How to Stop Minorities from Voting - Let Me Count the Ways!

Jump to Last Post 1-10 of 10 discussions (67 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image91
    My Esotericposted 2 months ago

    The following list is just a small selection of the many ways conservatives are trying to suppress minority voting.  From https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/opinions … ndex.html:

    1 - "In rural Randolph County, Georgia, the local board of elections (all two members -- a third recently stepped down, according to the Washington Post) has proposed closing seven of the county's nine polling places ahead of the midterm elections. Critics have condemned the move, citing the vast size of the county -- 431 square miles -- and the fact there is no public transportation system."

    2 - "In many states, Republican legislators and elections officials have steadily created barriers to voting that specifically target core Democratic constituencies. These GOP partisans know full well that pushing down Democratic turnout by even a few percentage points can make the difference between victory and defeat."

    3 - "These polling place closures are part of a stark pattern that we are seeing across Georgia whereby officials are working to make it harder for African-Americans and other minorities to vote," is how Kristen Clarke, president and executive director for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, put it to the Washington Post."

    4 - After the courts shot down NC 1st attempt to discriminate, they tried again - "But North Carolina Republicans haven't given up. This year, a new law will require counties that offer early voting to keep the polls open 12 hours on weekdays in addition to weekends -- a measure that will dramatically increase the cost to counties, which will then be forced to cut back on early voting."

    5 - "In Arizona, the Republican secretary of state, Michele Reagan, who oversees elections, refused last week a request by the ACLU, made last year, to coordinate with the state Department of Transportation to automatically update her records when the driver's license of a voter gets changed.
    The result is that an estimated 500,000 voters -- over 20% of whom are Hispanic -- could end up with a mismatch between their license and their voting records, making it harder to cast a ballot in a state that requires voter ID."

    6 - "In New Hampshire, Republican leaders recently passed a controversial law that requires college and university students to prove they are permanent residents of the state in order to vote, a change from prior laws allowing students to vote freely while living in the state."

    7 - "Florida tried a different version of the same voter-suppression stunt when the state's Republican governor, Rick Scott -- currently running for US Senate -- banned early voting on college campuses. A federal judge recently struck down the plan in stinging language: "Simply put, (the state) opinion reveals a stark pattern of discrimination," Judge Mark Walker wrote. "It is unexplainable on grounds other than age because it bears so heavily on younger voters than on all other voters.""

    8 - "The pattern is clear. Republicans from the Northeast to the Southwest -- and, of course, the Deep South -- are trying to game the upcoming elections by targeting black, Latino, young and low-income voters, who traditionally lean Democratic."

    So, is systemic discrimination "Fake News"/

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Not sure why you didn't include areas and events showing Democrats trying to disenfranchise Republican voters - you know, in the interests of balance and fairness and to keep you from looking like a whiny Democrat interested only in party politics.  But in any case:

      1.  A circle 12 miles in radius (larger than Randolph County) with just one polling place gives a maximum distance of 12 miles to the poll.  Two of them (as proposed) will cut that nearly in half.  Six miles is not an unreasonable distance and I'd be willing to bet a large amount that less than 5% of the US territory is within 10 miles of a voting booth.  But in any case, absentee voting is always possible: if Democrats feel their constituents are incapable of using a mailbox then perhaps they can send volunteers to "assist" them in choosing the "right" vote and mail it for them.

      2.  As LTL pointed out, tears from Democrats complaining of evil Republicans are a dime a dozen, and claims of unspecified evils aren't worth even that.

      3.  See #2

      4.  Isn't that kind of the reverse of closing polls (#1)?  Keeping them open means less money for the early/absentee ballots, acerbating the #1 problem?  Can't have it both ways...

      5.  While I like the idea, and assume it will catch both D's and R's voting illegally, you didn't post any of the reasoning behind the refusal - reasoning which could be important.  Is privacy a concern (names and DL #'s available to everyone)?  Safety (stalkers, etc.)?  Cost?  Usefulness?  I'd like to see more on the thinking behind it.

      6.  While it might be nice to have that vast pot of liberal college students voting twice (in the college town and at their declared address), it seems reasonable to curtail their voting in a location that is NOT their permanent address.  Again, absentee ballots are readily available.

      7.  Another ridiculous judicial opinion, isn't it?  Everyone can vote early, by mail...except college students.  Apparently they are too stupid to do so.

