President Joe Biden

Completely true. Open season for the FBI. Plenty of video and still shots available for those that are charged with criminal trespass. A creative prosecutor may be able to spice things up with a hate crime charge.


Felony murder charges also seem in the offering for quite a few people given an officer has died.
 
Thanks for that and I appreciate your point of view. If you are a fellow PoC I totally get why it can sometimes feel that way. I've had the feeling myself at various times in my life. Those feelings are very real, and I appreciate them.

If you are not, part of your feeling is explained by 6.

I'm not a PoC.

To be clear, the systemic racism I'm talking about can be reflected in data. For example:


I totally get wanting to label non-PoC folks as part of the "wokeness" movement, but this is something I've been aware of since my childhood. For example, I remember vividly growing up in Huntington Beach in the 80s. A neighbor was selling their house. They went door to door asking everyone if we'd be ok with a black family moving into the neighborhood. While you might write that off as just one individual being racist, it clearly has roots in systemic racism. Why did they feel the need to ask? Is this something that happens regularly? If so, what is the impact on school district zoning? Can black families get into good school districts as a result? etc...

We're diverging a bit. My point is this is why I see the "protests" differently.
 
I'm not a PoC.

To be clear, the systemic racism I'm talking about can be reflected in data. For example:


I totally get wanting to label non-PoC folks as part of the "wokeness" movement, but this is something I've been aware of since my childhood. For example, I remember vividly growing up in Huntington Beach in the 80s. A neighbor was selling their house. They went door to door asking everyone if we'd be ok with a black family moving into the neighborhood. While you might write that off as just one individual being racist, it clearly has roots in systemic racism. Why did they feel the need to ask? Is this something that happens regularly? If so, what is the impact on school district zoning? Can black families get into good school districts as a result? etc...

We're diverging a bit. My point is this is why I see the "protests" differently.

When my family moved into a white suburb of Los Angeles in the early 80s, our house was TPd and certain body parts spray painted all over our house. My elder brother (in first grade) had the crap beat out of him by 5th graders and ended up in the hospital. My best friend, a Jewish boy across the street, had a cross burned on his front lawn. And when a black family moved in, they were so ostracized they left the neighborhood within 6 months. I get that (BTW, the police arrested some of the cross burners....the instigator was a Persian teen recently fled from Iran).

But America has made enormous strides as well. I'm not saying folks still aren't racist. Everyone is a little bit racist. But 1) saying the problems in these communities is about racism is an easy out....it's an easy target to point out rather than addressing the more complex sociological forces at work (which do include race....it's just not the overriding end all explanation for everything), and 2) neglects the fact that the Trump supporters have many grievances themselves. Now, you can argue that the racism concerns are > or more meritorious than the concerns of the Trump voters but: a) there's no objective way to definitively prove that (unless you believe in a divine being that so orders it), b) so what...they are still all concerns just as real to those people and c) those concerns aren't going to go away or be dropped by anyone so what's the point about arguing which one is more valid?
 
Completely true. Open season for the FBI. Plenty of video and still shots available for those that are charged with criminal trespass. A creative prosecutor may be able to spice things up with a hate crime charge.

Felony murder baby!
 
Felony murder charges also seem in the offering for quite a few people given an officer has died.

If I, an average citizen, were to encourage someone to break into my neighbor's house, and when the neighbor resisted, he was killed, I would be at least an accessory before the fact to murder, if not a murderer as well.
 
When my family moved into a white suburb of Los Angeles in the early 80s, our house was TPd and certain body parts spray painted all over our house. My elder brother (in first grade) had the crap beat out of him by 5th graders and ended up in the hospital. My best friend, a Jewish boy across the street, had a cross burned on his front lawn. And when a black family moved in, they were so ostracized they left the neighborhood within 6 months. I get that (BTW, the police arrested some of the cross burners....the instigator was a Persian teen recently fled from Iran).

But America has made enormous strides as well. I'm not saying folks still aren't racist. Everyone is a little bit racist. But 1) saying the problems in these communities is about racism is an easy out....it's an easy target to point out rather than addressing the more complex sociological forces at work (which do include race....it's just not the overriding end all explanation for everything), and 2) neglects the fact that the Trump supporters have many grievances themselves. Now, you can argue that the racism concerns are > or more meritorious than the concerns of the Trump voters but: a) there's no objective way to definitively prove that (unless you believe in a divine being that so orders it), b) so what...they are still all concerns just as real to those people and c) those concerns aren't going to go away or be dropped by anyone so what's the point about arguing which one is more valid?

