You do know that despite Trumps comments, the vetting process currently takes an average of several years.
You mean like those 800 people who were in the US and "mistakenly" granted US citizenship? Or the illegals and their supporters who are simply bottom feeding pieces of shit.
and have shorter lifetimes than solid state electronics.
Going to dispute that one based on my own personal experience. I have a 1925 radio(can't remember who it was made by), beautiful piece of work. Maple case, cherry wood veneer, it is of course all tubes(mix of amplified tubes and non-amped), uses lead solder, has the wiring diagram on the back of the case written in pencil, the person putting it together was smart enough to use wire colours in particular orders and is signed by the person who built it. That in itself is unusual, since a lot of the people who did it just went wild and threw them together half-haphazardly. The wires of course were the state-of-the-art at the time, either cotton-asbestos weave or cotton-rubberized-asbestos weave with a asbestos weaved heat covers when they ran past the tubes. That thing is still going strong nearly 100 years later with the original tubes in it, I use it for a few hours every day just because I enjoy it.
I believe my great grandfather said that he paid $30(around $400 in today's cash) for it at the time.
Sorry, you can't use successful and Wu in the same sentence. FYI even her buddies(Quinn, et.al) knew that Wu was so batshit insane that they cut them off from the SJW circle-jerk and even people like K.Cross(you might note from Sarkeesian fame) who was once Sarkeesians handler, washed their hands of Wu after trying to deal with them. The only thing GG did was highlight that Wu paid for awards for their shitty title. Need background reading? Check the CON leaks. Showing that various members were out there while claiming to be anti-harassment, and instead were harassing and/or doxing them. That's the same organization btw that had a member sexually harassing 20+ women who went to them for help. Nice projection as always from the anti-GG side.
The fact that she's a nice young woman probably helped... a little.
Think you mean a lot. Ask yourself how many times you've read about someone trying to get VC funding for something as shitty as this and they never showed up to dump the money on it. If you don't keep up on VC crap, or don't have friends with an interest in it, you probably don't know what I'm talking about. But you can find plenty on websites that cater to VC's, and some of them are also pushing the "it's women, throw money at them" type of clickbait articles. Keep in mind that SV and VC culture currently has a big push on the "but it's womens, so throw money at it" just like other sectors of society(programers, IT, government and pretty much anything except hard labor jobs or trades) in order to get more women in it. Sometimes going as far as placing people who are incompetent into those jobs for the sake of diversity and everyone likely has a story on that one. You also can't forget the big push on the "we need more womens, because if we don't it's sexist" BS that the media and various marxist feminist organizations have been pushing the last ~5 years either.
This stuff along with the current state of the economy though is drying up not only for this type of BS, but general BS scams in general. Which is good, but I've seen at least 4 articles in the last 6mo saying something along the lines of "funding is drying up, help the women with this project!" The project of course is usually so scam ridden even laymen can look and go NOPE.
And where are you going to get the power? Green energy isn't going to fit the bill. Environmentalists whine on anything from natural gas to nuclear. If you go the nuclear route, those plants still won't be online in 20 years(it takes on average 20-25 years to build a nuke plant) due to the environmental laws. Hell it takes upwards of 15 years just to build a NG plant in most of the western world.
Could it be they get more positive press because they are doing more positive things?
Sure, trying to ban speech is positive. Trying to remove or restrict constitutional freedoms is positive too right? Trying to impose various forms of censorship against wrong-think, also very positive...
I can think of a couple of dozen cases in just the last year with either democrats or left-aligned groups pushing all of that. There was a case just a few days ago with a democrat aligned group pushing for the censoring of Drudge claiming the site has "too much influence" never mind it's an aggregate news source that posts media from all political leanings.
Difference is, you can probably get an ID in those places easily. The government probably issues you one for free. That doesn't happen in the US.
I can get a US drivers license in 40 minutes from the DMV in Florida no less. I should know, a few years ago I had my wallet stolen and all my ID. The only things I had were a Florida bill for my phone and a bill from Ontario(not with my current address)--NO picture ID, I walked in and had the entire thing done the same day, temporary full permit done and got a full FL permit in a week.
