A few years ago I had a bad retinal detachment that was treated first with a gas bubble injected into my eye to push the torn flap back into place, followed up by laser treatments to sorta weld the retina back into place.
Sitting in the chair with the eye surgeon coming at me with a large needle and saying "Don't move"...not fun. Fortunately they did put some numbing drops in the eye first, but I could still see it coming (with the other eye).
"This is also a cheap insurance and lazy American problem because proper preventative care is likely the leading cause of all healthcare use in the USA."
Upwards of 20% of all US health care expenditures are related to complications from smoking.
Another 20% or so is related to complications from obesity.
30% of all Medicare expenditures are attributed to the 5% of beneficiaries that die each year, with 1/3 of that cost occurring in the last month of life.
Which of these statements best describes the food eaten in your household in the last 12 months: —enough of the kinds of food (I/we) want to eat; —enough, but not always the kinds of food (I/we) want; —sometimes not enough to eat; or, —often not enough to eat?
[1] Enough of the kinds of food we want to eat
[2] Enough but not always the kinds of food we want
[3] Sometimes not enough to eat
[4] Often not enough to eat
[ ] DK or Refused
Most of the questions that follow include some sort of "because there wasn't enough money for food?" or " but you just couldn't afford more food?"
Of course, the questionnaire never questions WHY there wasn't enough money for food, so it is impossible to distinguish the "deserving poor" from the meth addicts who blew all their money on meth. Or for that matter, from people who simply spend some portion of their income on cigarettes, beer, tattoos, TVs, lottery tickets...people who could afford food for their families if they made food a priority over minor vices and entertainment.
No the others represent crimes illegal aliens can also commit. "Anyone who...knowingly transports"...one illegal drives another known illegal around? "Anyone who....harbors"...one illegal rent a room to other illegals?
See similar: “The Things We Think and Do Not Say: The Future of Our Business”.
There is a good bet that I will erase all of this from my laptop, and you will never read it. But if you are reading it, and you’re reading it right now, it is only because I was unable to stop. I was unable to forget the quiet questions in the hallways, when some of you, usually the younger agents, or interns, asked me on the side...
Chances are, I didn’t say much. I might have told you “it’s easy” or “you’re not working hard enough.” Chances are, I said something that you expected, maybe even wanted to hear. But it wasn’t the truth, and it wasn’t what I felt. And if you ever wondered about the drawbacks of being quiet about important things, talk to yourself in the mirror some time, say the truth. Yell the truth to yourself, when no one is listening. See how good it feels?
We are now at a point of transformation with this company. But this is not something to fear, it is something to celebrate. Because I come to you tonight, looking out at the dark Miami skyline, not only with a challenge. I come to you with answers too.
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
U.S. Attorneys Resources U.S. Attorneys' Manual Criminal Resource Manual CRM 1500-1999 Criminal Resource Manual 1901-1999
1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses
Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
Alien Smuggling -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing that a person is an alien, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien.
Domestic Transporting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.
Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.
Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.
Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.
Bringing Aliens to the United States -- Subsection 1324(a)(2) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), enacted on September 30, 1996, added a new 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(3)(A) which makes it an offense for any person, during any 12-month period, to knowingly hire at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that these individuals are unauthorized aliens. See this Manual at 1908 (unlawful employment of aliens).
Unit of Prosecution -- With regard to offenses defined in subsections 1324(a)(1)(A)(i)-(v), (alien smuggling, domestic transporting, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or conspiracy/aiding or abetting) each alien with respect to whom a violation occurs constitutes a unit of prosecution. Prior to enactment of the IIRIRA, the unit of prosecution for violations of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(2) was each transaction, regardless of the number of aliens involved. However, the unit of prosecution is now based on each alien in respect to whom a violation occurs.
Knowledge -- Prosecutions for alien smuggling, 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) require proof that defendant knew th
8 U.S. Code 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
(a) Criminal penalties (1) (A) Any person who—
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v) (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts, shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
Nancy Sinatra tweeted that "the murderous members of the NRA should face a firing squad."
Is that extremist? Should she be sanctioned?
Kenneth Storey, a sociology professor, tweeted: “I dont believe in instant Karma but this kinda feels like it for Texas. Hopefully this will help them realize the GOP doesnt care about them.”
He lost his job for this "extremist" tweet.
In an 8-page document, entitled "Settling Scores with Germany," and posted on the Internet, a radical Islamist, Abu Assad al-Almani, has called for bombings and assassinations in Germany after it emerged that the actor who plays Mohammed in the anti-Islam movie was allegedly German.
Was the anti-Islam movie extremist or was the posting or both?