      8.  See #2

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        I will read "Not sure why you didn't include areas and events showing Democrats trying to disenfranchise Republican voters " as "Not sure why you didn't include areas and events showing liberals trying to disenfranchise conservative voters". That way we can discuss time periods beyond this generation.

        I don't include events showing liberals trying to suppress conservative voters because there is no history of it every happening beyond an anecdotal scale.  There is no pattern throughout the course of American history where liberals tried to disenfranchise conservatives.  The liberal agenda has Always been to expand suffrage, not limit it.

        Again, it isn't that absentee ballots are a fine way to vote, I do it often; it's the fact that the normal way of voting is cut off to them.  By doing so, that, by definition, limits their ability to vote. BTW, Randolph county looks to be 25 miles by 30 miles; which again isn't the point.  Randolph county had multiple voting places for a reason and it makes no difference what that reason was.  By knocking them down to 1 voting place (which they ended up not doing) for a 750 mile square area can do nothing BUT limit the ability to vote.  Even if it is one person, that is too many for an arbitrary decision to deny the right to vote.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          Ha ha ha ha ha  You have got to be kidding! Accused of bringing in illegals to vote, accused of changing lines to ensure Democratic winners and yes, accused of "disenfranchising" Republican voters.  But of course it is liberals doing it so it never happened, did it?  Not even the accusation.  (Yes, I know I'm going beyond simple disenfranchising to include other voter fraud, but I'm sure it could be easily included; that WAS the intent after all - to indicate Republican malfeasance).

          Wow!  How things change.  First it was a reduction to two, not one, voting places and it was 431 sq. miles, not 750. 

          Did you forget to address that the vast majority of locations in the country travel further than the maximum that would be required in Randolph County?  Or did you just not want to?

          I asked for the reasoning, but all you've provided is that it was "arbitrary" - something both you and I know to be totally false.  If nothing else it was to save money, which is not arbitrary.  Try again?

      2. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        As to "tears", if you are talking about Ds and Rs, then you might or might not have a point.  BUT, if you are talking about liberals and conservatives, then you and LTL are, in my opinion, wrong.  The whole history of America has been liberals trying to overcome the conservative's continuous efforts to limit individual liberty.  From the fight against slavery, a conservative condoned institution, to woman's right to vote which was opposed universally by conservatives, to the Civil Rights Act, also uniformly opposed by conservatives, as was their opposition to the Voting Rights Act. 

        Now conservatives are trying to move America back to the late 1800s when the conservative Supreme Court gutted the laws that implemented the 14th and 15th amendments.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          "The whole history of America has been liberals trying to overcome the conservative's continuous efforts to limit individual liberty."

          You mean like the liberty to keep their paycheck instead of having it given to someone else in entitlements?  The liberty to choose what your bakery store will produce and who will buy it?  The liberty to use a bathroom in peace, without the opposite sex intruding on your quiet time?  The liberty to do with your land as you wish? 

          Personally I don't see either party as being particularly concerned over personal liberties.  One demands you serve their god, the other demands you serve their ideology and morality.

  2. Live to Learn profile image78
    Live to Learnposted 2 months ago

    1. Reading am article of the county, it said the polling places in question A. are not compliant with the ADA. It also states B. residents who cannot get to the polling stations which are can vote absentee. If A and B are true, then your claim is false.

    2. That's a broad claim you fail to back up with specifics. Please provide in order to justify the claim.

    3. See 2.

    4. Polls should afford the opportunity to vote after work.  If voting at the polls is limited to the day of the election then this is a mystery. Not being able to find an article on your claim leaves this a mystery.

    5. Knowing how incredibly slow our county is at updating anything, I'm not surprised. But, a quick Google search afforded me ample information on how a citizen can quickly update their voter registration information.

    6. I don't think transient college students should have a say in local elections. Unless they are permanent residents. Again, they can vote absentee, in the state they claim residence in. I moved to a new state 1 year ago. I haven't voted because I understand that I don't understand local needs yet. There is a big push for a major investment in public transportation. It would raise local tax rates, considerably. I have no right to impose my opinion, yet.

    7.  I'd agree on this. If students are allowed to vote, whether residents, or not, hours should be convenient to them.

    8. Again, a broad claim. Unless it is your contention that the groups mentioned are incapable of either updating their information or incapable of filling out an absentee ballot. Both ideas, I find reprehensible and insulting to adults.

    1. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Live:

      1. If the ADA thing were true, then the answer is fix the polling place, not close it down.  And why should someone be forced to vote absentee because the conservatives don't want to afford them a place to vote.