That was actually faster then getting my ID replaced in Ontario, including the affirmation under oath I needed at the police service for various replacement ID. The 3 week wait and dickering to get my OHIP card replaced, the 2mo wait for replacement credit cards.
Kinda young? Going by your uid, you should remember it. Religious nuts were expunged from the party and conservative movement, they get lip service these days but that's about it.
They wanted to require ID's for age check, not outright ban. And many on the right were interested in that also....
Jack Thompson wanted ID checks, both Clinton and Gore wanted them outright banned. You can even find the part where the electorate turned against them, and they softened their stance. Then there were the multiple attempts by left-wing groups and left-wing politicians trying to get violent video games banned and one case that went to the SCC affirming them as an artistic medium, and thus protected under the 1st amendment. What amuses me to no end is that one of the most vocal political voices on the left to ban them was arrested a couple of years ago for weapons smuggling and weapons trafficking.
Except where the claim that the "most educated people" were smart and don't fall in line with that. Especially stuff like GMO, modern farming practices, vaccines are all protested mainly by left-wing groups. Some of them also include big environmental groups that are trumpeted as being extremely knowledgeable on said subjects. But are more then happy to let millions of people starve to make themselves feel good.
We have that in Canada, it's not working. In fact it's so bad in some native areas that they're as corrupt and broken as police forces in 3rd world countries. Going by your sig, I'm guessing you're in the US. The police forces in the US use a triangle system, much like the military(policing is after all structured on the military including ranks and organizational status). The chief is the most important, makes all the decisions and everything is filtered down through to the guys at the very bottom. The policing model used in Canada(except the RCMP) is an inverse triangle. Meaning the rank and file constable(regular cop) is the most important and is given wide operational leeway to do what they have to do to solve a problem. Things filter up from him through his sgt., staff sgt., inspectors to the chief.
Then what, exactly, is your proposed solution? If I had a dime for every time I heard, "It's a family structure problem," I'd have a lot of dimes. But what is the follow-up sentence? Always: Nothing at all.
Proposed solution? That's easy. You have to be invested to have a family. The whole "single parent, drop them off on someone elses lap to raise them for the formative years of life" has to come to an end. It's not a nurturing environment, there's plenty of studies that show that parents taking care of their children offer the best chances of success, decreases the penchant for criminality and increases school success. But then you've got the yahoos who will claim that parenting is bad and should be looked at by the state. And in the same breath claim that reading to children gives them an unfair advantage. So, children who are in two parent households need to have them broken to give those single-parent families the same advantage. Note the similar problems across the western world with single parent households and an increase in youth crime and lack of school performance for example. General crime is decreasing, youth crime is increasing, up by 30% in the last 20 years and violent youth crime is up 25% countering the 25% trend over the last 30 years in the 20-55 range. The only case where this really isn't happening across western countries, is Japan(if you want to count it as a western country) where there's a fundamental desire not to have any children at all among both men and women.
This isn't rocket surgery. I don't care if it's two guys, two women, or two people who call themselves apache helicopters as long as there's a proper and stable environment, which is the key thing.
Trusting huffington post is like trusting mediamatters to not take something out of context in order to try painting an agenda. It's only a step above gawker and a small one.
Politifact is biased, it's owned and operated by a newspaper(Tampa Bay Times), that is not only in the tank for Hillary, but openly endorsed her. That means it's a partisan organization, and not independent. They much like snopes will turn around and claim something is half-true, or not true at all when it's expedient to do so because it doesn't fit their agenda. Seriously, if you can't see this you're simply unwilling to question something because it fits your own agenda. Especially if someone like me who is a political outsider and non-US citizen can find the facts that are contrary in many of their cases.
Personally, I still like her "under sniper fire" BS...while she was receiving a bouquet of flowers.