United States Law - 15 U.S.C. 6(IX)(260-7) Time zones and daylight saving time United States Code Title 15 - Commerce and Trade Chapter 6 - Weights and Measures and Standard Time Subchapter IX - Standard Time
About 4 million kids are born in the US every year. The distribution of birthdays is probably not uniform, but 4M / 365 is about 11,000 kids per day, give or take. Birth DATE includes the year you're born, so you probably don't share a birthdate (vs birthday) with millions of Americans. You might share a birthday with something close to 1M Americans, given US population is about 325 million (325 million / 365 is about 890,000).
Worldwide population is about 7.6B, so you probably have a common birthday with some 20M people. World population increase is about 83M per year, so about 225K people worldwide share a birthdate.
I've got no problem with most of this. But with automatic registration--provided it is for citizens only--you'd still need to verify that the person voting is a) who they say they are, and b) legally a resident of the district in which they are voting. Voter registration is just as much about swearing under penalty of perjury that you live at the address provided and are thus in a particular district, e.g., for House of Representatives or statehouse or city council elections as it is about "signing up to vote". There is also the notion of one person one vote, so there should be something in any system that prevents someone from voting in multiple districts (or even multiple states, for federal elections).
If they passed a law that says "On the day following the next Presidential election, all voter registrations within the state shall be deemed void, the voter roles will be purged, and all eligible voters will need to re-register; all eligible voters will have 364 days in which to register before then next state elections."
This would, I'd be willing to bet, STILL be claimed to "disproportionately affect people of color".
"It doesn't cause riots (because most white people assume the white youth did something stupid, like fight with the cop or try to grab his gun)"
Odd, because i you take the word white out of the sentence, I think it's still true. In fact, I think that most of the people killed by cops did the most stupid thing they could do: pointed a gun at a cop.
The headline cases are only those where a white cops shoots a black man. Never see much when a white cop shoots a white guy, or a black cops shots a black guy, or a black cop shoots a white guy. Those don't fit the "all cops are racist murderers" narrative pushed by BLM.
For example, there has been virtually no media coverage of the situation and whites have not rioted after the verdict in the Derrick Stafford trial (and his partner Norris Greenhouse). Stafford and Green are the two black cops who shot at an unarmed white man with his hands raised (the video shows) and killed his 6-year old autistic son in the process.
"Video from a police officer’s body camera shows the father, Christopher Few, had his hands raised inside his vehicle while the two deputies collectively fired 18 shots. At least four of those bullets tore into Jeremy, who died within minutes."
"Stafford testified Friday that he shot at the car because he feared Few was going to back up and hit the other deputy, Norris Greenhouse Jr.
“I felt I had no choice but to save Norris. That is the only reason I fired my weapon,” Stafford said.
"Jurors heard testimony that Stafford fired 14 shots from his semi-automatic pistol. Stafford said Greenhouse stumbled and fell to the ground as he tried to back away from Few’s car.
"Stafford and Greenhouse are black. Few is white, and so was his son.
"Before the shooting, Stafford and Greenhouse both had been sued over claims they had used excessive force or neglected their duties as police officers. The Marksville Police Department suspended Stafford after his indictment on rape charges in 2011, but reinstated him after prosecutors dismissed the charges.
That's not to say that there's not steroid-pumped, twitchy cops ready to shoot dogs or people at the drop of a hat, who are probably inclined to profile young black men (per FBI statistics indicating huge skew in rates at which young black men commit violent crimes) and hence are likely to be wrong somewhat more often in their dealing with young black men.
Washington Post:
Police have shot and killed a young black man (ages 18 to 29) — such as Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. —175 times since January 2015; 24 of them were unarmed. Over that same period, police have shot and killed 172 young white men, 18 of whom were unarmed. Once again, while in raw numbers there were similar totals of white and black victims, blacks were killed at rates disproportionate to their percentage of the U.S. population. Of all of the unarmed people shot and killed by police in 2015, 40 percent of them were black men, even though black men make up just 6 percent of the nation’s population.
Slashdot Mirror
Had one, not fun.
A few years ago I had a bad retinal detachment that was treated first with a gas bubble injected into my eye to push the torn flap back into place, followed up by laser treatments to sorta weld the retina back into place.
Sitting in the chair with the eye surgeon coming at me with a large needle and saying "Don't move"...not fun. Fortunately they did put some numbing drops in the eye first, but I could still see it coming (with the other eye).
The obvious answer.
Yeah, because Islam is a religion of peace. And Brutus is an honorable man.
A wise man learns from other people's mistakes.
"This is also a cheap insurance and lazy American problem because proper preventative care is likely the leading cause of all healthcare use in the USA."