      2. All I need to point to is the numerous successful challenges to conservative legislatures trying to suppress voting of minorities.

      4. Here is what I got when I googled it - https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 … rnout.html

      5.  What would be a good reason, other than trying to suppress minority voting is there for the person responsible for fair elections in a state refusing to help people vote?

      6. "...a change from prior laws allowing students to vote freely while living in the state." - are you saying the NH legislature doesn't have a right to let students vote while residing in their state?

      8.  I am sure they are capable, but why, other than to suppress their vote, would these laws be passed to make it more difficult to vote, not easier?

      1. Live to Learn profile image78
        Live to Learnposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Fixing polling stations may take too much time to be open on the next election day or be cost prohibitive to upgrade. I don't know the specific circumstances but absentee voting isn't rocket science. I did it while in the military.

        I don't know that 'successful challenges to Republicans attempting to suppress' is a fair statement. I would think a fairer statement would be that proposed changes were shown to have a possible negative effect on certain portions of the voting population and were stopped.

        I lived in a state where the Democratic governor threw a hissy fit and closed DMVs in Republican majority areas. Political stunts are not limited to one party.

        The title of the article in the link makes it clear, from the outset, the writer is biased. Provide a less biased link for review.

        One reason to not automatically update the voter registration every time a person changes their license could easily be not having the resources to do it. Everyone I know understands if they move they must register in their new county or city. Again. Not rocket science. The government is not required to hunt down citizens to vote. If a citizen is not interested in ensuring they are properly registered they make it clear they aren't interested in voting. Registering to vote is a privilege open to all. It isn't a right if you don't take advantage of the privilege.

        New Hampshire has every right to let kids vote as residents. If they are residents. My concern is that a large university can turn out votes which can cause higher taxes and permanent change to localities which will not affect a transient student. I can certainly understand a locality being fearful of a bunch of college kids voting without having to take responsibility for the outcome. Maybe the better solution would be let them vote on national issues, but not state or local ones.

        I don't agree with the idea that we should bend over backwards to find more voters. Apathy should not be rewarded.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          "Provide a less biased link for review."

          Or one that isn't just Democratic claims, but Republican ones as well.  Might say something about party politics and voting interference by a whole lot of people.

        2. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          And I vote absentee most of the time, but that isn't the point, is it?  I won't begin to try to figure out the obstacles old people, poor people, black people have in trying to vote.

          What I do know is the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act were designed to suppress systematic discrimination against blacks in both society and the voting booth.  Nobody but the hard right disagrees this was endemic in American society and a real problem. 

          Blacks only had a fair opportunity to vote only until U.S. Grant (I think) came to office and ended reconstruction. Between that and a conservative Supreme Court bent on undoing the the 14th and 15th amendments, blacks (and now poor whites) were back to being slaves except in name only. 

          They finally had enough beginning after WW II and their struggles ended in many being killed (Lynched) but they did reach their goal in 1964.

          What I do know that as soon as conservative Chief Justice Roberts gutted the 1965 voting rights act, EVERY state led by conservatives began putting barriers in place again those measures designed to suppress the votes of those who would most likely vote Democratic.

          What [u]I do know]/u] is that beginning with the conservative Rehnquist Court, that the Supreme Court have been chipping away at the foundation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            It seems, though, that your "barrier" is that no one shows up at their door with a ballot.  That students can only vote in their declared state of residence. 

            These things aren't "barriers" to black voters; they are small requirements for everyone.  They know no color and they are not huge obstacles that prevent voting.

  3. Castlepaloma profile image75
    Castlepalomaposted 2 months ago

    Oh brother

  4. Castlepaloma profile image75
    Castlepalomaposted 2 months ago

    Easier to keep my own self Government system, and be decent to others.

  5. Ed Fisher profile image60
    Ed Fisherposted 7 weeks ago

    This thread , Liberal hogwash ;
    I'll say one thing ,we've finally reached a point in America where everyone is fully aware that liberals transformative politics have evolved to a point where OUTRIGHT LYING  about anything politically motivated is  the new norm .   Need some defining "truth" to sway your party's powers in the local , state or federal media elections or new courts of media trials , create one !

    Create  a lie and when questioned about its origin THEN liberals  demand "proof " of the actual accusation against these falsehoods  . Basic  Alinsky 101  ,   what a sickeningly sweet realization for conservatives to finally "get it " that the left has no known  moral low-ground , be that women's rights , minority issues , race relations, elections , whatever the cause , just  lie and let the world prove you wrong .

