god this is a big ask but I really wish there were like….. a site where you could plug in your state/district/whatever and tick some boxes on issues you prioritize and then the site would give you a rundown of the potential candidates in your area and where they stand on those issues in like….. clean simple bullet points. gimme the cliffnotes, I literally do not have the time or energy to comb through god knows how many articles and shit to figure out who to support, just tell me what their stance is on X, Y, and Z, and that’s gonna have to be enough.
It goes through who’s on your ballot and explains things like that based on your address.
this is really great. it gives you bullet points on what each candidate has said and done on each issue.
very illuminating, frankly, seeing the candidate’s own words and actions. for instance, under ‘defense/veterans’ the republican candidates almost always say something about a well-funded military, and the democrats almost always say something about getting veterans the medical care they need. makes it pretty obvious that republicans don’t care about soldiers once they’re done with them.
If you have trouble voting in the us, don’t shout at the poll workers, call 1-866-687-8683
A couple of years ago, I had a ridiculous ordeal trying to vote. It wasn’t because of a voter purge or long lines, it was simple human error on the part of a well meant poll worker. It is a long story what happened, but I ended up going from one polling site to another and then back to the first (correct) polling place. Despite very short lines, I spent over two hours trying to vote. I 100% do not blame the poll worker or my local/state government, it was a well meant mistake that caused unnecessary hassle but was eventually fixed.
What I wish I’d know is that there is a hotline I could have called. 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683) is a national, nonpartisan Election Protection coalition that can help you navigate any problems. If I’d called them when the problem first arose, I could have saved myself two hours.
When I’ve told this story, some people get super angry at the poll worker and but I truly believe it was a well meant mistake. Poll workers are community members who volunteer to work a long day to help run our democracy and I think they generally mean well (even if some politicians don’t). And if you’re free on November 6, consider contacting your local Board of Elections about becoming a poll worker. There are widespread poll worker shortages and the position does pay.
You can also look up what will be on your local ballot at Ballotpedia so you are prepared to vote. Ballotpedia doesn’t tell you how to vote, it just tells you what is being voted on in your district. It is worth Googling the various issues as they can sometimes be tricky to understand.
You can also try ballot ready, which explains positions on the ballot and cites politician’s own words on a variety of issues.
god this is a big ask but I really wish there were like….. a site where you could plug in your state/district/whatever and tick some boxes on issues you prioritize and then the site would give you a rundown of the potential candidates in your area and where they stand on those issues in like….. clean simple bullet points. gimme the cliffnotes, I literally do not have the time or energy to comb through god knows how many articles and shit to figure out who to support, just tell me what their stance is on X, Y, and Z, and that’s gonna have to be enough.
It goes through who’s on your ballot and explains things like that based on your address.
this is really great. it gives you bullet points on what each candidate has said and done on each issue.
very illuminating, frankly, seeing the candidate’s own words and actions. for instance, under ‘defense/veterans’ the republican candidates almost always say something about a well-funded military, and the democrats almost always say something about getting veterans the medical care they need. makes it pretty obvious that republicans don’t care about soldiers once they’re done with them.
OKAY so I saw this a few days ago and was like “whatever” but then I smashed my phone in a car door, had to clean up some dead baby bunnies in my yard, and have just generally NOT had a good week. I’m fucking spooked and I’m reblogging this twice to get the universe to stop.
I ignored this too and then i got kicked out of my house. Also reblogging twice.
I don’t want to have a repeat of the horrible week I just had when I ignored this, but I fucking resent the fact that some asshole decided that fuck the luck and emotional well-being of anyone who ran across their hex post, what the world really needed was more pain and more anxiety.
Here, have a link to chain letter protection. One pic should work!
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.
A series of decisions by the Obama administration loosened the legal concept of gender in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing gender largely as an individual’s choice and not determined by the sex assigned at birth. The policy prompted fights over bathrooms, dormitories, single-sex programs and other arenas where gender was once seen as a simple concept. Conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, were incensed.
Now the Department of Health and Human Services is spearheading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times.
The department argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.
“Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” the department proposed in the memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since last spring. “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”
The new definition would essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million Americans who have opted to recognize themselves — surgically or otherwise — as a gender other than the one they were born into.
“This takes a position that what the medical community understands about their patients — what people understand about themselves — is irrelevant because the government disagrees,” said Catherine E. Lhamon, who led the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights in the Obama administration and helped write transgender guidance that is being undone.
The move would be the most significant of a series of maneuvers, large and small, to exclude the population from civil rights protections and roll back the Obama administration’s more fluid recognition of gender identity. The Trump administration has sought to bar transgender people from serving in the military and has legally challenged civil rights protections for the group embedded in the nation’s health care law.
