended to disenfranchise racial minorities. Southern state legislatures employed literacy tests as part of the voter registration process starting in the late 19th century. Literacy tests, along with poll taxes, residency and property restrictions, and extra-legal activities (violence and intimidation)[2] were all used to deny suffrage to African Americans.
Maybe the wrong post is being quoted but alphasnacks was asking how do illiterate people vote not saying that illiterate people shouldn't be able to vote.
By i can get you a toe Go To PostIt is out of the voter suppression handbook. Keep people poor and uneducated then have poll taxes and literacy tests.
Do I need to link the wikipedia pages again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test
I'll even quote it this time.
I already dropped that topic of an exam or test pages back. My last note was that they should at least hand out a pamphlet or leaflet while people wait in line that breaks down each candidate and their main talking points.
They send out pamphlets in the mail in Oregon along with the ballots. Honestly a lot other states just trash about voting period.
By /sy Go To PostMaybe the wrong post is being quoted but alphasnacks was asking how do illiterate people vote not saying that illiterate people shouldn't be able to vote.He started by saying that you should have to pass a test to be able to vote
By AlphaSnacks Go To PostThat's what I'd imagine too.Honestly, weaponized good intentions are incredibly common while historic patterns utilizing them aren't even hidden. You, and plenty of other people, should ask "is this actually helping" more instead of trusting emotion to be enough of a solution.
A question that asks how are people voting if they can't read is out of the voter suppression book? The fuck? It's a legit question, because that 14% metric didn't sound right, and Fortune added some clarity to that.
That better not be aimed at me.
If your first instinct is wow people are so stupid we should restrict their rights (like sterilize them, tests to become parents or vote) instead of education, better social safety nets, and better funded and staffed social services, congrats you're authoritarian/fascist and need to do some rethinking if you don't want to considered as such.
I was wondering why there were so many white dudes looking like me (plus a few pounds) in Central London today. And then I realised, its protect the statues day isn't it?
By batong_doicare Go To PostI was wondering why there were so many white dudes looking like me (plus a few pounds) in Central London today. And then I realised, its protect the statues day isn't it?
more like "Fat racist gammon gathering under the guise of protect the statues" day.
By AlphaSnacks Go To PostI already dropped that topic of an exam or test pages back. My last note was that they should at least hand out a pamphlet or leaflet while people wait in line that breaks down each candidate and their main talking points.
That stuff requires time and money. You can do that at your local elections if it’s something you truly believe will help. Then once word gets around online maybe other places will do the same.
Working voting booths isn’t a high paying full time job afaik. These people have other concerns in their life.
By Facism Go To Postmore like "Fat racist gammon gathering under the guise of protect the statues" day.
By blackace Go To PostHe started by saying that you should have to pass a test to be able to vote
Which I dropped quickly and also said it was a knee jerk statement out of frustration with how poorly Americans vote, and the fact that someone like Trump was nominated and then elected. Without ridiculous and offensive implications that I'm a racist, how about a civil discussion? Here's what my line of thinking, including the knee jerk, was based on...(and make sure you read the ending)
The simple fact of the matter is misinformation spreads so virally these days, and people believe it so quickly, it's absolutely terrifying. Twitter mobs have got the wrong people being doxed for crimes they didn't commit because they share a name with the actual accuser, but it's too late because the SJW mob is too quick to act. You've got people sharing birther "facts" having people out there believing Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim who was practically bred to destroy the US. Or that Hillary had a pizza parlor full of children she was selling and pimping out. People who think Hillary and Soros are in cahoots to destroy the US and purge Jews. The list goes on and on and on. The spread of misinformation because of social media has muddied politics and the spread of stupidity is out of control. For God's sake, people still don't know that The Onion is a satire site and even their insane articles spread like wildfire if believable enough.
So I ask you, how do you combat this? Do you let it continue and let countries like ours elect blindly?