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image78
      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      and to what end?

  6. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image97
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 7 weeks ago

    I'd like to see there be an IQ test requirement for voting rights. That would be the most effective way to eliminate democrats from voting. But photo IDs should absolutely be mandatory, regardless of the rest.

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      IQ test? Be careful what you wish for as you may be surprised by the outcome/results.

      1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image97
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        No, I would not be surprised at all. I know for a fact such a thing would eliminate huge numbers of left wing voters.

        I'd also like for there to be an IQ test for participation in these forums. I'm certain a lot of left wing persons would be eliminated here too. It would be a big improvement.

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          I would say the same, but from the opposite direction, but I won't because the progressive thinker is not threatened by a wide variety ideas unlike the Rightwinger, whom you seem to represent quite well.

          But again we can wish and dream, but know that NONEof that  is allowed or will ever happen.... who would dare?

          You rightwingers will just take your lickin in November and will learn to like it, maybe even crave it.

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Going to be a v.e.r.y interesting election, isn't it?  With both sides screaming to high heaven of malfeasance and criminal behavior.  Think we'll see a few dozen, or hundred, more winners accused of sexual crimes?

            1. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              You betcha!!!!

        2. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          "I know for a fact such a thing would eliminate huge numbers of ,far left wing voters. "

          I actually wouldn't doubt that.  Any more than I would doubt that it would eliminate large numbers of far right wing voters; probably a good thing in both cases. lol

          1. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            You might be surprised to know (I was) that there is a very LOOSE positive correlation between higher IQ and the extremes than with us dummy's in the center.  But, by-and-large, there is no discernible correlation between IQ and where you fall on the political spectrum.

            Having said that, there is a clear difference between conservative and liberals in how much education they receive.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              Interesting.  Maybe that's the time their brain goes on break from being overworked! big_smile

              Yep - liberals have a strong tendency towards more formal education.  Dumb as a pile of rocks when it comes to practical matters, but well educated.

              And yet they're always whining that "Colleges aren't liberal - prove it!" - the same colleges that instilled the knowledge...and attitudes...into those impressionable minds.Seems to me that it's case closed - colleges and universities are, on the whole, far more liberal than conservative and that "liberalness" is imprinted onto young, impressionable minds along with the rest of it.

              1. Credence2 profile image81
                Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                Wilderness, how are unlettered people better qualified than formally educated people? Conservatives always seem to believe that education is a liability.

                Liberalism means the ability to question and open oneself to inquiry about everything. Isn't that the kind of thinking that you would prefer? Why do conservatives always believe that adult people are unable of doing their own thinking, so their being indoctrinated?

                1. Live to Learn profile image78
                  Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I think the better definition of liberalism, by current trends, is to make up definitions for words. Nowhere does liberalism mean what you claim it does.

                  1. Credence2 profile image81
                    Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Why don't you tell us what "your" definition is, or do you agree with the so called liberal doctrination of higher education? Obviously, Wilderness has a definition and can define it, and I counter it. Can you do as well?

                  2. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    And what do you base that amazing conclusion?  Many so-called conservatives simply aren't, but they think that is a good label to use it wrongly.  Most people who are true conservatives have no issue with slavery and other forms of limiting individual liberties; there philosophy simply doesn't find it abhorrent.  In fact, conservative philosophy specifically thinks that there is a certain hierarchy in life; that there is a natural order of haves and have nots and slavery fits into that natural order.

                    Liberals, on the other hand, specifically reject that notion of a "natural" order.  Liberals specifically agree that women should have the right to vote.  Conservatives fought tooth and nail against it, arresting protesting women left and right.

                    The truth is, if you believe women should have a right to vote and that slavery isn't an abomination (as examples), then you are a liberal - period.  You may be a minimal-state liberal who doesn't think gov't should actively help its citizens, but you are still a liberal.

        3. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          And HOW, right-wing Todd do you know that for a "Fact"?

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Do you really put the agenda of the far left (or far right) as something an intelligent person would put up with?  Irrational, doomed to almost immediate failure, very obviously bad for everyone involved, etc. - can that be the plan of an "intelligent" person?

            1. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              This is getting dangerous, Wilderness, we agree again.

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                big_smile

  7. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image97
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 7 weeks ago

    Nearly every modern leftist argument = hysteria > facts

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image78
      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      ... and what do they WANT, WTS?
      I mean really, really WANT?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image78
        Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        What is the actual stimulus of the modern Leftist liberal, do you suppose?

