guess what. they are (supposedly) going to be playing a separate national anthem for black people at nfl games. because nothing says unity like “separate but equal” based on skin color (a characteristic which, unless you are sammy sosa, people have no control over)

no word on any separate anthem for asians, south asians, hispanics, or native americans (ie: yellow national anthem, dark brown national anthem, brown national anthem, red national anthem etc etc)

This post was edited by excellence on Jul 15 2021 11:30am

Rosie the riveter has people thinking women didnt fight, its an american centric idea.



damn who's gonna produce that banger?



yes, i was being hyperbolic for effect.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jul 15 2021 11:31am

Having one of each race is tokenism.

I haven't seen anybody saying everybody is entitled to a 5 room house and a Tesla. Not like $15 minimum wage and universal healthcare will buy you that, and those are the most highly debated issues. Once you go way far left you end up with people thinking Tesla shouldnt exist, not saying everybody deserves a Tesla. So I'll be honest I don't think you're railing against a caricature.

National anthem said there will be no refuge for the slave, classy song.

to be fair, it was Key specifically talking about slave defectors who fought for the British, not a statement in favor of say the Fugitive Slave Act.

although, to be more fair, Key was pro slavery.

oh lookie i “gaslighted” snipa into doing history research for you skinned. or are you pro-british crown now or something???
*LAUGH OUT LOUD*

Copy paste excellence post response #3

Texas requires 2/3rds of it's members to be present. I'm not sure why that's the case. Maybe they are paranoid that all the Democrats could force quorum with only a handful of Republicans there and do some crazy stuff?

Should ballot harvesting be allowed? There are arguments for and against. But that's a discussion we should have, not hand-waved away.

It is otherwise important that elections be above reproach. Eliminating any and all safeguards because it may result in a handful of additional ballots is counter-productive if it leads to decreased public trust in the electoral process. We made a major transition to voting by mail in 2020, and it's not a surprise that allegations of fraud carried far more weight than they otherwise would have. The argument that "We don't have to look for fraud because there is no fraud" is circular, and it's obviously unacceptable in a first-world democracy. I am not aware of serious concerns re: voting fraud in Europe, and yet for the most part our European counterparts all enforce voter ID. Election integrity, especially if we're going to be voting more by mail, is paramount.

You're misunderstanding the case I made. I'm relatively agnostic on how easy or hard voting should be. But that's beside the point. The point is that going back to the voting rules which were in place from pre-2000 until 2019 cannot possibly be considered "an assault on democracy".



Regarding voting rules: I am of the opinion that every able-bodied adult should have the right to vote, but at the same time, I'm also of the opinion that it is better for society if the most stupid/ignorant/uninformed/unproductive segments of society do not exercise their right to vote at the same rate as the smarter, more informed, more politically interested. Requiring voters to put in at least some modest amount of effort to cast a ballot is a good thing imho. Since you mentioned Germany: did you guys know that Germany and pretty much all of Europe requires voter ID?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 15 2021 05:00pm