I'll take a stab at this. Since never. You've formed a false equivalence in your head. Anti-Trump protests != fervent Hillary Clinton supporters. At least not always. I realize that the choice SEEMS binary because of our flawed electoral system, but it's not. People can be extremely opposed to Donald Trump's message and yet still be extremely opposed to Hillary Clinton's practices. They may end up voting in a binary way, but please stop with this "us vs them" mentality. It does everyone, including you and the side you support, a disservice.
FYI: Not a US citizen, can't vote in the US, don't live in the US. Your basic idea on false equivalence falls flat on it's face in just that. Hillary just pulled a Romney with the "binders full of women" on her deplorables(and alt-right stuff) remark. And just pulled a Bush 1 on her "pepe the frog is racist" crap. The fact that hardcore democrats fall in line with this is no different then either case as to why they weren't elected, or elected for a second term. And considering the number of articles from the press on the "alt-right" BS, it seems that not only is the press pulling an "all in" but many of her hardcore supporters are. All the while, they just pushed those who lean slightly democrat, or are independents right into the Trump camp and don't even realize it. In fact they're doubling down on it.
Hell the Clinton camp came out and re-affirmed Hillary's deplorables comment after she said well maybe it wasn't a good idea.
Asians are Schrodinger's minority. Sometimes oppressed, sometimes not, sometimes they're incompetent and need help, sometimes not. It all depends on whoever is pushing the agenda and if it helps them.
That's probably because education makes one less conservative in general, and most reporters are well-educated.
If you have a good education, you are less likely to believe climate change is a scientific conspiracy, or that the world is 6k years old, for example.
It'd be really good if the partisan hacks grew up at one point and realize that's not actually true. Some of the most ignorant people I've ever met were very well educated and claimed they were worldly. I'm sure you're going but, but that's just your viewpoint! Really, ask yourself how many well educated people you know who are completely ignorant on the basic things that your average high-school or tradesman knows off the top of their head. You can also read this if you're bored.
And due to your critical thinking skills, you learn to actually check the Bible to see if homosexuality is condemned more often than greed & gluttony rather than just accept a pastor's weighting.
Then again, the left(in general) has a serious problem with those and "social justice" don't they? If you have to retreat to your safe spaces every time someone says something that's contrary to your worldview and you need to ban speech in order to push your point of view, perhaps they need to get their shit together like conservatives did and get rid of the extremists. Oh, I'm sure you're going but-hur-dur conservatives never did that. And here's that fancy reminder that they did, right through the 90's and 00's. The left on the otherhand decided to embrace people like Hillary, Merkel, and so on who are pushing authoritarian agendas, wanting to ban things on the internet that have viewpoints contrary to their opinions. Remember it was Hillary and Tipper Gore that wanted to ban "rap music" and "video games" not people on the right. Much like it is today with social media, and them banning conservatives and other people who have view points contrary to what those platforms consider acceptable. It's those same people on the left that are pushing for no-platform policies, and claiming that men can't talk about reproductive rights in any form.
1. Minority voters are disproportionately unlikely to have an existing photo ID (say, a driver's license.) 2. Once enacted, states with Voter ID laws have a habit of erecting roadblocks to make it harder to get them if you live in areas with high minority populations. For example, closing offices that issue driver's licenses. 3. If you've never had ID, it can be - depending on your situation - difficult to meet the criteria for obtaining ID, requiring the gathering of paperwork that most people don't actually keep, and in some cases is - in practice - impossible to obtain.
Really? Just going to say it, people who are against voter ID are insane, in the worst case I'd call you anti-democratic. Even us people in "liberal Canada" and those "ultra liberal" people in Norway, Germany and Denmark have mandatory requirements for voter ID. FYI, voter ID doesn't mean picture ID either. So stop pulling bullshit out of your ass. Seriously, get your fucking shit in order and stop blocking it. If you don't even have two items listed in the accepted section that we use in Canada, you don't fucking exist, and know zero people. Since you can file for an affirmation under oath from a friend. Voter ID isn't racist, it's fundamental to a secure democracy. Hell you can't get really can't government benefits of in the US without some form of ID.