Grace-Karen claims: (1) racism isn’t that bad these days, so they should just get over it; (2) no one should hold magats accountable for their racism because how do you really know what’s in their hearts anyway, even if they’re parading around the Capitol with a confederate flag, cops murdering a black woman sleeping in her bed or a kid holding a bag of chips, or whining about how their favorite Bull Conner and Jefferson Davis statutes should be protected as “a part of history”; (3) magats have a lot of legitimate grievances to explain why they tried to overthrow the government of the U.S. I mean, life is certainly hard when you can’t stop someone else from having an abortion or gay people from marrying each other. And how dare someone get in the way of their right to a high capacity magazine for their assault rifle and therefore impede their right to give the MI governor and AG what’s coming to them. The bodies of 30 dead 1st graders in Sandy Hook smells like, well, freedom doesn’t it? I feel so bad for the magats. How dare people encroach on their religion by practicing a different one, am I right?

I don’t know who’s worse, the magats or their apologists.
 
When my family moved into a white suburb of Los Angeles in the early 80s, our house was TPd and certain body parts spray painted all over our house. My elder brother (in first grade) had the crap beat out of him by 5th graders and ended up in the hospital. My best friend, a Jewish boy across the street, had a cross burned on his front lawn. And when a black family moved in, they were so ostracized they left the neighborhood within 6 months. I get that (BTW, the police arrested some of the cross burners....the instigator was a Persian teen recently fled from Iran).

But America has made enormous strides as well. I'm not saying folks still aren't racist. Everyone is a little bit racist. But 1) saying the problems in these communities is about racism is an easy out....it's an easy target to point out rather than addressing the more complex sociological forces at work (which do include race....it's just not the overriding end all explanation for everything), and 2) neglects the fact that the Trump supporters have many grievances themselves. Now, you can argue that the racism concerns are > or more meritorious than the concerns of the Trump voters but: a) there's no objective way to definitively prove that (unless you believe in a divine being that so orders it), b) so what...they are still all concerns just as real to those people and c) those concerns aren't going to go away or be dropped by anyone so what's the point about arguing which one is more valid?

Sorry you had you deal with that growing up. Southern California, specifically Orange County, in the 80s was hardly the panacea for racial tolerance. Haven't lived there since the early 90s, so I have no idea what it's like now. But this article touches on some of the things I remember:


I think we can agree to disagree on how much progress we've made as a country. I don't think the data supports your assertion. I would love to be proven wrong here.

Like I said, I have empathy for the MAGA/Qanon folks, but probably not for the reasons one might expect. I have zero empathy for them protesting based on the false narrative around fraudulent election results. That's something Trump leveraged to get them riled up; something he had been angling for many months prior to the election. I do have empathy for them because their needs have not been met over the years. Neither democrat or republican has helped them. Trump leveraged that anger. Just as much as he and Reagan leveraged the religious right. Again, this goes back to why I think people need to look at politicians and discern if the grift is on or not.
 
Reagan, like Trump, is just a symptom. An even bigger symptom was Bill Clinton. Their policies hurried this along but they are just riding certain trends in American society that unfolded since Vietnam/Great Society:

1. Foreign Wars. The Cold War and Reagan managed to unite the right and the centrist left in favor of what the left calls the "military-industrial" complex. When it ended, these jobs began to collapse (see the eroding of the aircraft industry in California). But Republicans and Democrats continued to push nation building abroad which tired the American people of foreign wars.
2. Elitism. In the 50s society was a lot more mobile (at least for whites) and it was common to see a person build an industry by their bootstraps or a man to marry a secretary from another class. It's fiction, but in "Mad Men", Peggy Olsen graduates from secretarial school....now her job requires a top 20 college degree. Women began to enter the work force, and women (not wanting to throw away their effort at work) typically want to marry either someone of the same or similar status. Elites began to marry other elites, the college rat race began as colleges became gatekeepers, a society which valued technocratic experts arose. It's more likely a white woman graduating from an Ivy League school will marry an African American male graduating from such school than a white man rural farmer in Kansas. The elites have a vested interest in protecting this meritocrisy for themselves (which is why so many of us are in the youth soccer pay to play/college rat race).
3. Globalism. The elites have more in common with other elites in Hong Kong, Paris, or Moscow than a farmer in Iowa. Their concerns (on immigration, trade, monetary policy, war) are globalist. The D alliance on immigration, for example, is the rich which wants the cheap labor, and D politicians which want the vote, and the newcomers that want to bring over more friends and family or secure those who are already here. Those concerns often cut against the concerts of people lower on the economic totem pole. As society becomes more automated as well, there will be less well paying jobs at the bottom end and the pie has begun to shrink everywhere in the new globalist economy.
4. The Great Society. On the lower end of the government spectrum, the social safety net (separate and apart from arguments as to its necessity and proper structure) caused the weakening of family structures and the work ethic. It makes more rational sense for a woman with kids on welfare to go it alone than to share that pie with a husband who might be a drag on the family and throw away the money.
5. Racism. I'm a 3x minority....I don't believe America is "systemically racist"....I ascribed to the belief that everyone, regardless of skin color, is a little bit racist. But I also think there's racism out there, and it's often times the easiest reason for people to see why their lives may be in the crapper (rather than all the more complicated economic and societal stuff). And the history of America from it's founding through the civil rights movement was overwhelmingly concerned with racism and race.
6. The Collapse of Institutions. Back in Reagan's time, religion was the corner stone of the Reagan coalition. Trump just gives religion lip service, and the Mormons are uncomfortable with this new aggressive stance taken by the Republican Party. The churches, particularly the main line institutions, have collapsed. On the left, it's been replaced with wokeism/post-modernism. Other institutions as well have collapsed and been discredited. The pandemic for example has trashed the reputation of our health experts and teachers among a large segment of the population. The police are in disrepute among certain elements of the left. The press has trashed itself, and the tech industry is going down the way with it. The things which held us together are no longer there.
7. The Internet. Smashed gatekeepers to information (something which causes rage among the elites), and anonymity has led to inflammatory ways of dealing with each other.

All this to say, Trump's the dam, not the river....he's a symptom....things are going to get worse short of inspired leadership. The D reactions haven't exactly filled me with confidence, and frankly I'm not sure Biden is up to it...it would require a Lincolnesque figure. Hope I'm wrong.
Its Clinton's fault, LMFAO.

It is certainly funny how times have changed though. In Clinton's time an impeachable offense apparently was getting a BJ in the WH ... vs now ...
 
Its Clinton's fault, LMFAO.

It is certainly funny how times have changed though. In Clinton's time an impeachable offense apparently was getting a BJ in the WH ... vs now ...
Welfare reform. Specifically while it cut down on fraud it made it harder for people to get off by raising the opportunity cost of doing work.
 
Welfare reform. Specifically while it cut down on fraud it made it harder for people to get off by raising the opportunity cost of doing work.
So you think he should have vetoed the republican congress welfare reform bill a third time? I think he took what he could get esp. with an election coming up. He was always a politician first, convictions second.
 
Like I said, I have empathy for the MAGA/Qanon folks, but probably not for the reasons one might expect. I have zero empathy for them protesting based on the false narrative around fraudulent election results. That's something Trump leveraged to get them riled up

People on both sides have a bit narrow perspective on the Trump elections. Different things can be true at the same time:

1. There was election fraud. There always is but this time round there was more of an effort at it....partially because of a feeling on the left that Trump was too dangerous to leave in office and anything is justified in removing him as a result. Trump campaign has definitely shown that there was fraud such as dead people and noncitizens voting.
2. There's plenty of statistical evidence that shows the mail in ballot rejection rate (votes which are overwhelming D) was less than other elections. In some places, such as Georgia, it wasn't possible to conduct an analysis as to why because the ballots and signatures were separated. There's also some eye of the beholder type stuff going on here because no signature can ever be 100% objectively verified so it's possible biased observers were lenient on signature verification if the vote was against Trump. Pennsylvania had no such signature verification so anything went, which is why the objectors focused on Pennsylvania.
3. But again, there is always election fraud. It's not enough to show fraud, or a statistical variance. You can't just show smoke, you must show fire. You have to show that the fraud was of such magnitude that it would have made a difference. In the short span of things Trump was not able to show that, and its very likely he'll never be able to show that. The courts rightly ruled that they weren't going to overturn a democratic election results based on suspicions without proof, which the Trump campaign overwhelmingly did NOT provide. The courts also rejected some claims on the basis of standing, timeliness and some courts never got to rule before certification.
4. An election legally needs to be free. There's no evidence of any mass conspiracy by the Ds or the Biden campaign. There's been no proof shown of fraud on the magnitudes needed for a court to overturn. The Rs who objected said they wanted a commission to examine whether such fraud happen. The Ds argued that's what the courts are for.
5. Elections, however, should also be fair. Here the Trumpists have more of a point. It's been shown that the press was not objective in this at all. The pollster and tech companies have also been biased. Many of the voting rules, such as in Pennsylvania, were changed before on the grounds of pandemic and there are arguments surrounding the legality of such moves. Prior to this, the Ds impeached Trump (for reasons the Rs thought were unfounded) and then there was the entire Russiagate thing. The moderators at the debates were biased. People may dispute how many of these points are legitimate, but the Trumpists have more of a ground to complain the election wasn't "fair" v. "free".
6. The pandemic. The Trumpists argue, and there's reason to believe, that but for the pandemic Trump probably wouldn't have won. Yeah, we can say boo hoo so what growup, but how many of us have been at that game where an unfortunate unforeseen event turns the tide and how did we feel? And then there's all the concerns about lockdowns, businesses, masks, and the loss of liberties that go along with it.