The way I look at it is the United States has a lot of rights that affect people's day to day lives, but those rights have to be earned in order to be used. And the person has to demonstrate they are capable of having this right, correct? Driver's license = passing a test. Gun permit = background/criminal checks. Having a job = having qualifications. Likewise, becoming a citizen of the United States requires passing an exam too. Some light reading material before registering to vote or a layup test isn't so farfetched, and isn't remotely racist in THIS day and age. I understand where you're coming from, but here are the facts:
Functional adult literacy in the US (Ages 15+) is 99%. But yes, there is also an estimate that 14% of adults read at a 5th grade level (or lower), but that number includes immigrants.
Broken down by race, of the American adult population (that make up that 14%) with low literacy levels:
35% are Whites
34% are Hispanic
23% are Black
8% Other, largely born outside of the US or of a different race, ethnicity.
Based on these statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics (nces.ed.gov), this actually benefits the black vote, as opposed to hurting them. So it's hardly as racist of an idea as you'd like to think. It would have been extremely racist back when slavery was abolished, or when Civil Rights movements ended segregation in the 60s and 70s, and even 20 years thereafter when technology wasn't as wide spread and information wasn't as available. But today the numbers show White Americans have a higher rate of literacy issues than blacks, which would make them less qualified to vote if some sort of voter reform were put in place. Of course this would never happen, because people would go absolutely ape shit and White Americans would bring their guns right out to their governor's office for some tea and beer.
Furthermore, if we're letting absolutely anybody vote, no matter their education, then why wait until the age of 18? Make it 16 (not that I think we should) since education doesn't matter.
By DY_nasty Go To PostHonestly, weaponized good intentions are incredibly common while historic patterns utilizing them aren't even hidden. You, and plenty of other people, should ask "is this actually helping" more instead of trusting emotion to be enough of a solution.
The present pattern is showing that Black Americans may be overall more literate than White Americans, as mentioned above. History does not repeat itself. Implementing voter reform would affect White Americans, including immigrants of all cultures and ethnicities, considerably more than Black Americans.
But, as someone has mentioned...racists and white nationalists have a tendency to be hyper aware and smart, so you wouldn't be weeding them out, so the idea of even a very simple and easy registration-to-vote test wouldn't do much at all to keep them at bay. But education would be the best strategy and combating social media stupidity (which should honestly start at FB and Twitter directly).
So, no, looking at the big picture, an exam would not help. But it also wouldn't hurt the black vote as you seem to have implied, but rather it'd hurt the white vote considerably more. Voter education is the ultimate goal.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8416475/Boris-Johnson-billionaire-Richard-Desmond-120m-property-scandal.html?ito=1490
This is such a weird story. Reading the first few paragraphs, you would think it's great news: the tories were apparently able to focus on building houses in central London and avoided a bunch of Nimby nonsense to do so, while opponents tried to drag up some dirt on the deal which ultimately looked like nothing - a paltry £12'000 donation to the conservatives and Johnson meeting with the developers a few months ago.
But then it turns out that there was some wrongdoing, and the minister who approved the deal is now facing the sack, and it's all just bizarre. London has once again lost its fight for affordable housing, apparently because the housing minister has been caught up in some nonsensical conflict of interest. How did he get in that position? The reasoning for approving the development massively outweighed the problems highlighted in the article.
This is such a weird story. Reading the first few paragraphs, you would think it's great news: the tories were apparently able to focus on building houses in central London and avoided a bunch of Nimby nonsense to do so, while opponents tried to drag up some dirt on the deal which ultimately looked like nothing - a paltry £12'000 donation to the conservatives and Johnson meeting with the developers a few months ago.
But then it turns out that there was some wrongdoing, and the minister who approved the deal is now facing the sack, and it's all just bizarre. London has once again lost its fight for affordable housing, apparently because the housing minister has been caught up in some nonsensical conflict of interest. How did he get in that position? The reasoning for approving the development massively outweighed the problems highlighted in the article.