What are you talking about? Every media outlet except FOX is sucking at Hillary's big toes, and even at times FOX is sucking her toes and licking them. Whether it be in the US or Canada or the bloody UK. Hell NBC deleted a segment from a broadcast last night when Bill Clinton said Hillary "Frequently fainted" sorry I mean "occasionally fainted" that of course saved them all of 1.5 seconds from their 1hr broadcast time limit, which was their excuse. Nearly every site is sucking at her toes. Even on reddit from/r/politics to/r/news to/r/worldnews is deleting anti-Hillary stories, even when they use the exact title.
...which leads one to ask why that isn't also happening?
Same reason that the FBI refused to turn over all documents to an internal committee when Obama didn't declare executive privilege? The same reason why the IRS ran a campaign against tea party groups and people resigned over it, but no charges were laid? It's heavy with insiders, and there is likely dirt on them *not* to do anything against the DNC or Hillary.
But as to why there hasn't been any leaks from the RNC? Combination of 3 things just my guess: Better security, last story I saw on the CBC said there'd been a dozen attempts all unsuccessful. Someone really has a hate-on for Hillary after the last batch showed the DNC throwing in for her against their own rules. The third is she's such an establishment candidate that is working against her own party and liberal-leaning ideas, that no fucks are given at all.
Since when did Hillary supporters decide to bury their head in the sand over anything she does, while screaming the pepe the frog is a racist meme(never mind that they were masterfully trolled over it), and went so far as to write up hit pieces on it.
From an outsiders perspective on Clinton, she's managed to pull both a "How do you do fellow kids" and "I'm batshit insane" all in one week.
You're right, it's a poverty issue but that hits minorities much harder. The problem continues to get worse because we cannot address the disparity in schooling for wealthy districts vs poor districts.
And I don't have an answer, so I'm not trying to play this off as if it's an easy fix. My personal experience with being a mentor shows me the lack of emphasis poor families typically put on education, the parents pass along their negative attitudes to their kids.
We've been "fighting poverty" for nearly 90 years at this point. But you're right it's a harder problem, but there's a lot of simple fixes that can be found. Those are mainly as partially pointed out, education for one. The other is family structure. You can even plot the downward trend when blacks(in the US) started abandoning family structures and single parent welfare households became the norm. If there isn't a strong family structure, everything else simply causes a self-fulfilling problem. No one pushing for better education, poorer education. Support for gangs/criminality, generational and cyclical self-reinforcing negative culture. Canada sees the same thing with native culture and again you can plot out nearly to the year it started to happen. The two groups are fundamentally different, but the solution that government has applied has been the same: Take kids away from their families(in the past), or apply forced abortions/eugenics, break up families, then throw money at the problem for decades and hope it goes away. This has been followed by openly supporting "alternative" schooling that has no structure on focused learning and now you've got the start of a collapse of an entire segment of the population. That know next to nothing, feel they have nothing they can do, and look for what everyone else is doing to survive.
The same solution has been used for education, simply throw more money at it. Now we're seeing the same alternative types of schooling happen in the general population of people, funding in many cases has never been higher. And grades, basic skills are falling through the floor so hard that it's scary. Here in Ontario for instance, over 50% of children failed the basic math and literacy testing for grade 6(even in higher ed like high school). In the 1980's when I was in school that number was around 20%, and being held back a year for failing a single subject was the norm. You can read a couple of articles here on it if you want.
I'm sure some retard is going to go hur-dur-dur racism or something. But if you're unwilling to look at the actual problems and start crying "racist" every time someone points out what the actual problems are, they're never going to be fixed. And they're only going to get worse.
Slashdot Mirror
FYI the media is lying to you. He never used racial profiling, he said profiling. CNN started it, NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, the papers(wapo, etc) all ran with it.
You do know that despite Trumps comments, the vetting process currently takes an average of several years.
You mean like those 800 people who were in the US and "mistakenly" granted US citizenship? Or the illegals and their supporters who are simply bottom feeding pieces of shit.
and have shorter lifetimes than solid state electronics.
