https://www.vogue.co.uk/arts-and-lifestyle/article/riz-ahmed-new-album-the-long-goodbye

this has probably already been spoken about but https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51751915

```Around 39% of people in the US, which is yet to have a female president, thought men made better leaders.```

stop shooting down the good women candidates?

@donborvio there’s no victimhood in that

yep

Yet they block Tulsi from the debates because she'd fry them now

though she's the only Dem that the center-right would support

That's such an ambiguous question

They don't specify if people thought men made better leaders because they are men or just because men on average made better leaders.

Tulsi is the only candidate who would be willing to compromise

Bernie won’t accept anything less than free shit for everyone

And Biden will be shitting himself in a retirement home by the time Inauguration Day comes around

I’m starting to wish the we lost to the revolutionary war

because i'm completely Geoffrey Archered right now can someone work out the actual per capita of this taking into account population stats x https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/white-people-terror-offences-number-ethnic-group-asian-home-office-a9376846.html

I'm actually skeptical of the data, because they probably count tweet arrests as "terrorism". Or "throw bacon at mosque".

regardless the difference is 1% 😆

While not counting organized racial child rape

```Raffaello Pantucci, the director of international security studies at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), said white suspects would include far-right extremists, Muslim converts and people of “mixed or unclear” ideology.```

Read it.

but even using their definition with a difference of 1%. While at a guess white people make up 80%+ and Asians will make up less than 10%

of the population

I wonder how many nonwhites are lumped in into the convert group to make it look worse.

they do clearly define that in the study

Yeah, but don't trust British sources anymore.

Why would I?

regardless of trust even with their own definitions they're only on a technicality correct, given population stats it's wildly misleading

I got a question in <#622430651668234240> and i hope i don't get in troubble for spam by pointing to this in these other four chanels but i think it's a topic that has to do with anywhere there is voteing going on.

what

then ask the question

I asked the question there and am talking about it there, sorry if i wasn't clear that was what i was saying.

so far the person who was talking about it with me there says it's a very bad idea.

and i can see his point.

fair enough

the sort of the question was "what is wrong with vote buying?" and I wanted to get some more input on is as where i'm from a form of it happens anyways and your rarely hear about it being vote buying even though it is worse because it's bote buying with taxpayer money.

the answer i got was it does infact undermine faith in the integrity of the vote itself, I still am interested to know if it's on a scale that really makes a diffrence and if it can scale up to a system as large as the US, but that is more for a hypothetical discussion that likely has no use in the real world.

vote buying goes on all the time

vote buying is an inevitable byproduct of universal suffrage

yeah, I think it was a stat of 117 whites arrested and 111 Pakistanis arrested, so technically correct that more white people arrested, but per capita is a totally different story - also, they separated Muslims into different ethnic groups, so very misleading.

not to mention they classify "being a member" as terrorism

and don't include "systemically raping white teenagers"