I don't think you're racist. I think you're emotional and not realizing that certain sentiments either do more harm than good, are only beneficial from certain perspectives when its your team that's down a few points, or disregarding the fact that people will elect an absolute nobody over someone they legitimately despise. That line of thinking you were showing is from the same brochure as "people should do x y and z to be allowed to have children".
The Citizenship Test is a perfect example of testing keeping out too. Its not an assessment of any sort of value, skill, or safety to others. Its a hurdle. Gun permit, job, drivers license... those barriers all have different functions or purposes.
And I highly doubt those polls are even seeking out black people lol. It ain't like anyone looks for black kids that go missing. Why would they check to see if they know how to read?
People don't distrust the news because they're dumb. They don't trust the news because there is nothing more jarring than looking at the evening news, recognizing they're talking about your area, and being completely stunned at how wrong they are about what's going on right in front outside your door. Social media is a problem, yes, but major outlets have been a much bigger problem for FAR longer. Hell, the Epstein shit just legitimized a lot of that type of talk for many people and it wouldn't have ever happened had the media been direct, unbiased, and committed to coverage of his shit years ago. Whether its the reasons we're fighting a war or what your governor is doing - you can't accept it plainly or in good faith the vast majority of the time. And this is over generations now. Disingenuous as fuck for them to label social media as the demon that undermined everything.
The Citizenship Test is a perfect example of testing keeping out too. Its not an assessment of any sort of value, skill, or safety to others. Its a hurdle. Gun permit, job, drivers license... those barriers all have different functions or purposes.
And I highly doubt those polls are even seeking out black people lol. It ain't like anyone looks for black kids that go missing. Why would they check to see if they know how to read?
People don't distrust the news because they're dumb. They don't trust the news because there is nothing more jarring than looking at the evening news, recognizing they're talking about your area, and being completely stunned at how wrong they are about what's going on right in front outside your door. Social media is a problem, yes, but major outlets have been a much bigger problem for FAR longer. Hell, the Epstein shit just legitimized a lot of that type of talk for many people and it wouldn't have ever happened had the media been direct, unbiased, and committed to coverage of his shit years ago. Whether its the reasons we're fighting a war or what your governor is doing - you can't accept it plainly or in good faith the vast majority of the time. And this is over generations now. Disingenuous as fuck for them to label social media as the demon that undermined everything.
By aka Espi Go To PostThat stuff requires time and money. You can do that at your local elections if it’s something you truly believe will help. Then once word gets around online maybe other places will do the same.
Working voting booths isn’t a high paying full time job afaik. These people have other concerns in their life.
Indeed. I think a nice federal or even state budget dedicated to this cause would be beneficial.
By DY_nasty Go To PostAnd I highly doubt those polls are even seeking out black people lol. It ain't like anyone looks for black kids that go missing. Why would they check to see if they know how to read?
I think this sentence is lost in a mist of cynicism and I understand why you feel that way. But to clarify, this is not a poll. It's an annual study using data from the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) with a large-scale of participants volunteering information, and performing assessments. Total participants are 250,000 adults, representing a combined population of 815M spread among 33 countries. The US makeup represents 350M of those people and total US participants are close to 100,000. It's not a small study using a small sample by any stretch.
A study like this wouldn't even be valid and cannot be published annually, let alone even get funded by a government agency without a fair and leveled playing field.
the level playing field you refer to doesn't exist in the best of circumstances and is deliberately muddled in the worst. any validity is only as unbiased as the institutions coordinating the effort.
i'm not saying you're wrong for seeking out a source but again the vested interest in minorities isn't there unless its enforced. historically, it isn't either. honestly, i don't know how you can approach "numbers show White Americans have a higher rate of literacy issues than blacks" and not immediately stop yourself lol
i'm not saying you're wrong for seeking out a source but again the vested interest in minorities isn't there unless its enforced. historically, it isn't either. honestly, i don't know how you can approach "numbers show White Americans have a higher rate of literacy issues than blacks" and not immediately stop yourself lol
Studies require equal representation to be valid, otherwise the numbers will skew and ruin the entire thing. Not like they got 80K White people, 15K Hispanics, and 5K Black. It can't work that way.