Going to dispute that one based on my own personal experience. I have a 1925 radio(can't remember who it was made by), beautiful piece of work. Maple case, cherry wood veneer, it is of course all tubes(mix of amplified tubes and non-amped), uses lead solder, has the wiring diagram on the back of the case written in pencil, the person putting it together was smart enough to use wire colours in particular orders and is signed by the person who built it. That in itself is unusual, since a lot of the people who did it just went wild and threw them together half-haphazardly. The wires of course were the state-of-the-art at the time, either cotton-asbestos weave or cotton-rubberized-asbestos weave with a asbestos weaved heat covers when they ran past the tubes. That thing is still going strong nearly 100 years later with the original tubes in it, I use it for a few hours every day just because I enjoy it.
I believe my great grandfather said that he paid $30(around $400 in today's cash) for it at the time.
Sorry, you can't use successful and Wu in the same sentence. FYI even her buddies(Quinn, et.al) knew that Wu was so batshit insane that they cut them off from the SJW circle-jerk and even people like K.Cross(you might note from Sarkeesian fame) who was once Sarkeesians handler, washed their hands of Wu after trying to deal with them. The only thing GG did was highlight that Wu paid for awards for their shitty title. Need background reading? Check the CON leaks. Showing that various members were out there while claiming to be anti-harassment, and instead were harassing and/or doxing them. That's the same organization btw that had a member sexually harassing 20+ women who went to them for help. Nice projection as always from the anti-GG side.
The fact that she's a nice young woman probably helped... a little.
Think you mean a lot. Ask yourself how many times you've read about someone trying to get VC funding for something as shitty as this and they never showed up to dump the money on it. If you don't keep up on VC crap, or don't have friends with an interest in it, you probably don't know what I'm talking about. But you can find plenty on websites that cater to VC's, and some of them are also pushing the "it's women, throw money at them" type of clickbait articles. Keep in mind that SV and VC culture currently has a big push on the "but it's womens, so throw money at it" just like other sectors of society(programers, IT, government and pretty much anything except hard labor jobs or trades) in order to get more women in it. Sometimes going as far as placing people who are incompetent into those jobs for the sake of diversity and everyone likely has a story on that one. You also can't forget the big push on the "we need more womens, because if we don't it's sexist" BS that the media and various marxist feminist organizations have been pushing the last ~5 years either.
This stuff along with the current state of the economy though is drying up not only for this type of BS, but general BS scams in general. Which is good, but I've seen at least 4 articles in the last 6mo saying something along the lines of "funding is drying up, help the women with this project!" The project of course is usually so scam ridden even laymen can look and go NOPE.
And where are you going to get the power? Green energy isn't going to fit the bill. Environmentalists whine on anything from natural gas to nuclear. If you go the nuclear route, those plants still won't be online in 20 years(it takes on average 20-25 years to build a nuke plant) due to the environmental laws. Hell it takes upwards of 15 years just to build a NG plant in most of the western world.
Putting a big black square over your face in Paint is the only surefire method.
Only works if you're applying it to the same layer. Otherwise some programs will save it as a new layer, making it trivial to uncover and that's that.
Could it be they get more positive press because they are doing more positive things?
Sure, trying to ban speech is positive. Trying to remove or restrict constitutional freedoms is positive too right? Trying to impose various forms of censorship against wrong-think, also very positive...
I can think of a couple of dozen cases in just the last year with either democrats or left-aligned groups pushing all of that. There was a case just a few days ago with a democrat aligned group pushing for the censoring of Drudge claiming the site has "too much influence" never mind it's an aggregate news source that posts media from all political leanings.
Difference is, you can probably get an ID in those places easily. The government probably issues you one for free. That doesn't happen in the US.
I can get a US drivers license in 40 minutes from the DMV in Florida no less. I should know, a few years ago I had my wallet stolen and all my ID. The only things I had were a Florida bill for my phone and a bill from Ontario(not with my current address)--NO picture ID, I walked in and had the entire thing done the same day, temporary full permit done and got a full FL permit in a week.