None of this justifies what happened. Yes, Trump being a politician, leveraged and used them. What he did was ugly and offensive. But it's also not fair to say there were absolutely no problems with this election and the way they were conducted and the Trumpkins have nothing to be upset about.
 
So you think he should have vetoed the republican congress welfare reform bill a third time? I think he took what he could get esp. with an election coming up. He was always a politician first, convictions second.

If he really believed against it, yes...veto, take your licks in the election. Otherwise, you are responsible. Weren't people just complaining Trump is a politician exploiting the feelings of the Trumpists????

p.s. I'm tired of people making excuses for politicians just because they are on the same team...looking at you Gov. Newsom.
 
People on both sides have a bit narrow perspective on the Trump elections. Different things can be true at the same time:

1. There was election fraud. There always is but this time round there was more of an effort at it....partially because of a feeling on the left that Trump was too dangerous to leave in office and anything is justified in removing him as a result. Trump campaign has definitely shown that there was fraud such as dead people and noncitizens voting.
2. There's plenty of statistical evidence that shows the mail in ballot rejection rate (votes which are overwhelming D) was less than other elections. In some places, such as Georgia, it wasn't possible to conduct an analysis as to why because the ballots and signatures were separated. There's also some eye of the beholder type stuff going on here because no signature can ever be 100% objectively verified so it's possible biased observers were lenient on signature verification if the vote was against Trump. Pennsylvania had no such signature verification so anything went, which is why the objectors focused on Pennsylvania.
3. But again, there is always election fraud. It's not enough to show fraud, or a statistical variance. You can't just show smoke, you must show fire. You have to show that the fraud was of such magnitude that it would have made a difference. In the short span of things Trump was not able to show that, and its very likely he'll never be able to show that. The courts rightly ruled that they weren't going to overturn a democratic election results based on suspicions without proof, which the Trump campaign overwhelmingly did NOT provide. The courts also rejected some claims on the basis of standing, timeliness and some courts never got to rule before certification.
4. An election legally needs to be free. There's no evidence of any mass conspiracy by the Ds or the Biden campaign. There's been no proof shown of fraud on the magnitudes needed for a court to overturn. The Rs who objected said they wanted a commission to examine whether such fraud happen. The Ds argued that's what the courts are for.
5. Elections, however, should also be fair. Here the Trumpists have more of a point. It's been shown that the press was not objective in this at all. The pollster and tech companies have also been biased. Many of the voting rules, such as in Pennsylvania, were changed before on the grounds of pandemic and there are arguments surrounding the legality of such moves. Prior to this, the Ds impeached Trump (for reasons the Rs thought were unfounded) and then there was the entire Russiagate thing. The moderators at the debates were biased. People may dispute how many of these points are legitimate, but the Trumpists have more of a ground to complain the election wasn't "fair" v. "free".
6. The pandemic. The Trumpists argue, and there's reason to believe, that but for the pandemic Trump probably wouldn't have won. Yeah, we can say boo hoo so what growup, but how many of us have been at that game where an unfortunate unforeseen event turns the tide and how did we feel? And then there's all the concerns about lockdowns, businesses, masks, and the loss of liberties that go along with it.

None of this justifies what happened. Yes, Trump being a politician, leveraged and used them. What he did was ugly and offensive. But it's also not fair to say there were absolutely no problems with this election and the way they were conducted and the Trumpkins have nothing to be upset about.

There's a lot to digest here.