Upwards of 20% of all US health care expenditures are related to complications from smoking.
Another 20% or so is related to complications from obesity.
30% of all Medicare expenditures are attributed to the 5% of beneficiaries that die each year, with 1/3 of that cost occurring in the last month of life.
First question on USDA questionaire:
Which of these statements best describes the food eaten in your household in the last 12
months: —enough of the kinds of food (I/we) want to eat; —enough, but not always the
kinds of food (I/we) want; —sometimes not enough to eat; or, —often not enough to eat?
[1] Enough of the kinds of food we want to eat
[2] Enough but not always the kinds of food we want
[3] Sometimes not enough to eat
[4] Often not enough to eat
[ ] DK or Refused
Most of the questions that follow include some sort of "because there wasn't enough money for food?" or " but you just couldn't afford more food?"
Of course, the questionnaire never questions WHY there wasn't enough money for food, so it is impossible to distinguish the "deserving poor" from the meth addicts who blew all their money on meth. Or for that matter, from people who simply spend some portion of their income on cigarettes, beer, tattoos, TVs, lottery tickets...people who could afford food for their families if they made food a priority over minor vices and entertainment.
No the others represent crimes illegal aliens can also commit. "Anyone who...knowingly transports"...one illegal drives another known illegal around? "Anyone who....harbors"...one illegal rent a room to other illegals?
See similar: “The Things We Think and Do Not Say: The Future of Our Business”.
There is a good bet that I will erase all of this from my laptop, and you will never read it. But if you are reading it, and you’re reading it right now, it is only because I was unable to stop. I was unable to forget the quiet questions in the hallways, when some of you, usually the younger agents, or interns, asked me on the side...
Chances are, I didn’t say much. I might have told you “it’s easy” or “you’re not working hard enough.” Chances are, I said something that you expected, maybe even wanted to hear. But it wasn’t the truth, and it wasn’t what I felt. And if you ever wondered about the drawbacks of being quiet about important things, talk to yourself in the mirror some time, say the truth. Yell the truth to yourself, when no one is listening. See how good it feels?
We are now at a point of transformation with this company. But this is not something to fear, it is something to celebrate. Because I come to you tonight, looking out at the dark Miami skyline, not only with a challenge. I come to you with answers too.
8 U.S. Code 1325 - Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
U.S. Attorneys Resources U.S. Attorneys' Manual Criminal Resource Manual CRM 1500-1999 Criminal Resource Manual 1901-1999
1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses
Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
Alien Smuggling -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing that a person is an alien, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien.
Domestic Transporting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.
Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.
Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.
Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.
Bringing Aliens to the United States -- Subsection 1324(a)(2) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), enacted on September 30, 1996, added a new 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(3)(A) which makes it an offense for any person, during any 12-month period, to knowingly hire at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that these individuals are unauthorized aliens. See this Manual at 1908 (unlawful employment of aliens).
Unit of Prosecution -- With regard to offenses defined in subsections 1324(a)(1)(A)(i)-(v), (alien smuggling, domestic transporting, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or conspiracy/aiding or abetting) each alien with respect to whom a violation occurs constitutes a unit of prosecution. Prior to enactment of the IIRIRA, the unit of prosecution for violations of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(2) was each transaction, regardless of the number of aliens involved. However, the unit of prosecution is now based on each alien in respect to whom a violation occurs.
Knowledge -- Prosecutions for alien smuggling, 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) require proof that defendant knew th
8 U.S. Code 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
(a) Criminal penalties
(1)
(A) Any person who—
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
Isn't this post a dog-whistle calling for the extermination of Evangelicals?
You also disparaged 60M American who voted for Trump.
And you tied both Evangelicals and Trump voters to Nazis by juxtaposition.
This post will have to be censored.
Nancy Sinatra tweeted that "the murderous members of the NRA should face a firing squad."
Is that extremist? Should she be sanctioned?
Kenneth Storey, a sociology professor, tweeted: “I dont believe in instant Karma but this kinda feels like it for Texas. Hopefully this will help them realize the GOP doesnt care about them.”
He lost his job for this "extremist" tweet.
In an 8-page document, entitled "Settling Scores with Germany," and posted on the Internet, a radical Islamist, Abu Assad al-Almani, has called for bombings and assassinations in Germany after it emerged that the actor who plays Mohammed in the anti-Islam movie was allegedly German.
Was the anti-Islam movie extremist or was the posting or both?
Who decides what meets the requirements?
It's ok. No one in their right mind would disagree with YOUR assessment of whether something is "extremist", or "hate speech".
Got it.