That was actually faster then getting my ID replaced in Ontario, including the affirmation under oath I needed at the police service for various replacement ID. The 3 week wait and dickering to get my OHIP card replaced, the 2mo wait for replacement credit cards.
Please elaborate.
Kinda young? Going by your uid, you should remember it. Religious nuts were expunged from the party and conservative movement, they get lip service these days but that's about it.
They wanted to require ID's for age check, not outright ban. And many on the right were interested in that also. ...
Jack Thompson wanted ID checks, both Clinton and Gore wanted them outright banned. You can even find the part where the electorate turned against them, and they softened their stance. Then there were the multiple attempts by left-wing groups and left-wing politicians trying to get violent video games banned and one case that went to the SCC affirming them as an artistic medium, and thus protected under the 1st amendment. What amuses me to no end is that one of the most vocal political voices on the left to ban them was arrested a couple of years ago for weapons smuggling and weapons trafficking.
Except where the claim that the "most educated people" were smart and don't fall in line with that. Especially stuff like GMO, modern farming practices, vaccines are all protested mainly by left-wing groups. Some of them also include big environmental groups that are trumpeted as being extremely knowledgeable on said subjects. But are more then happy to let millions of people starve to make themselves feel good.
We have that in Canada, it's not working. In fact it's so bad in some native areas that they're as corrupt and broken as police forces in 3rd world countries. Going by your sig, I'm guessing you're in the US. The police forces in the US use a triangle system, much like the military(policing is after all structured on the military including ranks and organizational status). The chief is the most important, makes all the decisions and everything is filtered down through to the guys at the very bottom. The policing model used in Canada(except the RCMP) is an inverse triangle. Meaning the rank and file constable(regular cop) is the most important and is given wide operational leeway to do what they have to do to solve a problem. Things filter up from him through his sgt., staff sgt., inspectors to the chief.
Then what, exactly, is your proposed solution? If I had a dime for every time I heard, "It's a family structure problem," I'd have a lot of dimes. But what is the follow-up sentence? Always: Nothing at all.
Proposed solution? That's easy. You have to be invested to have a family. The whole "single parent, drop them off on someone elses lap to raise them for the formative years of life" has to come to an end. It's not a nurturing environment, there's plenty of studies that show that parents taking care of their children offer the best chances of success, decreases the penchant for criminality and increases school success. But then you've got the yahoos who will claim that parenting is bad and should be looked at by the state. And in the same breath claim that reading to children gives them an unfair advantage. So, children who are in two parent households need to have them broken to give those single-parent families the same advantage. Note the similar problems across the western world with single parent households and an increase in youth crime and lack of school performance for example. General crime is decreasing, youth crime is increasing, up by 30% in the last 20 years and violent youth crime is up 25% countering the 25% trend over the last 30 years in the 20-55 range. The only case where this really isn't happening across western countries, is Japan(if you want to count it as a western country) where there's a fundamental desire not to have any children at all among both men and women.
This isn't rocket surgery. I don't care if it's two guys, two women, or two people who call themselves apache helicopters as long as there's a proper and stable environment, which is the key thing.
Trusting huffington post is like trusting mediamatters to not take something out of context in order to try painting an agenda. It's only a step above gawker and a small one.
Politifact is biased, it's owned and operated by a newspaper(Tampa Bay Times), that is not only in the tank for Hillary, but openly endorsed her. That means it's a partisan organization, and not independent. They much like snopes will turn around and claim something is half-true, or not true at all when it's expedient to do so because it doesn't fit their agenda. Seriously, if you can't see this you're simply unwilling to question something because it fits your own agenda. Especially if someone like me who is a political outsider and non-US citizen can find the facts that are contrary in many of their cases.
Personally, I still like her "under sniper fire" BS...while she was receiving a bouquet of flowers.
I'll take a stab at this. Since never. You've formed a false equivalence in your head. Anti-Trump protests != fervent Hillary Clinton supporters. At least not always. I realize that the choice SEEMS binary because of our flawed electoral system, but it's not. People can be extremely opposed to Donald Trump's message and yet still be extremely opposed to Hillary Clinton's practices. They may end up voting in a binary way, but please stop with this "us vs them" mentality. It does everyone, including you and the side you support, a disservice.
