Take your time, I have some chickens to butter. Not that we're a vertically challenged nation of people, but it's just as well they don't fly very well.
I realise that there might be more to the story than we saw, or I heard (I could only hear the journalist and nothing else), but given what the journalist was saying about being in the process of moving when police and fire services arrived, being willing to move further and asking where they should move to... ...seemed an unlikely scenario for the reason for arrest.
Unless of course, the police were being unreasonably authoritarian.
I realise I'm rather deaf, but all I could hear was the journalist saying that they were in the process of moving away when they saw the police and fire services arrive and then repeatedly asking the officers where they wanted them to go as they were willing to move to wherever they were asked.
To be fair, we have a foot (UK size 5-6) in both camps.
If I buy fabric off the roll I conceptualise width in imperial, but the length I request I calculate (and have to buy) in meters.
There's no way we're going to let go of our imperial measurement idioms, we re-frame 500ml as just over half a pint, but we're adept at comparing grocery prices in metric because it's easy to work in base 10.
I still haven't got over the swindle that was being told 2 1/2 pence change was the same as 6d change, mind. I was five years old, but even then I knew it wasn't me who had been hit with the stupid stick.
So you're saying despite huge resources being used to investigate voter fraud where no evidence was found, people have to be idiots to think that there isn't imaginary evidence which proves that there was voter fraud?
And that imaginary evidence shores up your narrative about the future imaginary disaster that will definitely happen if remote voting is used to protect the voting rights and health of the electorate during the pandemic?
Is it that Covid will definitely go by miracle in a couple of months time, or is it that an incumbent president trying to get re-elected by rigging the system is not a threat to your constitutional rights?
It is a threat to other people's constitutional right to vote, but not yours, so that's okay.
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal..."..."...but some animals are more equal than others."
I don't know how your registration works, but I would guess it's people moving away, or dying that aren't taken off the register.
According to Professor Carol Anderson, the author of White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Nation's Divide, the register in some states are 'cleaned up' by removing people if they haven't voted for one, or more recent election. As it's a certain demographic who are more likely to vote irregularly, it's poor people, including a high rate of people of colour who are targeted using this method of voter suppression without being told that they have been removed.
I agree, it has nothing to do with voting. Some voting fraud may very well be linked with identity fraud. In a study by Prof. Justin Levitt (Loyola Marymount University, Loyola Law School) calculated that from 2000-2014 there were one billion votes and 31 cases of voter impersonation fraud. I'm an unemployed layabout, but I've had a bowl of soup.
Don't confuse respecting your opinion with me challenging you for disseminating inaccurate information. Having the right to your opinion does not give you the right to collude with the oppression of other poor people, women and people of colour.
Why did you post something that was thought to be about a system error and nothing to do with fraud, Soon?
Even the recipients of the inaccurate ballots took the them to the police and then to the post office to be returned to the sender.
Doesn't that imply that citizens are likely to take the matter seriously and act honestly?
I don't know if that's what you were trying to demonstrate, but it was under my post asking for the large figures of voter fraud that Crypt knows about.
Enabling everyone to vote if they choose is not voter suppression, Oldeguy, therefore it's not the other side of the argument unless remote voting somehow stops Republican voters from casting their vote.
Confusing this with the possibility that the Democrats might win if their supporters aren't stopped from casting their ballot says something about the US voting system: it says that some people think it's unfair unless the elections are rigged in favour of the Republican party.
Nah, you just don't understand how it's carried out and how it works, Soon.
Part of that is because the methods of voter suppression are cloaked in 'reasonableness'. People think Trump is being reasonable because he says remote voting will lead to voter fraud, despite there being no evidence that remote voter fraud is anywhere near a prevalence which would effect outcome.
Once people have had their dose of 'reasonableness' designed to trigger a fear response, everything else is rejected in a bid to maintain perceived safety.
If we have stories about groups of people indicating 'badness', no amount of facts and figures to the contrary will sway accepted beliefs. If we accept groups of others are 'bad', we assume we are 'good'; any action which oppresses the 'bad' people, is a 'good' action and we can sleep better for having rid the world of 'badness'.
Without the narratives, the stories of who is good and who is bad, law enforcement wouldn't have endemic prejudices and wouldn't attract a high proportion of conventional and conservative employees.
We move forward by breaking down accepted narratives and we perhaps can only do that by having conversation and getting to know one another without punishment. The Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa was more progressive than the Nuremberg trials.
What I said was: Followed by: Because I had made references to childcare, assuming more women are lone parents, or primary care givers than men, children are less likely to be able to queue for hours without having their primary needs met and they also tend to be poorer because of their care giving roles, or lack of pay parity.
Lastly: Because more people of colour have a lower economic status than a high economic status.
The assumption was yours that I was excluding white people of a lower economic status.
'Poor' encompasses a range in it's demographic, but does tend to include the socially disadvantaged as well as the economically disadvantaged. The term 'socio-economic' puts those two factors together for a reason: if you have a low social status, it's harder to dig your way out of poverty; if you are poor, you have a low social status.
There is a history of poor people, women and people of colour being oppressed and one of the means of subjugation was not having the right to vote. Only land owning men had franchise and only white men had land.
The methods of voter suppression, including blocking remote voting, specifically target these same groups of people. The various methods might not stop all poor people, women and people of colour from voting, but they are an effective enough inhibitory factor to skew outcome.
When, as a woman of low socio-economic status you buy into the rhetoric that remote voting is unfair, your are shooting yourself in the foot as well as helping to disenfranchise other disadvantaged people.
There are lots of grocery shops open every day and there are still queues.
Trying to process everyone who has been allowed to vote and wishes to do so whilst still maintaining social distancing in one day would require an extraordinary number of polling stations.
The alternative is that only a very small minority of people get to vote. They will be the people who are physically able to queue without needing to use a restroom for the best part of a day, those who can get childcare, those who will get a paid for vacation day, or don't need that day's pay and those who aren't at risk of losing their jobs if they miss a day.
It will mostly exclude poor people, women, and people of colour who have historically had to fight to get the vote. It's regressing to a time when only a privileged few had voting rights and were represented by government.
I'm not a great fan of armed combat, but if ever there was a time it was justified, it was WWII.
The fact that it was based upon conscription only leaves me more in awe of the ordinary people like your brother, Ooby, who were so extraordinary and brave in their service to humankind.
The chances of your brother and my mum having crossed paths is probably quite slim, but it was American soldiers who filled her mug with soup. She was too malnourished to eat it all at once, so my grandmother would reheat it bit by bit for her.
online today!jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (3,001)
RE: I've Not Seen Merc Here Lately - (aka "A Prior Chatting Blog")
I don't see where the comments are numbered.I demand a recount.
Take your time, I have some chickens to butter. Not that we're a vertically challenged nation of people, but it's just as well they don't fly very well.