By AlphaSnacks Go To PostStudies require equal representation to be valid, otherwise the numbers will skew and ruin the entire thing. Not like they got 80K White people, 15K Hispanics, and 5K Black. It can't work that way.you're wholly missing what im saying
racism doesn't stop for studies lol. if anything its worse there than just about everywhere else
again - "numbers show White Americans have a higher rate of literacy issues than blacks" should set off every thisisbullshit alarm you have installed
Do you have a point here alpha? Cause back flipping into "it wouldn't be racist today because demographic info shows" is a ridiculous stance to be taking.
Some of the urban design over here is maddening. The bike lane suddenly disappeared and I had to merge with traffic in a busy intersection and was a bit confused as to how to do it safely.
The city has put out 45km of new bike lanes due to COVID-19 but I feel like a lot more needs to be done. We are so behind places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen in terms of being a bike-friendly city.
The city has put out 45km of new bike lanes due to COVID-19 but I feel like a lot more needs to be done. We are so behind places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen in terms of being a bike-friendly city.
lol Canadians complaining about lack of bike lanes.
Don't ever ride a bike in an American city -- especially any city not on the west coast -- if you value your life.
Don't ever ride a bike in an American city -- especially any city not on the west coast -- if you value your life.
It’s fair to complain when Toronto is being beaten handily by Montreal and Vancouver. But yeah, still better than America however that is a very poor consolation prize lol.
By reilo Go To Postlol Canadians complaining about lack of bike lanes.most dangerous form of transportation lol
Don't ever ride a bike in an American city – especially any city not on the west coast – if you value your life.
By aka Espi Go To PostNYC is pretty good with bike lanes.I rode a CitiBike from Queens/Roosevelt Island to Bryant Park last year right around sunset, kinda fun
In regards to most American cities at least
@alpha
Any form of voter suppression, even in good faith, is basically discrimination there isn't a grey area about it. Nothing uncivil about it, if that hurts I am sorry but it doesn't change it from being a shitty idea.
"earning rights" seems like a horrible slippery slope that will be used to manipulate elections. At least know they have to use misinformation to get votes. They would use earning rights to suppress votes so fast.
Again, why a person votes is hard to police. They can vote for any reason. We are using Trump now as an example but what able Obama? (Dy might disagree but I think he was a great president.) How many voters do you think just voted for him because he had a shot to be the first black president and change? And that is ok.
Any form of voter suppression, even in good faith, is basically discrimination there isn't a grey area about it. Nothing uncivil about it, if that hurts I am sorry but it doesn't change it from being a shitty idea.
"earning rights" seems like a horrible slippery slope that will be used to manipulate elections. At least know they have to use misinformation to get votes. They would use earning rights to suppress votes so fast.
Again, why a person votes is hard to police. They can vote for any reason. We are using Trump now as an example but what able Obama? (Dy might disagree but I think he was a great president.) How many voters do you think just voted for him because he had a shot to be the first black president and change? And that is ok.
The problem with our election process isn't who is voting, rather who isn't voting.
Why aren't they voting? Is there voter suppression? Do they not feel a candidate out there supports them? I'm all on the fuck Donald train but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans out there who do not feel a candidate represents them.
If your concern is presidential election, Donald didn't win because illiterate whites voted for him. He won because Hillary has a long history of fucking over minorities and never really did anything to earn a vote. On the local election front a lot of people just don't even bother to go out and vote, illiterate or not so scumbags get to stay in power because no one really cares.
Why aren't they voting? Is there voter suppression? Do they not feel a candidate out there supports them? I'm all on the fuck Donald train but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans out there who do not feel a candidate represents them.
If your concern is presidential election, Donald didn't win because illiterate whites voted for him. He won because Hillary has a long history of fucking over minorities and never really did anything to earn a vote. On the local election front a lot of people just don't even bother to go out and vote, illiterate or not so scumbags get to stay in power because no one really cares.