  8. Ed Fisher profile image60
    Ed Fisherposted 7 weeks ago

    EE ,   Emotional Entitlement  .

  9. Ed Fisher profile image60
    Ed Fisherposted 7 weeks ago

    "I don't believe that students are given enough credit.......... ", they sure are NOT  given enough credit by liberals at all  , Why indoctrination works better than offering a real balanced education consisting of reality and not lies , bias and a media that promotes  ONE half of the conversation  is beyond most of us .

    I would think liberals would want more of a balanced education  for their children than basically one half of history , one half of a truth , one half of the democratic understanding of our governing body. But apparently they'd rather their children learned to reason throughout their entire lives based on hypocrisy , bias , hatred , nazi-like activism ,  character assassination rather than normalised human relating .   

    Want to end the "Stopping of Minority Voting ?   Educate the young voters instead of indoctrinating them to liberal bias .Teach them truth and deductive  reasoning instead of  ensuring they only  assume a position of voter apathy ,  There is NO voter suppression in America , as with all voters , potential minority voters just don't care enough  to "do the homework "required .

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      100 percent pure BS, Ed?

      1. Ed Fisher profile image60
        Ed Fisherposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        No actually , but if you have to as that , the question must be in YOUR mind , that's a good thing because it   signifies that you are at least aware that what I'm stating is the truth .

  10. Ed Fisher profile image60
    Ed Fisherposted 7 weeks ago

    The liberal party in America actually has little weight in their claim that  they are the more "progressive " party .  I believe in fact that we can safely say that more of their ideological  body weight is made up of political obstructionism .   The claim of progressiveness in their party has virtually shifted in the last two decades .

    Let's face it , there never was any progressiveness in socialism , at least any that was politically constructive.   How can a party consider themselves progressive when they have become the party of and for bigger government across the board , local state or federal ?   We all know that the whole concept of government becomes mired down in unproductivity the moment  it is formed .

    1. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Like others on your side, you appear to have no idea what socialism really means.  You conflate terms that are unrelated, for example "progressivism" is somehow related to the "size of gov't".  It isn't.  Progressivism is a philosophy that wants to move humanity from a worse place (say women can't vote) to a better place (now they can vote). 

      The size of gov't is a physical thing.  Some people believe there should be no gov't at all and others who think the size of gov't should be unlimited (fortunately, there are very few of either).  Most people think gov't needs to be big enough to fulfill the promises contained in the Preamble to the Constitution.

      As to this amorphous term "limited government", it is meaningless.  It is meaningless because it is a term simply flung around with no explanation as to what it means.  To take it to your extreme, we need to disband our standing army since they are part of government.  Is that what you think "limited government" is?  If not, they you are not like those who believed in limited gov't in say, 1900.  Why, because in 1900 the idea of a standing army was abhorrent to most Americans.

      You create a fictional "main" party called the Liberal Party, which of course doesn't exist.  Today, the party that embraces liberalism are the Democrats.  In 1910, the liberal party were the Republicans.  Neither are socialist, btw.

      In case you don't know, true socialism is an economic and social philosophy that believes humanity is better served if the people (generally representative by a government) own the means of production and distribution.  It is the opposite of liberalism which believes the opposite.  Instead, socialism, like its cousin conservatism, is an authoritarian form of gov't.  Just so you know..

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        "Like others on your side, you appear to have no idea what socialism really means.  You conflate terms that are unrelated, for example "progressivism" is somehow related to the "size of gov't"."

        Esoteric, perhaps you need to move into 21st century America, and stop pulling definitions from 200 years ago.  Today's "socialism" primarily concerns itself with entitlements - giving one person's wealth to another - rather than ownership of production.  And "progressives", regardless of what they are proposing, always insist that additional govt. control and size will be necessary for their plan.  Unlimited govt., in other words, for utopia will never be achieved and that will always mean more government in the effort to reach it.

        1. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Wilderness, I would offer you not use your made up definitions and stick to those that are backed by authorities in the field.

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Of course that is possible.  But we all know the meaning of words change, that new words come into being and so forth.  None of which those "authorities" recognize...until long after it happens.

            Look around these forums, this microcosm of political discussion by non-politicians.  See what they use the term "socialism" to refer to.  Then complain that I don't use the word in the most commonly (in this environment) used sense.

            Please note this, from Mirriam Webster, where democratic socialism is mentioned:

            Socialism vs. Social Democracy: Usage Guide
            In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

            It is quite close to what I said.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)