RunawayFixer

They don't have to prove that someone is not a qualified elector to disenfranchise them, throwing up barriers to make it very hard / impossible to vote is enough. In the past the federal government could intervene if something like that happened, but that's not really possible anymore thanks to the current scotus, so it's up to the states.

And this state is now laying the legal groundwork: If "every" persons with xxx qualifications has the right the vote by law and new measures get implemented that make it practically impossible to vote for certain people that fit those qualifications, then those people had a right withheld from them.

If "only" persons with xxx qualifications have the right to vote by law and new measures get implemented that make it impossible to vote for certain people that fit those qualifications, then ... nothing. That's the difference between "every" and "only". Changing the wording to "only" allows the state to legally pile on extra requirements and barriers.

Examples of groups of people that I've seen disenfranchised by state actions: Prisoners, felons who have done their time, college students, minorities, inner city people, military abroad. Some of these news articles will have been attempts that were not (yet) successful.

I haven't read the full wiki article, but I expect those examples to be in here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States

Unfortunately SCOTUS gutted the power of the federal government to enforce those guarantees based on the old provisions + republicans filibustered the democrat bill that was meant to address that. It's as if the republicans have a plan.

https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-the-right-to-vote/

"The ability of the federal government to protect voting rights, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities, has been jeopardized both by recent Supreme Court rulings and the failure of Congress to enact new voting rights legislation."

"With the federal government and the Supreme Court unlikely to protect voting rights in a substantial way in the near future, it’s up to the states to take action to protect voting."

And now there's a state changing the law so that they can more easily disenfranchise voters of their chosing. Imo this is no coincidence.

EPP is centrist, not far right, and they work together with greens + socialists + liberals. The national parties that are members of the EPP, that I know, are the old christian democrat parties and in terms of the USA Overton window, they would be to the left of USA democratic party. The far right only has about a quarter of MEPs.

"Combined, the three political groups on the right have 187 MEPs, just over a quarter of the total, but they are viewed as unlikely to form a coherent and united bloc. Following the election, leaders of the EPP, S&D and Renew Europe groups stressed their commitment to working together as a pro-EU “democratic alliance”. The S&D and Renew Europe, together with the Greens/EFA, also stressed that they rejected cooperation with groups on the right, including the ECR. "

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10068/

The parties that I know in the EPP (Belgian and dutch) are definitely to the left of the USA democrats, which isn't very hard. On the national level, member parties of EPP will work and have worked together with their s&d counterparts in many countries. And in the eu parliament, s&d, renew and EPP have indeed worked together for many years.

So yeah, they definitely would not be in Trump's camp. I don't get how one can claim that EPP is far right.

I've got the impression that Tucker Carlson is going after Alex Jones his audience. Tucker Carlson peddling crazy conspiracy theories right when the chickens are coming home to roost for Alex Jones, imo that's no coincidence. Tucker never was stupid, he just has no morals, so he never had a problem with publicly stating stuff that he personally didn't believe in. Grifters gonna grift.

Al Gore had already made climate change a political topic in 1981. He also had a major part in the roll out the early internet. The guy was a visionary and way ahead of his time in so many ways. Thinking about what could have been, hurts indeed.

Here's actual statistics: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/

Apparently Denmark is leading the pack with 1.83%, closely followed by the 3 Baltic countries. Poland is 7th with 0.68%. The usa is "only" at 0.35%, which is still by far the most of any of the non european nations that have send help, and also significantly more than a bunch of eu nations.

This is all aid, so weapons, humanitarian and financial. With the different kinds split out: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/

You're probably right. Case in point: Linkerbaan was eventually banned, although it did take a long time.

The opinions on this were interesting. My simplified take: One person thinks it's even worse than I thought. One person thinks it's not going to be a problem in the first place. And 3 persons think that it's a problem that will resolve itself, so no reason to worry.

As Hexbear becomes increasingly isolated, more and more of their users will start making accounts on other instances. After migrating, they'll still have their toxic post truth discource, but they'll be harder to identify at a glance. I'm definitely not against cutting ties with Hexbear, I was in favor of it when Lemmy world did it. But now I'm dreading the thought of those users trickling back into my feed one by one. For my personal Lemmy experience, the existence of Hexbear was great in that it kept so many toxic people contained in a place away from me.

Is this from Spain?

It sounds like what they are doing is clearly illegal and you probably could do a lot of people a favor by complaining to the authorities.

Generally for the eu: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2017-003934-ASW_EN.html "If users receive unsolicited communications after having withdrawn consent, they can file a complaint with the national regulatory authority. In addition, they have the right to a judicial remedy before national courts."

The responsible agency for Spain: https://www.aepd.es/

Damn, editing the definition of a word to push a narrative, what a shithead you are.

For the curious, here's the part that was edited out: " (2) : a printed mark made for similar purposes : trademark"

From Miriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand

The shithead is using the definition of trademark branding to claim that the article is correct in using "branding" to describe those markings. No hot iron or other permanent methods of marking (like tattoos like I've seen claimed elsewhere) were used afaik. So Teft was correct in their remark that "brand" was not the right word to use.

"A printed mark to designate ownership." is about trademarks, intellectual property. You're basically saying that Israel trademarked the skin of those prisoners.

Opening a dictionary and looking up a word is one thing, you still need some basic amount of reading comprehension to interpret what you are reading in that dictionary, which you're clearly lacking.