Can you help me reason about these two conflicting statements:

"There was election fraud. There always is but this time round there was more of an effort at it....partially because of a feeling on the left that Trump was too dangerous to leave in office and anything is justified in removing him as a result. Trump campaign has definitely shown that there was fraud such as dead people and noncitizens voting."

and

"The courts rightly ruled that they weren't going to overturn a democratic election results based on suspicions without proof, which the Trump campaign overwhelmingly did NOT provide. "

How can you make a statement with such certitude and then later suggest there was no proof? Or are you just stating this because this what they believe and that you actually believe differently?

The rest of what you wrote doesn't resonate with me at all. The handling of the pandemic was not the equivalent of "missing a pass". It quite literally was the biggest moment in his term.

None of this changes anything in my mind. A lot of these just sound like Trump sound bites with no teeth.
 
People on both sides have a bit narrow perspective on the Trump elections. Different things can be true at the same time:

1. There was election fraud. There always is but this time round there was more of an effort at it....partially because of a feeling on the left that Trump was too dangerous to leave in office and anything is justified in removing him as a result. Trump campaign has definitely shown that there was fraud such as dead people and noncitizens voting.
2. There's plenty of statistical evidence that shows the mail in ballot rejection rate (votes which are overwhelming D) was less than other elections. In some places, such as Georgia, it wasn't possible to conduct an analysis as to why because the ballots and signatures were separated. There's also some eye of the beholder type stuff going on here because no signature can ever be 100% objectively verified so it's possible biased observers were lenient on signature verification if the vote was against Trump. Pennsylvania had no such signature verification so anything went, which is why the objectors focused on Pennsylvania.
3. But again, there is always election fraud. It's not enough to show fraud, or a statistical variance. You can't just show smoke, you must show fire. You have to show that the fraud was of such magnitude that it would have made a difference. In the short span of things Trump was not able to show that, and its very likely he'll never be able to show that. The courts rightly ruled that they weren't going to overturn a democratic election results based on suspicions without proof, which the Trump campaign overwhelmingly did NOT provide. The courts also rejected some claims on the basis of standing, timeliness and some courts never got to rule before certification.
4. An election legally needs to be free. There's no evidence of any mass conspiracy by the Ds or the Biden campaign. There's been no proof shown of fraud on the magnitudes needed for a court to overturn. The Rs who objected said they wanted a commission to examine whether such fraud happen. The Ds argued that's what the courts are for.
5. Elections, however, should also be fair. Here the Trumpists have more of a point. It's been shown that the press was not objective in this at all. The pollster and tech companies have also been biased. Many of the voting rules, such as in Pennsylvania, were changed before on the grounds of pandemic and there are arguments surrounding the legality of such moves. Prior to this, the Ds impeached Trump (for reasons the Rs thought were unfounded) and then there was the entire Russiagate thing. The moderators at the debates were biased. People may dispute how many of these points are legitimate, but the Trumpists have more of a ground to complain the election wasn't "fair" v. "free".
6. The pandemic. The Trumpists argue, and there's reason to believe, that but for the pandemic Trump probably wouldn't have won. Yeah, we can say boo hoo so what growup, but how many of us have been at that game where an unfortunate unforeseen event turns the tide and how did we feel? And then there's all the concerns about lockdowns, businesses, masks, and the loss of liberties that go along with it.

None of this justifies what happened. Yes, Trump being a politician, leveraged and used them. What he did was ugly and offensive. But it's also not fair to say there were absolutely no problems with this election and the way they were conducted and the Trumpkins have nothing to be upset about.

I didn’t know Karens could be passive aggressive. “Yes, there was election fraud, our great master who can’t make it to the toilet in time proved it, but woe is us we just need to accept it.”

The only problem with this election were the magats who tried to subvert it. Funny, but not surprising, how Grace-Karen fails to mention that.

Someone really needs to tell her that her fellow conspiracy theorist and wannabe legal eagles Sid “the Squid, er, Kraken” Powell and Lin Wood have both been completely discredited and are now about 0 for one million in court. And don’t get me started on how her favorite lawyer Linny Poo got banned for life on Twitter, which is pretty hard to do, and I should know. I’ve only managed to get suspended myself.
 
If I, an average citizen, were to encourage someone to break into my neighbor's house, and when the neighbor resisted, he was killed, I would be at least an accessory before the fact to murder, if not a murderer as well.

Please show me where Trump said specifically to his people they should storm and occupy the Capitol.

If anything, under your theory, some Capitol police have more of a problem....