FYI: Not a US citizen, can't vote in the US, don't live in the US. Your basic idea on false equivalence falls flat on it's face in just that. Hillary just pulled a Romney with the "binders full of women" on her deplorables(and alt-right stuff) remark. And just pulled a Bush 1 on her "pepe the frog is racist" crap. The fact that hardcore democrats fall in line with this is no different then either case as to why they weren't elected, or elected for a second term. And considering the number of articles from the press on the "alt-right" BS, it seems that not only is the press pulling an "all in" but many of her hardcore supporters are. All the while, they just pushed those who lean slightly democrat, or are independents right into the Trump camp and don't even realize it. In fact they're doubling down on it.
Hell the Clinton camp came out and re-affirmed Hillary's deplorables comment after she said well maybe it wasn't a good idea.
Asians are Schrodinger's minority. Sometimes oppressed, sometimes not, sometimes they're incompetent and need help, sometimes not. It all depends on whoever is pushing the agenda and if it helps them.
That's probably because education makes one less conservative in general, and most reporters are well-educated.
If you have a good education, you are less likely to believe climate change is a scientific conspiracy, or that the world is 6k years old, for example.
It'd be really good if the partisan hacks grew up at one point and realize that's not actually true. Some of the most ignorant people I've ever met were very well educated and claimed they were worldly. I'm sure you're going but, but that's just your viewpoint! Really, ask yourself how many well educated people you know who are completely ignorant on the basic things that your average high-school or tradesman knows off the top of their head. You can also read this if you're bored.
And due to your critical thinking skills, you learn to actually check the Bible to see if homosexuality is condemned more often than greed & gluttony rather than just accept a pastor's weighting.
Then again, the left(in general) has a serious problem with those and "social justice" don't they? If you have to retreat to your safe spaces every time someone says something that's contrary to your worldview and you need to ban speech in order to push your point of view, perhaps they need to get their shit together like conservatives did and get rid of the extremists. Oh, I'm sure you're going but-hur-dur conservatives never did that. And here's that fancy reminder that they did, right through the 90's and 00's. The left on the otherhand decided to embrace people like Hillary, Merkel, and so on who are pushing authoritarian agendas, wanting to ban things on the internet that have viewpoints contrary to their opinions. Remember it was Hillary and Tipper Gore that wanted to ban "rap music" and "video games" not people on the right. Much like it is today with social media, and them banning conservatives and other people who have view points contrary to what those platforms consider acceptable. It's those same people on the left that are pushing for no-platform policies, and claiming that men can't talk about reproductive rights in any form.
1. Minority voters are disproportionately unlikely to have an existing photo ID (say, a driver's license.)
2. Once enacted, states with Voter ID laws have a habit of erecting roadblocks to make it harder to get them if you live in areas with high minority populations. For example, closing offices that issue driver's licenses.
3. If you've never had ID, it can be - depending on your situation - difficult to meet the criteria for obtaining ID, requiring the gathering of paperwork that most people don't actually keep, and in some cases is - in practice - impossible to obtain.
Really? Just going to say it, people who are against voter ID are insane, in the worst case I'd call you anti-democratic. Even us people in "liberal Canada" and those "ultra liberal" people in Norway, Germany and Denmark have mandatory requirements for voter ID. FYI, voter ID doesn't mean picture ID either. So stop pulling bullshit out of your ass. Seriously, get your fucking shit in order and stop blocking it. If you don't even have two items listed in the accepted section that we use in Canada, you don't fucking exist, and know zero people. Since you can file for an affirmation under oath from a friend. Voter ID isn't racist, it's fundamental to a secure democracy. Hell you can't get really can't government benefits of in the US without some form of ID.
You're basically pro-voter fraud as long as you keep pushing this BS. There are multiple cases of it happening.
There's always other problems to fix. But the sad part is, you're likely right on some level.