Can anyone say "false dichotomy"? I knew you could.
"daylight saving time" is specified in the US law
United States Law - 15 U.S.C. 6(IX)(260-7)
Time zones and daylight saving time
United States Code
Title 15 - Commerce and Trade
Chapter 6 - Weights and Measures and Standard Time
Subchapter IX - Standard Time
And of course..."I gonna axe Bob to..." No you'll "ask" him.
In the Idiocracy future.
Hey, it's what's on my TV when I wake up after I fall asleep during Adult Swim.
I forgot that so many slashdotters are named Anonymous Coward...
About 4 million kids are born in the US every year. The distribution of birthdays is probably not uniform, but 4M / 365 is about 11,000 kids per day, give or take. Birth DATE includes the year you're born, so you probably don't share a birthdate (vs birthday) with millions of Americans. You might share a birthday with something close to 1M Americans, given US population is about 325 million (325 million / 365 is about 890,000).
Worldwide population is about 7.6B, so you probably have a common birthday with some 20M people. World population increase is about 83M per year, so about 225K people worldwide share a birthdate.
I've got no problem with most of this. But with automatic registration--provided it is for citizens only--you'd still need to verify that the person voting is a) who they say they are, and b) legally a resident of the district in which they are voting. Voter registration is just as much about swearing under penalty of perjury that you live at the address provided and are thus in a particular district, e.g., for House of Representatives or statehouse or city council elections as it is about "signing up to vote". There is also the notion of one person one vote, so there should be something in any system that prevents someone from voting in multiple districts (or even multiple states, for federal elections).
If they passed a law that says "On the day following the next Presidential election, all voter registrations within the state shall be deemed void, the voter roles will be purged, and all eligible voters will need to re-register; all eligible voters will have 364 days in which to register before then next state elections."
This would, I'd be willing to bet, STILL be claimed to "disproportionately affect people of color".
and all those other drives at the IRS. And no backups of the emails from Lerner to staff?
You're right, certainly suspiciously bad timing.
And I won't even bother to mention all the emails deleted from Sec. Clinton's home-brewed email system...
"It doesn't cause riots (because most white people assume the white youth did something stupid, like fight with the cop or try to grab his gun)"
Odd, because i you take the word white out of the sentence, I think it's still true. In fact, I think that most of the people killed by cops did the most stupid thing they could do: pointed a gun at a cop.
The headline cases are only those where a white cops shoots a black man. Never see much when a white cop shoots a white guy, or a black cops shots a black guy, or a black cop shoots a white guy. Those don't fit the "all cops are racist murderers" narrative pushed by BLM.
For example, there has been virtually no media coverage of the situation and whites have not rioted after the verdict in the Derrick Stafford trial (and his partner Norris Greenhouse). Stafford and Green are the two black cops who shot at an unarmed white man with his hands raised (the video shows) and killed his 6-year old autistic son in the process.
http://nypost.com/2017/03/25/c...
"Video from a police officer’s body camera shows the father, Christopher Few, had his hands raised inside his vehicle while the two deputies collectively fired 18 shots. At least four of those bullets tore into Jeremy, who died within minutes."
"Stafford testified Friday that he shot at the car because he feared Few was going to back up and hit the other deputy, Norris Greenhouse Jr.
“I felt I had no choice but to save Norris. That is the only reason I fired my weapon,” Stafford said.
"Jurors heard testimony that Stafford fired 14 shots from his semi-automatic pistol. Stafford said Greenhouse stumbled and fell to the ground as he tried to back away from Few’s car.
"Stafford and Greenhouse are black. Few is white, and so was his son.
"Before the shooting, Stafford and Greenhouse both had been sued over claims they had used excessive force or neglected their duties as police officers. The Marksville Police Department suspended Stafford after his indictment on rape charges in 2011, but reinstated him after prosecutors dismissed the charges.
That's not to say that there's not steroid-pumped, twitchy cops ready to shoot dogs or people at the drop of a hat, who are probably inclined to profile young black men (per FBI statistics indicating huge skew in rates at which young black men commit violent crimes) and hence are likely to be wrong somewhat more often in their dealing with young black men.
Washington Post:
Police have shot and killed a young black man (ages 18 to 29) — such as Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. —175 times since January 2015; 24 of them were unarmed. Over that same period, police have shot and killed 172 young white men, 18 of whom were unarmed. Once again, while in raw numbers there were similar totals of white and black victims, blacks were killed at rates disproportionate to their percentage of the U.S. population. Of all of the unarmed people shot and killed by police in 2015, 40 percent of them were black men, even though black men make up just 6 percent of the nation’s population.