 
People on both sides have a bit narrow perspective on the Trump elections. Different things can be true at the same time:

1. There was election fraud. There always is but this time round there was more of an effort at it....partially because of a feeling on the left that Trump was too dangerous to leave in office and anything is justified in removing him as a result. Trump campaign has definitely shown that there was fraud such as dead people and noncitizens voting.
2. There's plenty of statistical evidence that shows the mail in ballot rejection rate (votes which are overwhelming D) was less than other elections. In some places, such as Georgia, it wasn't possible to conduct an analysis as to why because the ballots and signatures were separated. There's also some eye of the beholder type stuff going on here because no signature can ever be 100% objectively verified so it's possible biased observers were lenient on signature verification if the vote was against Trump. Pennsylvania had no such signature verification so anything went, which is why the objectors focused on Pennsylvania.
3. But again, there is always election fraud. It's not enough to show fraud, or a statistical variance. You can't just show smoke, you must show fire. You have to show that the fraud was of such magnitude that it would have made a difference. In the short span of things Trump was not able to show that, and its very likely he'll never be able to show that. The courts rightly ruled that they weren't going to overturn a democratic election results based on suspicions without proof, which the Trump campaign overwhelmingly did NOT provide. The courts also rejected some claims on the basis of standing, timeliness and some courts never got to rule before certification.
4. An election legally needs to be free. There's no evidence of any mass conspiracy by the Ds or the Biden campaign. There's been no proof shown of fraud on the magnitudes needed for a court to overturn. The Rs who objected said they wanted a commission to examine whether such fraud happen. The Ds argued that's what the courts are for.
5. Elections, however, should also be fair. Here the Trumpists have more of a point. It's been shown that the press was not objective in this at all. The pollster and tech companies have also been biased. Many of the voting rules, such as in Pennsylvania, were changed before on the grounds of pandemic and there are arguments surrounding the legality of such moves. Prior to this, the Ds impeached Trump (for reasons the Rs thought were unfounded) and then there was the entire Russiagate thing. The moderators at the debates were biased. People may dispute how many of these points are legitimate, but the Trumpists have more of a ground to complain the election wasn't "fair" v. "free".
6. The pandemic. The Trumpists argue, and there's reason to believe, that but for the pandemic Trump probably wouldn't have won. Yeah, we can say boo hoo so what growup, but how many of us have been at that game where an unfortunate unforeseen event turns the tide and how did we feel? And then there's all the concerns about lockdowns, businesses, masks, and the loss of liberties that go along with it.

None of this justifies what happened. Yes, Trump being a politician, leveraged and used them. What he did was ugly and offensive. But it's also not fair to say there were absolutely no problems with this election and the way they were conducted and the Trumpkins have nothing to be upset about.
The Dems keep making voting easier. And by that I mean easier to do it illegally.

We really should have OR get rid of the following.

- We need voter ID. There is no good basis not to make that a requirement. We have to have an ID for so many basic things in life, voting should be one of them
- Mail in voting is extremely susceptible to fraud. There is no good chain of custody/verification. After the 2000 election there was a commission with Carter and other prominent Ds and Rs. One of they biggest concerns was vote by mail. Mail in voting should really be limited to those people who for whatever reason CANNOT make it in to vote in person.
- We shouldn't allow ballot harvesting. With power/money at stake, there is a very large incentive to manipulate how this is done.
- We need to on a regular basis purge our voter rolls. Eliminate dead people, people who have moved, etc.
- We can't have as was done in some states have drop boxes where people can just come by and drop votes. Basically who know what goes on at these temporary sites.
- Early voting should be limited. We shouldn't allow voting to happen a month or so in advance. So many things can and do happen politically that it makes sense for voting to take place much closer to the actual date.
- We should absolutely NOT allow the press to make predictions, talk about results until ALL the voting areas in the US are closed. It has the affect of potentially suppressing people from voting if they think their national candidate has lost. The could affect the national vote BUT also affect the vote as it relates to local races and propositions.

There are some other ones that should be done.
 
Thanks for posting this. I won't try to convince you otherwise, but I think this explains why our viewpoints are different here. I think systemic racism is alive and well in our country.

I don't disagree there is systemic racism in the system. I also don't disagree that biased laws that favor certain groups over others is a real problem that we should work toward fixing.

Where I get lost however, is when I start hearing 'burn the village down to save the village' type solutions. With regard to BLM or the Trumpies. This type of extremist positioning when it comes to finding solutions will lead us to no where good.
 
Back
Top