Several agencies have withdrawn Obama-era policies that recognized gender identity in schools, prisons and homeless shelters. The administration even tried to remove questions about gender identity from a 2020 census survey and a national survey of elderly citizens.
For the last year, health and human services has privately argued that the term “sex” was never meant to include gender identity or even homosexuality, and that the lack of clarity allowed the Obama administration to wrongfully extend civil rights protections to people who should not have them.
Roger Severino, the director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, declined to answer detailed questions about the memo or his role in interagency discussions about how to revise the definition of sex under Title IX.
But officials at the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed that their push to limit the definition of sex for the purpose of federal civil rights laws resulted from their own reading of the laws and from a court decision.
Mr. Severino, while serving as the head of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation, was among the conservatives who blanched at the Obama administration’s expansion of sex to include gender identity, which he called “radical gender ideology.”
In one commentary piece, he called the policies a “culmination of a series of unilateral, and frequently lawless, administration attempts to impose a new definition of what it means to be a man or a woman on the entire nation.”
“Transgender people are frightened,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, which presses for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. “At every step where the administration has had the choice, they’ve opted to turn their back on transgender people.”
The Department of Health and Human Services has called on the “Big Four” agencies that enforce some part of Title IX — the Departments of Education, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Labor — to adopt its definition in regulations that will establish uniformity in the government and increase the likelihood that courts will accept it.
The definition is integral to two proposed rules currently under review at the White House: One from the Education Department deals with complaints of sex discrimination at schools and colleges receiving federal financial assistance; the other, from health and human services, deals with health programs and activities that receive federal funds or subsidies. Both regulations are expected to be released this fall, and would then be open for public comment, typically for 60 days. The agencies would consider the comments before issuing final rules with the force of law — both of which could include the new gender definition.
Civil rights groups have been meeting with federal officials in recent weeks to argue against the proposed definition, which has divided career and political appointees across the administration. Some officials hope that health and human services will at least rein in the most extreme parts, such as the call for genetic testing to determine sex.
After more than a year of discussions, health and human services is preparing to formally present the new definition to the Justice Department before the end of the year, Trump administration officials say. If the Justice Department decides that the change is legal, the new definition can be approved and enforced in Title IX statutes, and across government agencies.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the draft health and human services proposal. The Justice Department has not yet been asked to render a formal legal opinion, according to an official there who was not authorized to speak about the process.
But Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s previous decisions on transgender protections have given civil rights advocates little hope that the department will prevent the new definition from being enforced. The proposal appears consistent with the position he took in an October 2017 memo sent to agencies clarifying that the civil rights law that prohibits job discrimination does not cover “gender identity, per se.”
Harper Jean Tobin, the policy director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, an advocacy group, called the maneuvering “an extremely aggressive legal position that is inconsistent with dozens of federal court decisions.”
Health and human services officials said they were only abiding by court orders, referring to the rulings of Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth, Tex., a George W. Bush appointee who has held that “Congress did not understand ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity.’”
A 2016 ruling by Judge O’Connor concerned a rule that was adopted to carry out a civil rights statute embedded in the Affordable Care Act. The provision prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in “any health program or activity” that receives federal financial assistance.
But in recent discussions with the administration, civil rights groups, including Lambda Legal, have pointed to other court cases. In a legal memo presented to the administration, a coalition of civil rights groups wrote, “The overwhelming majority of courts to address the question since the most relevant Supreme Court precedent in 1998 have held that antitransgender bias constitutes sex discrimination under federal laws like Title IX.”
Indeed, the health and human services proposal was prompted, in part, by pro-transgender court decisions in the last year that upheld the Obama administration’s position.
In their memo, health and human services officials wrote that “courts and plaintiffs are racing to get decisions” ahead of any rule-making, because of the lack of a stand-alone definition.
“Courts and the previous administration took advantage of this circumstance to include gender identity and sexual orientation in a multitude of agencies, and under a multitude of laws,” the memo states. Doing so “led to confusion and negative policy consequences in health care, education and other federal contexts.”
The narrower definition would be acutely felt in schools and their most visible battlegrounds: locker rooms and bathrooms.
One of the Trump administration’s first decisive policy acts was the rescission by the Education and Justice Departments of Obama-era guidelines that protected transgender students who wanted to use bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity.
Since the guidance was rescinded, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has halted and dismissed discrimination cases filed by transgender students over access to school facilities. A restrictive governmentwide definition would cement the Education Department’s current approach.
But it would also raise new questions.