Wouldn't surprise me. Here's the thing on CBC editing the news earlier too. Figured I'd post it since I fucked up and posted the wrong news org, my bad.
Shh. Don't tell the partisan hacks that. They'll get upset when you show that only 7% of the US media identifies as republican. And nearly 30% identify as democrats, which is less then 1992 when nearly 45% of the media self-identified as democrats. Or that democrats get more positive press. Or that90% of reporters in the DC area AKA beltway reporters either are declared democrats or vote democrat.
What are you talking about? Every media outlet except FOX is sucking at Hillary's big toes, and even at times FOX is sucking her toes and licking them. Whether it be in the US or Canada or the bloody UK. Hell NBC deleted a segment from a broadcast last night when Bill Clinton said Hillary "Frequently fainted" sorry I mean "occasionally fainted" that of course saved them all of 1.5 seconds from their 1hr broadcast time limit, which was their excuse. Nearly every site is sucking at her toes. Even on reddit from /r/politics to /r/news to /r/worldnews is deleting anti-Hillary stories, even when they use the exact title.
...which leads one to ask why that isn't also happening?
Same reason that the FBI refused to turn over all documents to an internal committee when Obama didn't declare executive privilege? The same reason why the IRS ran a campaign against tea party groups and people resigned over it, but no charges were laid? It's heavy with insiders, and there is likely dirt on them *not* to do anything against the DNC or Hillary.
But as to why there hasn't been any leaks from the RNC? Combination of 3 things just my guess: Better security, last story I saw on the CBC said there'd been a dozen attempts all unsuccessful. Someone really has a hate-on for Hillary after the last batch showed the DNC throwing in for her against their own rules. The third is she's such an establishment candidate that is working against her own party and liberal-leaning ideas, that no fucks are given at all.
Since when did Hillary supporters decide to bury their head in the sand over anything she does, while screaming the pepe the frog is a racist meme(never mind that they were masterfully trolled over it), and went so far as to write up hit pieces on it.
From an outsiders perspective on Clinton, she's managed to pull both a "How do you do fellow kids" and "I'm batshit insane" all in one week.
You're right, it's a poverty issue but that hits minorities much harder. The problem continues to get worse because we cannot address the disparity in schooling for wealthy districts vs poor districts.
And I don't have an answer, so I'm not trying to play this off as if it's an easy fix. My personal experience with being a mentor shows me the lack of emphasis poor families typically put on education, the parents pass along their negative attitudes to their kids.
We've been "fighting poverty" for nearly 90 years at this point. But you're right it's a harder problem, but there's a lot of simple fixes that can be found. Those are mainly as partially pointed out, education for one. The other is family structure. You can even plot the downward trend when blacks(in the US) started abandoning family structures and single parent welfare households became the norm. If there isn't a strong family structure, everything else simply causes a self-fulfilling problem. No one pushing for better education, poorer education. Support for gangs/criminality, generational and cyclical self-reinforcing negative culture. Canada sees the same thing with native culture and again you can plot out nearly to the year it started to happen. The two groups are fundamentally different, but the solution that government has applied has been the same: Take kids away from their families(in the past), or apply forced abortions/eugenics, break up families, then throw money at the problem for decades and hope it goes away. This has been followed by openly supporting "alternative" schooling that has no structure on focused learning and now you've got the start of a collapse of an entire segment of the population. That know next to nothing, feel they have nothing they can do, and look for what everyone else is doing to survive.
The same solution has been used for education, simply throw more money at it. Now we're seeing the same alternative types of schooling happen in the general population of people, funding in many cases has never been higher. And grades, basic skills are falling through the floor so hard that it's scary. Here in Ontario for instance, over 50% of children failed the basic math and literacy testing for grade 6(even in higher ed like high school). In the 1980's when I was in school that number was around 20%, and being held back a year for failing a single subject was the norm. You can read a couple of articles here on it if you want.
I'm sure some retard is going to go hur-dur-dur racism or something. But if you're unwilling to look at the actual problems and start crying "racist" every time someone points out what the actual problems are, they're never going to be fixed. And they're only going to get worse.