The department would have to decide what documentation schools would be required to collect to determine or codify gender. Title IX applies to a number of educational experiences, such as sports and single-sex classes or programs where gender identity has come into play. The department has said it will continue to open cases where transgender students face discrimination, bullying and harassment, and investigate gender-based harassment as “unwelcome conduct based on a student’s sex” or “harassing conduct based on a student’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes.”
The Education Department did not respond to an inquiry about the health and human services proposal.
Ms. Lhamon of the Obama Education Department said the proposed definition “quite simply negates the humanity of people.”
—
I’m sure this sudden interest in proven science will last until science points out that this administration’s narrow view of gender/sex is utter bullshit.
I find the twilight renaissance funny, and I’m all for eliminating cringe culture, but let’s remember that smeyer changed Quileute legends and beliefs to fit her narrative, gave animalistic/abusive traits to her Native characters, reinforcing the uncontrollable “savage” stereotype, made the “pure”, pale vampires constantly insult and antagonize the werewolves (whose land they were living on) for no reason, and overall wrote some pretty racist stuff about her Native characters
Also, her entire concept of vampires is super racist. In her books, becoming a vampire makes you 1. Super hot and 2. White. If you weren’t white before, becoming a vampire makes you white and it is specifically the process of becoming white that makes you super hot.
I hate twilight but I do feel like this ignores the dude with the dreads. Not trying to say he’s an awesome character, but he became a vampire and stayed black. Doesn’t fix that 99.999999% of all the vampires are white but please include this in your statements.
I know about that and it’s definitely a conversation worth having, but I was specifically talking about native racism because I’m native and I’m addressing it myself. I wasn’t trying to name every single problem twilight has (there’s a lot) and I also could’ve talked about the anti-Latinx sentiments, abuse apologism but there’s people more qualified to address that than me
@crowspice – That guy only stayed black in the movies. In the books, they explicitly say that even if you are not white, when you’re vampirized, you become white.
[Text of Tweet: George Takei: If you are turned away at the polls because your name is not on the register, don’t walk away. Say this: I REQUEST A PROVISIONAL BALLOT AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
Don’t let them steal your vote]
Additional info:
“Provisional Ballot Laws are laws that require a provisional ballot upon verficiation of the idenity of the voter if a voter fails to present proper identification at the polls or when registering before voter registration deadlines.”
Poll worker here! Let’s talk about this “I DEMAND A PROVISIONAL BALLOT AS PROVIDED BY LAW” thing.
== TL:DR; Yes, provisional ballots are important! And yes, you should absolutely ask for one if you need to. But there’s a couple of things to try first. A provisional ballot is a last resort. ==
It’s very common for voters to come up to the “check-in” desk, and not be found in the poll book. Some non-nefarious reasons why that might be the case:
1) The poll worker doesn’t understand how to spell your name. 2) You’re not in the right precinct (this happens ALLLL the time) 3) New married name? 4) You’re a college student, and you are registered, but you’re registered at home.
Here’s my recommendation for what to do: * Make sure the poll worker is looking in the right spot (the book will be right in front of you; you can help find your name.) * Mention your home address to the poll worker. THey may very well immediately say something like “Oh! Yes, you should be voting in the cafeteria. Here in the GYM, we are your next precinct over.” * Ask politely to speak to someone to verify your status with the county. They will get on the phone with county folks, who will look you up in their BIG COMPUTER.
The steps above will, eight times out of ten, change you from the scary status of “Huh? you don’t exist!” to “Oh, right! Okay, here you go, voter!”
If that doesn’t work, ask firmly and politely for a provisional ballot. If you say “AS PROVIDED BY LAWWWWW”, you will only get an eye-roll from a tired and hungry poll-worker. But hey, you do you – it really IS the law.
If you don’t get satisfaction, all is not lost. Step outside the precinct and call the ACLU, and they will send someone over to have some FIRM WORDS with the Judge of Elections.
How do I know? I’ve had ACLU lawyers sent to talk to me during an election: “Hey, we heard that you were turning voters away!” they said.
I wasn’t, but I DID NOT MIND having someone smart and informed come to check on what was up. The ACLU counsel was smart, engaged, and knew the rules. Had I been trying some crap, this person would have SHUT. IT. DOWN.
So, the BOTTOM bottom line is: 1) Provisional ballots are a last resort. You can read up on them; they’re definitely riskier than a full, “real” ballot. You want to vote at your proper precinct as your first choice. 2) Don’t panic if you’re not in the book. Are you in the right place? 3) If you decide you do need a provisional, be firm, polite, and persistent. There’s no “secret phrase” that’s going to make us poll workers hiss with dismay: “CURSESSSSSSS! They know about the provisionalssssss!” 4) But do stick up for yourself! And if you don’t get what you want, call it in! There’s LOTS of folks to help!